The URL can be used to link to this page

October 9, 2017 Agenda FIGLEY,MAYOR HRYN CITY OF W OO D B U R N JUAN SERRATOS,TCOUNCILOR WARD I LISA ELLSWORTH,COUNCILOR WARD II CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ROBERT CARNEY,COUNCILOR WARD III SHARON SCHAUB,COUNCILOR WARD IV FRANK LONERGAN,COUNCILOR WARD V OCTOBER 9, 2017 - 7.00 P.M. ERIC MORRIS,COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS—270 MONTGOMERY STREET 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: None. Appointments: None. 4. COMMUNITY/GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS None. 5. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. Presentations: A. Refinancing the 2005 General Obligation (GO) Debt 1 Recommended Action: Select a debt structure preference and direct staff to proceed with the 2005 GO refinancing. 6. COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. If you need special accommodation,please contact(503)980-6318 or Statewide Toll Free Relay(800)735-1232,at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita asistencia especial, comuniquese al(503)980-2485 o a la linea telef6nica gratuita, (800) 735-1232, con un minima de 48 horas, antes de la reunion. **Habrd int6rpretes disponibles para aqu6IIas personas que no hablan Ingl6s, previo acuerdo. Comuniquese al (503) 980-6320.** October 9, 2017 Council Agenda Page i 8. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be adopted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of September 25, 2017 4 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Woodburn City Council Executive Session minutes of September 25, 7 2017 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. C. Liquor License Application for Peppers Deli & Pub 8 Recommended Action:The Woodburn City Council recommends that the OLCC approve the Liquor License Application for Peppers Deli & Pub. D. Approval of 3% Compensation Adjustment for City Attorney 10 Recommended Action: Approve the adjustment. E. Building Activity for September 2017 11 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Woodland Crossing (ANX 2017-03, CU 2017-02/DR 2017-03/VAR 2017- 12 03/RCWOD 2017-03/PLA 2017-04) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing, and tentatively approve the consolidated annexation application as well as the remaining development applications and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate the Council's decision. Approval of the other development specific applications included with this request are contingent upon annexation into the City. 11. GENERAL BUSINESS-Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill No. 3042 - A Resolution Authorizing Execution of a 222 Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the City of Woodburn and the Woodburn Police Association Beginning on July 1, 2017 and October 9, 2017 Council Agenda Page ii Ending On June 30, 2020 Recommended Action:Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Woodburn Police Association ("the WPA"). By the time of the City Council meeting it is anticipated that the WPA membership will have ratified this agreement. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. A. Call-Up Briefing: Planning Commission Approval of a Consolidated 227 Land Use Package of a Design Review and Variance Applications for Mid-Valley Community Church Gymnasium at 591 Gatch St(DR 2017- 01 & VARs 2017-01 & 08-11). Recommended Action: Staff recommends no action and briefs the Council on this item pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired and, by majority vote, initiate a review of this decision. B. Planning Commission Approval of a Consolidated Land Use Package 231 of a Conditional Use and Other Applications for Success High School at 1785 N. Front St (CU 2017-01, DR 2017-02, VAR 2017-02, PLA 2017- 05, & RCWOD 2017-02) Recommended Action: Staff recommends no action and briefs the Council on this item pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired and, by majority vote, initiate a review of this decision. 13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(h). To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(f). To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e). 16. ADJOURNMENT October 9, 2017 Council Agenda Page iii �(�'�'1 -r ,I lig♦ +"♦ BU Age,+ 4La, 1-{-�vw October 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott C. Derickson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Refinancing the 2005 General Obligation (GO) Debt RECOMMENDATION: Select a debt structure preference and direct staff to proceed with the 2005 GO refinancing. BACKGROUND: In January 2005, the City of Woodburn issued $7.07 million in voter-approved General Obligation (GO) debt for the construction of a Police Facility (including property, parking, and issuance costs). On average, the City is paying an interest rate of 4.17 percent with the debt scheduled to retire in June 2025. As of October 2017, the City's outstanding GO debt is approximately $3.69 million. Since 2005, and based on current market conditions, interest rates have significantly declined making the possibility of refinancing an attractive financial option. Currently, staff believes an interest rate of approximately 2.87 percent can be achieved, thus generating a savings. Any savings can be used to restructure the debt cost to the ratepayer or to settle the entire debt prior to 2025, potentially clearing the way for another bond project, such as a community center. Councilors should note that because $3.69 million in outstanding GO debt is not enough to refinance via a public bond sale, the City intends to solicit proposals from more traditional lending institutions, such as banks, with the help of our consultants at PiperJaffray & Co. Summary of Options: The following table summarizes the debt restructuring options, including estimated savings and the impact to the average valued Woodburn home, assuming an average $155,000 in assessed value (AV). Councilors should note that different options would have differing financial impacts on annual property tax bills Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x Finance—x- 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 2 depending on the Council's objective. These impacts are estimated in the column titled Annual GO Tax Levy. Generally, restructuring the debt in order to retire the debt prior to 2025 increases the cost to the local taxpayer. Option Description Savings ($) GO Levy Annual GO Rate* Tax Levy* - Current - 2025 maturity - $0.34 $52.70 A Refunded 2025 maturity $183,636 $0.33 $51.15 B 2024 maturity $194,453 $0.36 $55.80 C 2025 maturity w/ ste down $202,205 $0.46 $71.30 D 2021 maturity $214,656 $0.72 $111.60 *The actual levy rate is the annual debt payment divided by Woodburn's assessed value. Some considerations when selecting a debt structure include; anticipated development growth and the assessed value impact, potential future general obligation bonds, and the community's ability to support a tax levy. A Pros/Cons matrix is shown below for each option to aid in the decision-making process. Option Description/Pros-Cons A Refinance and maintain existing debt service schedule (2025 maturity) to save an estimated $183,636. Pros: As AV grows, the annual tax levy will decrease. Cons: Future GO bonds may prove more difficult as the annual tax levy decreases (i.e. a new GO bond will require an increase in the tax levy versus an extension of the current tax levy). B Refinance with a level levy and shorten the maturity by one year (2024 maturity) to save an estimated $194,453. Pros: This option will stabilize the levy rate ($0.34 to $0.36 through maturity). Cons: There is a small possibility that the annual tax levy may increase by an estimated $3.10 in the first year. C Refinance and maintain existing maturity with increased debt payments the first 3 years, and a decrease the last 4 years. Savings of $202,205 estimated. Pros: This option assumes a future GO is desired in year 4 and structures the debt service schedule to allow for additional debt. Cons: The increased debt service schedule in years 1-4 is estimated to increase the average AV home by $18.60 in the first year. D Refinance with an accelerated maturity date of 2021 to coincide with the anticipated future GO bond measure. Savings of $214,656 estimated. 2 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 3 Pros: This option assumes a future GO is desired in year 4 and structures the debt to mature and create an opportunity for a GO bond measure. Cons: Accelerate debt repayment, resulting in a tax levy increase of approximately $58.90 to the average AV home in the first year. Proposed Next Steps: 1 . Council provides direction on the debt structure (10-09-2017). 2. Council adopts authorizing resolution (10-23-17). 3. Circulation/receipt of bid documents and bank selection (11-2017). 4. Review and finalizing of closing documents (11-2017). 5. Completion of refinancing (11-30-2017). 3 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 0:00 DATE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 CONVENED The meeting convened at 6:20 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor Carney Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Present Councilor Ellsworth Present Councilor Serratos Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Assistant City Administrator Row, Economic Development Director Johnk, Community Development Director Kerr, Police Chief Ferraris, Interim Public Works Director Liljequist, Community Relations Manager Gutierrez-Gomez, City Recorder Pierson 0:00 WORK SESSION Mayor Figley opened the work session at 6:20. City Council and staff left Council Chambers to tour First Street. Interim Public Works Director Liljequist provided a hand out and reviewed the two options that are available for the First Street improvements from Oak to Harrison., a two-way option with a bump out and a one-way option with angled parking, Economic Development Director Johnk provided information on the Alleys that were recently painted, had security cameras and lights added, as well as the addition of locking doors for the adjacent businesses dumpsters. Council members provided comments and direction regarding the First Street improvements from Oak to Harrison. Councilor Lonergan stated that he is in favor of the two-way option with bulb outs as long as trucks can get in and out. Councilor Ellsworth stated that she likes the one-way option but she would support the two-way option. She added that she would like to see the improvements to the parking lots with added signage to let people know where they can park and that whatever design is chosen that maintenance is kept in mind. Councilor Morris stated that he would like to see the modified bulb out and the two-way option. Councilor Schaub stated that she supports the two-way option with the modified bulb outs. Councilor Carney stated that he is willing to change his mind about the one-way due to the impact it will have on traffic. Mayor Figley thanked staff for their presentation and closed the work session. Staff and Council returned to Council Chambers where the City Council meeting convened at 7:21. 0:00 BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC Ronald and Sandra New, 855 Luba St, asked why their neighbor is allowed to have 22 chickens in their backyard. Ronald New provided the City Council with documents pertaining to their complaint about their neighbor's chickens and the nuisance they are causing. He questioned why the City is changing the interpretation of the ordinance. Sandra New stated that she has health issues and the chickens are affecting her health. Councilor Lonergan stated that they will need time to review the documents provided to them by Mr. New and that there Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, September 25, 2017 4 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 isn't going to be an answer tonight. 0:14 CONSENT AGENDA A. Woodburn City Council minutes of September 11, 2017, B. Woodburn City Council Executive Session minutes of September 11, 2017, C. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of June 22, 2017, D. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of July 27, 2017, E. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of August 10, 2017, F. Crime Statistics through August 2017. Lonergan/Morris... adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion passed unanimously. 0:21 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3040 —A RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Lonergan introduced Council Bill No. 3040. Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Carney suggested that the issue be investigated with a clear understanding that we don't want to violate our existing lot coverage rules. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3040 duly passed. 0:25 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3041 — A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED WOODBURN TRANSIT SYSTEM TITLE VI PROGRAM Lonergan introduced Council Bill No. 3041. Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3041 duly passed. CALL-UP REVIEW BRIEFING: PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW FOR A COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING WITH VARIANCES AT 1299 N. PACIFIC HWY (DR 2017-04; VAR 2017-04; VAR 2017-07) The Council declined to call this item up for review. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Administrator Derickson had nothing to report. 0:27 PRESENTATIONS City Attorney Shields and Community Development Director Kerr provided a presentation on land use planning and the procedures for a public hearing. Community Development Director Kerr provided a handout. 1:40 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Councilor Carney stated that he was pleased with the tour and that the First Street project is alive and well. Councilor Ellsworth asked the City Attorney for an opinion on Woodburn Ordinance 2434 Section 4. City Administrator Derickson stated that we may already have one and they have material pertinent to this issue and they will get that out to the Council. Councilor Ellsworth Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, September 25, 2017 5 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 added that she enjoyed the tour and that she is excited that First Street is not dead. Councilor Schaub concurred with Councilor Carney and Councilor Ellsworth on the First Street tour. She also mentioned that at the next Community BBQ she would like to see better signage for recycling receptacles so all of the cans and bottles don't get thrown in the garbage. She also commended the staff for making her job as a Councilor easier. 1:44 EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660 (2)(i). Lonergan/Schaub... move into executive session. The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned to executive session at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:58 p.m. Mayor Figley stated that no action was taken by the Council while in executive session. Lonergan/Schaub... extend the City Administrators employment contract to five years and give him an additional week of vacation without extending his cap for next year. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Morris/Ellsworth... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, September 25, 2017 6 EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 DATE CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 CONVENED The Council met in executive session at 9:07p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor Carney Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Present Councilor Ellsworth Present Councilor Serratos Absent Mayor Figley reminded Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. Media Present: None. Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder Pierson The executive session was called: To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the person whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated requests an open hearing pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(i). ADJOURNMENT The executive session adjourned at 9:57 p.m. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 —Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, September 25, 2017 7 �'I'1 r I Iii♦ r} B V' October 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator THRU: James C. Ferraris, Chief of Police FROM: Martin Pilcher, Lieutenant SUBJECT: Liquor License Application RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council recommends that the OLCC approve the Liquor License Application for Peppers Deli & Pub. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Peppers Deli & Pub 1088 N. Pacific Hwy. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 503 304-8255 Point of Contact: David James Washburn 1850 Hoffman Rd. Salem, Oregon 97305 503 304-8255 Business: Peppers Deli & Pub 1088 N. Pacific Hwy. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 503 304-8255 Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x City Attorney_x_ Finance_x_ 8 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 2 Owners: David James Washburn 1850 Hoffman Rd. Salem, Oregon 97305 503 304-8255 License Type: Change of Location, Full On-Premise Sales - Permits beer, wine, cider sales and liquor for on premise consumption only. On September 8, 2017, the Woodburn Police Department received an application for Full On-Premise Sales liquor license for Peppers Deli & Pub. This is a restaurant which contains a dining area accommodating 16 patrons. The restaurant sells food for consumption during all hours of operation. Peppers Deli & Pub is located at 1088 N. Pacific Hwy. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 . The hours of operation are from 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Wednesday and 10:00 A.M. to 11 :00 P.M. Thursday through Saturday. For entertainment the establishment includes: karaoke, video lottery machines, and a pool table. The Police Department has not received any communication from the public or surrounding businesses in support of or against the proposed change. DISCUSSION: The Police Department has completed a background investigation in connection with the OLCC on the applicants and found nothing of a questionable nature to preclude the issuance of this license. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 9 �'I'1 r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU Pri,,�arrt rr rf aA'!87 October 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Derickson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Approval of 3% Compensation Adjustment for City Attorney RECOMMENDATION: The Employment Agreement between the City and the City Attorney calls for an annual performance evaluation and provides that, after a positive evaluation, a compensation adjustment may be negotiated. Following a positive performance review during the City Council's September 25, 2017 meeting, and per the City Council's direction, both the Mayor and the Council President met with the City Attorney and discussed possible compensation adjustments. Consequently, it is being recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a Contract Amendment increasing the City Attorney's annual compensation by 3%. A 3% adjustment can occur within the existing budgeted resources allocated in the current fiscal year. It is also worth noting that the proposed increase is less than the City's standard 5% Step Increase and continues to keep the City Attorney in a comparable position within the City organization. