Loading...
Res 1916 - Granting Application DR 2008-03COUNCIL BILL NO. 2756 RESOLUTION NO. 1916 A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPLICATION DR 2008-03; ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; AND IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION WITH FINDINGS WHEREAS, a request was made by Joe Consani, applicant, on behalf of Rod Johnson and Joe Consani, property owners, for a design review for a 7,992 square foot medical/professional building (case DR 2008-03) and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the case at its meeting of September 11, 2008 and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved case number DR 2008-03 subject to conditions of approval, and; WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council called up the decision for review on its own motion at its meeting of September 22, 2008, pursuant to WDO 4.101.10.C.; and WHEREAS, the Council held a de novo public hearing on the case at its meeting of November 10, 2008, and; WHEREAS, the Council considered the written and oral testimony presented by staff, the applicant and Woodburn residents; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The application in case DR 2008-03 is granted subject to this Resolution. Section 2. 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 Exhibit "A" and by this reference are incorporated herein. Section 3. Approval of the application is subject to the conditions attached as Exhibit "B", which were previously approved by the Planning Commission. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2756 RESOLUTION NO. 1916 Section 4. Approval of the application is subject to the following additional condition imposed by the Woodburn City Council after conducting the de novo Public Hearing: "The property owner shall install a solid brick or architectural wall with anti - graffiti surface 7 feet in height, along the entire length of the north and east property lines, in accordance with Table 2.1.7." This additional condition is justified by the Findings and Conclusions for Additional Conditions which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and by this reference incorporated herein. Approved as to form: City Attorney Approved: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary T nnant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 — COUNCIL BILL NO. 2756 RESOLUTION NO. 1916 athryn )Fig // Z' Dat r November 24, 2008 November 26, 2008 November 26, 2008 November 26, 2008 "EXHIBIT A" 3 WDO 2.101 General Provisions 5 The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to 6 promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to 7 each case or kind of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as s allowed in the WDO. [WDO 1.101.02.A] 9 All officials, departments, employees (including contractor -officials), of the City 10 vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and I I require conformance with the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for 12 any development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or 13 standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO 1.101.041 14 Findings: The Woodburn Planning Commission are officials of the City and are 15 collectively vested with authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff is 16 employees of the City and is vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals. 17 Conclusion: The Woodburn Planning Commission and planning division staff must is adhere to and require conformance with the WDO, and must not grant approval for any 19 development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards 20 imposed to carry out the WDO. TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE Section Decision I 111 III IV V Appeal 5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000/2000 Sq. Ft. OR MORE • ff 22 The Woodburn Planning Commission shall render all Type III decisions. A Type 23 III is appealable to the City Council. [WDO 4.101.10.C] 24 All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval 25 reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that 26 all applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV 27 decisions EXCEPT annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and 28 objective or if the condition requires discretion shall provide for a subsequent 29 opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.A] 30 Findings: Design Reviews for "all structures 1000/2000 square feet or more" are Type III 31 decisions. The Woodburn Planning Commission is the City decision -maker with 32 authority to render Type III decisions. 33 Conclusion: The Woodburn Planning Commission has "the authority to impose 34 conditions of approval reasonably related to impacts caused by the development." 35 36 CADOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc I WDO 2.105 Commercial Office (CO) District Standards 3 The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of 4 the WDO, are permitted in the CO zone ...Ambulatory Health Services (621) [WDO 5 2.105.01.L11 6 Findings: The applicant is proposing a medical/professional building. 7 Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is permitted in the CO district. 9 Lots in a CO zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.8. [WDO 10 2.105.05.A] TABLE 2.1.8 Lot Standards in a CO Zone A. In a CO zone the lot area for a non-residential use shall be adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. There shall be no minimum width or depth. 11 Findings: The lot area of the property is adequate to contain the medical/professional 12 building within the required setbacks 13 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirement of WDO 2.105.05.A. 14 15 The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. [WDO 2.105.05.131 16 Finding: The submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings that 17 showed a height of approximately 18 feet for the proposed office building. 18 Conclusion: The submitted building height elevation drawings proposed by the applicant 19 would comply with WDO 2.105.05.13. The maximum height of any building shall not 20 exceed 35 feet in accordance with WDO 2.105.05.13. 21 22 The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, 23 Section 3.103.05. [WDO 2.105.06.C.1.a.11 24 Findings: Pursuant to WDO 3.103.05, Highway 214 is classified in the WTSP as a Major 25 Arterial with a 50 foot special setback. The site plan shows all portions of the proposed 26 building to be greater than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214 and greater than 27 20 feet from the property line. 28 Conclusion: The proposed medical professional building as submitted would meet 29 setback standards as defined in the WDO 3.103.05 and WDO 2.105.05.C.1.a.1. 30 31 Off street parking, maneuvering and storage shall be prohibited within a required 32 setback EXCEPT for parking, maneuvering and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 33 2.105.05.C.1.b.11 34 Findings: The minimum setback abutting Highway 214 is 20 feet from the property line. 35 The site plan shows no off-street parking or storage located within the required yard or 36 special setback. C:\DOCUME--1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc I Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirements of WDO 2 2.105.05.C. Lb. 1. 3 The entrance to a garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet for the closest edge 4 of a shared driveway and 20 feet from the street right of way line. [WDO s 2.105.05.C.1.b.21 6 Finding: No garages are proposed in conjunction with the medical/professional building. 