Res 1875 - Application Dr 2006-17 VAR 2007-01
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2693
RESOLUTION NO. 1875
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPLICATION IN DR 2006-17 AND VAR 2007-01,
REMOVING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED BY THE WOODBURN
PLANNING COMMISSION, ADOPTING ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPOSING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on September 27, 2007 in cases DR 2006-17 and V AR 2007-01 and EXP
2007-02 (Lincoln Commons); and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested a variance from the requirement of
the Woodburn Development Ordinance to construct an architectural wall; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the exception subject to
certain conditions.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the variance and approved
the design review subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed variance and design review to
the Woodburn City Council under WDO 4.102.01; and
WHEREAS, the appeal was limited to the issue of the architectural wall
under WDO 4.1 02.01.C.7; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a de novo public hearing on the appeal
on November 26, 2007; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The application in DR 2006-17 and V AR 2007-01 (Lincoln
Commons) is hereby granted.
Section 2. Approval of the application is subject to all of the conditions
previously imposed by the Woodburn Planning Commission in its final order,
which is attached hereto as Attachment "AI! and by this reference is
incorporated herein, with the exception of the following conditions set forth
below, which are hereby removed:
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2693
RESOLUTION NO. 1875
A. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the wall
height requirement of WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7
for the retaining wall on the westerly 13 feet of the
southernmost exterior parking space and the proposed 30l!
architectural walls on top of the retaining walls along the
flagpole portion of the lot.
B. The south exterior parking spaces shall be screened with an
architectural wall along their entire length, in accordance
with WDO 2.1 04.06.D.1.b.1.
C. D. Exhibit C - Aerial photo of subject property. Wall
required (except at vision clearance areas) by Table 2.1.7 is
shown in solid red. Wall that is discretionary in Table 2.1.7,
but required by the Commission, is shown in dashed yellow.
Section 3. Approval of the application is subject to the following
additional conditions imposed by the Woodburn City Council:
A. The property owner shall provide an architectural wall along both
sides of the flagpole portion of the lot, as depicted by the diagram attached
hereto as Attachment "BI! and by this reference incorporated herein. Within the
vision clearance areas, the height of the wall shall be in accordance with WDO
3.103.10.E. In all other locations along the flagpole, the wall shall be not less
than 6 feet in height, measured from the grade of the flagpole driveway.
B. The property owner shall provide a vinyl fence not less than 6 feet in
height along all other property lines and shall meet the following specifications:
1. The fence shall be Privacy Vinyl Fence, as submitted by the
appellant to the Council, manufactured by Kroy Building Products (grade: Kroy
Performance Privacy) or equal.
2. The fence shall incorporate two colors, as depicted in the
photograph provided by applicant attached hereto as Attachment "CI! and by
this reference incorporated herein.
3. The fence shall be treated with Graffiti Solution System@
manufactured by American Polymer Corporation, or equal anti-graffiti coating.
C. The property owner shall execute and record a document, in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney, to maintain the walls and fencing in a
sound and graffiti-free condition.
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2693
RESOLUTION NO. 1875
Section 4. This decision is based upon evidence in the record before the
Woodburn City Council and is justified by the findings and conclusions which are
attached hereto as Attachment "DI! and by this reference are incorporated
herein.
Approved as to form:
~,~/lC)
City Attorney
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
December 12. 2007
December 12. 2007
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST: 11! .~
Mary ~t City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
December 12. 2007
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2693
RESOLUTION NO. 1875
ATTACHMENT A
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
DR 2006-17
V AR 2007-01
EXCP 2007-02
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, a request was made by Welkin Engineering on behalf of Tim Murphy and Gerard
Stascausky, for a design review for an 8-unit multiple-family dwelling, a variance from WOO
2.104.06.0.2.a and Table 2.1.7 requiring construction of an architectural wall, and an exception
to street right-of-way and improvements on East Lincoln Street and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of September 27th,
2007 and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony presented by
staff, the applicant, and other interested persons in a public hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to deny case V AR 2007-01 and to approve cases
DR 2006-17 and EXCP 2007-02 subject to conditions of approval, and instructed staff to prepare
findings and conclusions,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission denies case V AR 2007-01 based on the findings and conclusions
contained in Exhibit "A." The Planning Commission approves cases DR 2006-17 and EXCP
2007-02 based on the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to the
conditions of approval contained in Exhibits "B" and "C," which the Planning Commission finds
reasonable. Exhibits "A," "B," and "C" are attached hereto and by reference are incorporated
herein.
Approvoo: ~~.
Claudio Lima, Chairper on
10/1/07
Date '
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01
EXCP 2007-02 Lincoln Commons\Final Order.doc
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
DR 2006-17
V AR 2007-01
EXCP 2007-02
Exhibit A
General Provisions
2
3 The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to promote
4 the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind
5 of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the WDO.
6 [WDO 1.101.02.A]
7 All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-officials), of the City vested with
8 authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and require conformance with
9 the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which
10 violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO
11 1.101.04]
12 Findings: The planning commissioners are officials of the City and are collectively vested with
13 authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff are employees ofthe City and are vested
14 with authority to issue permits or grant approvals.
15 Conclusions: The planning commissioners and planning division staff must adhere to and require
16 conformance with the WOO, and must not grant approval for any development or use which
17 violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WOO.
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE
Section Decision I II III IV V Appeal
5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR .
MORE
18 The Planning Commission shall render all Type III decisions. [WDO 4.101.10.C]
19 All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval
20 reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all
21 applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV decisions EXCEPT
22 annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and objective or if the condition requires
23 discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.A]
24 Findings: Design Reviews for Structures 1000 Square Feet or More are Type III decisions. The
25 Planning Commission is the City decision-making body with authority to render type III decisions.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 1 of 28
1 Conclusions: The Planning Commission has "the authority to impose conditions of approval
2 reasonably related to impacts caused by the development." If a condition of approval requires
3 discretion, the Commission may require a public hearing on the matter.
4
5 Under a consolidated review, all applications shall be processed following the procedures
6 applicable for the highest type decision requested. It is the express policy of the City that
7 development review not be segmented into discrete parts in a manner that precludes a
8 comprehensive review ofthe entire development and its cumulative impacts. [WDO 4.101.02]
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE
Section Decision I II III IV V Appeal
5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR .
MORE
5.103.12 Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement .
Requirements
5.103.11 Variance .
9 Finding: Variances, Design Reviews for Structures 1000 Square Feet or More, and Exceptions to
10 Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements are Type III decisions.
11 Conclusions: Under WOO 4.101.02, the applications are consolidated as a Type III decision.
12 Considering the applications together allows a comprehensive review of the entire development and
13 its cumulative impacts.
14
15
16 WDO 2.104 Medium Density Residential (RM) District Standards
17
18 There shall be no minimum lot area or dimensions for multiple family residential dwellings
19 units or living units in the RM zone. [WDO 2.104, Table 2.1.5.B]
20 The number of multiple family residential dwelling units on a lot shall be regulated by:
21 1. Maximum residential density, not exceeding the following standards:
22 a. Multiple family dwellings: 16 dwelling units per net buildable acre. [WDO 2.104,
23 Table 2.1.5.C]
24 Finding: The proposed density is 11.3 DUA.
25 Conclusion: The proposed density complies with WOO 2.104, Table 2.1.5.C.l.a.
26
27
28 The number of multiple family residential dwelling units on a lot shall be regulated by:
29 2. Compliance with the applicable open space and site design standards and guidelines of
30 Sections 2.104.07.C. [WDO 2.104, Table 2.1.5.C]
31 Findings: The proposed development either complies with the applicable open space and site design
32 standards of Sections 2.104.07.C, or can be brought into conformity with appropriate conditions of
33 approval. The proposed development does not comply with all open space and site design
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 2 of 28
1 guidelines of Sections 2.104.07.C. Compliance with the guidelines may require redesign of the
2 project or a reduction in the number of dwelling units.
3 Conclusion: The Commission has the discretion to approve the development even if it does not
4 comply with all open space and site design guidelines of Sections 2.104.07 .C, or to require
5 compliance with any or all such guidelines.
6
7
8 The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. [WDO 2.104.06.C]
9 Finding: The elevation drawings show the building height as approximately 23 feet.
10 Conclusion: The proposed buildings comply with WDO 2.1 04.06.C.
11
12
13 The setback abutting a street shall be a minimum of 20 feet plus any Special Setback, Section
14 3.103.05. [WDO 2.104.06.D.1.a]
15 Finding: The site plan shows that the buildings are set back at least 120 feet from E. Lincoln Street.
16 Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 2.1 04.06.D.l.a.
17
18 "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard
19 abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a
20 garage (or carport in the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a wall." [WDO
21 2.104.06.D.1.b.l]
22 Findings: The grading plan shows a 6 foot architectural wall 24 feet long adjacent to the north
23 exterior parking spaces. The grading plan shows a 6 foot architectural wall 11 feet long adjacent to
24 the south exterior parking spaces. No other parking spaces are within required setbacks.
25 Conclusions: The proposed development complies with WDO 2.1 04.06.D.1.b.l at the north exterior
26 parking spaces. The south exterior parking spaces are not adjacent to an architectural wall along
27 their entire length and do not comply with WDO 2.1 04.06.0.1.b.l. The south exterior parking
28 spaces should be screened with an architectural wall along their entire length.
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro e Interior Setback
RS or RIS zone; or Existing 30 ft. from any portion of a primary building 16.1 ft. to 28
sin e famil or du lex dwellin ft. in hei t.