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x Finance—x- 10 CITY OF WOODBURN Economic and Development Services Department MEQ"'ORA ND U 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503)982-5246 Date: October 3, 2017 To: Chris Kerr, Community Development Department Director From: Building Division Subject: Building Activity for September 2017 �._.._.._.._.... .. .._.......-................ �....�..�............��.�.��.....................�......�..........................�.�.�.��............... .�.�..................... ...ww.............................. ....... �ww ww�wwwwwwww�www 2016 2017 - -__. .....__ ... o Dollar Amount No Dollar Amount No mmmmm Dollar Amount Single-Family Residential 5 $1,435,729 0 $0 0 $0 Multi-Family Residential 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Residential Adds &Alts 4 $76,054 5 $84,100 6 $567,025 ...... lndustria...... 5 .�..5,000................. .................................................................�..............$.�..... .�.._. .._...................................�..-.................................�0 Commercial5 .... $_.. _..... ..... _................. _........ .....�__......-......��- w.✓.w. -....�ww w w _ 653,475 8 $295,209 8 $1,198,342 .. ..... $0 0 $0 Signs and Fences . ...— 1 $15,000 0 -� � w ......_ ................._.-......... Manufactured Homes 1 1 27,000 1 $15,000 0 1 $0 TOTALS 21 $2,222,258 14 $394,309 14 $1,765,367 Fiscal Year to Date (July 1 – _...._._._._. June 30 $6,097,476 $3,079,107 $3,142,284 .... . ......... .._. ... ........ ............ .......................................................................................:...........................................................................................,�� 1:\Community Development\Building\Building Activity\B1dgAct-2017\B1dg Activity-Memos\memo-2017-9 September.doc 11 �'I'1 r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU Pri,,�<;rrt rr rf aA'!87 October 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Woodland Crossing (ANX 2017-03, CU 2017-02/DR 2017-03/VAR 2017-03/RCWOD 2017-03/PLA 2017-04) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing, and tentatively approve the consolidated annexation application as well as the remaining development applications and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate the Council's decision. Approval of the other development specific applications included with this request are contingent upon annexation into the City. BACKGROUND: The proposed 300 unit multi-family residential development (Woodland Crossing) with a recreational vehicle (RV) storage area is located on a site west of the Woodburn Premium Outlets and east of the Woodburn West Mobile Estates. Staff is consolidating the applications as is required under the WDO. The consolidated applications will require an approval from the City Council due to the annexation application. In order to provide access to the site the applicant proposes to extend Arney Lane from its current terminus north of the Woodburn Premium Outlets to Steven Street's intersection with Woodland Avenue, the road running along the northern portion of the site. The majority of the 39 acre site is currently outside Woodburn City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This application specifically requests: ■ Annexation to bring the site into city limits; ■ Design Review for the multi-family dwellings and RV storage; ■ Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District permit for site alterations in the overlay zone; ■ Conditional Use approval to allow the proposed RV storage area to be open to the public; Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x_ Finance_x- 12 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 2 ■ Variances related to (1 ) screening between uses; (2) landscape buffer requirements; and (3) the location of parking; and, ■ Property Line Adjustments to transfer a 100-foot strip of land to the site to allow the eastward extension of Steven Street and to separate the multi- family residential development site from the RV storage site. DISCUSSION: Under the WDO, the Planning Commission was required to review and make a recommendation on the project to the City Council. The Planning Commission held two public hearings (July 27, 2017 and August 10, 2017 respectively) to review this project. At the conclusion of the August 10, 2017 meeting, the Commission passed a recommendation for conditional approval of the project on a 4-2 vote. The key component of their recommendation was that: The property shall be developed with an alternate route to the property other than extending Amey Lane to Steven Street, due to the traffic impacts and detrimental effects the Company Stores (as well as) this project would have on Woodland Avenue. The other conditions of approval are consistent with the recommendations from Staff. Two Commissioners dissented from the recommendation based on opposite reasons. One believes that the project should be denied because of the inappropriateness of higher density zoning applying to the site. The other Commissioner voted against the recommendation because he supports the application and believes that the proposed condition of approval eliminating the Steven Street access would make the development unfeasible. During their discussions, the majority of the Commissioners expressed support for the project in general, but all were concerned about the traffic impacts that could result from connecting Arney Lane to Steven Street. They discussed a variety of potential mitigations and design alternatives which might address the traffic impacts of the development. The applicant and Staff proposed several mitigations which were accepted and are included in the final recommendations of approval. The minutes from those meetings are included in Attachment A of this report. All written testimony submitted to the City prior to that meeting is included in Attachment B. The majority of the public comments received are in opposition 13 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 3 to the application and are from residents of the West Woodburn neighborhood. Generally, the objections raised relate to adverse traffic impacts, dissatisfaction over the design, public safety concerns, and the incompatible nature of apartments on the adjacent neighborhood. On September 29, 2017, the City received additional correspondence from the applicant (Attachment C). Staff is recommending approval of the consolidated application with the conditions of approval found in Attachment D (note that these have been modified slightly from the original Staff Report to include the Commission's recommendation and testimony received). The complete Planning Commission Staff Report with Analysis and Findings is found in Attachment E. Additional application materials, including all plans and studies can be found on the Planning Department's webpage here . FINANCIAL IMPACT: No immediate financial impacts are expected. However, the property is currently located in the County, when it is annexed and developed, the City will receive the tax revenue from the newly assessed value of the land. In the event the site is developed for apartments, it would provide a source of customers for local businesses. Other development related impacts would come from of System Development Charges (SDC's) and permitting fees, and indirectly from the dedication of the new public utilities and streets. Conversely, new City residents will require a proportionate increase in the need for City services such as police, library, parks, etc. many of which are provided through the City's general fund or separate levies. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission meeting minutes (July 27, 2017 and August 10, 2017) B. Public testimony received C. Letters from applicant a. September 29, 2017 letter from Schwabe Willamson & Hyatt b. September 29, 2017 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis c. August 8, 2017 letter with traffic mitigation measures D. Final recommended Conditions of Approval E. Planning Commission Staff Report and Plans 14 Attachment A WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2017 CONVENED: The Planning Commission met in a public meeting session at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, with Chair Charles Piper presiding. ROLL CALL: Chair Piper Present Vice-Chair Corning Present Commissioner Aiken Present Commissioner Ramirez Present Commissioner Comer Present Commissioner Dos Reis Absent Commissioner Lassen Absent Staff Present: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director Colin Cortes, Senior Planner McKenzie Granum, Assistant City Attorney Vicki Spitznogle, Recording Secretary Introduction Chair Piper opened the workshop/meeting at 7 pm, and led the Commissioners in the flag salute. Minutes The April 27, 2017 minutes were unanimously approved,. Business from the Audience None Communication Director Kerr introduced Colin Cortes, the new Senior Planner, to the Commissioners. Public Hearing: 777 E. Lincoln Street (CU 2017-03) — In January 2017, the City granted a Conditional Use permit for the expansion and redevelopment of Washington Elementary School. One of the conditions of that approval was to provide a landscaping buffer along the east property line 100 feet in width. Under this application, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission modify that 1 15 Attachment A condition of approval to allow the landscape buffer along the eastern property line to be 20 feet in width. Commissioner Corning drove by the site. There was no other ex parte contact. John Henri with the Woodburn School District spoke about the buffer requirement, since the landscape buffer, as planned, would invade the soccer field. In addition, all future school applications would fall under the same requirement and the same hardship. Commissioner Corning made a motion to approve and Commissioner Comer seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 9065 Arney Road ANX 201703; CU 2017-02; DR 2017-03; VAR 2017-03; RCWOD 2017-03; PLA 2017-04 - The applicant requests an annexation with a consolidated development review to permit a 300 unit multi-family housing development (Woodland Crossing) with an Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage area on a 39 acre property, located generally at the terminus of Arney Lane. Commissioners Aiken and Corning went to the neighborhood meeting that was held on July 19, 2017. They listened to the remarks, but made no comments. Commissioner Corning also drove by the site. There was no other ex-parte contact. It was noted that each homeowner would be allowed to choose what sort of fence or wall they want in regards to Condition #9. Applicant: Brian Varricchione, MacKenzie, Land Use Planning, gave some site context regarding the proposed site, which is comprised of about 34 acres located to the west of Woodburn Premium Outlet Mall. The proposed plan is appropriate for the site and is consistent with the City's long-term vision, spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. It meets approval standards as outlined in the staff report. The applicants are requesting a gravel surface for the RV storage area instead of paving (Condition 6). They also request modification of Condition #'s 4, 5, 8 and 9 to tie them to multi-family development, rather than RV storage. Dick Spies, MacKenzie, Architect and Corporate Advisor for Design, presented plans that would maximize the amenities of the site, while minimizing the effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Jennifer Danziger, MacKenzie, Transportation Engineer, studied access points and analyzed high-traffic time periods, such as morning and afternoon 2 16 Attachment A commutes. The busiest month of the year was also studied (November), as required by the State. The team forecast 2018 pre-development traffic and what the future condition of the area would be like with the proposed development, using the Trip Generation Manual, which is the industry standard for traffic studies. During peak hour volume, approximately 2,400 trips are forecast to occur during peak hour volume in 2018 post-development on Arney Lane, Woodland and Robin Avenues. Forecasting has been shown to be reasonably reflective of what could be expected. Greg Mino, MacKenzie, Civil Engineer said the site was developed to drain towards the wetland area. Calculations are provided in the storm report. Testimony in favor of the application: 1. David Minton, 2 Juniper Circle, a. Thinks property values will go up b. Has traffic concerns; has seen several accidents c. In favor of proposed signage, but better traffic control is needed Traffic forecast estimates how many cars, but not how fast they go d. Connecting streets do not have signs on them Testimony opposed to the application: 1. Brian Judd, 3175 Nekia St. • Traffic forecast is too conservative and proposed signage isn't enough • Homeowners bought homes there for peace and quiet, not a huge increase in density and development 2. Robert Beacher, 1582 Woodland Ave. • 1-5's single turn lane backs up, with cars on the shoulder • Homeowners often have to go home on back roads, which takes longer • Proposed signage is not enough • Big trucks are having problems on the narrow roads • Estimated car traffic is too conservative 3. Judy Tanzer, 953 Woodland Ave. • Traffic will be far greater than estimated • Will the increased number of children lead to needing more schools and bonds to pay for them? 4. Ann Picardo, 1013 Woodland Ave. • Traffic backs up now from Woodland Ave. onto Robin Ave. • Accidents occur 3 17 Attachment A • Concerns about both water drainage and water purification before it drains into Senecal Creek. • Will taxes go up with the need to maintain additional infrastructure? • 5. John Catterson, 3156 S. Pacific Highway and 3156 Steven Street • Concerned about massive traffic increase • Once the apartment complex exists, increased traffic will find its way onto residential streets. • Consider future infrastructure and how it will impact the present neighborhoods; speed bumps will be needed 6. Laurice Catterson, 1055 S. Pacific Highway • Proposed shrubbery may become unkempt and harbor blown trash • Worried about people going in and out of their driveways safely with the increased traffic that the complex will bring • Proposed parking on both sides of the road along the north side of Arney Lane will not work, since it's already crowded 7. Dean Cromwell, 3346 Jory Street • Will present homeowners still have access to Senecal Creek? 8. David Lavier, 1662 Willow Ave. • People leaving the mall now shoot straight across Stevens onto Willow. All traffic will come down Woodland Avenue 9. Jerry Erdt, 1266 Woodland Ave. • Concerns about drainage • The subdivision will be a huge parking lot 10.Marie Friend, 1315 Willow Ave. • Everyone in that area is affected, not just immediate neighbors • Traffic is already terrible. What will increased traffic be like? • Proposed development needs to have a different entrance and exit than proposed, not ones that will spill into residential neighborhoods 11.Marlene Kernodle, 3416 Steven St. • Present homeowners bought homes here to be in a safe neighborhood. Increased traffic and development will lead to increased crime and danger 12.MaryAnn Imblum, 3117 Myrtle Street, • In her 45 years on Myrtle Street, she has observed that development increases criminal opportunity. • Traffic is horrendous now, with frequent accidents on Myrtle St. 4 18 Attachment A • Despite the new overpass, traffic on the weekends from the mall is terrible and that is without the increased traffic being proposed • The area has lots of children already • Present sewer problem will only get worse • Homeowners voted against apartments in the past 13.Josh Kelley, 1750 Woodland Ave. • Concerned that if the apartment complex is subsidized to low-income families, crime will follow • Opposed to bushes being planted as a buffer between complex and residential neighborhoods; wants a 30 foot easement, as well as a wall • Traffic near-misses are common already, even without increased traffic • Present signage is ignored by drivers • It's unclear whether parking is proposed to be both on the inside and outside of the apartments • Outside parking will lead to additional cars parking on Arney Lane • Wants an independent assessment of traffic impact done. • Traffic impact study was done at high commute times of 7-9am, but the mall opens at 10am • Clarification on possible fire danger • Do we have a representative for our neighborhood? • We love our neighborhood and we don't deserve this 14. Tim Silver, 3129 Steven St. • Both Woodland and cross streets are very narrow, with cars parked on both sides. It's very difficult to navigate even without proposed traffic increase 15.Gabriel Alvarez, 3597 Myrtle St. • Traffic flow needs to be managed. • Concerned about safety for all, especially the children. 16.Laura Williams, 3380 Stevens St. • Wants standing for people unable to attend the meeting 17.Wayne Babcock, 3051 Camas St. • Stop light is needed at Robin and Woodland Ave. • ODOT planning for the 1-5 interchange failed to include better direct route to the Outlet Mall 5 19 Attachment A Applicant's Rebuttal: Brian Varricchione - Many concerns were raised this evening. In response:. 1. Parking: six hundred spaces are proposed onsite. The south side of Arney Lane allows street-side parking. 2. Schools: MacKenzie sent notice of subdivision to Woodburn School District. The response was that children from the apartment complex could be accommodated. 3. Drainage: Prior to any permits being issued, the applicant has to show compliance with City standards. 4. Shrubs and trash: The theme for this development is protection for the wetlands. Plantings, such as shrubs, would be regularly inspected and maintained by professional staff. 5. Bridge over Arney Lane: No new bridge is scheduled to be built over Arney Lane. Present culverts would be filled in and a paved road made to Arney Lane. 6. Fire concerns: From the Fire District's perspective, proposed roads would improve access. 7. Low-income housing: The complex is planned as a competitively priced apartment building. Federal subsidy allowance is unclear at this time. 8. Parking spaces for visitors: The plan is for typically designated spaces for visitors. Apartments are allotted two spaces, which are not always used. 9. Traffic Study: MacKenzie looks at what's being reported, and that's what is being presented at this meeting. The oral portion of the hearing was declared closed. The Chair entertained a motion to continue written testimony through August 8, after which time no further testimony will be received. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, August 10, for further discussion, deliberation and applicant rebuttal. 6 20 Attachment A Adjournment Commissioner Comer moved to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Corning seconded the motion. Th eting was adjourned at 10:22pm. APPROVED C, C I Charl p Date ATTEST Chris Kerr Date Community Development Director City of Woodburn, Oregon 7 21 Attachment A WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING HEARING/MEETING August 10, 2017 CONVENED: The Planning Commission met in a public meeting session at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, with Chair Charles Piper presiding. ROLL CALL:. Chair Piper Present Vice-Chair Corning Present Commissioner Aiken Present Commissioner Ramirez Present Commissioner Comer Present Commissioner Dos Reis Present Commissioner Lassen Absent Excused Staff Present: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director McKenzie Granum, Assistant City Attorney Introduction Chair Piper opened the workshop/meeting at 7 pm, and led the Commissioners in the flag salute. Minutes None approved, since they were not received by the entire Commission.. Business from the Audience None Communication None. Public Hearing: Chair Piper explained public hearing procedures, • At this time, verbal testimony is closed. • Written testimony had been left open for people to write letters to the Planning Department. That portion closed on August 8, 2017. • Tonight, the applicant will orally rebut the written testimony. • The hearing will then be closed. • The PC will deliberate among themselves. 