7 Conclusion: The development meets the requirements of WDO 2.105.05.C.1.b.2. s 9 Development in a CO zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements 10 of Table 2.1.9. [WDO 2.105.05.C.2.al I I TABLE 2.1.9 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for Non - Residential Uses in CO Zones Abutting Property Landscaping Wall Interior Setback RS, R1 S, or RM zone All interior yards shall be Solid brick or architectural 10 ft. fully landscaped subject to wall with anti -graffiti Section 3.106. surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. 12 Findinfzs: The abutting property to the north and east are single family homes in Senior 13 Estates and are zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS). Table 14 2.1.9 requires interior setback of 10 feet and a solid brick or architectural wall, no less is than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. The proposed building is setback 10 feet from 16 the abutting property lines. The site plan shows 6' masonry buffer walls along the north 17 and east property lines. Solid brick or architectural walls would be required to mitigate 18 adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 19 Conclusion: The City Council imposed an additional condition as follows: 20 21 "The property owner shall install a solid brick or architectural wall with anti - 22 graffiti surface 7 feet in height, along the entire length of the north and east 23 property lines, in accordance with Table 2.1.7." 24 25 Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural 26 block wall and solid gate, both with an anti -graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet, 27 and a maximum of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.105.06.F.31 28 Finding: The site plan shows a trash enclosure will be located near the eastern side of the 29 proposed building. The proposed enclosure will be 6 feet in height, and would be 30 designed and constructed with an architectural block wall and screened on all sides. A 31 detailed construction drawing depicting the layout and construction materials for the trash 32 enclosure was submitted as part of this application. 33 Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 2.110.07.F.3. 34 35 C:\DOCUME-1\dianetr\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 3 WDO 3.102 Utilities and Easements 2 3 Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to 4 applicable Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.011 5 6 Findings: The applicant submitted a utility plan showing the water, sanitary sewer, and 7 storm drainage facilities. The plan was reviewed by Woodburn Public Works staff. s 9 Conclusion: Compliance with applicable standards will be verified by the Public Works 10 Department. 12 13 All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where 14 overhead high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are 15 currently served by overhead wires or cables. [WDO 3.102.021 16 17 Findings: The site plan shows proposed underground utilities. 18 Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.102.02. The 19 property owner shall install underground utilities for the proposed development. 20 21 Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed 22 to the standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO 23 3.102.031 24 25 Findings: The abutting public street is Newberg Highway. The utility plan submitted by 26 the applicant does not include street lights. 27 Conclusion: The Newberg Highway is a state facility regulated by the Oregon 28 Department of Transportation (ODOT). 29 30 The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the 31 construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage 32 facilities located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public 33 Works Department standards. [WDO 3.102.04.A] 34 35 Finding: The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public 36 Works Department in conjunction with the establishment of any necessary facilities on 37 private property. 38 Conclusion: The property owner shall dedicate easements for the construction and 39 maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities, in accordance 40 with WDO 3.102.04.A. 41 42 Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for 43 electric and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each 44 lot line abutting a public street. [WDO 3.102.04.131 45 C:\DOCUME-1\dianetr\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 4 I Findings: The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public 2 Works Department. Additional right-of-way will be acquired by ODOT for the widening 3 of Highway 214. 4 Conclusions: The property owner shall dedicate a public utility easement along the 5 property line abutting a public street, in accordance with WDO 3.102.04.B. The property 6 owner shall coordinate the location of the easements with the Woodburn Public Works 7 Department. s 9 WDO 3.103 Setback Open Space & Lots 10 I i Special Street Setbacks by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1 12 The special setback shall apply to streets within the City of Woodburn as 13 functionally classified in the Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan (WTSP). 14 [WDO 3.103.05.D1 15 16 TABLE 3.1.1: SPECIAL SETBACK STANDARDS BY STREET 17 CLASSIFICATION WTSP Functional Classification Special setback from center line Major Arterial 50 feet 1s 19 Finding: The site plan shows that the special setback will encroach 5 feet into the lot. In 20 addition to the special setback requirement of 50 feet, a minimum of 15 feet is required 21 because it is abutting a street. The proposed medical/professional building and associated 22 parking is set back greater than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214. Highway 23 214 is classified as a Major Arterial in the WTSP. 24 Conclusion: The revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with the standard 25 of the WDO 3.103.05.D. 26 27 Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a 28 street, EXCEPT for parking in driveways [WDO 3.103.06] 29 30 Finding: All 32 proposed parking spaces and the one required loading space are located 31 on the site plan outside of the setback adjacent to the street. 32 33 Conclusion: The proposed medical/professional building and parking complies with the 34 WDO 3.103.06. 35 36 A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and 37 driveway or a street and alley in which visual obstructions are limited for safety 38 purpose. [WDO 3.103.10] 39 CADOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 to 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Vision Clearance Area: Street to Drivewav pr4TMY line curb line D 10• 0 10, t` @ driveway D Finding: The clear vision area for intersection of Highway 214 and the driveway access to the site would comply. No obstructions are shown on the proposed site plan. Conclusion: The applicant demonstrated compliance with the vision clearance area requirements as stipulated under the WDO 3.103.10. WDO 3.104 Access Access to a transportation facility under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shall be subject to the requirements of OAR 734-051 [WDO 3.104.01.B.41 Findings_ The ingress and egress for the project is proposed to be on Highway 214 which is an ODOT facility. Information was not provided with the application in reference to ODOT approval of access to Highway 214. Conclusion: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734-051 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, State Highway 214, and Newberg Highway. Paved Two -Way Driveway: 1. With no turn lane: Throat and travel lane width 26 feet minimum, 36 feet maximum. [WDO 3.104.05.E.1.b.11 Findings: The site plan does not call out the width of the driveway, but the submitted site plan shows it to be approximately 26 feet at the widest point for the throat and travel lane. The width is not uniform the entire length of the driveway. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 0 I Conclusion: The site plan does not show the travel lane to be 26 feet wide the entire 2 length. The throat and travel lane width of the drive aisle may comply with WDO 3 3.104.05.E. Lb. 1. 4 5 Radius of Curb Flare: 30 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.05.E.21 6 Finding: The site plan shows the curb flare to be greater than 30 feet. 7 Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.104.05.E.2. s 9 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading to space to the outside edge of right-of-way for a: Major street connection: 50 feet 11 minimum, greater improvement as may be required by the TIA. [WDO 12 3.104.05.E.4.b] 13 Findings: The site plan calls out a 50 foot throat length for the proposed driveway. 14 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.104.05.E.4.b. 15 16 Turn arounds shall be required within the off street parking area(s) and/or as 17 specific circulation features, to Department of Public Works requirements based on Is the review of the Fire District. [WDO 3.104.05.E.51 19 Findings: The Department of Public Works and the Fire District have provided options to 20 the applicant to eliminate the requirement for the turn around. 21 Conclusion: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with WDO 3.104.05.E.5 or one 22 of the alternatives approved by Public Works and the Fire District prior to the issuance of 23 building permits. 24 25 WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading 26 27 Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements. 28 1. Off street vehicle, parking spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than 29 those set forth in Table 3.1.2. 30 2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed 2.0 times the amount 31 required in Table 3.1.2. [WDO 3.105.02.E] TABLE 3.1.2 Off Street Parking Ratio Standards Parking Ratio - spaces per activity unit or Use square feet of gross floor area (sfgfa) 52. Ambulatory health services 1.0/250 sfgfa [including doctors and dentists] (722) 32 33 Findings: The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, 34 requiring 32 parking spaces. The site plan shows 32 parking spaces. CADOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 7 I Conclusion: The proposed parking spaces for the proposed medical/professional building 2 meets the requirements of WDO 3.105.0l.E.2 and Table 3.1.2. 4 The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be provided to the 5 standards of the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. The number 6 of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be included as part of total required 7 vehicle parking spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.E.31 9 The number of accessible parking spaces shall be: Total Parking In Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 26 to 50 2 10 [ORS 447.233(2)(a)] 11 In addition, one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van 12 accessible. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] 13 Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the 14 state Building Code and applicable federal standards. [WDO 3.105.01.H.4.c] 15 A van accessible parking space shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an 16 adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] 17 Accessible parking spaces shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent 18 access aisle that is at least six feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(c)] 19 A sign shall be posted for each accessible parking space. The sign shall be clearly 20 visible to a person parking in the space, shall be marked with the International 21 Symbol of Access and shall indicate that the spaces are reserved for persons with 22 disabled person parking permits. Van accessible parking spaces shall have an 23 additional sign marked "Van Accessible" mounted below the sign. [ORS 24 447.233(2)(e)] 25 Findings: For the required 32 total off-street parking spaces, the proposed development 26 requires 2 disabled person vehicle parking, including at least one van -accessible space. 27 The site plan shows 2 disabled person vehicle spaces, one of which is van accessible. 28 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.105.0l.E.3, 29 WDO 3.105.01.H.4.c, Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 30 447.233. 31 32 A maximum of 20 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces may be satisfied by 33 compact vehicle parking spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.F] 34 Findings: The proposed medical/professional building requires 32 parking spaces. The 35 site plan shows 22 regular parking spaces, 2 accessible spaces, and 7 compact spaces. 36 Twenty percent of 32 is 6.4 maximum compact spaces. The site plan shows 7 compact 37 spaces. 38 Conclusion: The proposed development would not meet the criteria of WDO 3.105.02.F. 39 CADOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 8 Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. [WDO 3.105.02.G.1] TABLE 3.1.3 Loading Space Requirements Aisle Type Minimum Size of Sp ace Use Minimum No. of Spaces Width Length Heighl For buildings used entirely for office occupancy (sq. ft. gfa) 2,000-41,999 1 12 feet 20 feet 14 feet 3 Finding: The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, 4 requiring oneloading space. The site plan shows one loading space that meets the 5 minimum size and space requirements. 6 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.105.02.G.1 and 7 Table 3.1.3. 9 Off street vehicle parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single Io family and duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street I I parking areas shall be designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off 12 street parking spaces provided subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no 13 backing or maneuvering within a public street right-of-way is required. [WDO 14 3.105.02.H.4.a] 15 16 TABLE 3.1.4 Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (See Figure 6.10) Aisle Type Width (Measured from the Curb 1 -Way 2 -Way Stall Depth midpoint of the double Length Aisle Aisle stripe) Width Width (F) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) ou Standard 8.0 feet 22.5 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 8.0 feet (Parall el) Standard 9.0 feet 9.0 feet 24.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet Compact 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 22.0 feet 24.0 feet 15.0 feet CADOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 9 I Findings: The site plan shows 16 standard 90 degree parking spaces with dimensions of 9 2 feet wide and 19 feet deep. The site plan show 7 compact 90 degree parking spaces with 3 dimensions of 7.5 feet wide and 15 feet deep. The site plan also shows 4 parallel 4 standard parking spaces with dimensions of 8 feet wide and a curb length of 22.5 feet. s The proposed parking spaces include two ADA parking spaces. 6 The site plan shows at least 24 -foot wide drive aisles in all places along the circulation 7 pattern of the proposal. There would no backing or maneuvering required within a public s street right-of-way as indicated by the submitted site plan. 9 Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. 10 I i Off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional markings and signs 12 to control vehicle movement. [WDO 3.105.02.H.51 13 Findings: The site plan does not show directional markings for traffic/vehicle control 14 movements proposed for the parking and maneuvering areas. 15 Conclusion: The site plan does not show directional markings in accordance with WDO 16 3.105.02.H.5. 17 18 Off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of 19 a space. The total width of the lines shall delineate a separation of 2 feet. [WDO 20 3.105.02.H.61 21 Findings: The proposed parking spaces are delineated by double lines. The site plan 22 shows double parallel lines. 