RM zone; or Existing medium 30 ft. from any portion of a main building more than 16 ft.
densi residential unit and less than 28 ft. in hei t
29 Findings: The elevation drawings show the building height as approximately 23 feet. The site plan
30 shows the buildings to be set back at least 30 feet from all property lines.
31 Conclusion: The proposed development complies with the interior setback requirements of WOO
32 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7.
33
34
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007 -01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 3 of 28
The entrance to a garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the closest edge of a
2 shared driveway. [WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.2]
3 Finding: The site plan shows that the garage entrances are set back from the shared driveway
4 approximately 28 feet.
5 Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.l.b.2.
6
7
8 Multiple density residential buildings shall be subject to the design standards or guidelines of
9 Section 3.107.05. [WDO 2.104.07.C.l]
10 Findings: WOO 2.104.07.C.l contains a scrivener's error, and should read either "Multiplefamily
11 residential buildings" or "Medium density residential buildings." The proposed project consists of
12 multiple-family residential buildings in a medium density residential development.
13 Conclusion: As the proposed project consists of multiple :family residential buildings in a medium
14 density residential development, either interpretation leads to the conclusion that the development is
15 "subject to the design standards or guidelines of Section 3.107.05."
16
17
18 Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block
19 wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum
20 of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.104.07.F.3]
21 Findings: The site plan does not show common refuse collection facilities. The WDO does not
22 require common refuse collection facilities, only that they be screened if they are provided.
23 Conclusion: Individual refuse collection facilities should be required as a condition of approval, or
24 common refuse collection facilities provided and screened in accordance with WOO 2.104.07.F.3.
25
26
27 WDO 5.103.11
28
29 The purpose of a variance is to allow a deviation from a WDO development standard
30 EXCEPT a standard regarding use, where strict adherence to the standard and variance to a
31 standards will not unreasonably impact the adjacent existing or potential uses or
32 development. [WDO 5.103.11.A]
Variances
33 Findings: Wood fences provide a visual barrier equivalent to brick or block walls. Wood fences do
34 not provide a noise barrier equivalent to brick or block walls. Brick or block walls maintain their
35 appearance without regular repainting, and are more durable and resistant to damage than wood
36 fences. The required anti-graffiti surface makes brick or block walls more resistant to vandalism.
37 The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is an accepted development standard in the
38 community. The WDO requirement for an architectural wall is imposed in specific circumstances
39 where a development could reasonably be anticipated to generate visual and noise impacts on
40 adjacent properties. An architectural wall is the appropriate method to reduce impacts created by
41 the development. The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is not a method to create a public
42 amenity. The applicant's statement did not address "the adjacent existing or potential uses or
43 development." The applicant's submittal did not include drawings or a detailed description of the
I:\Comrnunity Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Comrnons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 4 of 28
1 proposed wood fence. The applicants submittal did not include any information regarding the
2 functionality of the proposed wood fence.
3 Conclusions: The requested variance would allow a deviation from a WOO development standard,
4 but not a standard regarding use. The requested variance would impact the adjacent existing or
5 potential uses or development by allowing the substitution of a less capable barrier to visual and
6 noise impacts. The applicant's assertion that "the functionality of this wall (i.e. screening and
7 buffering, as opposed to its design attributes) can be provided with a 6-foot high wood fence" is
8 unsupported by any evidence in the submittal. The applicant should submit drawings and a detailed
9 description of the proposed wood fence to the Commission, together with information supporting
10 the assertion that the proposed wood fence can provide the functionality of the required
11 architectural wall.
12
13
14 Development in an RM zone, except for a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be
15 subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.7. [WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a]
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro er Wall
Existing single family or duplex Solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
dwellin no less than 6 feet or reater than 7 feet in hei t.
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing Wall requirements shall be determined in conjunction with
medium densit residential unit the a licable Desi n Review rocess.
v.... (....... A..: $tNef to~.,
~~
,/ I.1Idt ...,
r :.' ·
'. .
.
t
.
.
.
I
I
.
~
.
, .
, 1:'-
;, i."
Bpre 6.4 l1sioD CJearaac:e Area
A vision clearance area shall contain no plants,
fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent
obstruction exceeding 30 inches in height
[measured from the top of the curb or, where no
curb exists, from the established street centerline
grade], EXCEPT as follows:
1. Trees, provided branches and foliage are
removed to a height of 7 feet above grade;
2. Telephone, power and cable television poles;
3. Telephone and utility boxes less than ten inches
at the widest dimension; and
4. Traffic control signs and devices. [WDO
3.103.10.E]
16 Findings: A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater
17 than 7 feet in height, is required where the property abuts lots developed with single-family
18 dwellings (933, 1035, and 1129 East Lincoln Street, to the southwest, south, and east), in
19 accordance with Table 2.1.7, except at the access points to the abutting lots and their associated
20 vision clearance areas. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall along the northern 215
21 feet of the west property line, where the lot abuts school property in the P/SP zone, in accordance
22 with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall
23 along the north property line, where the lot abuts an existing medium density residential
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 5 of 28
1 development in the RM zone, in accordance with WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The
2 applicant has requested a variance from the wall requirement except at the northernmost exterior
3 parking space and the easterly 11 feet of the southernmost exterior parking space. The applicant
4 also proposes 30" architectural walls on top ofthe retaining walls along the flagpole portion of the
5 lot. The submittal contains no detail of the proposed architectural walls. The submittal does not
6 address the requirement that the walls have an anti-graffiti surface.
7 Conclusions: The applicant has not demonstrated that the retaining wall on the westerly 13 feet of
8 the southernmost exterior parking space or the proposed 30" architectural walls on top of the
9 retaining walls along the flagpole portion ofthe lot meet the standard of being "no less than 6 feet
10 or greater than 7 feet in height" as required by WOO 2.104.06.0.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The applicant
11 should demonstrate compliance with the wall height requirement ofWDO 2.l04.06.D.2.a and Table
12 2.1.7.
13
14
15 Wall, Architectural: A wall that incorporates at least two colors and/or textures. [WDO 1.102]
16 Findings: The submittal did not include drawings or a detailed description of the of the proposed
17 architectural walls. Architectural walls are intended to buffer adjacent properties from the subject
18 property - not to buffer the subject property from adjacent properties. The grading plan shows
19 retaining walls along portions of the north, west, and south property lines, and the flagpole portion
20 of the lot. The grading plan shows 30" architectural walls on top of the retaining walls on either
21 side ofthe flagpole portion ofthe lot.
22 Conclusions: All architectural walls should incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the
23 side facing away from the subject property. The applicant should submit details of the proposed
24 architectural walls demonstrating compliance with the requirement of WOO 1.102 that architectural
25 walls incorporate at least two colors and/or textures. Retaining walls should have the same
26 appearance as architectural walls.
27
28
29 Criteria. A determination of whether the criteria set forth are satisfied necessarily involves
30 the balancing of competing and conflicting interest. The factors that are listed to be
31 considered are not criteria and are not intended to be an exclusive list. The factors to be
32 considered are used as a guide in deliberations on the application. [WDO 5.103.11.C]
33 The variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure,
34 which would cause the property to be unbuildable by application of the WDO. Factors to
35 consider in determining whether hardship exists, include:
36 a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no control related to the piece
37 of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but
38 not limited to lot size, shape, topography.
39 b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties can be made of the property
40 without the variance.
41 c. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. [WDO
42 5.103.11.C.l]
43 Findings: No physical circumstances such as lot size or topography distinguish the subject property
44 from other land in the RM zone. Other flag lots in the RM zone are subject to the same
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 6 of 28
1 requirements. Reasonable use similar to other properties in the RM zone can be made of the subject
2 property without the variance. Multiple-family dwellings are identified as a use that carries impacts
3 to existing development. Other uses also have been identified as creating impacts, and similar
4 WOO provisions require construction of an architectural wall. An architectural wall is the
5 appropriate method to reduce impacts created by the development, and is not a method to create a
6 public amenity. The applicant's statement does not address whether reasonable use similar to other
7 properties can be made of the property without the variance or whether the hardship was created by
8 the person requesting the variance.
9 Conclusion: The requirement of WOO 5.103.11. C.I that the property be "unbuildable by
10 application of the WOO" without the requested variance is not met.
11
12
13 Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent
14 properties. Factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the
15 variance materially injurious include but are not limited to:
16 a. Physical impacts such development will have because ofthe variance, such as
17 visual, noise, traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards.
18 b. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. [WDO
19 5.103.11.C.2]
20 Findings: The variance would not create or exacerbate traffic, drainage, erosion or landslide
21 hazards. The variance would affect adjacent properties by allowing the substitution of a less
22 capable barrier to visual and noise impacts.
23 Conclusions: The requested variance could impact but may not be materially injurious to adjacent
24 properties. The requested variance may meet the standard of WOO 5.103.11.C.2.
25
26
27 Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic
28 land forms or parks will not be adversely affected because of the variance. [WDO
29 5.103.11.C.3]
30 Findings: The property does not abut drainageways, dramatic land forms or parks. The property
31 abuts school property to the west. The variance would affect the adjacent school property by
32 allowing the substitution of a less capable barrier to visual and noise impacts.
33 Conclusions: Traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, and parks would not be adversely affected
34 because of the variance. The variance may not have a materially adverse affect on the adjacent
35 school property. The requested variance may meetthe standard ofWDO 5.I03.11.C.3.
36
37
38 The variance is the minimum deviation necessary to make reasonable economic use of the
39 property. [WDO 5.103.11.C.4]
40 Findings: The applicant provided cost estimates showing that the variance will result in a savings of
41 $29,920.50, but did not address how the cost savings was necessary to make reasonable economic
42 use of the property.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Conunons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 7 of 28
1 Conclusion: The requested variance has not been shown to be "necessary to make reasonable
2 economic use ofthe property" and therefore does not meet the standard of WOO 5.103.11.C.4.