1 22 Attachment A • Finally, the Planning Commission will vote on a recommendation to City Council, to be taken up in September. 9065 Arney Road ANX 2017-03; CU 2017-02; DR 2017-03; VAR 2017-03; RCWOD 2017-03; PLA 2017-04 - The applicant requests an annexation with a consolidated development review to permit a 300 unit multi-family housing development (Woodland Crossing) with an Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage area on a 39 acre property, located generally at the terminus of Arney Lane. Applicant: Brian Varricchione, MacKenzie, Land Use Planning, introduced himself and his colleague, Jennifer Danziger. Before the meeting, Ms. Danziger demonstrated flashing LED signage outdoors. Brian brought a letter from Mackenzie dated August 8, 2017, along with graphics illustrating his points, to the attendees' attention. Copies were provided for the attendees. Brian orally presented the letter's contents, referring to the graphics for clarification. At the end of his presentation, Mr Varricchione requested that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council. At this time, Chair Piper asked if there are any questions from the Planning Commission to the applicant. There were none. Chair Piper declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Potts made a motion to extend debate. Chair Piper found him out of order. Community Director Chris Kerr explained that the City Council would also have a public hearing when this project is referred to them. [20:28] PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION: General recap: Three main themes came up during the meeting: 1. Zoning of the property 2. Transportation: congestion, through-streets, impact on existing neighborhood 3. Environmental degradation Is this the right zoning for the property? Commission members debated as to whether this was the "right" zoning for this area, based on the limited access. They cited the neighboring community of single-family homes and the intrusion of traffic into the neighborhood via the proposed connection at Steven Street. Not only will the new residents of the multi-family housing be using existing 2 23 Attachment A streets through the neighborhood, but it also creates a new route for users of the Company Stores. The Commissioners brainstormed ways to prevent that traffic from entering the existing community, including not allowing the connection to Steven Street, making Steven Street one-way or gating it. Will there be another crossing of the wetlands? One Commissioner expressed concern over the environmental degradation of the wetlands, asking if there will be a crossing across the wetlands and if an application been submitted. Chris Kerr, Community Development Director, explained that since there is already a connection at Arney Lane, there is no need for another, and that no application has been submitted to date. Sprague Lane will provide access to the southern area of the project. Will there be dedicated school bus stops with benches or shelters? Chris Kerr explained that there is no code requirement and the school district makes those decisions. Can I deny it because I'm not in favor of the zoning? McKenzie Granum, Assistant City Attorney, explained that there is a range of options for recommendations. The project cannot be sent back to the applicant at this time. It must be approved or denied for recommendation to City Council at this meeting. Conditions can be changed; or added that are reasonable. If the Commission chooses to deny, it must be with stated reasons. The project cannot be denied because of zoning, although annexation may be denied in the "best interest of the community." That may be included in recommendation to City Council. [35:48] Chris Kerr explained that the City constructed the Comprehensive Plan years ago, according to state mandated process. Every few years, the plan is reviewed and analyzed, looking at all the components: land use, the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), buildable lands inventory, transportation, parks, water, sewer, storm water. All these long- range planning documents come together to form the Comprehensive Plan (In fact, the City currently has a grant to review and develop a Transportation System Plan). At that time, it was determined that Woodburn needed medium density housing, and that this was a good place for it. The Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council and acknowledged by the State. [51:34] Although the neighboring residents dislike the project, the project must be reviewed, and approved or denied based on what the application is asking. The Chairman pointed out that the owners of the project property have the right to use this property in this particular manner. The question was asked and affirmed that the Fire Department approved both access and safety. 3 24 Attachment A Were alternate options explored in regards to connecting Arney Road with Steven Street? Would it be possible to connect Arney Lane with Sprague? At this time, testimony is closed, so Ms Granum cannot be consulted further, but Chris Kerr confirmed that the Planning Comm.ission wanted to investigate alternatives to limit access to the community to the west. He explained that the code requires two street access to developments over 24 units and that our policies encourage connections within the street network. A connection to Sprague Lane would require a crossing, which would significantly affect the wetland. He explained, "It would clearly violate our code... to cross a wetland when it's not necessary." Although a variance can be requested, the resulting connection would put more pressure on Robin Way, an already failing intersection. Chris Kerr also pointed out that there are intentional stub-outs from Woodland Road at Nekia Street, just north of the property line. The intention had always been to connect and extend Arney Lane to the west. The Planning Commissioners further debated to approve or deny based on this exact application. Commissioner Corning moved not to recommend approval for Woodland Crossing ANX 2017-03 as written, and request that City Council consider other options for street access for the property. [1:12:00] The motion was NOT seconded. Discussion to modify the motion [1:15:42] The Planning Commissioners asked for clarification of alternatives to accept with conditions or deny with reasons. McKenzie Granum explained that if the Planning Commission recommends a denial with reasons, they support denial. If the Planning Commission approves the project with conditions, there is room for the City Council to approve the project with or without conditions. The Planning Commission could deny because the traffic pattern is unacceptable, or the Planning Commission could approve with the condition that access through Steven Street is prohibited. Still, there would be the need for two ways in and out. Chris Kerr clarified that the Building code, which governs the Fire Department, requires two accesses for public safety. Good public policy suggests street connectivity is good for all sorts of reasons. The purpose of the Planning Commission came into question. What discretion do we have? 4 25 Attachment A The Chair pointed out that wholesale change is the job of the City Council. The job of the Planning Commission is to review the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO), hold public hearings, and decide whether projects conform or not. If a variance is requested, the Commission can recommend it be granted. He reiterated that this project conforms to the WDO and it would be unfair to change the rules on the property owners. [1:28:40] Motion: Commissioner Comer called for the motion; Commissioner Corning seconded it. Chris Kerr read the revised motion to recommend that the Woodland Crossing proposal be denied as written, and for a revised traffic pattern to be developed that does not utilize the Steven Street access, due to the detrimental effect on the community of the traffic from the Company Stores and this development. [1:34:39] McKenzie Granum clarified: This is a vote to recommend a denial to City Council on the basis that the applicant revise the traffic pattern and develop a traffic pattern that does not utilize the Steven Street access, due to the detrimental effect of traffic from the Company Stores and this project that may occur on Woodland Avenue. Clarification: this is the motion to deny? [1:35:34] Aiken: No Comer: Yes Ramirez: Yes Dos Reis: No Corning: Yes Piper: No [1:37:30] Point of order: The Chair cannot break the tie, since he was part of the voting body.. The question was asked if anyone wanted to change his or her vote or rewrite the motion,. The issue at hand is access through Steven Street to Woodland Avenue. There was an offer to change approval with an addition of "must" rather than "recommend", as in, "must find transportation route other than Steven Street." That alternate route would likely end up going over or through the wetlands and is not fully supported by all. The Chair declared the prior motion dead [15:20:01]. 5 26 Attachment A Discussion towards final motion: Commissioner Comer recommended approval based on accepting staff recommendations, which included: • Changes in wording that modifies conditions of the development, (item # 4, 5, and 8), in which the wording "Development" becomes "Building" in order to tie them to the multi-family development, rather than the RV storage. "Development permit" would thus become "building permit." • Recommendation on item # 9: implement that each owner has a choice in screening. • Item # 6: recommend paving to WDO standards (not gravel). • Ms. Granum's recommendation for signage from Item # 2 is to be accepted • Item # 6, alternative road cross-sections: option # 1 be accepted in order to increase the landscape strip on the side of the existing homes. [2:12:40] Chris Kerr reiterated a further condition that the applicant provide an alternate route to the development property other than Steven Street, due to the traffic impact from the outlet mall and proposed development on the existing community. [2:15:45] MOTION: The motion was made by Commissioner Comer and seconded by Commissioner Aiken. Read by McKenzie Granum.. "[Motion] to recommend approval on the Woodland Crossing annexation 2017-3 in its entirety, with the conditions provided in the staff report subject to changes to Conditions # 4 and # 8 being modified from development permit to building permit; With added conditions from the Ms. Granum's letter dated August 8, 2017 that would add conditions regarding signage: item # 2 in the letter, as well as additional landscape Item # 6, Option # 1; and With the additional condition from the Commission that the property shall be developed with an alternate route to the property other than Steven Street, due to traffic impacts and detrimental effects of the Company Stores and this project that would happen on Woodland Avenue." Aiken: yes Comer: yes Ramirez: yes Dos Reis: yes Corning: no Piper: no 6 27 Attachment A Motion carries [2:19:25] The Chair thanked the people of West Woodburn for their participation and respectful attendance at this meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Dos Reis asked for clarification about ex-parte contact. Ms. Granum explained that any conversation with stakeholders should be revealed at the beginning of the meeting so that all Commissioners can make their decisions with the same complete information. UPDATES from staff: Chris Kerr mentioned that there is no quasi-judicial business for the next meeting, but September will be busy. Ms. Granum updated the Commission on the past legislative session in which the Senate and House passed a bill (which has not been signed by the governor) that essentially expedites certain kinds of housing, including low income. It also states that a city cannot deny Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) permits. Since Woodburn currently prohibits ADUs, once the bill is put into effect, the City will be on a 100-day clock to come up with their own rules. Portland is doing tours of ADUs in their city. There is a fee, but Chris Kerr explained that the City of Woodburn would pick up that cost. Staff will make recommendations in the fall. Adjournment The meeting was ad` r dt 9:30pm. APPROVED C Ch 6 r, C Date ATTEST 9 Chris K56U Date Community Development irector City of Woodburn, Oregon 7 28 Attachment B Woodland Crossing ANX 2017-03 Persons with Legal Standing 1. Robert Congdon 1243 Woodland Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 2. Carol Stoddard /Tom Silver 3129 Steven St. Woodburn, OR 97071 3. Mark Prewitt Deployment Architecture 4145 SW Watson Ave, Ste. 400, Beaverton 97005 4. Julie Welp 1468 Woodland Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 5. Mary Ann Imblum 3117 Myrtle St, Woodburn, OR 97071 6. Conwin McNair 1238 Woodland Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 7. John Catterson 1055 S. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR 97071 3156 Steven St, Woodburn, OR 97071 8. Marie Friend 1315 Willow Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 9. Brian Varricchione Land Use Planning, MacKenzie, 1515 Water St, #100, Portland, OR 97214 10.Jennifer Danziger MacKenzie, 1515 SE Water Ave, #100, Ptld. 97214 Greg Mino Brian Varricchione Dick Spies 11. Steve Master MW1, LLC; 520 Conger St, Eugene, OR 97402 12. Rebecca Cortes 1620 Woodland Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 13. J Gabriel Alvarez 3597 Myrtle St, Woodburn, OR 97071 14.Teresa Beachler 1582 Woodland Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 I:\Community Development\Planning\2017\Annexation\Woodland Crossing ANNEX 2017-03 CU 2017- 02 DR 2017-03 VAR 2017-03 RCWOD 2017-03 PLA 2017-04 29 Attachment B 35.Jim &Ginger Adney 9075 Arney Lane NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 36. Sara Coffey 719 Willow Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 37. Laura Rohweder 3388 Steven St, Woodburn, OR 97071 38. Richard Hoffman 329 Olive Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 39. Paul Garber 6346 S. Schneider Road, Woodburn, OR 97071 40.John Garber 14620 NE Mulligan Court, Aurora, OR 97002 41. David Garber Timber Trail 42. Betty Muessig 1200 Woodland Ave, Woodburn, OR 97071 I:\Community Development\Planning\2017\Annexation\Woodland Crossing ANNEX 2017-03 CU 2017- 02 DR 2017-03 VAR 2017-03 RCWOD 2017-03 PLA 2017-04 30 Ms Betty Muessig "Att0 } Ii1G�F12 v 1200 Woodland Ave w ®m�. �x woodlwr x t • a"""w 'o.., v, ,�x �.a'r x wu u .k.9,:+ (� kit VL' car 0K' 707 � cYU pp Ms Betty Muessig 1200 Woodland Ave WOO(fixPo,r 11 t ' 31 Attachment B 7/24/2017 Robert Congdon Woodburn Planning Commission 1243 Woodland Ave 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 Woodburn, OR 97071 To Whom It May Concern, RE: Case # ANX 2017-03 (Consolidated) I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections I have with the proposed development of an additional property on open space regarding the application number referenced above. As an immediate neighbor to the site of the proposed development, I believe that it will have a serious impact on my standard of living and all of those who live in approximation to it. My specific objections'are as follows: 1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, layout, and siting would be out of keeping with the design and character of the nearby dwellings, and would have an adverse and inappropriate effect on the visual amenity of the area as a whole. It will be an obscene eyesore. 2. The influx of additional traffic on Woodland Avenue that this proposal would provide is intolerable given what we already have to endure as a result of the Woodburn Outlets and the upcoming Woodburn Crossing development on the corner of Woodland Ave. and highway 214. Woodland Ave, is simply not built to handle this amount of traffic, and the exponential decrease of air quality as a result of all these additional cars would have a deleterious effect on everyone who lives on the west side of I-5. As there is no sidewalk on the eastern side of Woodland between 214 and Steven St. (where an entrance to the new development is proposed) this will bring adder s , t�.YD JUL 2 5 2017 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 32 Attachment B concerns for all children and pedestrians who traverse that area. In short, considering all the traffic problems this new development is certainly going to bring to this side of town, I believe this development is a disaster just waiting to happen. 3. This has always been a quiet side of town, it's one of the reasons we bought a home here. The Outlet Mall changed the dynamics of the area, but (after a while) we all became accustomed it. However, cramming 300 apartments into the surrounding landscape is foolhardy and is likely to result in much noise, disturbance, nuisance, and will be detrimental to the livability of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I stand vehemently opposed to this invasive development. Those that presently live in this subdivision will not benefit one iota from it. It could possibly result in reduced property values, an ugly 3 story monstrosity where we once beheld blue sky, and a very much decreased quality of life moving forward. I implore the planning commission to reject this overbearing and undesired apartment complex. Thank You for your time and consideration. Sincerely, I/P W, Robert Congdon 33 Attachment B July 20,20 t 7 .w Chris Kerr,Community Development 270 Montgomery St JUL Woodburn OR 97071 "� 11 2017 Dear Mr.Kerr, ECONOMIC 5pAI TWN Last night my husband and I attended a neighborhood meeting with representatives from Mackenzie company on behalf of North Hills Properties,LLC,regarding the development of Woodburn Crossing. The documents provided by Mackenzie note the construction of 300 covered parking spaces and 300 uncovered. This is a huge increase of traffic on Woodland and other streets in this neighborhood. The reps from Mackenzie acknowledged the community members' major concern about increased traffic congestion, but offered no solutions. Below we have listed some suggestions and reasons. If this application for development is approved, please consider these matters as urgent: ..�.�,� �_.. ..�..._��_ ��. ... . ...,,, .. .... a ...�.. .. .....,..e.m... �....... ��, ,,.,,.... �.. # Action Reason i.l. ,-Woodlande�1 ider...opn People alr With theiincre 5e to traffic tilos ..�.....m.. ��... ._ --...... , . .....m.. .... e -..__ ✓LL..-_ Woodland because rt is so east u to narrow. W even more critical to have 5teven St proper roadmmarking tohelp ensurecorrectlane usaem ..............,,. __ ........ w. . . 2 No or limited parking on the Again,Woodland is narrow. It is already difficult to maneuver, Woodland. requiring vehicles to zigzag around parked vehicles. Eliminate parking on the east side of Woodland,where there is no curb orsidewalk. Possibly restrict parking on the west side s..... .. ............_.. __ ... _ . ...e. . 3 Speed bumps on Woodland People already speed on Woodland. Again,with the increase traffic, especially younger drivers, it is crucial to post and insure the legal speed limit. Bumps should be placed on Woodburn near Steven St.and perhaps p . the Highway and Steven St. . pone or other laces between.._................_ ...... 