23 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.6. 24 25 All outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent 26 residentially zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles 27 on any public street. [WDO 3.105.02.11.81 28 All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: 29 a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; 30 b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot 31 candles; 32 c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned 33 or used property; and 34 d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. 35 [WDO 3.107.06.F.21 36 Findin,Rs: The site plan is void of a lighting plan for the proposed medical/professional 37 building. The proposal would be required to submit a lighting plan that addresses 38 lighting standards for parking areas and the entrance to the subject property. 39 Conclusion: The site plan or utility plan does not show proposed outdoor lighting. A 40 condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to submit a lighting plan 41 demonstrating compliance with the standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and the guidelines 42 and standards of WDO 3.107.08.B.3. CADOCUM E-1 \bobsh\LOCALS-1 \Temp\XPgrpwise\EXH I BIT A Council 2.doc 10 2 All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a 3 bicycle rack within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack 4 spaces shall be one plus one per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 5 rack spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.H.101 6 Findings: The proposed development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. This yields a 7 requirement of four bicycle rack spaces. The site plan shows 4 bicycle rack spaces. 8 Conclusion: The proposed development meet the standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.10. 10 WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards << 12 The provisions of this section shall apply: 13 A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING 14 single-family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; [WDO 15 3.106.011 16 B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of 17 additions to structures and/or parking areas increases the total area is covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the 19 date of the WDO adoption. [WDO 3.106.011 20 21 Findings: This proposal for a new medical/professional building consists of a new 22 structure, parking spaces, and accessory structure (trash enclosure). The proposal does 23 not consist of single-family dwellings, and duplexes. The proposed development does not 24 involve additions to structures and/or parking spaces. The proposal generates a parking 25 requirement of 32 off-street parking spaces. 26 Conclusion: The development is subject to WDO 3.106 under 3.106.0l.A. as the 27 proposed building is a new structure. WDO 3.106.01.13 does not apply as the proposed 28 medical/professional building is not an addition to a structure. The proposed 29 medical/professional building and related parking is subject to WDO Section 3.106.01. 30 Landscaping and Irrigation Plans Required. Building plans for all uses subject to 31 landscaping requirements shall be accompanied by landscaping and irrigation plans 32 to City standards. [WDO 3.106.02.A] 33 Findings: The submitted Design Review application packet submitted by the applicant 34 contained a landscaping plan. The City of Woodburn planning staff reviewed the 35 landscape plans for compliance with WDO Section 3.106. 36 All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated unless a planting plan 37 without irrigation is submitted by a licensed landscape architect or licensed nursery 38 person demonstrating that the proposed landscaping will thrive without irrigation. 39 [WDO 3.106.02.131 40 Finding: The submitted landscape plan contains notes that the turf and planting beds will 41 be fully irrigated. The notes also state that the irrigation system will be designed and 42 installed by a licensed commercial irrigation contractor. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 11 2 Conclusion: A condition of approval would require the applicant to submit an irrigation 3 plan that complies with WDO 3.106.02.13, prior to the issuance of building permits. The 4 proposal would demonstrate compliance with WDO 3.106.02.13. 6 All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% 7 of ground coverage within 3 years. [WDO 3.106.02.C] 9 Finding: The applicant provided plantings matrix for the proposed landscaping areas. 10 The matrix provides information plant sizes and names. Cursory analysis of the proposed I l plants show that the proposal is capable of providing at least 80 percent ground cover in 12 three years. 13 14 Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.106.02.C. 15 16 Installation of plant materials and irrigation specified in an approved landscaping 17 plan shall occur at the time of development and shall be a conditioned of final is occupancy. Should the site conditions or seasonal conditions make immediate 19 installation impractical, an acceptable performance guarantee may be approved 20 subject to Section 4.102.17 [WDO 3.106.02.D] 21 22 Findings: The proposal did not provide legal guarantees such as performance bond for 23 when the landscape plants become unhealthy. A performance guarantee or some legal 24 document may be required as part of this code section requirement. 25 26 Conclusion: This criterion is unfulfilled. 27 28 The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good 29 condition so as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead 30 plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape 31 plans. [WDO 3.106.02.D] 32 33 Findings: The submitted landscape plan does not provide information regarding the 34 maintenance of the landscape. 35 36 Conclusion: Information regarding the maintenance of the landscape was not provided in 37 the application. A condition could be added to the approval requiring the landscaping to 38 be maintain in good condition in compliance with WDO 3.106.02.E. 39 40 Street Trees. Within the public street right-of-way abutting a development, street 41 trees shall be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy. 42 a. Acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable 43 and unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species. 44 b. Tree Density. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the 45 right-of-way, subject to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 and 46 Section 6.103: C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 12 1 1) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage; 2 2) Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or 3 3) Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. [WDO 3.106.03.A.11 4 Findings: The submitted site plans does not show proposed street trees in the public right- s of -way. The proposed development has approximately 500 feet of street frontage. 7 Conclusion: The applicant does not meet this criteria, pursuant to WDO Section a 3.106.03.A.1. A condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to 9 provide 20 small trees, 15 medium trees, or 10 large trees, subject to Clear Vision 10 Standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103. 