3
4
5 The variance does not conflict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. [WDO 5.103.11.C.5]
6 Findings: The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and is designated Residential
7 More than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposed use ofthe property is
8 a medium density multiple-family residential development. Abutting properties are zoned Medium
9 Density Residential (RM) and Public and Semi-Public (P/SP), and are designated Residential More
10 than 12 Units per Acre and Open Space and Parks on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
11 Conclusions: The variance does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the standard
12 of WOO 5.103.11.C.5.
13
14 WDO 3.101 Street Standards
15
16 All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the
17 applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction
18 specifications of the Public Works Department. [WDO 3.101.02.C.l]
19 Street, Boundary: That portion, or portions, of a street right of way abutting a subject
20 property where existing or proposed development is located within 260 feet of the subject
21 right of way. (Figure 6.12) [WDO 1.102]
22 The full right of way for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shall be required for
23 a connecting street segment without an approved exception or variance. [WDO 3.101.02.D.l.a]
24 The full street improvement for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shall be
25 provided for a connecting street segment without an approved exception or variance. [WDO
26 3.101.02.D.1.b]
27 The full right of way for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shall be required for
28 a boundary street without an approved exception or variance. [WDO 3.101.02.D.2.a]
29 The full street improvement for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shall be
30 provided for a boundary street without an approved exception or variance. [WDO
31 3.101.02.D.2.b]
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 8 of 28
Figure 6.12 Connecting, Boundary and Intl"rnal Strel"ts
1 Findings: East Lincoln Street is the Boundary Street for the subject parcel, as defined in WOO
2 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. East Lincoln Street is the Connecting Street for the subject parcel,
3 as defined in WOO 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. The Connecting Street segment extends to the
4 intersection with Carol Street.
5 Conclusions: The applicant must provide the full right of way and the full street improvements
6 required by the Transportation System Plan or obtain an exception to street right of way and
7 improvement requirements, in accordance with WOO 3.101.02.D.
8
9
10 The street right of way and improvement cross-sectional standards required for development
11 are depicted in Figure 7-2 and Table 7-1 of the Woodburn Transportation System Plan.
12 These standards are based on the functional classification of each street as shown in Figure 7-
13 1 of the Woodburn Transportation System Plan. The street right-of-way and improvement
14 standards minimize the amount of pavement and right-of-way required for each street
15 classification consistent with the operational needs of each facility, including requirements for
16 pedestrians, bicycles, and public facilities. [WDO 3.101.03.A]
17
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 9 of 28
SERVICE
COLLECTOR
STREET **
.'.
PUBUC U11UTY ", i
EASEMENT +
t
o~~
C1
,
PUBUC U11UTY
EASEMENT
.,./
e' e' &'
SIDE LAND BIKE
WALK SCAPE LANE
-
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
12'
CENTER
LEFT ruAN
LANE
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
S' S' S'
~: ~E:~ 5'
-,
4S'
ROW. 72'
- -
Detail from Figure 7-2 ofthe Transportation Systems Plan
1 Findings: East Lincoln Street is classified as a Service Collector in the Woodburn Transportation
2 System Plan (WTSP.) The required cross-section for a Service Collector is a 72 foot of right- of-
3 way, 36 foot improved driving surface (two 12 foot traffic lanes and a 12 foot center turn lane), 6
4 foot bike lanes, 6 foot landscape strips and 6 foot sidewalks on both sides. The existing cross-
5 section is a 50 foot right-of-way, 34 foot improved driving surface (two 17 foot traffic lanes), no
6 planter strip, and a 4-5 foot sidewalk on the north side of the street. East Lincoln Street is posted
7 "No Parking" on the south side, but not on the north side.
8 Conclusions: The existing cross-section of East Lincoln Street does not meet the requirements for a
9 Service Collector. The applicant must provide the full right of way and the full street improvements
10 required by the Transportation System Plan or obtain an exception to street right of way and
11 improvement requirements, in accordance with WOO 3.101.02.0.
12
13
14 The street frontage of a subject property shall be improved with either property line
15 sidewalks and street trees or curb line sidewalks. The improvement shall be determined at
16 the time of subdivision, PUD or design review as applicable. Sidewalks and trees shall be
17 installed by the property owner to the standards of Section 3.101 and 3.106. [WDO
18 2.104.07.F.l]
19 Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
20 Lincoln Street.
21 Conclusions: The current Design Review triggers the provision that "improvement shall be
22 determined at the time of ... design review." Ifthe requested exception to street right-of-way and
23 improvements is not granted, the property owner would be required to provide all improvements
24 required by the Transportation System Plan. If granted, the exception would identify the applicant's
25 proportionate share of required street improvements based on the impacts of the proposed
26 development, and could be conditioned on execution of a non-remonstrance agreement to provide
27 the improvements when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by
28 other property owners and the availability of public funding.
29
30
31 Street Trees. Within the public street right of way abutting a development, street trees shall
32 be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy.
33 a. Acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable and
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 10 of 28
unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species.
2 b. Tree Density. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the right of way,
3 subject to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103:
4 1) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage;
5 2) Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or
6 3) Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. [WDO 3.106.03.A.l]
7 Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
8 Lincoln Street.
9 Conclusions: Ifthe requested exception to street right-of-way and improvements is not granted, the
10 property owner would be required to provide street trees as required by WOO 3.106.03.A.1. If
11 granted, the exception could be conditioned on a non-remonstrance agreement to provide street
12 trees when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by other property
13 owners and the availability of public funding.
14
15
16 Sidewalks should/shall be located at the property line along streets with street trees, Section
17 3.106. [WDO 3.107.05.C.6]
18 Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
19 Lincoln Street.
20 Conclusions: If the requested exception to street right-of-way and improvements is not granted, the
21 property owner would be required to provide sidewalks as required by WDO 3.l07.05.C.6. If
22 granted, the exception could be conditioned on a non-remonstrance agreement to provide sidewalks
23 when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely.
24
25
26 WDO 5.103.12 Exception to Street Rit:ht of Way and Improvement
27 Requirements
28
29 The purpose of an exception is to allow a deviation from a WDO development standard cited
30 in Section 3.101.02. [WDO 5.103.12]
31 Application Requirements. An application shall include a completed City application form,
32 filing fee, deeds, notification area map and labels, written narrative statement regarding
33 compliance with criteria, location map and the following additional exhibits:
34 1. Street and Utility Plan as applicable;
35 2. Site Plan; and
36 3. A "rough proportionality" report prepared by a qualified civil or traffic engineer
37 addressing the approval criteria. [WDO 5.103.12.B]
38 Finding: The applicant's submittal included the required elements.
39 Conclusions: If granted, the Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements
40 would satisfy the guideline of WOO 3.101. Also, if granted, the Exception would identify the level
41 of improvements the property owner would be responsible for. A non-remonstrance agreement for
42 public improvements could be required as part of the Exception. If the exception is not granted, the
I:\Community Development\P1anning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Fina1 Order Exhibit A.doc Page 11 of 28
1 property owner would be required to construct East Lincoln Street to the cross-section specified in
2 the Transportation System Plan.
3
4
5 Assumptions underlying the Planning Division's proportionality analysis include:
6 . All vacant lots in the RM zone and lots currently developed with single-family dwellings will be
7 redeveloped to the same density proposed by the applicant ( 11.3 OVA.) This is less than the 16
8 OVA permitted in the RM zone.
9 . All lots in the RS zone larger than 12,000 square feet will be partitioned into conforming
10 (minimum 6,000 square foot) lots and developed with single-family dwellings.
11 . Properties owned by churches are not redeveloped for residential use.
12 . All lots dedicate additional right-of-way for East Lincoln Street upon redevelopment.
13 The Planning Division's analysis examined all available data for traffic on East Lincoln Street:
14 . City traffic count west of Gatch Street conducted in 2000: 4,839 ADT
15 . City traffic count east of Gatch Street conducted in 2002: 373 ADT
16 . City traffic count west of Corby Street conducted in 2003: 246 AOT
17 . ODOT traffic model estimates of3,455 and 3,696 AOT
18 . No counts have been conducted on East Lincoln Street since 2003.
19 . The Public Works Department reports that the 2002 and 2003 traffic counts are out of scale with
20 the other data and should be disregarded.
21 The Planning Division examined four scenarios:
22 . Method 1 attributed all improvements to the increase in average daily trips for each lot,
23 distributing the cost over 505 additional daily trips. The proposed development would generate
24 10.6% of the additional traffic generated by redevelopment.
25 . Method 2 attributed improvements to the increase in average daily trips for each lot as a
26 proportion of all traffic - the 505 daily trips generated by redevelopment plus the existing trip
27 count - distributing the cost over the total daily trips. Method 2a uses the 2000 trip count of
28 4,839, while methods 2b and 2c use ODOT's traffic model figures of3,455 and 3,696 AOT. The
29 proposed development would generate between 1.0 and 1.4% of the total future traffic.
30 . Method 3 attributed all improvements to the proportion of each lot's boundary on Lincoln Street
31 as defined in Section 1.102 and Figure 6.12, distributing the cost over 2,589 feet of half-street
32 frontage. The proposed development represents 4.9% of the boundary street frontage.
33 . Method 4 attributed all improvements to the proportion of each redevelopable lot's boundary on
34 Lincoln Street as defined in Section 1.102 and Figure 6.12, distributing the cost over 1,841 feet
35 of redevelopable half-street frontage. The proposed development represents 6.2% ofthe
36 boundary street frontage.