4 Speed bumps on Steven Knowing that the increase traffic on Woodland will result in people from the development driving across Woodland on west down Steven St.,we will need speed bumps on Steven,at least one just beyond Alder. 5 Speed bumps on Willow With the increase of traffic on Woodland and on Steven St.to ...mm .�_.__.. ...........- _ .e..w.... __........w....... Willow, bumps will be needed on Willow as well And add speed limit signs. Mackenzie staff stated Woodburn desires multi-family housing and new development for the city. We certainly understand that,and appreciate the desire for new community members of all ages. We would probably welcome new neighbors and friends as long as our current community needs are met. As was obvious from the July 19 neighbor hood meeting,the absolute number one issue is traffic. We believe implementing some of the suggestions listed above would go a long way toward alleviating this issue. Please consider these suggestions as you review and deliberate on the Woodburn Crossing proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, .1 Carol J. S oddard, 503-949-3165 Tom Silver, 503-779-9117 3129 Steven St. Woodburn OR 97071 34 Attachment Chris Kerr From: Chris Kerr Sem* Thursday,July 27, 20178:36AM To: 'MarkPrewht' Subject: RE:Woodland Crossing project Thank you for Lhe email—I will forward it to the Planning Commissioners for their meeting tonight, Feel free hocall mewith any questions, Chris Kerr Community Development Director City ofWoodburn 503-980-2445 From: Mark Prevvitt [mai|to:mork.pvewi1±@externo.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 26 201710:04PK4 To: Chris Kerr<Chhs.Ken'@pci.woodburn.or.us» Subject: Woodland Crossing project Good Day Mr. Kerr, | live at443Willow ave. I understand that there is a proposal for a 30OUnit Apartment complex off arney road and stevensroad off woodland road behind the outlet mail. I am very interested in what impact studies have been done around traffic to the development between woodland and willow, and the impact of 600-700 more cars that live behind the outlet mall will have on the already overloaded intersections that were recently updated because the traffic was sobad. We are only this year recovering from years of traffic snarls and high-speed drivers cutting through woodland to mcnau0htand xtevenoand other streets tnwillow and out toNewberg hwy. The neighbors I have now spoken to the last few days are shocked to learn about this planned development and are curious why not public disclosure has been done. We saw a sign at the end of stevens, and I called the number on it and the next day the sign was gone and no one returned nnycall. Now I see that this plan is on the agenda for Thursday night, and I will be in attendance to be certain that the existing homes and community are taken care of and not ruined by a rushed job to get a 5mm piece of land sold. MarkPrevvitt Mark Prevvitt |TDirector ISecurity Deployment Architecture mxhmrmm 4145SVVWatson Ave.. Suite 40O Beaverton, ORQ7OO5 [o] 503,501,5124 [c] 503.929.1653 � 35 Attachment B July 27, 2017 City of Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St Woodburn, 97071 Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing in reference to the proposed apartment complex behind the outlet mall. I've lived on Woodland Avenue for almost 17 years. I'm not directly behind the proposed complex, but on the edge of where it would be. My neighborhood is quiet and peaceful and I enjoy walking my dog at night, and feel safe while doing so. My house is my sanctuary, so I was shocked when I received a letter from a developer describing a 300 unit, 3-story apartment complex planned for my neighborhood. In addition, a street would be built to connect Woodland Avenue to the outlet mall. I attended the developer's meeting last week, hoping to hear something positive about this project, and was disappointed. Apparently, city code requires them to build a complex that big, due to density per acre requirements. Woodland Avenue is a quiet, residential street. Has any thought be given to what adding, conservatively speaking, 1,000 more people and 500 more cars will do to this neighborhood (those 500 cars don't include mall traffic that will use that new street)? Noise, traffic, and crime will all go up. When I moved into my neighborhood, I was told that the pastureland between my house and the outlet mall was also zoned residential. I expected that, someday, houses would be built behind me. Houses. Not a 300 unit apartment complex. Isn't there any way the city code can be modified so that a smaller development can be built? The neighborhood is not designed for that much more traffic. The redesigned freeway interchange did little to alleviate the congestion currently in the area. All traffic essentially bottlenecks now at a single stoplight. I can't imagine what a nightmare it will be if an apartment complex that size is added to the neighborhood. At the developer's meeting, we also found out that they were only required to notify those people within a small radius who would be affected by these plans. Everyone in that neighborhood will be affected by this complex and the added traffic. Everyone should have been notified of what's being considered. I ask you to please reconsider these plans. The money the city would make from a complex that size is very tempting, but please consider the quality of life of those people who currently live there and already pay property taxes. Thank you, dile ie WeIp 1468 Woodland Ave Woodburn, OR 97071 20V MNOMIC DEVO OPM EN 0 S NICE Ilk=:PMTOmW 36 Attachment B a " ",J 8f et f-v vw IP ��. as sad ,. � cPW 1lv'LP,e7,e-ells l 1-12 �✓ g '• „t.. 'U, elf", � ,. w� "" d✓'^'L Apr` 'u "' "'r ,'`.'°" 'u�:,... ,„k: .,," 7 t � ��. -5 p7 °'� � J � ��,, '° ",� �;� � ,� �. ��w'° .,�''"`. •�" ._�;c two �"� � �m,�W . , "M;; �,� vAll 4t— VA et ff Y 37 Attachment B f Yl ob a. " a . n, "" ��. � fid' �, � �,�.� r � �"�"�.✓ �..,,.� » se 7 eA Illy Ze 'eye 57 s ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 38 Attachment B ('0'ONWIN MCNIUB '1238 Woodland Ave August 6, 2017 Woodburn, OR 97071 Chris Kerr, Community Development Director (503) 98-1 0436 City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery St Woodburn, OR 97071 Dear Chris, The following is a summary of our previous discussions, via telephone, regarding the proposed development to be located in the field behind my home and what I hope will happen. With regard to my trees located near the property line, I had a friend who has great experience with large trees look over the property and he gave me his opinion. He thinks that with the edge of the road 5 feet from the property line the trees have a fairly good chance to survive damage to the root system as long as the root are cut in place and not ripped up with a backhoe. However, he would prefer 8 feet instead of 5 feet and that the builders be instructed to take special care during construction not to cut back the dirt any more than necessary at the 8 foot line. I and my neighbors, Wayne and Betty Muessig to the south and Jerry Erdt to the north, prefer that a fence be installed along the property line. I assume that construction of a fence would cause minimal damage to the trees' root systems. We expect that within the 8' ONT �p iPbip iYiwaai(o mY.ill �w�^ ......... RX)NORINC O)EVELOF All RIFF U 39 Attachment B WUWIUWWW,�VIWWWII4UUwuIIII10011WIIVIIu�IUIWuum W,W,V IIIiUIIMmIIOWimuf space that high and low foliage will be planted. Will a watering system be needed? In the event that my trees die or become a hazard due to damage, I expect the city to pay for tee removal and I would like to receive a letter from you concerning the above and especially about the city paying the cost of tree removal if needed. Also, my neighbors and I are greatly concerned about the extra traffic that will be created due to this development. We hope that the city will consider the existing traffic we already have from the outlet mall and future industrial developments planned for our area. We suggest that the city hire an unbiased professional firm with expertise in the study of traffic impact assess the development proposal and issue a report to the residents before any decisions are made. Does the development meet the city, county, and state rules concerning housing density? Sincerely, Conwin McNair r 40 Attachment B 8/5/2017 To the City of Woodburn Planning and Development Commission regarding the Woodland Crossing Proposal. Judging from the Public meeting that was held on July 27th at City Hall, it seemed fairly evident that the City Planning Department and the Woodland Crossing Developers have been negotiating and working on the approval of this proposal for quite some time. On the other hand, this has been sprung on the West Woodburn community with little or no advance warning. No doubt that City has spent a great deal of time and resources toward the hope of an approval from the Commission and City Council. While this might be the normal way to conduct business when dealing with undeveloped remote properties, in this case, the proposed development significantly affects an already established community that resembles that of a cul-de-sac or semi-gated community. The development would take advantage of this already established community by utilizing that community's streets which are currently peaceful and for the most part un-disrupted. This is akin to your neighbor getting permission to put a brand new driveway access allowing him to use your driveway as the main entrance and exit to his. Seems to me that we have an obligation, either legal or civil, to inform and include all affected residents from the very get-go, rather than after the City Planners and Developers have created the working bond that was evident at this meeting. The longtime residents deserve better than to be trampled over for the sake of increased tax revenues or the fagade of a prosperous city. I'm not sure when it was determined that this UT property would be best utilized as a Medium Density housing area, but perhaps it was before the Outlet Stores had advanced their stages of growth over the past five or six years. That explosion of growth and increased traffic has been significant and there's no way that its growth could have been predicted when the UT plan was drawn up. In light of the added traffic problems associated with this current proposal, the City should be reviewing all the UT boundaries for current relevance and adjusting them as needed. The proposed area would much better be suited for a variety of other uses, inclusive of perhaps a Grade School to serve families on the West side of the Freeway. There were mentioned in the Public Meeting/Hearing a large array of safety concerns, little of which was addressed in the documents and requirements between the City Planner and the Developer. These longtime residents should be afforded the rights and representation to avoid being taken advantage of by Big Developers and City Government. 17�John Catterson 1055 S. Pacific Hw �"� Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (Property owner of 3156 Steven St, 97071) 41 Attachment B REC0 Mayor, Kathy Siebley JUL 3 12017 270,Montgomery St. !®Iy C}I g� RN Woodburn OR 97071 7/28/17 Dear Mayor Siebley, No doubt you are aware of the city's plans to allow Mackenzie comp.to build a three hundred unit apartment structure that will impact the residents of the adjoining community of which I am a resident. Last night I attended a meeting at City Hall that gave Mackenzie the opportunity to present their plans to the county commissioners and the residents that will be affected by their proposal. Mackenzie spent two hours discussing the architecture and plans for their development-with little time spent on the impact they are having on our adjoining community. Incidentally, the only people in my community that were notified by mail of this proposal, where the residents that live within two hundred,yards of the planned development. This leads myself(and others)to believe that we were not notified because this business was hoping not to make too many "waves." I doubt that the city hall could have held all the people who may have attended had they known, as the room was crowded regardless! I am sure you are well aware of these plans but may or may not be aware of the anger and friction that this proposal is generating. At last night's meeting it was a stated by one resident that should this invasion of our community be allowed ( namely the extension of Stevens St and Arney Road)-that the city could possibly face a law suit by the residents of this community. I would hope that it would not come to this.Anger was very ripe. Therefore, I am writing this letter to you as the Mayor,to consider the life style and comfort of ALL the people of this city and not just towards the prospective monetary gain to this city's coffers. Mackenzie needs to find alternative means to reach their apartment building goals,instead of assuming that they can impose on this community's present resources. At the moment,they are attempting"gate crash" a "party"to which they were not invited! It was proposed last night(by one community member)that another entrance and exit be developed from the overpass at Crosby Road,that would alleviate the tremendous amount of traffic at the present Woodburn ramps from 1-5.As you know this present exit and entrance to and from 1-5 has to service not only the residents that live off Woodland Ave. but the overwhelming amount of traffic that the Woodland Shopping Center entails. The access to Woodburn has not kept abreast of the city's growth. Maybe Mackenzie would foot the bill for this proposal as Crosby Road would be an ideal access and exit 42 Attachment B for their apartments? It certainly would help to lessen the load that Woodland Ave. and Robin now "enjoys"! The Woodland Ave access is already a hazard to the residents of our community,and extending Stevens St. to and from this proposed site,would add to the problem-not to mention the foreseeable problems to the proposed Arney Rd.extension. From the discussions last night, by the Representatives of Mackenzie, it was obvious that they have not taken the life-style of this community into consideration.When asked how they would handle the sewer and water requirements,they were not able to give a satisfactory answer,especially concerning the impact on the protected wetlands. There are too many unanswered questions regarding this proposal that need to be considered. (A) How is this going to affect citizens taxes?(13) What is going to be the impact on the already overcrowded schools?And, most important- how is this going to affect the lives of the people who already live within their proposed site plans? Sincerely R JUL12017 Marie Friend ° WOODBURN C ITY A01, l 1STR X"OR-S OrFIC 1315 Willow Ave Woodburn --. ,�.._W..,....._._. OR 97071 (cc) 43 Attachment B MACKENZIE DESIGN DRIVEN I CLIENT FOCUSED August 8, 2017 City of Woodburn Attention: Chris Kerr 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn,OR 97071 Re: Woodland Crossing(ANX 2017-03,et al.) Response to Testimony at Planning Commission Hearing Project Number 2150567.01 Dear Chris. Multiple topics were raised during verbal and written public testimony at the July 27 Planning Commission hearing,some of which were previously addressed by the applicant's rebuttal at the hearing. The applicant requests that you forward the following information to the Planning Commission for their consideration during the August 10 hearing. 1. Comments on staff's proposed conditions of approval As noted during the presentation on July 27th,the applicant requests a gravel surface for the RV storage area instead of paving(staff's proposed condition#6)and requests modification of conditions#4,5,8,and 9 to tie them to the multifamily development rather than to the RV storage. 2. Signage,striping, and sightline enhancements near the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection Members of the public observed that the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection is presently dominated by westbound traffic on Robin Avenue, which leads to increased delays and safety concerns for users of Woodland Avenue. The applicant and Mackenzie staff have identified several options to improve operations of the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection: Additional signage on Robin Avenue westbound to indicate that left turns can be made from both lanes and that both lanes provide access to 1-5(per staff's proposed condition of approval#7), similar to the following: nII� *1T w � ONLY Removal of the existing right-turn-only arrow in the right lane of westbound Robin Avenue. ■ Replacement of the "3 WAY" supplemental plaque on the stop signs with "ALL WAY" supplemental plaques ("3 WAY" plaques are not permitted by the current version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD]). ■ Installation of a flashing LED stop sign for westbound Robin Avenue (similar to the attached). ■ Installation of a flashing LED stop ahead sign for westbound Robin Avenue(similar to the attached). p 503.224.9560 • F503.228.1285 • W MCKNZE.COM • RiverEast Center,1515 SE Water Avenue,#100,Portland,OR 97214 MW ARCHIIECrURE • INIERIORS • SI RUCI URAL ENGINEERING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND USE PLANNING TRA NSPORTAr ION PLANNING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Dordand,Oregon • Vancouver,Washington • Seattle,Washington H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-Planning Commission Response-170808.docx 44 Attachment B City of Woodburn Woodland Crossing(ANX 2017-03,et al.) Project Number 2150567.01 August 8,2017 Page 2 Removal or trimming of existing vegetation on the southern tip of the Woodland Avenue median north of Robin Avenue to improve sightlines. ■ Relocation of the southbound stop bar pavement marking on Woodland Avenue north of Robin Avenue to improve sightlines. Modification of pavement marking arrows in Woodland Avenue near Myrtle Street to better explain allowable turn movements. Additional signage on Woodland Avenue to provide direction to 1-5. Please note that these are preliminary ideas that would need to be further coordinated with the City's technical staff prior to implementation, and some options may not be acceptable to City or ODOT staff. 3. Traffic signal warrants for the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection Mackenzie's transportation engineers have performed a preliminary evaluation of volumes at the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection and determined that it does not appear to meet MUTCD warrants for a traffic signal. Additionally, a traffic signal at this location would primarily benefit westbound traffic on Robin Avenue, leading to increased delays for southbound traffic on Woodland Avenue. 4. Options for reducing traffic speeds on the Arney Lane extension Staff has proposed condition of approval #8 to require the applicant to examine potential design features for slowing traffic on Arney Lane to minimize traffic from the Woodburn Premium Outlets.As noted during the hearing,the current plans include several items to slow traffic, including on-street parking; all-way stop control at the Steven Street/Arney Lane intersection; roadway curvature designed for 25 mph;and street trees.Other potential speed reduction mechanisms include medians;chokers/pinchpoints;speed humps/speed tables;and chicanes(which create a serpentine roadway with S-curves). Potentially limiting a portion of Arney Lane extension to one-way traffic flow could also be considered. Any change in traffic flow or other design options would need to be further coordinated with the City's technical staff prior to issuance of roadway permits. 