11 LOT L tN BS 2lAQ. Bui1.p^o/.6 DUIL.P IN 6 GO VBKX 6 Figure 6.3 Setbacks and Yards P.CO. W. 12 All yards abutting a street, including off street parking and circulation areas shall 13 be landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. [WDO 14 3.106.03.A.2.b.11 15 Findings: The site plan shows that the front yard contains approximately 33,769 square 16 feet. A total of 1,688 (33,769 divided by 20 = 1,688) plant units would be required to 17 achieve a density of 1 plant unit per 20 square feet. Almost the entire lot except the 18 building footprint and the area behind the building is the front yard. There is a proposed 19 20 wide landscape strip between the property line and the parking area. Two large 20 triangular shaped planting areas on the sides of the property between the parking area, 21 road, and buffer walls. There are also several small planters in and around the parking 22 area. The submitted landscape plan shows the total proposed plant units for the front 23 yard to be approximately 778 plant units leaving the development short 910 plant units of 24 the required 1,688 plant units. 25 Conclusion: The landscape plans does not show the minimum required plant units. A C:\DOCUME--1\bobsh\LOCALS--1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 13 I condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to provide 1,668 plant 2 units in the front yard. By providing the required plant units in the front yard and parking 3 lot landscape areas, the project could meet the standard of WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.1. 5 All parking areas abutting a street shall provide a 42 -inch vertical visual screen 6 from the abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the 7 screening include plant materials; berms; freestanding, architectural walls with an s anti -graffiti finish, depressed grade for the parking area. All screening shall comply 9 with the clear vision standards, Section 3.103.10. [WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.21 10 Findings: The submitted landscape plan shows a 42 -inch vertical visual screen in the 11 form of a 42 -inch grass berm from measured from the parking lot. 12 Conclusion: The proposal could comply with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2. 13 14 Buffer Yards: All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit 15 (PU) per 20 sq. ft. EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are 16 paved and which may be used for parking, site access and vehicular circulation. 17 [WDO 3.106.03.B] 18 Findings: The adjacent properties are Retirement Community Single Family Residential 19 (RIS) making the area between the structure and the property line buffer yards. Walls are 20 proposed between the structure and the property line. The buffer yard would not be 21 required to be landscaped if it is paved. The site plan does not call out the proposed 22 surface material for the buffer yards. 23 Conclusion: The site plan does not identify the surface material for the buffer yards. The 24 applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards in accordance with WDO 3.103.03.B. 25 26 All unpaved land within off street parking areas, and within 20 feet of the paved 27 edge of off street parking and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in 28 the following proportions: CO zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 20% of the 29 paved surface area for off street parking and circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a] 30 Findings: The total area for parking and circulation is 15,175 square feet, with twenty 31 percent of paved parking area being 3,035 square feet. The submitted landscape plan 32 show the area landscaping in and within 20 feet of the parking area to be greater than 33 5,000 square feet. 34 Conclusion: The applicant submitted a landscape plan that addresses landscaping within 35 the parking and circulation areas. The proposal meets WDO 3.106.03.C. La. 36 37 The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off-street parking and 38 circulation facilities, EXCLUDING required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 39 square feet. [WDO 3.106.03.C.21 40 Findings: The submittal contained a landscape plan and a matrix for plant species. The 41 minimum plant units required is 607 plant units excluding the required trees. The 42 submitted landscape plan does not show the minimum required plant units. C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 14 I Conclusion: The landscape plan does not show the required plan units for off-street 2 parking and circulation facilities. A condition could be added to the permit requiring the 3 applicant to submit a landscaping plan demonstrating conformance with WDO 4 3.106.03.C.2. 6 Trees, Section 6.103, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities 7 in a pattern that is in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the s following densities: 9 a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces; 10 b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or 11 c. 1 large tree per 14 parking spaces. [WDO 3.106.03.C.3] 12 Multi -Purpose Landscaping. Trees and other required landscaping located on 13 private property within a required setback abutting a street or an interior lot line 14 that is within 20 feet of the paved surface of off street parking and circulation 15 facilities, may also be counted in calculating required landscaping for off street 16 parking and circulation areas. [WDO 3.106.03.C.41 17 Findings: The development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. The submittal 18 landscape plan shows 4 medium trees within 20 feet of the paved surface. 19 Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria of WDO 3.106.03.C.4. 20 21 The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive 22 landscaping requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant 23 unit (PU) per 50 square feet prior to final occupancy. [WDO 3.106.03.E] 24 Findings: The entire property is structure, front yard, or buffer yard. 25 Conclusion: There are no areas on the site that fall under this criterion. The proposed 26 development complies with the WD03.106.3.E 27 28 Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a 29 layer of bark mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a 30 minimum of 2 inches in depth. [WDO 3.106.05.111 31 Finding: The submitted landscaped plan does not show that the applicant will cover non - 32 vegetated areas with mulch. 33 Conclusion: The site plan does not show mulch covering non -vegetated areas. A 34 condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing 35 mulch covering non -vegetated areas compiling with WDO 3.106.05.B. 36 37 A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking 38 area or access way. [WDO 3.106.05.C] 39 Finding: The submitted site plan indicates that the project would provide a six inch curb 40 between landscaped areas and the parking spaces. Virtually all the landscape areas 41 depicted on the landscape plan have a 6 -inch curb wedged between the vegetation and the 42 parking spaces. CADOC U M E- 1 \bobs h\LOCALS- 1 \Tem p\X Pgrpwise\EXH I BIT A Council 2.doc 15 I Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.106.05.C. 4 WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 6 The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures 7 and buildings in the RS, R1S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. [WDO 3.107.06.A] a Finding: The proposed would be a non-residential retail structure in the CO zone. The 9 submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings to enable staff 10 review. 11 Conclusion: The proposed development is subject to the Architectural Design Guidelines 12 and Standards of WDO 3.107. The criteria would be met. 13 14 Building facades visible from streets and public parking areas should be articulated 15 in order to avoid the appearance of box -like structures with unbroken wall surfaces. 16 [WDO 3.107.06.B.1.a] 17 Finding: The proposed building would be oriented towards Highway 214. The submitted 18 application packet contained architectural elevation drawings and renderings depicting 19 how the design would comply with the WDO. The proposed building facade shows a 20 projecting entry, different building materials and textures, and an overall L shape to break 21 up the box -like appearance of the proposed building. 