37 Finding: The proposed development will cause a level of impacts amounting to between 1.0 and
38 10.6 percent of the required street improvements to East Lincoln Street between the subject property
39 and Carol Street. The proposed development represents 4.9% of the boundary street frontage as
40 defined in WOO 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12.
41 Conclusions: The proposed development's proportionate share of boundary street improvements is
42 4.9% ofthe reconstruction between the subject property and Carol Street.
43
44
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 12 of28
1 The estimated extent, on a quantitative basis, to which the rights of way and improvements
2 will be used by persons served by the building or development, whether the use is for safety or
3 convenience. [WDO 5.103.12.C.l]
4 Findings: Persons served by the development are expected to generate approximately 54 vehicular
5 trips per day. Neither conventional traffic counts nor the ITE Trip Generation Manual account for
6 non-vehicular traffic. The sidewalk required by the Transportation System Plan is for safety. The
7 landscape strip required by the Transportation System Plan is for convenience and is a standard of
8 aesthetics promulgated and accepted by the community. The right-of-way dedication and specified
9 improvements are needed to provide vehicle and non-motorized transportation facilities throughout
10 the street corridor.
11 Conclusions: Residents of the development will necessarily use East Lincoln Street for both their
12 vehicular and non-motorized traffic needs.
13
14
15 The estimated level, on a quantitative basis, of rights of way and improvements needed to
16 meet the estimated extent of use by persons served by the building or development. [WDO
17 5.103.12.C.2]
18 Findings: The center turn lane required by the Transportation Systems Plan would facilitate left
19 turns into and out ofthe driveway - movements that occur in approximately half of the 54 daily
20 trips estimated to be generated by the project. Provision of a bicycle lane and wider sidewalk than
21 currently exists will facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian use of East Lincoln Street by the residents
22 of the development. The proportion of improvements to East Lincoln Street that could be attributed
23 to the subject property ranges from 1.0% to 10.6% depending on the method of analysis used. The
24 subject property represents 4.9% of the boundary street frontage as defined in WOO 1.102 and
25 Figure 6.12.
26 Conclusion: All improvements required by the Transportation Systems Plan would be utilized by
27 and are needed to meet the vehicular and non-motorized transportation needs of residents of the
28 development. It is appropriate to require the property owner to participate in the cost of providing
29 all improvements required by the Transportation System Plan for East Lincoln Street. It is
30 appropriate that the subject property should bear a portion of those costs commensurate with the
31 property's boundary street frontage as defined in WDO 1.102 and Figure 6.12 - 4.9%. The
32 property owner should enter into a nonremonstrance agreement to participate in the cost of
33 reconstructing East Lincoln Street to the standards ofthe Transportation Systems Plan when such
34 reconstruction becomes timely.
35
36
37 The estimated impact, on a quantitative basis, of the building or development on the public
38 infrastructure system of which the rights of way and improvements will be a part. [WDO
39 5.103.12.C.3]
40 Findings: Lincoln Street connects to Highway 99E on the east and Front Street and Settlemier
41 A venue on the west. The impact ofthe proposed development on the larger public infrastructure
42 system is estimated to be small in comparison to the impact of off-site development on that larger
43 public infrastructure.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 13 of 28
1 Conclusions: The larger public infrastructure system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
2 traffic generated by the proposed development. The incremental impact of the proposed
3 development on the larger public infrastructure system would be adequately addressed through
4 assessment of System Development Charges in the building permit process.
5
6
7 The estimated level, on a quantitative basis, of rights of way and improvements needed to
8 mitigate the estimated impact on the public infrastructure system. [WDO 5.103.12.C.4]
9 Finding: The larger public infrastructure system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic
10 generated by the proposed development.
11 Conclusion: The incremental impact of the proposed development on the larger public infrastructure
12 system would be adequately addressed through assessment of System Development Charges in the
13 building permit process.
14
15
16 When a lesser standard, subject to Section 3.101.02.F, is justified based on the nature and
17 extent of the impacts of the proposed development, an exception to reduce a street right of
18 way or cross section requirement may be approved. No exception may be granted from
19 applicable construction specifications. [WDO 5.103.12.D]
20 Finding: The applicant has not requested an exception from construction specifications, but rather
21 an exception to the street cross section requirement.
22 Conclusion: An exception to reduce a street right of way or cross section requirement is not
23 precluded by WDO 5.103.12.0.
24
25
26 To assure a safe and functional street with capacity to meet current demands and to assure
27 safety for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as other forms of non-vehicular traffic,
28 there are minimum standards for right of way and improvement that must be provided.
29 Deviation from these minimum standards may only be considered by a variance procedure,
30 Section 5.103.11. [WDO 5.103.12.E]
31 Findings: The existing street cross-section consists of two 17 foot travel lanes with a 4-5 foot
32 sidewalk on the north side of the street, and provides sufficient capacity to meet current demands
33 for vehicular and (on the north side of the street) pedestrian traffic. Future upgrading to improve
34 pedestrian, bicycle, and other forms of non-vehicular traffic may be accomplished through a non-
35 remonstrance agreement.
36 Conclusions: The property owner should either construct the improvements required by the
37 Transportation Systems Plan or execute a non-remonstrance agreement to provide the necessary
38 improvements when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by other
39 property owners and the availability of public funding.
40
41
42 WDO 3.104 Access Standards
43
44 Residential Driveways Serving Any Number of Multiple Family Dwelling Units
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 14 of 28
1 1. Paved Driveway Width:
2 b. Two-way driveway:
3 1) Width: 20 feet, minimax. "No parking" restrictions shall be posted by the
4 owner. [WDO 3.104.05.D]
5 Finding: The site plan shows a 20 foot two-way drive aisle posted "no parking."
6 Conclusion: The two-way drive aisle complies with WOO 3.104.05.D.1.b.1.
7
8
9 Radius of Curb Flare: 25 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.05.D.2]
10 Finding: The site plan does not call out the curb radius, but at the indicated scale it appears to be
11 approximately 5 feet -less than the 25 foot minimum radius required by WDO 3.104.05.0.2.
12 Conclusion: The development must provide curb returns with a radius of at least 25 feet, in
13 accordance with WOO 3.104.05.D.2.
14
15
16 Flag Lot Driveway Access Width. 24 foot wide, as either an irrevocable easement or a strip of
17 land in fee ownership. [WDO 3.104.05.D.3]
18 Finding: The site plan shows a 30 foot access as part ofthe subject parcel.
19 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WOO 3.104.05.0.3.
20
21
22 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to
23 the outside edge of right of way for a:
24 b. Driveway accessing Major and Minor Arterial Streets: 50 feet minimum, with greater
25 improvement as may be required by a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). [WDO
26 3.104.05.D.4]
27 Findings: East Lincoln Street is designated as a Service Collector in the Transportation System Plan
28 and is defined as a major street under WOO 1.102. The site plan shows a throat length of over 60
29 feet to the first driveway on adjacent property that also uses the flagpole access.
30 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WOO 3.104.05.DA.b.
31
32
33 WDO 3.105 Off Street Parkin2 and Loadin2 Standards
34
35 Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements.
36 1. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than those set
37 forth in Table 3.1.2.
38 2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed 2.0 times the amount required in
39 Table 3.1.2. [WDO 3.105.01.E]
Use
Off Street Parkin Ratio Standards
Parking Ratio - spaces per activity unit or
s uare feet of oss floor area (sf: fa
TABLE 3.1.2
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 15 of28
2.0/ dwellin unit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Finding: The proposed development is 8 dwelling units. This yields a total parking requirement of
16 parking spaces. The building plans show one space in each garage. The site plan shows one
parking space outside each garage and four additional exterior parking spaces. The parking
complies with WOO 3.105.01.E (with the exception of the accessible space requirement.) The use
of stacked or tandem parking can be problematic, although the additional exterior parking spaces
will mitigate the inconveniences associated with visitor parking and access to the garage when the
exterior parking space is occupied.
Conclusions: The proposed parking meets the requirements ofWDO 3.105.01.E.l and 2. Each
parking space outside a garage should be reserved for the exclusive use of the dwelling unit served
by the garage. A sign should be posted on each garage door indicating this reserved status.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be provided to the standards of
the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. The number of disabled person
vehicle parking spaces shall be included as part of total required vehicle parking spaces.
[WDO 3.105.01.E.3]
s aces shall be:
The number of accessible
Total Parkin In Lot
Re uired Minimum Number of Accessible S aces
19
1 to 25
[ORS 447.233(2)(a)]
1
20 In addition, one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van accessible.
21 [ORS 447.233(2)(b)]
22 Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the state Building
23 Code and applicable federal standards. [WDO 3.105.01.H.4.c]
24 A van accessible parking space shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent
25 access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)]
26 Accessible parking spaces shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent access
27 aisle that is at least six feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(c)]
28 A sign shall be posted for each accessible parking space. The sign shall be clearly visible to a
29 person parking in the space, shall be marked with the International Symbol of Access and
30 shall indicate that the spaces are reserved for persons with disabled person parking permits.
31 Van accessible parking spaces shall have an additional sign marked "Van Accessible"
32 mounted below the sign. [ORS 447.233(2)(e)]
33 Findings: For the required 16 total off-street parking spaces, the proposed development requires one
34 van-accessible space. The site plan does not show an accessible space. The additional exterior
35 spaces could be reconfigured to provide the required van-accessible space and accessibility aisle.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 16 of 28
1 Conclusion: The proposed development must provide one van-accessible space and accessibility
2 aisle, in accordance with WOO 3.105.01.E.3, WOO 3.105.01.HA.c, Section 1104 ofthe Oregon
3 Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233.