5. Screening and security along west site boundary Some abutting property owners to the west expressed concerns about the proposed vegetated screen along the west site boundary and noted reservations about installation of the architectural wall typically required by the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO), due to potential impacts on existing landscaping. Staff has proposed condition of approval#9 to require an architectural wall north of Steven Street,except if abutting property owners do not want a wall. The applicant would propose that the Planning Commission instead impose a condition of approval requiring a chain-link fence with privacy slats along the west site boundary(both north and south of Steven Street) in lieu of either a landscape screen or an architectural wall. See attached diagram. 6. Separation between Arney Lane curb line and residential properties to the west To provide additional separation between the proposed Arney Lane curb and the residential properties to the west,the applicant proposes to modify the street cross-section section by either: (1) eliminating on-street parking in that section, thereby allowing a wider landscape section on the west side of the street; or (2) eliminating the landscape strip on the east side of the street,thereby allowing a wider landscape section on the west side of the street. See figures below with the two alternative sections. M in H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-Planning Commission Response-170808.docx 45 Attachment B City of Woodburn Woodland Crossing(ANX 2017-03,et al.) Project Number 2150567.01 August 8, 2017 Page 3 ALTERNATIVE 1:ARNEY LANE CROSS SECTION ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORS 50'RIGHT OF WAY 6'SIDE 6'LAND13'LAND WALK SCAPE 12'TRAVEL LANE 12'TRAVEL LANE SCAPE 24'PAVED SURFACE ALTERNATIVE 2:ARNEY LANE CROSS SECTION ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORS < 50'RIGHT OF WAY &SIDKE 8'PARKING 12'TRAVEL LANE 12'TRAVEL LANE IV A ND 32'PAVED SURFACE Thank you for the opportunity to submit this information for the Planning Commission's consideration. The proposed development is appropriate for the site context and is consistent with the City's long-term vision spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan;the project meets approval standards as outlined in the staff report; and City and ODOT staff have concurred with traffic analysis. Therefore,the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission forward the City Council a recommendation for approval. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, r vas `�� Brian Varricchione Land Use Planning Enclosures: Product information sheets for flashing LED stop signs and flashing LED stop ahead signs Potential Striping and Signing Changes Illustration of proposed screening change along western site boundary c: Steve Master—MW1, LLC M in H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-Planning Commission Response-170808.docx 46 TA PC 0 TRAFFIC & PARKING CONTROL CO., INC. l<, „!%;;;,/ % 1 k e �. Solar Powered (110VVersion available) �. No AC Power Required Easy Installation <: MUTCD Compliant �. Proprietary Day-VizT'" Circuitry 52.9% Reduction in Blow-Throughs /% l j .....ffflff/j...... , r A* TAPCO's brilliant innovation of enhancing traffic signs with LEDs (Light-Emitting Diodes) makes intersections safer, reduces accidents and saves lives! Day-VizTM(Daylight Visible) BlinkerSigns feature an array of incredibly bright LEDs that flash in unison, 1 once per second, commanding the attention of drivers DAY AND NIGHT. Any MUTCD sign can be l transformed into a BlinkerSign! j GSA Contract Holder Patents #6,943,698;#6,693,556 ;,5Other Patents Pending Attachment B FEATURES •Installs easily onto any new or existing sign post •Can be integrated into an ITS(Intelligent Transportation System) •High intensity Day-VizTM' LEDs command attention day and night •Can be programmed to operate continuously(24/7) or on solar time clocks, push-buttons and/or 1 motion(vehicle)detectors f i, •ProProprietary rycircuit circuitry automatically adjusts G - Tight output for maximum " visibility and battery efficien •Multiple signs can be synchronized � , •Heightened driver Y ' awareness •Increased visibility at high incident intersections MMON •New stop sign locations X", •High incident intersections , •Rural roads Patents #6,943,698;#6,693,556 Other Patents Pending 822 ugn Specification-MUTCD ARI-1 Sign Substrate .080 Highway Grade Aluminum - Reflective Sheeting 3MTm DG'-with anti-graffiti overlay MUTCD Compliance MUTCD Section 2A.08 Compliant Day-Vizi° Management System (patient pending) Battery Nickel Metal Hydride(NIMH)-14,000mAh Battery Lifespan Up to 5 years Autonomy-Functionality without Charge Up to 30 days in 24/7 operation r� Flash Pattern MUTCD Compliant LED Type High Power Luxeon-1 watt LED Life Expectancy Over 100,000 hours Warranty Term 1 Full Year Warranty I I — Smart Activation Options 24/7 continuous Time clock activation(Windows based software programmable) Wireless control activation Vehicle detection activation "All specifications subject to change without notice. Distributed By: For complete specifications and details call or visit www.tapconet.com 5100W.Brown Deer•Brown Deer,WI 53223 Ph:262.814.7000-800.236.0112 Fax:262.814.7017.800.444.0331 www.tapconet.com•www.tapcostore.com 04090001 48 Attachment B 49 Attachment B FEATURES •Installs easily onto any new or existing sign post • Can be irateg rated into an ITS(Intelligent TransportationSystem) •High intensity Day-Vifm LEDs command allenUon day and night •Can be programmed to operate continuously(24/7) or on solar time clocks, push-buttons and motion „� l (vehicfo)delectors • Piopfletafy circuitry. automatically adjusts Ii ht output for maximum ram. visibility and battery r' efflcieitcy ✓ •MuIt'ple signs can be synchronized •Heightened driver " awareness •Increased visibility at high incident intersections PPUCAU°QONS •High incident Intersections , •Rural roads ., •Advance stop sign warnings Patents #6,943,698;#6,693,556 Other Patents NIT d' y a� •� M Sign Specification..W3-I Sign Substrate .080 Highway Grade Aluminum Reflective Sheeting 3101"DG3PoC1-with anit grafU'lii overlay MUTCD Compliance MUTCD Section 2A.08 Compliant Day-Vifm Management Systern(paterit pending) Battery Nickel Metal Hydride(NiHM)-14,000mAh ......... ........ Battery Lifespan Up to 5 years Autonomy-Functionality without Charge Up to 30 days in 247 operation Flash Pattern MUTCD Compliant .......--- -_.0--..........................................- LED Type High Power Luxeon-1 watt ........ _........... LED Life Expectancy Over 100,000 hours Warranty Term 1 Full Year Warranty St-nartActivationOptions 2417 continuous Time clock activation(Windows based software programmable) Wireless control activation Vehicle detection activation ...........�. `All specifications subject to change without notice. Distributed By: For complete specifications and details call or visit www.tapconet.com 5100 W.Brown Deer•Brown Deer,WI 53223 Ph:262.814.7000-800.236.0112 �+ MM"��,i4PVO Fax:414.354.5480.800. 44.0331 i LwrKL LUFOiG COMLOLCO.IHL www.tapconet.com -- m U6U9UO3L 50 A , the is w N a� I 0 µ G: Y � W 1i U rr C) cn Z 0 r 1 - w C) J Z � Q Q J F- c) /Irrr W 0 f% 1-10 C; 51 6 Attachment B r W aD U p f `N i ili i I a c v Fo LL n rr "y o �m. N a c 0 LLLL � o p a "� moo` _N w O n • M� , x �u 2 Li Lo m W 52 Attachment B marvM""" ryy'yK� m w`�uk".,y �i �> ", � ".. »h +A:P ,M'� +" ce9 w rx f a' 'i tr ". N g �s H ca k ^u rr N cw'",&" da.rc.� rar fg " i + w , �.""Fs:, FJ �, ca N "'en ra n E ,y g�' S,�' � 'k�• r '� ;fro.�$@��,��„�ro eqq,n.,'�ry a��°.w N aa�� ,�,�,,, yr m�m -��ro�� O � ft 44�__ F awn. Ka (a q C/A. O r.Ci .Y N ro e4 v� Cr CJ•-UA r.:a =if @ Gr` �'�`�rg�C"a�A' w..�'��° � N�r•.:a cu ''ca.� ��oC7 "�^ y. ca, �. yi .J.a ..e �?��h�@•�-° � � �et " Nnr�.� mf7'`,-'w ASS' Cppp� CS.N .� -4 eL Cv ,.,CY �n f Gs• .� d. r n G m eu I x�NN dam" P'�" w Kr m r u I r a'X+•Gr c`�' a'��.m r» �:��',57: c r i.'� c'�eo t7 � {�� ,� + NAV q C tC @O :. v g N P3`f1 d q lA:Y fn I�Clu N a n ro�YJ �:.@ n�.5"c5.�n I2 4 R O @ �•SYS. w'1 b v/+`CP.-r a O 08,4 f t9 _t 1Q+ } NI �CybA cT @ E'9 k: �' W�'`m er i� Ir pi I� pp rri 4 3 -a 5 r�v P ".n e a '� as�° �.c��„ cr.N raF� @ i q0 c 5 2 WW f� ro N I Y G1 Pur L5 �ms � ' CJ r4 n `toma gmUOFmcay' - W� n w i> w o a a bats' a r 1}��ca ep a cr nb '� r X ✓ra'Y♦'p i Val Cy. ay +:.Y+S, rye@ pq j, i `9J J4ry 61 ro' Py 'Cv CG q Rt ^a f f ? a e Gxmr sv am r n " 9 fp � er a kT r c „,,., ti" �. ac, d� �'+ r n s s^+"Y^n�' � , IC.�'m? 5�„ IY-v. °... 'y, Iry�pr �a a '�E 'i r epi ,' r C� y i'aAY �Mme+ W WV r"tl ICY +� .i^" 9 W$ ','„ry y� aR Nz nis" t�,u k a. z S f �+ �,F,I �." xa rig,�a ,r �` Pr*r uR aV .,M uar �w ra � cw dr a rc 1 IWO a r�� a r i SSa .` f3 t& as as ea a w aAl ja w xa ;6r°ra ��pp Rau ra #', a u� � � � ��sxa r Attachmen C. (a) Schwabe WILLIAMSON &WYAI-T@ September 29, 2017 Garrett H. Stephenson Admitted in Oregon T: 503-796-2893 C: 503-320-3715 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL gstephenson@schwabe.com Hon. Kathryn Figley, Mayor City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 RE: Woodland Crossing City File Nos. ANX 2017-03/CU 2017-02/DR 2017-03/VAR 2017-03/RCWOD 2017-03/PLA 2017-04 Applicant's Response to Planning Commission's Recommendation for Approval Our File No.: 132021-230209 Dear Mayor Figley and Council Members: This office represents Steve Master of MW 1, LLC, applicant(the "Applicant") in the above-referenced case files (together, the "Application"). This letter is respectfully submitted in response to the Woodburn Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Application and is timely submitted prior to the October 9, 2017 hearing. The Applicant supports the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. However, the Applicant opposes the Commission's recommendation of a condition of approval (the "Proposed Condition") requiring a secondary access point other than Steven Street to serve the proposed development(the "Project"). 1. Introduction and Summary of Argument The City has long planned for the subject property (the "Property") to be developed with multi-fainily residences. The Property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as "Medium Density Residential" and upon annexation the Property will be zoned"Medium Density Residential" (RM). Consistent with that designation, the Application proposes a 300-unit apartment complex and recreational vehicle storage area(the "Project"). The Project does not reach or exceed the maximum 16 units per acre permitted in the RM zone and, in fact, exceeds the minimum residential density requirement by only 0.03 dwelling units per acre.' Therefore, the Project is likely the least-dense development that could be permitted on the site under the RM zone. I Minimum residential density in the RM zone is 12.8 units per acre. The Application proposes 12.83 units per acre. WDO Table 2.02E. 54 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 2 The Woodburn Development Ordinance ("WDO") and applicable fire codes require a minimum of two street access points to serve the Project. The Applicant proposes to develop the only two feasible access locations: an extension of Arney Lane and a connection to Woodland Avenue through an access at Steven Street. Other potential access points are prohibited by the WDO's requirement that each route have a separate connection to the nearest arterial street and its regulations prohibiting new roadways across mapped wetlands and riparian corridors, or would require a statewide planning goal exception.2 The Applicant recognized the potential for some cut-through traffic generated by the Woodburn Premium Outlets and submitted a letter examining intersection function based on a best-case scenario (in which no cut-through traffic occurs) and a worst-case scenario (in which a substantial amount of traffic would use the proposed access points). Exhibit 1. Note that this letter did not opine on whether the best-case or worst-case scenario is likely to occur. It did, however, determine that even the worst-case scenario would not cause operational or queuing problems in affected intersections, including the Stevens/Woodland Avenue intersection. To address neighborhood concerns, the Applicant recommended that it implement design features "that encourage slower travel speeds to make the new street appear a less desirable option for traffic associated with the commercial uses of the outlet center." Exhibit 1 at 4. Staff imposed a condition to this effect, listed as Condition 7 in the Staff Report, which the Applicant does not contest. During the public hearing on the Application, a number of Project opponents argued without supporting evidence that the Project would create a significant amount of cut-through traffic on Woodland Avenue. At least two commissioners, Commissioner Corning and Commissioner Dos Reis, responded that while the Application satisfied the criteria, the zoning was inappropriate for the Property. Exhibit 2. Other Commissioners concurred, but pointed out that multi-family uses on the Property were already called for in the Comprehensive Plan. After the failure of a motion by Commissioner Comer to deny the Application, the Commission discussed the possibility of using a connection at Sprague Lane instead of a connection through Woodland Avenue to serve as a second access point, and ultimately recommended the following condition of approval: "The property shall be developed with an alternate route to the property other than Steven Street, due to traffic impacts and detrimental effects of the Company Stores and this project that would happen on Woodland Avenue." The Commission recommended the Proposed Condition notwithstanding testimony by Community Development Director Chris Kerr that such an access was unlikely to be approved. As demonstrated by the Staff Report and the proceedings before the Planning Commission, staff and the Planning Commission agree that the Application satisfies all applicable criteria. However, the Proposed Condition directly conflicts with WDO requirements 2A connection northward to Nekia Street would be prohibited without a statewide planning goal exception because it would be located outside of the urban growth boundary. schwabe.com 55 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 3 and would effectively deny the Application. The Proposed Condition also violates applicable state law because it is not clear and objective, and would improperly defer findings of compliance with the WDO. Finally, such a condition is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Property and would frustrate the reasonable expectations of the Applicant. For these reasons, the Council can and should approve the Application without the Proposed Condition. 2. The application satisfies all applicable criteria and should be approved on that basis. In the Staff Report issued July 20, 2017, staff reviewed the Application against all applicable WDO provisions and found that all were met or could be met with conditions of approval. In particular, staff determined that the Application satisfied the WDO's requirement that the Project have two street connections. During its deliberations on August 10, 2017, the Planning Commission agreed that all applicable criteria were met and did not specifically find that any applicable criterion or development standard was not satisfied. No other parties have submitted evidence or written argument that the application fails to satisfy any applicable provision of the WDO. Therefore, the Council can and should approve the Application without the Proposed Condition. 3. The Proposed Condition violates the Woodburn Development Ordinance. (a) The Proposed Condition requires modifications to the Application that would not be approved. The WDO and Oregon Fire Code both require two access points for ingress into and egress from the Project.3 In particular, the WDO provides as follows: "Developments comprised of 25 or more dwelling units, including existing units, shall have at least two means of public street access from a cul-de-sac, dead-end street, or other street. Those two or more means of public access must be two non- overlapping public street routes to a major arterial identified in the TSP." WDO 3.01.05.0 (emphasis added). In this case, the only two available routes to the nearest major arterial, Oregon Highway 219, are via Woodland Avenue and Arney Road. The Proposed Condition would force a new connection to Arney Street through Sprague Lane, which would constitute an impermissible "overlapping" connection to OR 219 because all traffic accessing that highway would do so via Arney Road. A portion of the property is located within the Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District("RCWOD") due to the presence of the Senecal Creek East Tributary. The RCWOD 3 Oregon Fire Code Section D106.2 states that"Multiple-family residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads..." schwabe.com 56 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 4 generally prohibits "new buildings or impervious surfaces" within its boundaries. WDO 2.05.05.D. An exception to this are "streets, roads, and paths that are included in an element of the Comprehensive Plan." WDO 2.05.05.C.5. Although the planned improvement of Arney Lane is not included in an element of the Comprehensive Plan, staff correctly recommended approval of the Arney Lane improvement because, "as this portion of the site currently has an existing graded road, this right-of-way work will not create an added impact or disturbance to the nearby wetlands." Staff Report at 73. However, a connection to Sprague Lane would require a completely new crossing of the RCWOD for a new street that is also not included in the Comprehensive Plan, and would not qualify for an exception to the general prohibition of new streets in the RCWOD. WDO 2.05.05.C.5. Thus, the only way that a new connection to Sprague Lane could be permitted would be for the Applicant to file a variance, which it would not obtain because the Project already meets the RCWOD standards as proposed.' Even if a variance were approved, the Proposed Condition would force the Project out of compliance with WDO 3.01.05.C, again resulting in denial. Moreover, since the Application did not include a request for such a variance, the Applicant would be required to revise the proposal and file variance applications before the Application itself could be approved. (b) The Proposed Condition was imposed to address traffic generated by the Woodburn Premium Outlets, not the Project. The WDO requires that all conditions be "reasonably related to impacts caused by the development" or be "designed to ensure that all applicable approval standards are, or can be, met." WDO 4.01.06. The Proposed Condition violates this provision in two ways. First, there is no evidence or testimony in the record offered by staff or any party that the Application fails to satisfy the WDO's connectivity or street design requirements as proposed, therefore the Proposed Condition was not"design to ensure that all applicable approval standards are, or can be, met." Moreover, the Commission never explained which WDO standard, if any, the Condition was intended to address. Second, there is no evidence or analysis in the record supporting a case that the Proposed Condition is reasonably related to impacts caused by the Project. Rather, the Proposed Condition was recommended as a reaction to generalized concerns of the neighborhood regarding traffic generated by the Woodburn Premium Outlets and was not based on any substantial evidence that traffic generated.by the Project itself would create an unsafe or congestive traffic condition. This is demonstrated by the following statement by Commissioner Comer, who moved to recommend the Proposed Condition: 4 A variance may only be granted if, among other things,"strict adherence to the standards of this ordinance is not possible or imposes an excessive burden on the property owner." WDO 5.03.12.13.1. schwabe.com 57 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 5 "[The] concern that I have is less from just the traffic of the [units] in that developed area, but my concern is it would open up an alternative path for the traffic that is, I think, currently a problem from the Company Stores. I'm conflicted because, on one hand, I would like to suggest that that road not be continued to Steven Street, but at the same time, I'm concerned with only one road access to [the] development. I don't know what the answer is." Exhibit 2. In fact, the only substantial evidence in the record regarding impacts caused by potential cut-through traffic is a supplemental traffic study provided by the Applicant, which determined that no affected intersections would function below their required levels of service. Exhibit 1. Thus, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the Proposed Condition was intended to address traffic impacts of the Woodburn Premium Outlets, not the Project. 