22 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B. La. 23 24 The appearance of exterior walls should be enhanced by incorporating three 25 dimensional design features, including the following: 26 1) Public doorways and/or passage ways through the building. 27 2) Wall offsets and/or projections. 28 3) Variation in building materials and/or textures. 29 4) Arcades, awnings, canopies and/or porches. [WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b] 30 Findings: The proposed exterior wall facing the street is varied with a projecting porch 31 entry and an L shape that from different angles can appear as a wall off -set. It also 32 contains variations in building materials including windows, cultured stone veneer and 33 cement stucco. The north and east facing wall abut the proposed 6 ft. wall and will not be 34 visible from the right of way or adjacent properties. 35 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b. 36 37 Building exteriors should exhibit finishes and textures that reduce the visual 38 monotony of bulky structures and large structural spaces; enhance visual interest of 39 wall surfaces and harmonize with the structural design. [WDO 3.107.06.B.2.a] 40 Findings: The submitted architectural elevation drawings show exterior wall featuring use 41 of windows along Highway 214. The exterior would have stucco finish on the upper C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 16 I portion of the structure and a cultured stone veneer on the lower portion of the structure. 2 The exterior is enhanced with a projected entry. 3 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.a. 4 5 The appearance of exterior surfaces should be enhanced by incorporating the 6 following: 7 1) At least 30% of the wall surface abutting a street should be glass. s 2) All walls visible from a street or public parking area should be surfaced 9 with wood, brick, stone, designer block, or stucco or with siding that has the 10 appearance of wood lap siding. 11 3) The use of plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, 12 T-111 and sheet composite siding as exterior finish materials for walls 13 visible from a street or parking area should be avoided. 14 4) The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible 15 from a street or public parking area should be an "earth tone" color 16 containing 10 parts or more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 17 parts or more white. Fluorescent, "day-glo," or any similar bright color 18 should not be used on the building exterior. [WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b] 19 Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation from Highway 214. 20 The elevation drawings show: 21 1. The fagade facing Mt. Hood Avenue contains windows which appear to total 22 approximately 420 square feet, or approximately 30% of the facade area. No 23 calculations were provided on the plans. 24 2. All buildings facades are finished with stucco and cultured stone veneer. 25 3. The facades do not contain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, 26 plywood, T-111 and sheet composite siding. 27 4. No information was provided on the color of the stucco. The submittal mention by 28 the applicant was for a canceled land use application. The drawings are not on 29 file with the Community Development Department and the applicant did not 30 resubmit the drawing. 31 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guidelines of WDO 32 3.107.06.B.2.b (2) and (3); and could meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b (1) 33 and (4). 34 35 Multi -planed Roof Guidelines. 36 a. The roof line at the top of a structure should establish a distinctive top to 37 the building. 38 b. The roof line should not be flat or hold the same roof line over extended 39 distances. Rather the roof line should incorporate variations, such as: 40 1) Offsets and/or jogs in the plane of the roof. C:\DOCUME--1\bobsh\LOCALS--1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 17 1 2) Changes in the height of the exterior wall for flat roof buildings, 2 including parapet walls with variations in elevation and/or cornices. 3 [WDO 3.107.06.B.31 4 Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation. It shows a gabled s entry and hipped roofline which provides off sets in the plane of the roof. 6 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.13.3. s All roof mounted equipment, EXCEPT solar collectors, should be screened from 9 view from streets abutting the building site. [WDO 3.107.06.B.41 10 Finding: The applicant stated that no roof -mounted equipment is proposed and none is 11 shown of the submitted building elevations. 12 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.13.4. 13 14 All building faces abutting a street or a public parking area should provide weather 15 protection for pedestrians. [WDO 3.107.06.B.51 16 Findings: The proposed building elevation plans show an overhang over the front 17 walkways of the building adjacent to the parking lot. It also shows the a covered gabled 18 entry. 19 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.5. 20 21 The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO should be augmented to 22 address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the 23 surrounding area. [WDO 3.107.06.B.61 24 Finding: The applicant submitted a landscape plan. The applicant is proposing a single 25 story structure and 6 foot high buffer walls between the structure and the abutting uses. 26 The entire site, excluding the structures, paved parking and access, is required to be 27 landscaped at the rate of one plant unit per 20 square feet. The submitted landscape plan 28 does meet the requirements for the minimum plant units. 29 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO 30 3.107.06.B.6. 31 32 Buffer Wall. A solid brick or architectural wall with anti -graffiti surface, no less 33 than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height: 34 a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential 35 development to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the 36 abutting use when no comparable buffer exists, and 37 b. Shall be constructed where the standards of the underlying zone require 38 such a wall for a non-residential use in, or abutting, a RS, R1S, or RM 39 zoning district. WDO 3.107.06.B.81 40 Findings: The abutting properties are zoned R1 S, and developed with single family 41 homes. A 6 foot high masonry wall is proposed to be constructed along the property lines 42 to the north and east where the property is abutting the residential use. 43 CADOC U M E- 1 \bobs h\LOCALS- 1 \Tem p\XPgrpwise\EXH I BIT A Council 2.doc 18 I Conclusion: The proposed development does meet with the guidelines of WDO 2 3.107.06.B.8. 3 4 Obstruction of existing solar collectors on abutting properties by site development s should be mitigated. [WDO 3.107.06.B.101 6 Findings: A site inspection showed no existing solar collectors on abutting properties. 7 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.10. s 9 Site and Building Access Guidelines. 10 1. Access to and from the site and circulation within the site should separate I l facilities for cars, trucks and transit from those for bicycles and pedestrians. 12 2. Site access in compliance with Section 3.104 should be augmented by the 13 following considerations: 14 a. Vehicle Access. 15 1) Vehicle access points should be identified by accentuated 16 landscaped areas, by entrance throats designed to control access 17 from abutting parking and by monument type entrance signs. 18 b. Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 19 1) The buildings should be linked to the sidewalks on abutting 20 streets by internal pedestrian ways. Such pedestrian ways 21 should be either raised or delineated by distinctive pavers. 