4
5
6 Fifty percent of the required parking should/shall be covered by garages. [WDO 3.107.05.C.4]
7 Finding: One parking space for each unit (of the two spaces required) is in a garage.
8 Conclusions: The proposed off-street parking meets the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.CA. The
9 additional exterior parking spaces are not required and therefore are not subject to WOO
10 3.107.05.CA.
11
12
13 Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less
14 than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. [WDO 3.105.01.G.l]
TABLE 3.1.3 Loadin2 Space Requirements
Minimum Size of Space
Use Minimum No. Width Length Height
of Spaces
Medium Density Dwellings
0-9 Units 0 --- --- ---
15 Findings: For the proposed 8 dwelling units, no loading space is required. The site plan does not
16 show a loading space.
17 Conclusion: The application complies with WOO 3.105.01.G.1.
18
19
20 Turn arounds shall be required within the off street parking area(s) and/or as specific
21 circulation features, to Department of Public Works requirements based on the review of the
22 Fire District. [WDO 3.105.01.G.5]
23 Findings: The applicant has requested that the Department of Public Works and the Fire District
24 modify this requirement. The Fire District and the Building Division have previously
25 communicated conditions of approval for this modification to the applicant.
26 Conclusions: The buildings shall be sprinkled with a full NFP A 13 (not an NFP A 13-0) sprinkler
27 system. Each building shall have its own Post Indicator Valve. A fire alarm system complying
28 with NFP A 72 which is monitored by a central station shall be provided. The sprinkler riser room
29 shall have a Knox box for fire department access. The required fire hydrant shall be located at the
30 entrance to the access road along with the required FDC (Fire Department Connection.) The
31 hydrant shall be located within five and twenty feet of the FDC. The 20 foot access road shall be
32 marked and posted "No Parking" on both sides of the access. A flow test shall be conducted to
33 determine the fire flow that can be achieved. A minimum fire flow of one thousand five hundred
34 gallons per minute (1500 gpm) shall be provided.
35 Findings: The building plans and site plan do not show sprinkler riser rooms. Sprinkler riser rooms
36 are required by the fire and building codes.
I:\Community Development\P1anning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 17 of 28
Conclusions: The applicant must either provide sprinkler riser rooms within the proposed building
2 footprint or amend the site plan to depict external sprinkler riser rooms. External sprinkler riser
3 rooms must comply with setback requirements.
4
5
6 Off street vehicle parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single family
7 and duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street parking areas shall be
8 designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off street parking spaces provided
9 subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no backing or maneuvering within a public
10 street right of way is required. [WDO 3.105.01.H.4.a]
TABLE 3.1.4
Parkin S ace and Aisle Dimensions
(D
9.0 feet
I-Way
Aisle
Width
E
24.0 feet
2- Way
Aisle
Width
E
24.0 feet
Stall
Depth
Aisle Type
Width (Measured from
the midpoint of the
double stripe)
C)
9.0 feet
Curb
Length
11 Findings: The site plan shows the parking spaces as 10 feet wide and 24 feet long. The site plan
12 shows a 20 foot wide drive aisle. No backing or maneuvering is required within a public street
13 right of way. Figures 6.7 and 6.8 depict private driveways to flag lots.
14 Conclusions: The parking spaces comply with WOO 3.105.01.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. The 20 foot
15 drive aisle does not comply with WOO 3.105.01.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. As the subject property is a
16 flag lot, a 24 foot wide drive aisle is not required. The 20 feet of improved surface shown in Figure
17 6.8 is appropriate for the proposed development.
18
19
20 Off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional markings and signs to
21 control vehicle movement. [WDO 3.105.01.H.5]
22 Finding: The site plan indicates that the driveway will be posted "no parking." The Fire ~istrict
23 indicates that, in addition, the pavement must be marked "no parking" to comply with WOO
24 3.105.01.G.5 (see discussion above.)
25 Conclusions: The proposed "no parking" signs comply with WOO 3.105.01.H.5. The property
26 owner should provide pavement marking indicating "no parking" along the driveway, in accordance
27 with WOO 3.105.01.H.5 and WOO 3.105.01.H.5.
28
29
30 Off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of a space.
31 The total width of the lines shall delineate a separation of 2 feet. [WDO 3.105.01.H.6]
32 Findings: The site plan shows the additional exterior parking spaces to be delineated by double
33 parallel lines. All other exterior parking spaces are physically separated from other spaces.
34 Conclusions: The exterior parking spaces that are physically separated from other spaces do not
35 require striping. The development complies with WOO 3.105.01.H.6.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 18 of 28
1
2
3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent
4 residentially zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any
5 public street. [WDO 3.105.01.H.8]
6 Findings: One ofthe proposed luminaires is 17 feet from one adjacent house and 45 feet from
7 another. The photometric plan does not show illuminance levels on the adjacent residential
8 properties or call for shielding of the luminaires.
9 Conclusions: The submittal does not provide a basis to conclude that the proposed illumination will
10 not "shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used property." The applicant has not
11 demonstrated compliance with WOO 3.1 05.01.H.8. The applicant should submit a revised
12 photometric plan or details of luminaire shielding demonstrating compliance with WOO
13 3.1 05.01.H.8 to the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permit.
14
15
16 All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a bicycle rack
17 within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack spaces shall be one plus one
18 per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 rack spaces. [WDO 3.105.01.H.I0]
19 Findings: The development requires 16 off-street parking spaces. This yields a requirement of three
20 bicycle rack spaces. The site plan does not show any bicycle rack.
21 Conclusion: The applicant must provide at least three bicycle rack spaces, in accordance with WOO
22 3.105.01.H.IO.
23
24
25 WDO 3.106
Landscaping Standards
26
27 The subject property shall be landscaped to the standards of Sections 3.106 and 3.107.03.
28 [WDO 2.104.07.F.2]
29 The provisions of this section shall apply:
30 A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single-
31 family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures. [WDO 3.106.01]
32 Findings: The proposed development consists of new structures and related parking. The structures
33 are not single-family or duplex dwellings.
34 Conclusion: The development is subject to WOO 3.106 under WOO 2.104.07.F.2 and 3.106.01.A.
35
36
37 Development in an RM zone, except for a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be
38 subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.7. [WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a]
TABLE 2.1.7
Abuttin Pro er
Existing single family or duplex
dwellin
Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Landsca in
All interior yards shall be fully landscaped subject to Section
3.106.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 19 of 28
TABLE 2.1.7
Abuttin Pro er
RM, P /SP zone; or Existing
medium densit residential unit
Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Landsca in
All interior yards shall be fully landscaped subject to Section
3.106.
1 Finding: The property abuts existing single-family dwellings to the south, southwest, and southeast,
2 property zoned P/SP to the west, and an existing medium density residential to the north.
3 Conclusion: All interior yards must be fully landscaped subject to Section 3.106, in accordance with
4 Table 2.1.7.
5
6
7 All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated. [WDO 3.106.02.B]
8 Findings: The utility plan shows sprinkler lines for individual units and common areas, and calls out
9 metering and control requirements.
10 Conclusion: The proposed irrigation meets the requirements of WOO 3.106.02.B.
11
12
13 The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good condition so
14 as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead plants shall be removed
15 and replaced in conformance with the original landscape plan. [WDO 3.106.02.E]
16 Finding: This is an ongoing requirement.
17 Conclusion: This requirement will be enforced on current and future property owners.
18
19
20 Front Yard and Yard Abutting a Street.
21 a. Landscaping Density for all uses in the RM zones. All front yards and yards abutting
22 a street shall be landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. [WDO
23 3.106.03.A.2]
24 Finding: The front yard (most of which is designated as the southern common open space) contains
25 139 plant units and approximately 2,449 square feet of area not used for parking or site access and
26 vehicular circulation, or 1.14 plant units per 20 square feet. A total of 123 plant units is required to
27 provide 1 plant unit per 20 square feet.
28 Conclusions: The front yard meets the standard of WOO 3.106.03.A.2.a.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 20 of 28
~. . ........:=:.~~-~. .
...2... '1 ....~.
y..... i rL!:.~.l
--L. ~.'. ... . · J ...D.....
4Ii/I# WI.........
T r L_=-,J t
~.. I (MT~" LW'" ,
I I........... ....... ........ ~ i
..............._~...L..:.:.___,.~.... " , .f.~"''''''''
_...._...:::....:."L. ..~.... ... n~:~
Flpft 6.3 Setbacks aad Yards
1 Yard, Buffer: An yard improved with landscaping and/or screening to applicable standards
2 of the WDO that is located between two land uses of differing character to minimize potential
3 conflicts and to provide a more aesthetic environment. [WDO 1.102]
4 Findings: The property abuts lots developed with single-family dwellings (933, 1035, and 1129 East
5 Lincoln Street) to the southwest, south, and east. The property abuts an existing multiple-family
6 development to the north. The property abuts school property in the P/SP zone along the northern
7 215 feet of the west property line.
8 Conclusion: Yards abutting lots developed with single-family dwellings or school property are
9 buffer yards.
10
11
12 All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft.
13 EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are paved and which may be used
14 for parking or site access and vehicular circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.B]
15 Finding: The west side yard extends from the east property line to the east building wall, in
16 accordance with Figure 6.3. The west side yard abuts school property. The west side yard contains
17 approximately 185 plant units and approximately 2,654 square feet of area not "used for parking or
18 site access and vehicular circulation", or 1.39 plant units per 20 square feet. A total of 133 plant
19 units is required to provide 1 plant unit per 20 square feet.
20 Conclusion: The west side yard is a buffer yard. The west side yard meets the standard of WDO
21 3.106.03.B.