4. The Proposed Condition violates state law. (a) The Proposed Condition would require the City to impermissibly defer review of the Application for compliance with the WDO. A local government may not defer a determination of whether a proposal satisfies an applicable criterion or development standard without providing public notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Rhyne v. Multnomah County, 23 Or LUBA 442, 447-448 (1992). Moreover, merely finding that compliance is feasible is not enough to justify a condition requiring that such standards be met if"the nature of the development is uncertain, either by omission or because its composition or design is subject to future study and determination, and that uncertainty precludes a necessary conclusion of consistency with the decisional standards." Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or App 150, 161 (2007). The Proposed Condition violates both of the above precepts. First, it improperly defers a decision as to whether the Project can satisfy the applicable criteria because it requires the Project to be completely redesigned to accommodate a different access point. Second, to the extent that the City finds that the Applicant could satisfy applicable code provisions with a different access point, such a finding is unsupportable given the redesign required, the virtually certain need for a variances from RCWOD prohibitions on new roadways and access requirements, and the very low likelihood that such variances would be approved. Also, any different access point crossing the RCWOD would require a US Army Corps and Oregon Department of State Lands joint permit to fill delineated wetlands, approval of which is very unlikely given the existing alternatives. Simply stated, state law would prohibit the Proposed Condition because it requires the Applicant to prove compliance with the WDO in the future, but with all evidence in the record demonstrating that the Applicant will be unable to do so. (b) The Proposed Condition is not clear and objective and therefore violates statutory requirements pertaining to needed housing. When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, a local government must designate enough land to allow such schwabe.com 58 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 6 housing to satisfy the identified need. ORS 197.307(3). When an application is submitted to construct needed housing, local governments may only impose "clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures regulating the development of needed housing." ORS 197.307(4). Needed housing is defined as "housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels" and includes "attached and detached single-family and multiple-family housing for both owner and renter occupancy." ORS 197.303(1). When the City proposed its most recent urban growth boundary expansion in 2005, it identified a need for 62 additional acres of medium-density (multi-family) residential land. Woodburn UGB Justification Report at 32, Exhibit 3. Although the Property was located within the UGB prior to that, the identified need of additional medium-density residential land indicates that there was a deficit of such lands generally.5 Moreover, the 2005 Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis explained that higher-density residential land was necessary to accommodate affordable housing demand. Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis at 32 (2005), Exhibit 4. Staff confirmed that the Property is designated for needed housing in the Staff Report: "This proposal is consistent with the City of Woodburn's Comprehensive plan, which designates the site as Medium Density Residential. The proposed development would add 34 acres of Medium Density Residential land to City Limits. This area was classified in the Buildable Lands Inventory as Residential- Vacant and Residential-Partially Vacant land. The number of other vacant large residential lots in the City is limited. This annexation is consistent with the City's plan to provide sufficient buildable land for the City's growth. The Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis indicates that the City had a 2020 residential land need of 526 acres, so the proposed 34-acre annexation arguably constitutes a fraction smaller than a 5-year supply." For the above reasons, the Council can find that the Property is designated for needed housing and that the Application is for needed housing. Therefore, the limitation on conditions set forth in ORS 197.307(4) applies to this application. As currently worded, the Proposed Condition would require a complete redesign of the Project to identify a feasible alternative connection and requires future use of the City's discretion in determining whether an alternative connection is feasible under the WDO. Also, the Proposed Condition would require the Applicant to file and the City to review an application 5 The Comprehensive Plan provides that"the City will ensure that sufficient land is made available to accommodate the growth of the City, consistent with the 2005 Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis." Comp.Plan Sec.D- 2.1, Exhibit 5. "It is the policy of the City to encourage a variety of housing types to accommodate the demands of the local housing market. In Woodburn,the following needed housing types shall be allowed,subject to clear and objective design standards, in the following zoning districts...." Id. at Sec.D-2.2. schwabe.com 59 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 7 for a variances to RCWOD zone and connectivity standards. Therefore, the condition is not "clear and objective" and violates the needed housing statute. (c) The Proposed Condition is unsupported by substantial evidence and serves no legitimate planning purpose. When the evidentiary basis for a condition is challenged, the reviewing authority must find that"evidence in the record could lead a reasonable person to conclude that considering the impacts of the proposed development there is a need for the condition to further a legitimate planning purpose."Sherwood Baptist Church v. City of Sherwood, 24 Or LUBA 502, 505 (1993). In this case, there is neither evidence in the record supporting, nor any showing, that the condition will further a legitimate planning purpose. As explained above, the condition was imposed to prevent cut-through traffic by patrons of the Woodburn Premium Outlets. There is a complete lack of substantial evidence in the record that the proposed street connection through Steven Street will actually cause such cut- through traffic. In fact, most of the testimony of neighbors in the area is anecdotal and generally based on perceptions of existing traffic. There is no traffic study in the record that contravenes the Applicant's traffic study, which determined that the transportation system is capable of handling the trips generated by the Project with recommended mitigation measures. Finally, while it may be that limiting an increase in cut-through traffic Woodland Avenue would benefit the current residents in the area, there is no evidence that the Proposed Condition is based on sound planning principles or a legitimate planning purpose. Rather, by substantially limiting the potential developability of the Property, the Proposed Condition would frustrate code requirements pertaining to adequate access, the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Property, and the City's efforts to address needed housing supply. 5. The Proposed Condition would effectively deny the application. It is clear that a change to proposed access points would require a substantial redesign of the Project, including a complete change of the internal roadway configuration and probably elimination of the RV storage element. Any such modifications would substantially alter if and how the Project satisfies other development standards, thus requiring an additional review by staff. There are no procedures in the WDO or in state law that would allow such a subsequent non-public review. Therefore, the Proposed Condition would effectively deny the Application. This is something that the Planning Commission wished to avoid, as evidenced by the failure of Commissioner Comer's motion to deny the Application. Given that the Applicant was unable to testify during the Commission's deliberations,the Commission may not have fully understood the impact of imposing the Proposed Condition. However, while the Commission was free to make a recommendation that is not consistent with the law, the Council must decide this Application based on its conformance with applicable criteria, as supported by substantial evidence. There is simply no substantial evidence in the record supporting a denial of the Application, even if denial is effected by an unworkable condition of approval. schwabe.com 60 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 8 Denial on the basis of the Proposed Condition would effectively prohibit any future development of the Property for multi-family uses. Given the existing transportation network, any other application for development of the Property consistent with the WDO would have to use the same or similar access points. Arney Lane is the only available access from the north and an access to Sprague Lane simply would not be permissible under the current WDO, as explained above. Therefore, the only feasible secondary access is Woodland Avenue. This will not change with a different application. 6. Imposition of the Proposed Condition is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Condition evolved out of failed motion to deny the Application. Both the motion for denial and the Proposed Condition were based on some Commissioners' belief that the Project would serve as a conduit to allow traffic from the Woodburn Premium Outlets, but more broadly, that the proposed multi-family Project does not fit with the existing neighborhood. This is evident in the following statement of Commissioner Corning, with which Commissioner Dos Reis concurred: "I think that it's the wrong zoning for that piece of property. [...] I have to follow my own conscience. I think adding 300 units to such an isolated piece of property with only two exits is a mistake." Exhibit 2. The Application is quasi-judicial, meaning that the City must approve or deny it based on applicable criteria set forth in the WDO. There is no criterion requiring the Applicant to demonstrate the Project's compatibility with the neighborhood because it is consistent with the City's existing Medium Density Residential designation of the Property. Thus, effectively denying the Application due to neighborhood compatibility concerns would directly conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that the real concern of Project opponents and certain Commissioners is the propriety of the Medium Density Residential plan designation, state law would prohibit either the express or implicit denial of the Application on that basis because the Applicant has a right to rely on the criteria in effect on the day the Application was filed. ORS 227.178(3). Moreover, to consider the issue of the Comprehensive Plan designation itself, expressly or implicitly, frustrates the Applicant's reasonable reliance on the planned uses of the Property. It may be that opponents believe that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Property is inappropriate, but that is not what this Application asks the Council to determine. schwabe.com 61 Attachmen C. (a) Hon. Kathryn Figley September 29, 2017 Page 9 7. Conclusion For the reasons above, the Council should approve the Application as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, but should not impose the Proposed Condition. Best re , Garrett H. tephenson GST:csb Enclosures (Exhibit 1 —Exhibit 5) cc: Mr. Steve Master Mr. Brian Varricchione Mr. Chris Kerr PDX\132021\230209\GST\21566335.1 schwabe.com 62 Attachmen C. (a) IIID II IIl. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ul II t III ilw M I"II 11::: dl III It ll III II I'd M II'„r 10ICN P 11::� July 6, 2017 City of Woodburn Attention: Eric Liljequist, PE 190 Garfield Street Woodburn, OR 97071-4730 Re: Woodland Crossing Expanded Operations Analysis Project Number 2150567.01 Dear Mr. Liljequist: Mackenzie has prepared this letter to address the City's comments regarding the intersection operations and queuing at for the Woodland Avenue/Steven Street and Steven Street/Arney Lane intersections. INTRODUCTION Intersection operations and queuing results for several study area intersections were presented in the Woodland Crossing Development TIA,dated April 6,2017.The proposed Woodland Crossing development as presented in the report included up to 300 apartments and up to 127 recreational vehicle(RV)spaces.The development will take access from an extension of Steven Street east of Woodland Avenue which will connect to an extension of Arney Lane, creating a new public street intersection opposite one of the site driveways and approximately 170 feet east of Woodland Avenue. The new public street intersection is proposed to be all-way stop-controlled and will consist of three legs. The city has requested an analysis of this new intersection to understand how it will operate. This letter presents an intersection operation and queuing analysis of both the Woodland Avenue/Steven Street and Steven Street/Arney Lane intersections. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Two traffic volume scenarios were developed to evaluate intersection operations: ■ Baseline: This scenario assumes the Arney Lane/Steven Street connection attracts no "cut-through” traffic associated with the Woodburn Premium Outlets; therefore, only trips generated by the proposed development would use the new street.The goal of design features such as a narrower street cross-section and the all-way stop control at the Steven Street/Arney Lane intersection is to discourage traffic associated with the commercial uses of the outlet center from cutting through the residential neighborhoods. ■ Sensitivity: This scenario was evaluated to address how the intersections would operate if some traffic from the Woodburn Premium Outlets were to travel on Arney Lane through the proposed development to Woodland Avenue rather than traveling along Arney Lane to Robin Avenue and Woodland Avenue. It is intended to illustrate how the intersections would operate with a measurable amount of cut-through traffic and higher volumes. , I i5( h 2V,M 9560 I I0!:;!i; 228 1285 MCIIKIINIIZlI coll�j I'Ivvrl:�i,l (-UHILl, 1,11`1 `d MM VVilvrAvnnur,+F'IUU,I,altl n r, 71 c,t N,,. �1/II In IUIfIIM LJUI,wL:I''I/ mim II/U�I'''7I a omI>I/UI1IId: /I-� I I I D i t I'I U I L:I'I l l "I I�1 U UPM I. FIN IUI I I'�I U I Exhibit 1 63 Page 1 of 4 Attachmen C. (a) Baseline Scenario Assumptions Traffic volumes presented in the TIA for the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection were used to estimate future traffic at the existing Woodland Avenue/Steven Street intersection' since traffic counts were not originally scoped or collected at this location. These volumes were seasonally adjusted and grown to 2018 predevelopment conditions following the assumptions outlined in the TIA. Site trips, as illustrated in the figures attached to our response letter dated May 22, 2017, were then added to the Woodland Avenue/Steven Street and the new Steven Street/Arney Lane intersections to reflect baseline conditions. Sensitivity Scenario Assumptions Although street design and traffic control features are intended to discourage cut-through traffic, the sensitivity scenario assumed some of the Woodburn Premium Outlets traffic would choose this route. Different assumptions were used for the inbound and outbound traffic associated with the outlet center. The potential for inbound (i.e., northbound) cut-through traffic was assumed to be relatively low because travel distances from OR 219 to the outlet center would be shorter using the existing route, and inbound delays are low. Therefore, approximately 50 vehicles were assumed to divert to the Arney Lane/Steven Street connection. The potential for outbound (i.e. southbound) traffic to use the new development was assumed to be higher because the travel distance to OR 219 would be more comparable from some parts of the outlet center, and some congestion along Robin Avenue is anticipated during peak conditions. The cut-through traffic added to the Steven Street intersections with Woodland Avenue and Arney Lane is assumed to be 45%to 50%of the traffic that is expected to use Robin Avenue under pre-development conditions. This volume is about the maximum that could divert without degrading the overall operations at the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection. The amount of traffic assumed to reroute to/from Arney Lane and Steven Street is presented in Table 1. s s III UP lmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil AM 50 200 250 PM 50 300 350 'Turning movements for Steven Street were estimated using ITE rates for 27 houses abutting the street and assumed all trips were assigned to Woodland Avenue. Remaining traffic was balanced with volumes at Robin Ave. Exhibit 1 64 Page 2 of 4 Attachmen C. (a) Summary A summary of the intersection operations is presented in Table 2. For the all-way, stop-controlled (AWSC) intersection, overall performance is presented, along with operations at each approach. For the two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection, only the stopped approaches are presented. Overall NA-A-7 NA-A-8 NA-A-8 NA-A-8 Steven Street/Arney Lane/ Eastbound 0.04-A-7 0.14-A-8 0.11-A-8 0.15-A-8 Site Driveway (AWSC) Westbound 0.07-A-7 0.04-A-7 0.08-A-8 0.04-A-7 Southbound 0.08-B-7 0.05-A-7 0.30-A-8 0.10-A-7 Steven Street/ Eastbound 0.01-A-9 0.01-A-9 0.01-A-9 0.01-A-9 Woodland Avenue (TWSC) Westbound 0.17-B-11 0.11-B-12 0.48-B-15 0.20-B-13 As presented in Table 2,the Steven Street intersections with Arney Lane and Woodland Avenue are anticipated to perform well below the City's 0.90 v/c standard for a critical movement at an unsignalized intersection with the baseline scenario. Even with the conservatively high cut-through traffic assumptions of the sensitivity scenario, interaction operations would meet the City standard. QUEUING ANALYSIS A 95th percentile queuing analysis was conducted using SimTraffic to evaluate the potential for queue spillback between closely-spaced intersections. Table 3 summarizes the estimated 95th percentile queues for each approach of the Arney Lane and Woodland Avenue intersections with Steven Street. s EB 170 feet' 50 feet 75 feet 50 feet 75 feet Steven Street/Arney Lane/ WB 25 feet' 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Site Driveway SB 750 feet3 50 feet 50 feet 100 feet 50 feet Steven Street/ EB 250 feet' 50 feet 25 feet 50 feet 25 feet Woodland Avenue WB 170 feet' 75 feet 50 feet 100 feet 75 feet Notes: 1. Distance measured to nearest upstream intersection. 