22 2) Parking areas should be designed in multiples of no more than 23 50 spaces separated by landscaped buffers or raised pedestrian 24 ways in order to minimize negative visual impacts associated 25 with expansive parking. [WDO 3.107.06.C] 26 27 Findings: The site plan shows a separate pedestrian access path from the sidewalk to the 28 entrance of the proposed building delineated with enhanced paving where it crosses the 29 internal drives and raised sidewalks adjacent to the building. The parking area contains 30 less than 50 spaces. The site plan show vehicular access with a 50 foot long throat. No 31 signs have been proposed in the application. 32 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.C. 33 34 Within the prescribed setbacks, building location and orientation should 35 compliment abutting uses and development patterns. [WDO 3.107.06.D.1] 36 Findings: The abutting uses are single family residential structures along Highway 214. 37 The site plan shows the building footprint to be located out of the setbacks, leaving a 38 large front yard area with landscaping and parking abutting Highway 214. 39 Conclusion: The building is located outside of the prescribed setbacks. The project 40 conforms with WDO.3.107.06.D.1. 41 C:\DOCUME-r1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 19 I Off street parking between the architectural front of a building and the setback line 2 abutting street should be limited to a depth of not more than 130 feet. [WDO 3 3.107.06.E] 4 Findings: The site plan shows approximately 87 between the setback line abutting the 5 street and the architectural front of the proposed building. 6 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.E. 7 8 Outdoor Lighting Standards. All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: 9 a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; 10 b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot 11 candles; 12 C. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned 13 or used property; and 14 d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. 15 [WDO 3.107.06.F.21 16 17 Findings: No outdoor lighting plan was submitted. 18 19 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO 20 3.107.06.F.2. A condition of approval could be added to require the project to comply 21 with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 22 23 Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall be screened from the view of abutting 24 streets by a solid brick or architectural block wall not less than 6, nor more than 9 25 feet in height. [WDO 3.107.06.F.11 26 Finding: The site plan shows the trash enclosure as the only proposed outdoor storage. 27 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.F.1. 28 29 WDO 3.110 Signs 30 31 Section 3.110 states the standards for the number, size, placement, and physical 32 characteristics of signs. This section applies to signs in all zoning districts within the 33 City of Woodburn. Other regulations of the City Code my also apply to signs. 34 [WDO 3.110.021 35 36 Findings: The applicant did not submit any information regarding proposed signs for the 37 development. 38 39 Conclusion: Compliance with WDO 3.110 will be verified as part of the building permit 40 process. Any sign on the property will be required to submit for a sign permit and obtain 41 approval prior to construction. 42 C:\DOCUME-1\bobsh\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\EXHIBIT A Council 2.doc 20 1 "EXHIBIT B" 2 3 Design Review 2008-03 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions of 4 approval: 5 6 GENERAL CONDITIONS 7 8 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions of approval. 9 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance 10 with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, 11 conditions of approval, or public hearing. 12 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached 13 hereto as Exhibits "A" though "D," except as modified by these conditions of 14 approval. 15 4. The term "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted as relieving the 16 property owner from complying with any requirement of the WDO. The term 17 "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted to mean that City staff has the 18 authority to waive or vary any development standard set forth in the WDO. 19 5. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide public utility easement along the 20 property line abutting Newburg Highway. 21 6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the 22 standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 23 7. The applicant shall provide an irrigation system for all landscape areas improved 24 as part of this project, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.13. 25 8. All shrubs and ground cover shall be sized so as to attain 80% of ground overage 26 within three years, in accordance with WDO 3.106.05.A. 27 9. Within the public street right-of-way the applicant shall provide 20 small trees, 15 28 medium trees, or 10 large trees, subject to Clear Vision Standards, WDO 3.103.10 29 and 6.103, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.b. 30 10. The applicant shall provide detailed information on the proposed maintenance of 31 all landscaping, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.E. 32 11. The applicant shall provide at least 1,688 plant units of landscaping in the yard 33 abutting Newberg Highway, in accordance with ADO 3.106.03.A.2.a. 34 12. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 3,035 square feet of landscaped area 35 within 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and/or circulation 36 improvements, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a 37 13. The applicant shall provide at least 607 plant units located within 20 feet of the 38 paved edge of the off street parking and/or circulation improvements, in 39 accordance with WDO 3.106.03.C.2. hCommunity Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT B Council.doc 1 14. The applicant shall provide bark mulch or decorative rock on all landscaped areas 2 not covered by plant materials, in accordance with WDO 3.106.05.B. 3 15. The applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards between the proposed 4 structure and the buffer walls in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.B. 5 16. The applicant shall provide a six-inch concrete curb between all landscaped and 6 improved as part of this project and project areas or access ways, in accordance 7 with WDO 3.106.05.C. 8 17. Signage shall comply with WDO 3.110. 9 18. All work within the public rights-of-way or easement within city jurisdiction shall 10 require plan approval and permit issuance from the Public Works Department. 11 19. All city maintained facilities located on private property shall require a utility 12 easement to be conveyed to the city. 13 20. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state 14 and/or federal agencies, which may require approval and/or permit. 15 21. System Development fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 16 17 The Planning Division recommends that the Commission require compliance with the 18 following guidelines of the ADO. If the Commission exercises its discretion to reduce 19 any condition noted below, the Planning Division requests that it make findings regarding 20 the reduction. 21 22. The wall surface abutting Newberg Highway shall be in glass, as shown on 22 Exhibit "D". 23 23. The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible from 24 a street or public parking area shall be an "earth tone" color containing 10 parts or 25 more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 parts or more white. Fluorescent, 26 "day-glo," or any similar bright color should not be used on the building exterior, 27 in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b. 28 24. The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO shall be augmented to 29 address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the 30 surrounding area, in accordance with ADO 3.107.06.B.6. 