22 Finding: The east side yard extends from the east property line to the east building wall, in
23 accordance with Figure 6.3. The east side yard abuts a lot developed with a single-family dwelling
24 (1129 East Lincoln Street.) The east side yard contains 197 plant units and 5,392 square feet, or
25 0.73 plant units per 20 square feet. A total of270 plant units is required to provide 1 plant unit per
26 20 square feet.
27 Conclusion: The east side yard is a buffer yard. An additional 73 plant units must be planted in the
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 21 of 28
east side yard in order to meet the standard of WOO 3.106.03.B.
2 Finding: The property abuts an existing multiple-family development to the north.
3 Conclusions: The rear yard (on the north) does not abut a land use of differing character. The rear
4 yard is not a buffer yard and is not subject to WOO 3.106.03.B.
5 Finding: The property abuts an existing single-family dwelling to the south (1035 East Lincoln
6 Street.) The front yard contains 139 plant units and approximately 2,449 square feet of area not
7 "used for parking or site access and vehicular circulation", or 1.14 plant units per 20 square feet.
8 Conclusion: The front yard is a buffer yard. The front yard meets the standard of WOO 3.1 06.03.B.
9
10
11 All unpaved land within off street parking areas, and within 20 feet of the paved edge of off
12 street parking and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in the following
13 proportions:
14 a. RM... zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 20% of the paved surface area for off
15 street parking and circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.C.l]
16 Finding: The landscaping plan shows that all unpaved land within the off street parking area, and
17 within 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and circulation improvements (except for the
18 area occupied by buildings) is landscaped. This constitutes more than 20% ofthe paved surface
19 area for off street parking and circulation.
20 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard of WOO 3.l06.03.C.1.
21
22
23 The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off street parking and circulation
24 facilities, EXCLUDING required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 square feet. [WDO
25 3.106.03.C.2]
26 Finding: The area of adjacent to off street parking and circulation facilities contains approximately
27 2,947 square feet. The relevant area contains approximately 252 plant units (excluding the two
28 trees required to satisfy WDO 3.106.03.C.3), for a plant density of approximately 1.7 plant units
29 per 20 square feet.
30 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard of WOO 3.1 06.03.C.2.
31
32
33 Trees, Section 6.103, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities in a
34 pattern that is in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the following
35 densities:
36 a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces;
37 b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or
38 c. 1 large tree per 14 parking spaces. [WDO 3.106.03.C.3]
39 Findings: The site plan shows twelve external off-street parking spaces. The equivalent of two
40 medium trees is required by WDO 3.l06.03.C.3. The landscaping plan shows 9 Acer platanoides
41 "Drummondii" abutting the parking area This cultivar of Norway maple is reported to grow 35-40
42 feet high, and would be classified as a medium tree in WOO 6.103.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 22 of 28
1 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard of WOO 3.106.03.C.3.
2
3
4 Multi-Purpose Landscaping. Trees and other required landscaping located on private
5 property within a required setback abutting a street or an interior lot line that is within 20
6 feet of the paved surface of off street parking and circulation facilities, may also be counted in
7 calculating required landscaping for off street parking and circulation areas. [WDO
8 3.106.03.C.4]
9 All common areas shall be landscaped with at least three (3) plant units per 50 square feet.
10 [WDO 3.106.03.D]
11 Findings: The north common area contains 2,418 square feet and is landscaped with 128 plant units,
12 which equates to 2.6 plant units per 50 square feet. A total of 145 plant units is required to provide
13 3 plant units per 50 square feet. The south common area contains 2,306 square feet and is
14 landscaped with 123 plant units, which equates to 2.7 plant units per 50 square feet. A total of 138
15 plant units is required to provide 3 plant units per 50 square feet.
16 Conclusions: An additional 17 plant units must be provided in the north common area to meet the
17 standard ofWDO 3.106.03.D. An additional15 plant units must be provided in the south common
18 area to meet the standard ofWDO 3.106.03.D.
19
20
21 The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive landscaping
22 requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant unit (PU) per 50
23 square feet prior to final occupancy. [WDO 3.106.03.E]
24 Finding: The entire yard area ofthe property is subject to more intensive landscaping requirements
25 (1 plant unit per 20 square feet) under WOO 3.106.03.A.2.a and WOO 3.106.03.B.
26 Conclusion: No portion of the property is subject to the provisions of WOO 3.106.03.E.
27
28
29 Conservation of Significant Trees
30 A. Applicability. The provisions of this Section apply to the removal of any significant
31 tree and the replacement requirements for significant tree removal. A "significant
32 tree" is any existing, healthy tree 24 inches or more in diameter, measured 12 inches
33 above ground level. [WDO 3.106.04]
34 Finding: The landscaping plan does not show any existing trees on the site. No significant trees
35 were observed during a site inspection.
36 Conclusion: The provisions of WOO 3.106.04 do not apply to the subject property.
37
38
39 The required number of plant units shall be met by a combination of plant materials listed in
40 Table 3.1.5, so that eighty (80) percent of the area to be landscaped is covered within three
41 years. Required plant units need not be allocated uniformly through out specified
42 landscaping areas, but may be grouped for visual effect. [WDO 3.106.05.A]
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 23 of 28
TABLE 3.1.5 Definition of a Plant Unit (PU
Plant Material Plant Unit (PU) Value
1 Si ificant Tree 15 PU
1 Lar e Tree, Section 6.103 10 PU
1 Medium Tree, Section 6.103 8 PU
1 Small Tree, Section 6.103 4 PU
1 Large Deciduous or Evergreen shrub 2 PU
(at maturit over 4' wide x 4' hi )
1 Small to Medium shrub (at maturity 1 PU
maximum 4' wide x 4' hi
Lawn or other livin ound cover 1 PU 50 s . ft.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Applicant's statement: "All shrubs and ground cover will be sized so as to attain 80% of ground
coverage within 3 years."
8
9
Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of bark
mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a minimum of2 inches in
depth. [WDO 3.106.05.B]
Finding: The landscaping plan does not show any landscaped areas that is not covered by plant
materials.
Conclusion: The site plan meets the guideline of WOO 3.106.05.B.
10
11
12
13
14
A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking area or
access way. [WDO 3.106.05.C]
Finding: The site plan calls out a six-inch concrete curb along the driveway. The site plan also
shows apparent wheel stops between the exterior parking spaces and landscaped areas. The site
plan does not show curbing north of the northernmost exterior parking space, or south of the
southernmost exterior parking space.
Conclusion: The curb along the driveway and the apparent wheel stops meet the standard of WOO
3.106.05.C. The lack of a curb north of the northernmost exterior parking space, or south of the
southernmost exterior parking space does not meet the standard of WOO 3.106.05.C. The applicant
should provide a six-inch concrete curb between the landscaped areas and parking areas or access
ways at the northernmost exterior parking space and the southernmost exterior parking space, in
accordance with WOO 3.106.05.C.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WDO 3.107
Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards
Guidelines and Standards for Medium Density Residential Buildings
A. Applicability. Pursuant to Section 1.102, "Medium Density Residential Building"
means any building where the predominant use is multiple family, nursing care or
assisted care residential.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 24 of 28
2. For a Type II or III review, the criteria Section 3.107.05.B shall be read as
2 "should" and shall be applied as guidelines. [WDO 3.107.05]
3 Common open space and facilities consist of the site area and facilities not devoted to
4 dwellings, parking, streets, driveways or storage areas that are available for use by all
5 residents of a development. [WDO 3.107.05.B.l.a]
6 Required yard setbacks should/shall be included as common open space. [WDO 3.107.05.B.l.b]
7 Finding: Required front and rear yards are included as common open space. The east side yard is
8 private open space.
9 Conclusion: The site plan meets the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.B.1.b.
10
11
12 A minimum of 30 percent of the net site area of each medium density residential development
13 should/shall be permanently designated for use as common open space and facilities. [WDO
14 3.107.05.B.l.c.l]
15 Findings: The applicant submitted a Common Open Space Exhibit at the public hearing, which was
16 admitted as Exhibit L and accepted by the Commission. The exhibit shows 19,246 square feet of
17 common open space, which equals 61.1 % of the site area
18 Conclusion: The development meets the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.B.1.c.1.
19
20
21 The common area should/shall include at least one open space containing 2000 sq. ft., with a
22 minimum width of 36 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.B.l.c.2]
23 Finding: The northern common open space contains approximately 2,418 square feet and measures
24 approximately 31 feet by 72 feet. The southern common open space contains approximately 2,306
25 square feet and measures approximately 30 feet by 72 feet.
26 Conclusion: The common open spaces meet the guidelines ofWDO 3.107.05.B.1.c.2.
27
28
29 "Recreation Areas and Facilities. Facilities to accommodate children's and/or adult
30 recreation, meeting or education activities should/shall be provided at a ratio of 36 sq. ft. of
31 outdoor, or 12 sq. ft. ofindoor, common area per dwelling unit or living unit. The minimum
32 improved common area for this purpose should/shall be 720 square feet of outdoor or 240 sq.
33 ft. indoor space. The space for such improvements may be counted as part of the common
34 area required by Section 3.107.05.B.1.c.2). at a 1:1 ratio for outdoor space and 3:1 ratio for
35 indoor space. [WDO 3.107.05.B.l.c.3]
36 Findings: For the proposed 8 dwelling units, a total of 288 square feet of outdoor, or 96 square feet
37 of indoor recreation, meeting or education areas and facilities should be provided. The applicant
38 submitted a Common Open Space Exhibit at the public hearing, which was admitted as Exhibit L
39 and accepted by the Commission. The recreational - parking space would satisfy the requirement
40 for recreational facilities if improved with a basketball hoop. Alternatives to a basketball hoop
41 could be approved by staff.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 25 of 28
1 Conclusion: The 1,338 square feet of recreational- parking space, improved with a basketball hoop
2 or approved alternate facility, meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.B.1.c.3.