2. Distance measured to nearest upstream drive aisle. 3. Distance measured to nearest upstream driveway. Exhibit 1 65 Page 3 of 4 Attachmen C. (a) The new Steven Street/Arney Lane public street intersection is designed to provide approximately 170 feet of storage between Woodland Avenue and Arney Lane on Steven Street. Under both the baseline and sensitivity scenarios, ample storage is available for estimated queues. No queuing deficiencies are expected with the proposed development at the new east-west legs on Steven Street. Within the proposed development,the 95th percentile queues are estimated at 50 feet in the morning, and 25 feet in the afternoon. While the intersecting drive aisles may occasionally be blocked by vehicles queued to exit the site during the morning peak hour, blockages would be short duration and are not expected to create significant delays. SUMMARY Intersection operations and queuing were reviewed at the Woodland Avenue/Steven Street and Steven Street/Arney Lane/Site Driveway intersections. Two traffic conditions were considered for both analyses: 1) a baseline scenario assuming only project traffic would use the new Steven Street/Arney Lane connection; and 2) a sensitivity scenario assuming project traffic, plus some existing traffic entering and exiting the Woodburn Premium Outlets that reroutes along the new connection. No operation or queuing deficiencies are anticipated with the proposed development with either traffic volume scenario. Although this analysis considered the impacts of traffic that reroutes from the Woodburn Premium Outlets along the new Steven Street/Arney Lane connection, cut-through traffic in the existing neighborhood along Woodland Avenue is likely to be a concern for residents.We recommend the implementation of design features that encourage slower travel speeds to make the new street appear a less desirable option for traffic associated with the commercial uses of the outlet center. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ennifer anziger, PE Transportation Engineer Enclosures: Capacity Calculations; Queuing Analysis c: Steve Master- MW1, LLC Brian Varricchione, Dietrich Wieland, Greg Mino - Mackenzie Exhibit 1 66 Page 4 of 4 Attachmen C. (a) Scimabe Wii_UAMSON & WY p...i.m Memorandum To: File Attorney: Garrett Stephenson Date: September 28, 2017 Subject: City of Woodburn, Planning Commission Meeting, August 10, 2017 File No.: 114407-229076 [Start at 22:00] Chris Kerr, Community Development Director: I'm not sure what else I can contribute, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Piper, Chair: Let's move it out. Chris Kerr: Thanks. Commissioner Piper: Is there— It's the time for deliberation by the commission. Comments from the commission; this is the time to discuss it amongst ourselves. Commissioner Corning: From myself, I think that it's the wrong zoning for that piece of property. I couldn't— I have to follow my own conscience. I think adding 300 units to such an isolated piece of property with only two exits is a mistake. Commissioner Dos Reis: I second that statement. Commissioner Comer: I guess I'm less concerned with deciding, but I still have concerns of the access from Arney Road into that neighborhood. And the concern that I have is less from just the traffic of the 600 units in that developed area, but my concern is it would open up an alternative path for the traffic that is, I think, currently a problem from the Company Stores. I'm conflicted because, on one hand, I would like to suggest that that road not be continued to Steven Street, but at the same time, I'm concerned with only one road access to 600 unit development. I don't know what the answer is. I would like, I guess, more thought be given to not allowing access to that community next door, which I think could solve a lot of the problems, but I don't know what the alternatives might be and they haven't really been talked about in this presentation. I would be inclined to send it back for a little more discussion of options that would prevent accessibility through the neighborhood from this development and all the Company Stores traffic. Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 2 67 Attachmen C. (a) Memo to: File September 28, 2017 Page 2 Commissioner Ramirez: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment. I kind of second some of your thoughts as well, especially in the terms of traffic conditions in that area. I think one of my major concerns is kind of the environmental degradation of the creek with the development. I would like to look at more specifics in that frame and see how that goes. Commissioner Aiken: Was there any thought given to making Steven a one-way street out and people would have to come in the other way? Chris Kerr: I don't know. Ronald Aiken, Commissioner: And the reason I bring that up is because that would take care of the problem of people coming into the area to go to the stores and so forth. In my opinion, the long range program is where the problem is going to be down in the congested area where all the roads come together–219. That's gotta be corrected over the next few years. That would then solve part of that problem that the people have, but they can't solve it right now. But the walls, and so forth, will be of some assistance, but not long term, I don't think. Traffic is the only thing. The rest of it is, in my opinion, they meet the rules and regulations of the city and the county and ODOT. And I don't want anyone to think that I'm totally in favor of how they're working it out, but there's nothing they can do. They've got plenty of[exit assets?] up to Arney Lane, but you still gotta Mickey Mouse around to get onto the main road. And I think in the future, maybe, if you . . . something else could become How come there wasn't anything done about going across part of the trailer park to get to And I have to ask one more question; I think I already know the answer. Did you, by any chance, apply for an application to put a road across the wetlands? Chris Kerr: I think you can ask them [indecipherable]. I can tell you that they didn't submit an application for a wetland crossing. I assume the idea is to swing around and come in Sprague, on the bottom side. Commissioner Aiken: I Chris Kerr: Right, I mean I guess obviously our code tries to discourage us—or is very specific about discouraging any kind of improvement or development over wetlands and drainage ways. Commissioner Piper: Isn't here already a crossing through the wetlands? Chris Kerr: There's a crossing at the end of Arney, where it comes in on the northern part of the property. Commissioner Piper: Right, and so since there's one existing, they wouldn't be required to have another one or have an application for one. [End at 29:45.] Exhibit 2 schwabe.com Page 2 of 2 68 Attachmen C. (a) 5�MB Wu,Uut$URN UU0 JUSTIFICATION T Winterbrook Pl October 2005 page" � . Exhibit 3 Page 1 of 14 69 I I Attachmen C. (a) Item No. '1-0 Page 1366 Exhibit 3 Page 2 of 14 70 Attachmen C. (a) WOODBURN UGB JUSTIFICATION REPORT (STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL FINDINGS October 2005 hent No, 10 Page 1367 Exhibit 3 Page 3 of 14 71 Attachmen C. (a) Item No. Page 1368 Exhibit 3 Page 4 of 14 72 Attachmen C. (a) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........ia....a..w.a....a........ ..a...w......aw........ew, wnwaw.wwewwwwanw.wrwww.........aa...wa.w..a..a 4 REPORT ORGANIZATION ION a».....«........a.. ........ .....a......».......« ,...«x..................x................................ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WDO a MENDMENTs RELIED ON..r««.. w.....«..r......x« ..»................w ««x«r.. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS.,. a....aw.w.a.........,a«.a.. ,......r.......«.. ....«,... a..............r.»«.........6 PRINCIPAL SUPPORT Do a HENT «.... .........--.,«....w ....... a..,,..e.o,.ax«...r........... .................... -7 BackgroundMaps...... .««« ..............................a....................,.. .«.......,x............«,.........,..r. 7 AddltlonalB oundStudies andPlans..««.., ...... .«.x.«...«........x..... ...................... .......... PopulationCoordlnatonDocuments—........... .a..«... ...............«..a..................«....... ,......... 8 DocumentsNot Relied Uerr.... ....«.......x...........................«..................................... ........... EXECUTIVESUMMARY® ..w.............w...wnw.w.•w..,u.....w.w....w..w..r.wwwwwr..wwww...i..w w.w.s.*"a..ww w.......r.*....w 9 COMMUNITY PLANNING OLUECTIVES....«.,..„............ .,..r.„.............»«,..r....................................... THE -2005 PLANNING PROCESS ....»,,..»..... «...... ...a,r...».,.rx»«...... .............a..............I........ 10 Step .1. The Forrndatlon— Woodburn c nomic Opportunities, nalysls(60A)and Economic Development Strategy(EDS) .........«......».,. .,.. »...,a»..,....x...........,...w.«.......,..,. 10 Ste; : The Transportation System Plan(TSP) .......< ...... .«.,.....a.,.....»..... ......«.............. 12 Step 3. Providing Buildable Land for Residentlal Neighborhoods Wlaile Increasing Efficiency ofLand Use.«... ........-- ......«...«x... ..... . .......»...... .,w.»..a..«... ,...,a...,.......,., ..,.,«a.........«... .t. Step : ProtectStream Corridors, a loodolansand Wetlands..«..,»......... ...............«,.,...... .t to 5:• reserve and linaitraa,oacs togrlorrltrrral Land.......a...,.. .. «.«...............«... 15 Step 6. Coordinate with.Marian Countyx..»., ..«.»..... ..............««»A..... ..... ......................., 17 Step 7. Complete the Periodic Review Process............—.— ... a.»............x..................... .18 PART . LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT (GOAL. 4: LAND NEEDS)...w........w..w............w..... 19 POPULAI`L+DN AND CPLOYMENT R03E TIONS...................»>.. « «,,......«...,«,.«. ..«.« .x..,..x......,.......— 19 Year 2020 Population Projec°tion..,.x.....a.... ..»»............A,.............. ,a.»............. ..............» 19 Year 70 ' Employment Projection-.. .............. .. . . .,. ..,....... ................................... 20 EmPLG YMENT LAND NEEDS .........a».,...x.a..., ..,.«,. ...».............. a.a.«.,..» ...,....»..,.«....,..»......«....«.. 22 Commercial t and Needs.,.. ,,,«..«..»... a.... .................« .....,«.,. ......,......a.,...... ...«...,...«. 22 Industrial Land Needs. «,..,.«.................». .......................,,...«................ ..,—., x 2 Table 1. Summary of estimated industrial site needs by size, Woodburn 00-2020... 24 Refined Target IndutrySite Suitability Analysrs,,«« a,.«,..«.....».«......... ..........».....a.. .,...,, . Employment nand Bleeds Conciusioa ,.....x........,. .»,,d«.....a..»..,.....a...„ ...............- ........ :5” Table : Target Industry 2020 Site Needs Compared with 2002 UGB Supply....-„ .«a»..« 26 Table ; Target Industry 2020 Site Needs and 2005 LJ B Supply,....r.,........»........,a«.,.. 7 ,.BASE CASE”RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS.1 1.., 1.111.,,..„ ,«., .,,.....«,.».....--......... 7 Alternative 1: Residential l esidentr l land Needs,used on Actual Housing Mix and Density 27 Table, 4, Residential Land Need Based on Actual Development....,.,. ,,1111.,......,.» ..,.,«., 29 Woodburn U u tificatio n Report— October 2005 311 tial 'Itcy" No- page . . Exhibit 3 Page 5 of 14 73 Attachmen C. (a) Base Case. .°Application of the OHCS Resrd rrtral Lard Maeda Model- .....Y..................... .29 Table 4A: 2020 Needed Net Buildable Acres for lousing Based on OHCS Modell.......... 30 The 2005 5 Housing Needs Model Run ..................... .... ....... .............. ..... ...,.......... 30 Table 4B: 2020 deeded Net Buildable Acres for Housing Based on 2005 Application of OHCS Housing Needs Model ..... .......... .. ..... . Y.Y......... . .,, ....w..M..,.,,.M................ — 31 specific reed for Higher-End,S'ingla-Falnd Detached Housing...................................... 31 Base Case Housing Need Conclusions.................. ........................... ......... ......... ........ 31 PUBLIC AND SEM-PN.Buc LAND WEDS.................... ............... . ..„............., .,,........ ..,........- 32 Table 5 Year 2020, Public and Serni-Public Lard Needs.,............................. ............. '4 REcAP of $AsE CAse REsioF-wiAL LAND NEEDS WITHOUT EFFICIENCY MEASURES,............ ..........Y.. 34 BN.NIwABLE LANDS IN"DE"NTCOY...,...«. .................. ................... .,.,,.............,............«.............. 35, ulldaLrle Lands In ventoiy O r lew........... ...... ................... ...................„.....35 Table a Buildable Lands Summary within the 2002 Li 13...............................,.......,... 36 Table 7 Lots by Size (in Buildable Acres)--....,.............—.—......................... 36 PART II.. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LAND, EFFICIENCY CY MEASURES(ORS 197.296 GOA►L. 1.4; ACCOMMODATING NEEDS INSIDE UI S)..............o,......... .........,«........37 BUILT AND Commimo ExCEPTIoN AREAS... .................. ......... ................... ,...,w......,........,, ... 8 Table ; Butte ilie Road Exception Area Parcell Characteristics ----.....................,... 39 NEW RESIDENTIAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING.................. ............ ......................a..,= 40 Table 9. Projected Residential Land Needs (Net Buildable Ares)................................ 41 Table 1N : Housing Need by Type, tensity and ;honing District--,...... 43i,. Table 11: 2020 Residential Nand Needs (Net Buildable Acres) atter Adoption of Land Use Efficiency Measures................ ....... .......... ................. .................. ..................44 PART III: UGB LOCATIONAL L.ANL..Y IS (ORS 197.298; COALS 5, '7, 11-13GOAL 14, BOUNDARY LOCATION FACTORS, 1-4).,................. .......................................No............ 4s POTENTIAL TIAL U EXPANSION STUDY AR .—, .... .................... ....... .................. .................Y 46 Table 12. Study Area. Location and Size—.--....... ................. 4 Table 13, Goal 3, 5 and 7-- Constrained Land Surrimary....... ................. ...........y......47 Table 14. Areas Proposed for inclusion in 2005 UGB, ............ .....u.......,........,...,......%.. 4 OPS 197.29 5.- PRIORITY AREAS FOR U'G'0 ExPANSTON ........... .................. ......... .................. 48 Table 15, Soil Classifications by Study Area,*.....-............ ..........----............. 50 GOAL 14 BO4.INDARY 'LCcA"iiON FACTORS I AND 2 - EFFICIENCYAND SERVIC'EABTtJTY........ 54 Se vicea il/ty of Study.4reas.. ............Y..... ..............,... ......... .5":5 Table 16: Ranked Public Utilities Costs by Study Area .................. ......Y.. ..,............... 55 RingRoad System............................. ...... .................. .........w....,....,,. .....,.................. 5, Serweeability zf20 nsio Alv ................. ...Y.............,., . ..... ,........... ..... 5 Table 1 ., Serviceability of 2005 LOGO Expansion Areas by Study Area .....,. .................. 58 Tlansp artatron S enarlo ................... .........,..... .,..........., ,..,...,.........---......... .......,. 59 GOAN.. 14 BoUN NARY LocA-nON FACTOR 3 -COMPARATIVE ESEF CoNSEQUENCES ..........N........„..,.., 5 Woodburn U S Justification Report- Page 2 October 200.E r; ley” No, Nle Exhibit 3 Page 6 of 14 74 Attachmen C. (a) "l dy&ea .l (Northwest)....... 0 StudyArea 2(Noath)Ma........,Y.x. .,..,..a..r,,.My...aw.....xa............................. ..............Frv...,....a 1' Study Area 3(',�"arth .st)...w.w................ ........w..a„a,...............a......,.a.. ........MF,...... ....a..... 63 RudyArea 4( Ast)........aa........... ......,F.,......F.....,.....a..,. ..M.....Y..x. ......F........ .w..... rv..Y.Y65 StudyArea 5(Southeast)......... .........F................ ,.......w....a..........................>...a.. ..a.,.. 66 StudyArea 6( th)..... ......raw .- .............M ...........,...,. .....,...s. .......prv. .sM. .....a............ 67 ca *Ara 7(Southwest)........ .......................... ..... F,...a.......,.............<........... F...,...,.. 68 StudyArea 8(We ,)....,.......F.. ..............,.... ..,........ ......rv...,...... ....r—.........a.,..Ma..........a. 7 EconomicConclusions..........a.....rvYYrv.,. .,.......a.,.............F..,x...ax.......I......rv.....w,.,,w ,1.w.,, ,., 71 . clalConclus ns,.F...,r.......,.............. ..................,...................,.a.r................M.x. .a., ..r.. 71 EnvironmentalConclusions................... .........a.M,.............Y..........Y.,....., ........... ......r..F... 7 Energy Colus n .............M.. :F .w..... M.rYrv..,..Y ......,..,..,,w, ,a.a..a...rv.a.Y..rvw „M...w..a... ...,,Y..Yxr ?. SUMMARY—............ ..w.F.....x.,....,..aa....... ..a.MY.Fa. .ww..a.......... ......a..x....... ..........a......,.,x..F... 7 GOAL 14 BOUNDARY LOCATION FACTOR 4 ...F. aw...w....,...a,.......... .................M ax,rv......... ............ 7 Soil Type and Agdcultural Ptoductivitl by Study Area......., ,.......................................... 73 Table 18. Soil Types and Study Areas.........................a.a ..a............ .....a,..a..,...W.,.,...,a 74 Farmland Compatibility...............—.......a..x.Y.................a........w.r.. — ...........--............ 7 Table 19. 2005 Urban Growth Boundary Agricultural Impacts Summary .M...............F — 7 SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS...80 INCLUSIO Nr—EXCEPTION AREAS—.. ......a.,...a.....,.a..,,, ....,a. .....Ya».w.a.............. ...............a.a,Y.. '[ ESIN ENNTIAL ExPANSION"N.a..a..... ...... ..... a...x.,........,.wa ....wa,.a..F,a. 0 �.. COMMERCIAL AL ExPA ISION";4.. ... ....x.rw.a..a..a. ,..a.,.....w, ..a... .............w..,....a .r..a........... ...a...». ,a... 0 INDUSTRIAL (PAN SION"N.a.a,w...—.. a.. ............. ..... ....r..............., ..,, x,ar......aw..F...«.w ,. ...a.a 1 Table o: SWIR Sites and Characteristics r,,.,e,...aaa,.. a...............a......a ...F.r..a.. 7 PARR ROAo NODALOVERLAY AREA.....,.....m w.F.w,.... .,..w.x.ax.... a.,.................a..,.........a.w............... 82 MIXED-USE ARF. a.a,..... ........ .....a,...,.,,..r.w..... ..a,......,,.,,,,...,,... ..,.................... ...a..,...,...a. 83 TRANSPORTATION SYST M ExTcNSION a,..,,. .............a.... .......a .,........w....Y....,.aa..a....,,.... 83 PUBLIC USES.... ............................. ..... ......a,... ,.,"....a.......,...... ....... — ..,..a..a ....,..d......... 83 STAFF INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S AMENDMENTS. .......,,.Y,, Y.Y...... ..............F.,,. x....w..Y.,Y..a. 83 Table 1: Staff-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments .. ...........w..,,.w.........,r..,.a.. 4 mF'N~NOMEN T SUMMARYa. ,..r,w..a,.w.r,.,.. .,.,.. ,w,x............ ..a................,................... ..........a...., 84 Table : Council Approved Plan— Overall UG8 Dermad / Supply Comparison............ 85 Woodburn U B lu tiflcatiorn Report October 2005 Iteral No. ItI Page 1371 Exhibit 3 Page 7 of 14 75 Attachmen C. (a) Table 3t Target Industry 2020 Site Needs and 2005 LTG8 Supply ,'r f ��,��" "�iaroe a°k q '^` k i' � '� Ndi �' ✓ d,,�,n'��N", rn P ".. m� r Mr 0. t ndor 2 16 1 'Dotal Acres 1a 6 } to 5 1 otal Acres, 46 0: to Cly' i Total Acres 66 57 1 ,0to2 4 } otal�Acre -- 7... ,. 