31 25. Vehicle access points shall be identified by accentuated landscaped areas, by 32 entrance throats designed to control access from abutting parking and by 33 monument type entrance signs, in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.C. 34 35 26. All outdoor lighting shall be designed in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 36 37 STREET AND DRAINAGE: 38 39 27. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734- 40 051 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, hCommunity Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT B Council.doc 2 1 State Highway 214, and Newberg Highway. Newberg Highway is designated as a 2 Major Arterial in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan (WTSP). 3 4 28. The site is currently being served by an ODOT storm sewer system. The City of 5 Woodburn has no storm sewer within Newberg Highway. Contact ODOT for 6 permit requirements. 7 8 WASTEWATER: 9 10 29. The site can be served by the existing city sanitary sewer main within Rainer 11 Road. That portion extended from existing sanitary sewer main to the property in 12 the existing Public Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road 13 shall be a city maintained system, and shall comply with Public Works 14 Department requirements, specifications, standards and permit requirements. 15 16 WATER: 17 18 30. The site can be served by the existing city water main within Rainer Road. That 19 portion extended from the existing water main to the property in the existing 20 Public Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road shall be a 21 city maintained system, and shall comply with Public Works Department 22 requirements, specifications, standards and permit requirements. 23 24 31. Domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler service shall require the installation of 25 a proper type of backflow preventer. The device and meter shall be located near 26 the city water main within an easement, unless approved otherwise by Public 27 Works. Contact Scott Bergren, City of Woodburn Cross Connection Inspector for 28 proper type and installation requirements of the backflow device at 503-982-5380. 29 30 32. Fire protection requirements shall comply with the Woodburn Fire District 31 standards and requirements. Additional fire hydrants for fire protection if required 32 shall be city maintained system and installed by the applicant. The system shall be 33 placed within the public right of way or public utility easement and constructed in 34 accordance with Public Works Department requirements, specifications, standards 35 and permit requirements. 36 37 Attachments and Exhibits 38 39 Attachment "A" Zoning Map 40 Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan Map 41 Attachment "C" Building Division comments 42 Attachment "D" ODOT Approval of Application with Mitigation 43 Attachment "E" Applicant's narrative regarding the design review 44 45 Exhibit "A" Proposed Site Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 46 Exhibit "B" Proposed Utility Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT B Council.doc 1 Exhibit "C" Proposed Landscape Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 2 Exhibit "D" Proposed Building Elevations, date stamped June 5, 2008 L\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT B Council.doc 4 EXHIBIT "C" FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact: 1. The abutting property to the north and east are single family homes in Senior Estates and are zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS). 2. Table 2.1.9 of the WDO requires an interior setback of 10 feet and a solid brick or architectural wall, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. 3. The proposed building is setback 10 feet from the abutting property lines. The site plan shows 6 foot masonry buffer walls along the north and east property lines. Solid brick or architectural walls would be required to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 4. The Planning Commission originally concluded that a 6 foot solid brick or architectural wall was sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 5. The City Council "called up" the application and, at their meeting of November 10, 2008, conducted a de novo hearing specifically focusing on the issue of whether the 6 foot solid brick or architectural wall was sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 6. The City Council considered testimony from adjacent residents and additional evidence entered into the record by the residents regarding the height of the wall. 7. The Environmental Assessment for the Woodburn Interchange Project at Interstate 5 @ Oregon 214/219 dated July 2005 was entered into the record. The Environmental Assessment states that an area for noise mitigation consideration is the north side of Highway 217 between Oregon Way and Astor Way, which is the location of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment states that a noise barrier 12 feet in height could reduce the traffic noise levels at the homes. The residents that testified in opposition to the project stated that development of the property and the construction of a 6 foot buffer wall would not allow for MOT to construct the 12 foot noise barrier, therefore, the wall provided by the applicant would be the only noise barrier provided to mitigate the traffic noise from Highway 214. 8. Area residents asked City Council to require a 7 foot wall instead of the 6 foot wall that was proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission. The request for the 7 foot wall was based upon extensive testimony that a 6 foot wall would not be sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 9. Testimony was presented that the proposed development had no landscaping planned adjacent to the wall due to the applicant's parking space limitations given the configuration of the site. 10. Testimony was presented that the proposed development of the site would significantly increase visual and sound impacts. 11. Testimony was presented regarding the additional cost to the applicant for a 7 foot wall instead of the 6 foot wall originally required by the Planning Commission. Conclusions of Law: 1. The City Council concludes that it has legal discretion under the Woodburn Development Ordinance Table 2.1.9. [WDO 2.105.05.C.2.a] to require a solid brick or architectural wall, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. 2. The City Council further concludes that it should make its determination as to the height of the wall based upon its assessment of what height is sufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 3. The City Council further concludes that the testimony that it considered was at a de novo hearing and its decision is based upon different testimony than the testimony that was considered by the Planning Commission. 4. The City Council further concludes based upon the testimony presented that a 6 foot solid brick or architectural wall is insufficient to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 5. The City Council further concludes based upon the testimony presented that a 7 foot solid brick or architectural wall is necessary to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses. 6. The City Council further concludes based upon the testimony presented that the additional cost to the applicant of the higher wall is relatively small given the development cost of the entire project and that this additional cost is outweighed by the need to mitigate the adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting uses.