3
4
5 Medium density dwelling units sited on the finished grade, or within 5 feet of the finished
6 grade, should/shall have 96 square feet of semi-enclosed, private open space, with no
7 dimension less than 6 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.B.2.a.l]
8 Findings: The site plan shows each unit as having a 12 foot by 10 foot pervious patio and a lawn
9 area, totaling 600 or 660 square feet. The site plan shows lines that represent a 6-foot high fence.
10 The private courtyards are separated by shrubbery and the 6 foot fence.
11 Conclusion: The private open spaces meet the guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.B.1.c.2.
12
13
14 Ground level private open space should/shall be visually and physically separated from
15 common open space through the use of perimeter landscaping or fencing. WDO
16 3.107.05.B.2.a.2]
17 Finding: The landscaping plan shows the two relevant patios to be separated from the common open
18 spaces by shrubbery. The site plan shows lines that represent a 6-foot high fence between the patios
19 and the common open spaces.
20 Conclusion: The separation between the private open spaces and the common open spaces meets the
21 guidelines ofWDO 3.107.05.B.2.a.2.
22
23
24 Medium density residential buildings should/shall have no dimension greater than 150 feet.
25 [WDO 3.107.05.C.l.a]
26 Finding: The maximum building dimension is approximately 80 feet.
27 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.a.
28
29
30 Every two attached medium density residential dwelling units should/shall be offset by at least
31 4 feet in depth. [WDO 3.107.05.C.1.b]
32 Finding: The site plan shows a 4 foot offset at the midpoint of each 4-unit building, .
33 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.b.
34
35
36 Adjacent medium density residential buildings located within 28 feet of a property line,
37 should/shall vary the setback at least 4 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.C.1.c]
38 Finding: The site plan shows the buildings to be located approximately 30 feet from the north, east,
39 and south property lines, and approximately 50 feet from the west property line.
40 Conclusion: The guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.c does not apply.
41
42
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 26 of 28
1 A flat roof, or the ridge of a sloping roof, for a medium density residential building
2 should/shall not exceed a horizontal length of 100 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.C.l.d]
3 Finding: The maximum length of a ridgeline is approximately 40 feet.
4 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.d.
5
6
7 Medium density residential buildings should/shall incorporate a porch or recessed entry for
8 each ground level dwelling unit. Covered porches and entries should average at least 30 feet
9 square per unit, with no dimension less than 6 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.C.l.e]
10 Finding: The building plans show each unit having a covered porch containing approximately 100
11 square feet and having a minimum dimension of approximately 8Y2 feet.
12 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.e.
13
14
15 All habitable rooms, except bath rooms, facing a required front yard should/shall incorporate
16 windows. [WDO 3.107.05.C.1.t]
17 Finding: The building plans show windows only on the east and west facades. The front yard is to
18 the south of the buildings. As this is a flag lot, the front yard abuts (for the majority of its length)
19 the rear yard of a single-family dwelling. The proposed development could provide windows in
20 rooms facing south on the southern building. The applicant's narrative did not address this issue.
21 Conclusion: The property owner should provide windows in rooms facing south on the southern
22 building, in accordance with the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.f.
23
24
25 Stair cases providing access above the first floor level should/shall not be visible from a street.
26 [WDO 3.107.05.C.1.g]
27 Finding: The building plans show that the stair cases providing access above the first floor are
28 internal.
29 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.g.
30
31
32 The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade should/shall be:
33 1) Either siding, brick or stucco. Plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood and sheet
34 press board should/shall not be used as exterior fmish material. [WDO 3.107.05.C.2.a]
35 Finding: The elevation drawing shows the predominant exterior finish to be lap siding. Cultured
36 stone and architectural shakes are also used.
37 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.C.2.a.1.
38
39
40 "The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade should/shall be:
41 2) Either white, tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or shaded with a
42 minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown. "Flourescent," "day-glo," or any
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 27 of 28
similar bright color should/shall not be used on the facade." [WDO 3.107.05.C.2.a]
2 Finding: The color elevation drawings and the applicant's statement show the predominant color to
3 be army green.
4 Conclusion: The color scheme ofthe buildings meets the guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.C.2.a.2,
5 except that the predominant color is not a shade of "black or brown," and has not been shown to be
6 "tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white." The development should utilize paint or
7 other exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade that is either white, tinted with a minimum
8 of 10 parts per 100 of white, or shaded with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown, in
9 accordance with the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.C.2.a.
10
11 The roofmg material for medium density dwellings should/shall be either composition
12 shingles; clay or concrete tile; metal; or cedar shingles or shakes. Composition shingles
13 should/shall be architectural style with a certified performance of at least 25 years. [WDO
14 3.107.05.C.2.b]
15 Finding: The elevation drawing shows composition shingles as the roofing material.
16 Conclusion: The property owner should utilize either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile;
17 metal; or cedar shingles or shakes as a roofing material. Composition shingles should be
18 architectural style with a certified performance of at least 25 years, in accordance with the
19 guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.C.2.b.
20
21
22 The internal pedestrian system in medium density residential developments should/shall
23 connect to other areas of the site, to other building entrances and to adjacent streets. [WDO
24 3.107.05.C.3.a]
25 Finding: The site plan shows a sidewalk fronting all units, and extending to the sidewalk on Lincoln
26 Street.
27 Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.C.3.a.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 28 of 28
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
DR 2006-17
EXCP 2007-02
Exhibit B
Cases DR 2006-17 and EXCP 2007-02 are approved subject to the following conditions of
2 approval:
3 1. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with
4 all provisions ofthe WOO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of
5 approval, or public hearing. The term "substantial accordance" shall not be interpreted
6 as relieving the property owner from complying with any requirement of the WDO.
7 The term "substantial accordance" shall not be interpreted to mean that City staff have
8 the authority to waive or vary any development standard set forth in the WDO.
9 2. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the site, utility,
10 landscaping, grading, and lighting plans dated June 6, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibits
11 "A" though "0," except as modified by these conditions of approval.
12 3. The buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformity to the floor plans and
13 elevations dated October 11,2006.
14 4. The buildings shall not exceed 35 feet in height, in accordance with WOO 2.104.06.C.*
15 5. The buildings shall be set back at least 30 feet from all interior property lines, in
16 accordance with WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7.*
17 6. The garage entrances shall be set back from the shared driveway at least 20 feet, in
18 accordance with WDO 2. 104.06.D.1.b.2.*
19 7. Individual refuse collection facilities shall be required, or common refuse collection
20 facilities provided and screened in accordance with WOO 2.104.07.F.3.
21 8. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the wall height requirement of WDO
22 2.1 04.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7 for the retaining wall on the westerly 13 feet of the
23 southernmost exterior parking space and the proposed 30" architectural walls on top of
24 the retaining walls along the flagpole portion of the lot.
25 9. The south exterior parking spaces shall be screened with an architectural wall along
26 their entire length, in accordance with WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.1.
*
10. All architectural walls shall incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the side
facing away from the subject property.
The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the W oodbum
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
27
28
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 1 of 5
1 11. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed architectural walls demonstrating
2 compliance with the requirement of WDO 1.102 that architectural walls incorporate at
3 least two colors and/or textures and the requirements of Table 2.1.7 that the wall have
4 an anti-graffiti surface and be no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height.
5 12. Retaining walls shall have the same appearance as architectural walls.
6 13. The property owner shall provide a 20 foot two-way drive aisle posted "no parking," in
7 accordance with WDO 3.104.05.D.1.b.1.*
8 14. The development shall provide curb returns with a radius of at least 25 feet, in
9 accordance with WDO 3.104.05.0.2.
10 15. The property owner shall provide a throat length of at least 50 feet to each driveway on
11 adjacent property that uses the flagpole access, in accordance with WOO
12 3.1 04.05.DA.b. *
13 16. Each parking space outside a garage shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the
14 dwelling unit served by the garage. A sign shall be posted on each garage door
15 indicating this reserved status.
16 17. The proposed development shall provide one van-accessible space and accessibility
17 aisle, in accordance with WOO 3.105.01.E.3, WDO 3.105.01.HA.c, Section 1104 of the
18 Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233.
19 18. Exterior parking spaces shall be reconfigured to provide the required van-accessible
20 space and accessibility aisle.
21 19. All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional requirements of WOO
22 3.105.01.HA and Table 3.1.4.*
23 20. The buildings shall be sprinkled with a full NFP A 13 (not an NFP A 13-0) sprinkler
24 system.
25 21. Each building shall have its own Post Indicator Valve.
26 22. A fire alarm system complying with NFP A 72 which is monitored by a central station
27 shall be provided.
28 23. The sprinkler riser room shall have a Knox box for fire department access.
29 24. The required fire hydrant shall be located at the entrance to the access road along with
30 the required FDC (Fire Department Connection.)*
31 25. The hydrant shall be located within five and twenty feet of the FOC. *
32 26. The 20 foot access road shall be marked and posted "No Parking" on both sides of the
33 access.
*
The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 2 of 5
1 27. A flow test shall be conducted to determine the fire flow that can be achieved. A
2 minimum fire flow of one thousand five hundred gallons per minute (1500 gpm) shall
3 be provided.
4 28. The applicant shall either provide sprinkler riser rooms within the proposed building
5 footprint or amend the site plan to depict external sprinkler riser rooms. External
6 sprinkler riser rooms shall comply with setback requirements.
7 29. The property owner shall post the driveway "no parking," in accordance with WOO
8 3.105.01.G.5 and WOO 3.105.01.H.5.*
9 30. The property owner shall provide pavement marking indicating "no parking" along the
10 driveway, in accordance with WOO 3.105.01.G.5 and WDO 3.105.01.H.5.
11 31. The applicant shall submit a revised photometric plan or details of luminaire shielding
12 demonstrating compliance with WOO 3.105.01.H.8 to the Planning Division prior to
13 issuance of any building permit.
14 32. The applicant shall provide at least three bicycle rack spaces, in accordance with WOO
15 3.105.01.H.10.
16 33. The landscaping shall comply with the requirements ofWDO 3.106.
17 34. All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated, in accordance with WDO
18 3.106.02.B.*
19 35. The property owner shall maintain all landscaping in good condition. Unhealthy and
20 dead plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape
21 plan, in accordance with WOO 3.106.02.E.*
22 36. The west side yard shall be planted with at least 133 plant units oflandscaping material,
23 in accordance with WOO 3.106.03.B.*
24 37. An additional 73 plant units must be planted in the east side yard in order to meet the
25 standard of WOO 3.1 06.03.B. The east side yard shall be planted with at least 270 plant
26 units of landscaping material.
27 38. The front yard shall be planted with at least 123 plant units oflandscaping material, in
28 accordance with WOO 3.106.03.A.2.a.*
29 39. All unpaved land within the off street parking area, and within 20 feet of the paved edge
30 of off street parking and circulation improvements shall be landscaped in accordance
31 with WOO 3.106.03.C.1.*
32 40. The density oflandscaping required in and adjacent to off street parking and circulation
33 facilities, excluding required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 square feet, in
34 accordance with WOO 3.106.03.C.2.*
*
The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 3 of 5
1 41. Trees shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities in a pattern that is
2 in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, in accordance with WDO
3 3.106.03.C.3.*
4 42. An additional 17 plant units shall be provided in the north common area to meet the
5 standard of WOO 3.106.03.0. The north common area shall be planted with at least
6 145 plant units of landscaping material.
7 43. An additional 15 plant units shall be provided in the south common area to meet the
8 standard of WOO 3.106.03.0. The south common area shall be planted with at least 138
9 plant units of landscaping material.
10 44. All shrubs and ground cover shall be sized so as to attain 80% of ground coverage
11 within three years, in accordance with WOO 3.106.05.A.*
12 45. A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking
13 area or access way. The applicant shall provide a six-inch concrete curb between the
14 landscaped areas and parking areas or access ways at the northernmost exterior parking
15 space and the southernmost exterior parking space, in accordance with WDO
16 3.106.05.C.
17 46. The property owner shall dedicate an additional 12 feet to right-of-way for East Lincoln
18 Street.
19 47. The property owner shall provide the street improvements required by the
20 Transportation System Plan for East Lincoln Street or obtain an exception to street right
21 of way and improvement requirements, in accordance with WDO 3.101.02.0.
22 48. The property owner shall execute a nonremonstrance agreement to participate in the
23 cost of reconstructing East Lincoln Street to the standards ofthe Transportation Systems
24 Plan when such reconstruction becomes timely.
25 49. Required front and rear yards shall be included as common open space, in accordance
26 with the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.B.1.b.*
27 50. The common area shall include at least one open space containing 2000 sq. ft., with a
28 minimum width of 36 feet, in accordance with the guidelines of WOO
29 3.107.05.B.1.c.2.*
30 51. The property owner shall provide 288 square feet of outdoor, or 96 square feet of indoor
31 recreation, meeting or education areas and facilities, to meet the guideline of WOO
32 3.107.05.B.1.c.3. Provision ofa basketball hoop at the north end of the driveway shall
33 satisfy this condition.
34 52. The property owner shall provide each dwelling unit on or within 5 feet of the finished
35 grade with 96 square feet of semi-enclosed, private open space, with no dimension less
36 than 6 feet, to meet the guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.B.1.c.2.*
*
The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 4 of 5
1 53. Ground level private open space shall be visually and physically separated from
2 common open space through the use of perimeter landscaping or fencing, to meet the
3 guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.B.2.a.2.*
4 54. The property owner shall provide windows in rooms facing south on the southern
5 building, in accordance with the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.f.
6 55. The buildings shall have no dimension greater than 150 feet, to meet the guideline of
7 WOO 3.107.05.C.1.a.*
8 56. Every two attached medium density residential dwelling units Ishall be offset by at least
9 4 feet in depth, to meet the guideline ofthe guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.b.*
10 57. Adjacent medium density residential buildings located within 28 feet of a property line,
11 shall vary the setback at least 4 feet, to meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.c.*
12 58. The ridge of a sloping roof, for a medium density residential building shall not exceed a
13 horizontal length of 100 feet, to meet the guideline of WOO 3.1 07.05.C.l.d.*
14 59. The buildings shall incorporate a porch or recessed entry for each ground level dwelling
15 unit. Covered porches and entries shall average at least 30 feet square per unit, with no
16 dimension less than 6 feet, to meet the guideline ofWDO 3.l07.05.C.1.e.*
17 60. Stair cases providing access above the first floor level shall not be visible from a street,
18 to meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.g.*
19 61. The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade shall be either siding, brick or
20 stucco. Plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood and sheet press board shall not be
21 used as exterior finish material, to meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.2.a.*
22 62. The roofing material shall be either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile; metal;
23 or cedar shingles or shakes. Composition shingles shall be architectural style with a
24 certified performance of at least 25 years, to meet the guideline of WOO
25 3.107.05.C.2.b.*
26 63. The internal pedestrian system shall connect to other areas of the site, to other building
27 entrances and to adjacent streets, to meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.3.a.*
28 64. The development should utilize paint or other exterior finish for at least 90 percent of
29 the facade that is either white, tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or
30 shaded with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown, in accordance with the
31 guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.2.a.
32 65. The property owner shall utilize either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile;
33 metal; or cedar shingles or shakes as a roofing material. Composition shingles shall be
34 architectural style with a certified performance of at least 25 years, in accordance with
35 the guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.C.2.b.
*
The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 5 of 5
E
LINCOLN
STREET
E
UNCOLN
_~~~BfG
LINCOLN COMMONS
(DRIVE AISLE WALLS AS REQUESTED BY VARIANCE)
END WALL FOR
DRIVEWAY VlS!ON
TRIANGLE
I
54" HIGH ARCHITECTURAl WALL ON
TOP OF RETAINING WALL
TOP OF RETAINING WALL
IS AT FINISHED GRADE
ON THE ADJACENT
PARCELS
RETAINING WALL (HEIGHT VARIES)
DRIVE AISLE WEST WALL PROFILE
(FROM DRIVE AlSL.E AND FACING WeST)
END WALL mR
DRIVEWAY VISION
TRIANGLE
I
END WALL FOR
DRIVEWAY VISION
TRIANGLE
l
MIN. 30~ HIGH ARCHITECTURAL
WAlL ON TOP Of RETAINING WALL
:,--L_L...l..
FINISHED GRADE
ALONG DRIVE AISLE
TOP OF RETAINING WALL
IS AT FINISHED GRADE
ON THE ADJACENT
PARCELS
DRIVE AISLE EAST WALL PROFILE
(FROM DRIVE AISLE AND FACING EAST)
ATTACHMENT B
END WALL FOR
DRIVEWAY VISION
TRIANGLE
I
BREAK FOR
DRII/EWA FOR
EXISTING HOUSE
BREAK FOR
DRIVEWAY fOR
EXISTING HOUSE
';::: 81::(>0 1:::
OCT 1 9 2007
Exhibit C
Aerial photo of subject property. Wall required (except at vision clearance areas) by Table 2.1.7
is shown in solid red. Wall that is discretionary in Table 2.1.7, but required by the Commission,
is shown in dashed yellow.
ATTACHMENT D
APPEAL OF DR 2006-17 AND V AR 2007-01
Findings: The flagpole portion ofthe parcel is the most visible portion of the property from the
2 public right-of-way. The height ofa wall is measured from the grade of the flagpole driveway,
3 except in vision clearance areas. The height of a wall is governed by WDO 3.103.1 O.E within
4 vision clearance areas.
5 Findings: A 6-foot vinyl fence would deter access to the school site through the subject property
6 from the surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping along the west property line would also serve to
7 buffer the differing land uses.
8 Findings: A 6-foot vinyl fence would deter access into the adjoining housing project to the north.
9 Landscaping along much of the north property line would also serve to buffer the differing land
10 uses.
11 Findings: A 6-foot vinyl fence would adequately separate the proposed multiple-family
12 development from the existing single-family dwellings on the abutting parcels to the south and east.
13 Landscaping along these property lines would also serve to buffer the differing land uses.
14 Finding: A 6-foot vinyl fence is available that incorporates two colors, as shown in the appellant's
15 presentation to the Council.
16 Finding: An anti-graffiti coating is available for vinyl fencing, as mentioned in the appellant's
17 presentation to the Council.
18 Conclusion: Strict application ofthe requirement ofWDO 2.104.06.D.2.a for an architectural wall
19 abutting existing single-family dwellings is excessive in the instant case.
20 Conclusion: A requirement for an architectural wall abutting property zoned RM or P/SP is
21 excessive in the instant case.
22 Conclusions: An architectural wall is appropriate along the flagpole portion of the parcel. A 6-foot
23 height from finished grade of the driveway is appropriate except in vision clearance areas.
24 Conclusions: A 6-foot vinyl fence incorporating two colors and an anti-graffiti coating is
25 appropriate along all property lines except the flagpole portion of the parcel.