6 —Ok_ .. .. 6 to 60 a 6 pt ul A re 105 10 .. L t to 100 1 1 0 otal Acres i6 65 _..�. Too a Total fir ^ .. 126 �6 —.. _ ,_. _ Total Sites 4 4 0 _� m„ __ ..... W. .._ m....�... _ ....�._. ��. __. r tat Acres d86 4117 1' Source:Winterbirook Planning and ECONorthwest "Base, Case"Residential .and Needs Goal 14, Land Need factor (2), provides that changes to a UGB may be based on tl' demonstrated reed for horsing. In Technical Report 2— Residential Land) Needs Analysis(RLNA), Winterbrook determined l'oodburn's residential land need's based on the requirements of lS 197,2916 and Statewide Planning Goals 9 (Housing) and t (Urbanization), This section considers two „base case"scenarios from which to determine the Noosing and buildable land area needs for residential uses for the 8-year planning period, from 2602 to 2026µ. Pads It of this Report considers the results of the housing heeds analysis and identifies land) use efficiency measures that enable the City to provide affordable housing opportunities and reduce its need for buildable residential lard. Alternative It., Residential Land, Needs Based on Actual Housing, Mix,and Density The first"Kase base Scenario"described below is based on "actual housing mix and densities" observed from 1,988-2662 (Technical Report 2, Woodburn Residential land needs Xnaiysis, Table 8), as ,prescribed by OR5 197.296(4)(a). imaplernentation of this fuse case, scenario would not require additional plan policy or code text amendments, Implementation of this"actual development" scenario would, however, require ti Currently, Woodburn has two residential pian designatlons; Low Density Residential and High Density Residential. Three zones irnplament these designatlons. Resident al Single Family, Retirement ComimuNty Single FarrIfy Resid'ential',and Medium Density residential. Woodburn U 8 Justification Report October 2005 tt ni No. 10 Page Exhi*Zt— Page 8 of 1 T- 76 Attachmen C. (a) comprehensive plan reap, urban growth boundary and (eventually) zoning reap � { amendments. For the'base case scenario based on Actual dgyg1gpmgnt, WI nterbrook 1. Determined the actual mix and density of dwelling unit(Dial) types in nen developments (frori n 1988 to 2002); . . Used CONorthv est's projected, and Marion County's (then) interim planning, papulation projection of 34,919; . Applied the 20,00 US Census ratio of institutional population to projected population increase and subtracted these 337"'Institutional"residernts from the population growth for purposes of dwelling unit need, 4. Assumed a projectedaverage household size figure of .9;22 and . Applied an average occupancy rate of 5% (or a vacancy rate of O/21)to all housing types. Winterbrook determined the number of needed dwelling units (DU) by multiplying the actual mix by the population Increase, dividing ley household size, thea d(viding by occupancy rate. n interbroolc determined needed,acres by dividing the number of dwelling units by actual density. The above factors were then applied to create Table 3A. Table 4 shows a meed for 4,968 dwelling units and about 680 net buildable residential acres, using the above methods. Table 4 shows the housing mix andi density experienced in Woodburn over the last 14 years and one possible zoning allocation that can achieve 7.25 !dwelling units per,,acre. Table 4 does not include need for public and Sergi-Public uses, which Is discussed in the following public and erni-Public Use Bandl Needs sections for ) does anis base case scenario consider inefficiencies that result from converting highly- parceli ed land within built and committed excepborn areas to urban residential uses. Finally, based on testimony received from Renaissance Homes, the Council ncil hinds that there is a"special need"for higher end housing adjacent tothe OGC Golf Course. renaissance Homies testified that they have been able to meett a specific market niche for higher end housing in Woodburn, solely because of the golf course views and open space availa'bl'e in dile Tukwila planned Unit Development. The Council notes that higher paid executives' in existing and future Woodburn firms also are more likely to reside in Woodburn (rather than z The actual household size has risen sharply in Woodburn from 2.7 In, 1990 to 3.1 in 2000, TNs'. increase can be attributed largely to in-mi ration of families with srrna(l d)lMren. Winterbrook projected a return in household size over the next 20 years(reflecting,rnaflonal trends and cultural shifts) to 2. persons per household. "There is a direct relationship between the success of"n oodburn's Economic Development Strategy and household size-, as household incomes and educational levels increase, household .sire typically decreases, '3 "T hA e 2000 tibCensus shows overall vacancy rates in Woodburn o(8%, anis is a Substantial increase from i o"s overall vacancy rate of 2.79/x, As with household size, irroterbrook projected a rnldral7ye vacancy rate of %. I Woodburn UGS Justification Report— ganger 26 II October 2005 I I Exhibit 3 I ftn�rn�1��.� lll� page, a 77 Page 9 of 14 t Attachmen C. (a) .. in Portl nd, Satern or rural Marion 0ounty) if such higher-end, higher-amenity homes were, available within the Woodburn UG8. Table 4: Residential Land Need Based on Actual De elc pnient Md 5.�:. i etached 5in�le.FgT ly�4.e idemtlal 43% 136 .0 353.1. 4 I!jpl fam�Residential 31% I,540 16,31 94.41 Duplex �. � 1% 49.68 12,564,01 —,.— Manufactured Homes, 4% 1,192 5.231 228.E Sourm Limy of Woadaamarrm;Res deutiar Lagd N Analysis,,'Wirnterbrook Naming As explained in the Residential Land deeds Assessment(PLA' A), 'Woodburn has two major population cohorts* a rapidly growing young population that willcontinue to grow, and mature over the next 213 years, and an elder population than should remain fairly stable. Woodburn is doing a reasonable)iob of providing affordable housing, brit can take steps to provide a Treater variety of housing types at higher densities. Part of the affordable housing"Problem"is that the new, young population lacks the financial resources for home ownership. This problem Is considered in the Oregon Horsing and Community Services (OHCS) alternative analyses below. Baso Cas 2; Application of the OHCS Residential Land Needs Model The f7 'CS Housing Needs Model was applied in 7088 as a means of checking the Housing Needs Analysis prepared by Winterbrook Planning. For an a ernat ems.case ana si interbrook applied The blousing Land deeds Model developed by OMCs without considering potential al impacts from higher incomes resulting from a successful economic development strategy, Winterbrook ran the model using the coordinated population projection of 34,919, a Year 2020 planning period, an average household size of 2.9, and approximately 7110 other assumptions related to housing type, rental status, and pfteirent levels (see RLNA, Attachment A). Ague to Woodburn burn dermographaics and Hispanic preferences for homeownership, Winterbrook assumed a high demand for affordable homeownership opportunities, which translates into a meed for small-lot single-family and townhouse (single-family attached) development, The Housing deeds Model produced the results shown on Table 4An Approximately 385 net acres are needed for Lowy Density Single, Family (LDSF), 118 for M�ediulm Density Single Farni'ly (MDSI=), 94 for High Density Single Family (HOST), 15 for Manufactured Dwelling Park (MDP), 77 for Low Density Multi-Family (LD F), 57 for Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF),), 14 for High Density Muid-Family (l Ii MF)l, and 8 for Mixed-U!se (MU). Tile total acreage needed to serge the 2020 dwoeiiing unit growth of approxirmately 5,000 units requires about 714 net acres (about 34 acres more than was projected using„the"actual Woodburn UG 8 Justification Report– October . Iterrr No. it Page Exlf��t� Page 10 of 14 78 Attachmen C. (a) housing mix and densities" method). This represents the total amount of buildable residential land needed to accommodate the projected 14,059 population increase over approximately the next 18 years. Table 4A-0 2020 Needed Net Buildable Acres for Housing Based on OHCS Model A K ll IV /acres deeded 31 .1 11 15.4 27.4 56,7 14.0 5.5 713.7 Source; Residentiol, Land Needg analysis, fic Housingland Needs Model;Mnterbmk Flutniq The 2005 Housing Needs Model Run In September of 2005, Winterbrook worked with Richard Bjelland of OHCS to run The Housing Needs Model a second time. The purpose of this second run was to: 1. Incorporate,data from ECONorthwest regarding projected increases in household income resulting from successful implementation of Woodburn's Economic Development Strategy; 2. Consider the effects of higher density nodal zoning districts; and 3. Test the housing needs projection developed by Winterbrook and recommended to the City Council by the Woodburn Planning Commission. The 2005 run of The Housing Needs Model produced the results shown on Table 3C. In the 2005 Model run, approximately 330 net acres are needed for Single Family Residential (RS), 62 for Medium Density Residential (RM), 208 for Nodal Single Family (RSN), and 68 for Nodal Medium Density (RMN)., 66..1 Lnet Wildable acres will be needed to serve Drd dsaena unit need throuah e year 2020. This represents the total buildable residential acreage needed to accommodate the projected 14,0,59 population increase from 2002-2020 assuming that needed housing occurs at 80% efficiency.24 The 2005 model run produced a land nge_d estimate that is approximately: 0 12 net buildable acres fewer than indicated using the"actual housing mix and densities"method that must be considered under ClS 197.296; 0 47 net buildable acres fewer than resulted from the 2003 Housing Needs Model run; and 0 33 net buildable acres more than projected in the "ii interbrook Housing Needs Analysis. 24 Note that none of the land need projections above consider the effect of lower densities expected to occur In highly-parce0zed Exceptions Areas, Woodburn UGS Justification Report— Page 30 October 2005 Exhibit 3 Item No. 10—— Page 11 of 14 13,98 rage 79 Attachmen C. (a) Thus,'The Housing Needs Model continues to Identify for slightly more land thart the 2003 Winterbrook Housing Needs Analysis, As noted by Housing Needs Analyst and City Councilor Bjelland during Council deliberations, the differences between the two methods are Within acceptable margins of'error. aoth analysessupport the need, more affordable multiple-familly housing and single-family residential, development, as provided by Woodburn's new"nociall"overlay zones. However,the Council has relied on,the Winterbrook housing needs analysis because it provides,a more conservative 21020 residential land needs estimate (requiring less agricultural, land)and because it served as the basis for the Woodburn Planning Com,mission's recommendations and reviews by Marion: County staff and DLCD. Table 4B: 2020 Needed Net Buildable Acres for Housing Based on 2005 Applicaflorl of OuHCS Housing Needs Model kcres!Needed 329,6 00 616 2017,8 6&2 667.3' our W. 'a r ,�Sldr 'nlla I Land Needs Analysis,,rhc I fousinWI-andWeds Model;Wtgrvlok Pkawoisig Specific Need for Higher-End Slingle-Family Detachect Housing, The Council has also identified a need for higher-end single-family detached housing to meet future housing needs in Woodburn. Therefore, Winterbrook cluerled the Housing Needs Model to determine the number of higher-lend, detached single,-family units needed through the year 2020. The model determined a need for 1,074 higher-end housing units to, meet the specific need for higher-Income families in the Housing Needs Model's highest price range ($212,500+ in 1999 dollars). This represents approximately 19% of the total number of new housing units that are needed to meet Year 2020 housing needs in Woodburn. It Is anticipated that most of this, need will be, met on Class if soils near the O Golf Course in Study Area 2 (North):. (The UG13 expansion area in Study Area 2 can accommodate approximately 825 new single- family residential dwellings at 5,5 units per net buildable acre.) Base Case Housling Need, Conclusions A major part of Woodburn's Economic Development Strategy (EDS) is to take advantage of its growing, workforce by creating opportunities for jobs to locate In the area. If Woodburn is successful in attracting these jobs, the burying power of residents will improve in relation to housirig costs, Thus, while Woodburn can benefit from a wider range of housing types, andshou(d allow the opportun4 for rrufti-family and'.small lot single-family residences to, develop,it is important to continue to supply single-family home ownership opportunities as well. The City also has a special need for higher-end homes near the OAC Goif Course to provide housing,for future executives in firms that choose to locate in Woodburm Without the adoption of land use efficiency, measures, as discussed in Part 11 of this Report Woodburn would require from, 667 to 714 net buildable acres of residential land to meet its housing nieeds through the year 20 '0, As noted below, with,efficiency measures, the City Will need approximately 117-160 fewer net buildable acres, This range assurnes relatively Woodburn UGS)ustification Report OCtober 2005 Itelini No. Page Exhibit. Page 12 of 14 80 Attachmen C. (a) large buildable parcels, and does not account for Inefficiencies In land development that occur when built and, committed exception areas are converted to urban residential uses. Pudic and Setni-Pubfic Land Needs Goal 14, Land Need factor (2) recognizes that changes to a UGB may be based on demonstrated need for"livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space,"' Public and semi-public facilities such, as schools, hospitals,churches, government buildings, and, parks will expand as population increases. Such uses,are necessary to support planned population growth and (In the case of parks, open space and schools) increase the livability of residential neighborhoods. In Woodburn, such uses typically locate on land designated for residential, use. Public and semii-public land needsare shown In Table 5 below. Park standards described In the 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update were used to determine the, need for buildable and: unbullclable (natural area parks) land to accommodate parks and schools. To project larld needs for public and,semi-public lands, the City categorized land uses by type: schools, parks, institutional, religious, natural areas, and government. The City approached each type sligihtly, differently: Schoolls —The City used the ratio of developed school land to population described in the 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan LlpoWe— about 5 acre's per 1,000 residents-- and extended that ratio to the projected Year 20203 Woodburn population,to determine land needed for schools. In 2004, the Woodburn School District reviewed Winter rook's projection and determined that Woodburn needed approximately 48 additional acres beyond Winterbrook's original iprojecttion to meet school needs through 2020.25 Woodburn currently has abolut 115 developed acres of land for schools, and needs approximately 223 total acres by 2020. T��e n�thgLe,_Jj a need tQt_105 yacantjgAflghJQ�r to accommodate a new hichi a m d W_Ld_Ig echo �ndtw�nw_g&l _mgut@�s hoots 0 Pai rks—The City used the 1,999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Llpdate to project park needs through 2020. The 1999 Update recommends using a ratio of 7 acres per, 1000 population to project need for neighborhood and community parks. The ratio was, applied to the projected 2020 population of 34,919, and then existing parkland was subtracted to determine needed park acreage. The Parks, Plan indicates that some of Woodburn's park needs will be met on school lands. Therefore, August 30, 2004 letter from Woodburn School Nstrict, The District has a 20-year planning horizon. In order for the second new high school to,be operational by 2024, the land will need to be purchased on or before 2020. This would Mow sufficient time for land to be annexed, to the City, a bond measure passed,, and the high school designed and constructed. Woodburn UG B Justification Repott— October 2005 Page 32 ltem ,No. 1 ldExhibit 3 1400 Page 13 of 14 81 Attachmen C. (a) theI city assumed that 50% of all needed 201 2O school lands would also serve to .neat park needs, and that amount was,added to the parks supply. Woodburn currently has about 87 acres of parks and recreational land in, use (plus about 112 acres of 2020 . school lands), and needs about 262 acres total to meet the recommended ratio. ThJg eans there is a riga id for ab-auA 6anal acres a .of oarklands bv the ver 2020 I-additi Institutional - Woodburn currently has 500 residents who live in "institutions", according to the 2000 US Census, and has had no additional institutional development from 2000-2002. The Clity applied the existing ratio to; a projected, 2020 population of 34,919, projecting an Institutional population growth of approximately 337 through 2020.The City,applied a ratio of 0: residents/lunits,per net acre (the maximum allow ed under current zoning), whiich translated to an 1J:aa—en_egd_yq-_thl catgM. Religious - The City applied a ratio of 2 acres per 1,000 population growth for religious uses.The 2002-20,20 population growth forecast of 14,0159 translated to-ajaped Lot gppMxJmi5Le-Iy2&—aqZ for rellgjou�_=. Natural Areas - The City put protected riparian corridors, laically significant wetlands and Roodplains linto this category. The, 1999 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update did not project a, need or contain a standard for natural areas. However, natural areas can provide trail systems and natural pathways for Woodburn residents. According to the 1999 Update, there were 1.22 acres of greenways, open space, and trails/pathways per 1000 population in Woodburn,. Extending this ratio to the projected, 2020 papulation projection of 34,919 would require 42.6 acres for greenways, open space, and trail s/pathways. There are approximately 129 constrained (unbuildable) riparlan, wetland and floodplain acres in Woodburn available to meet this generalized need. Jh_erefgre,—q9o al u,Lldab&l Land -__- required, 0 Giovern:menit—Projected government employment growth through 21020 is 252 employees. Using an emplo,yeelacre ratio similar to that for commercial employment yields a land need of slightly less than 13 acres, There are approximately 5 vacant publicly owned acres of land to help; meet this need. The Clity assumed that the remainder of the government employment land need wili be met through redevelopment of commercial areas and intensification of use of existing government-owned property. Therefore, aQ_adi "o �Ir si.tW_IaAdr 3ge�d aacro od t ggMgLn nent .nen ,groAtn. The supply of public and semi-public,land in Woodburn's 2002 UGB shown i,n Table 5 was determined in Technical Report 1, Buildable Lands Inventory, Woodburn UGS Justification Report- October 2005 IteinNo, Page ---1401 Exhibit 3 Page 14 of 14 82 Attachmen C. (a) TECHNICAL REPORT 2 WOODBURN RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS ANALYSIS Prepared for: CITY OF WOODBURN 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Prepared by: WINTERBROOK PLANNING 310 SW Fourth, Suite 1100 I Portland, Oregon 97204 EMEN COMMUNITY May 2005 p L p N N IN N G November 2003 1 Exhibit 4 83 Page 1 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................3 RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS...............................................................................................................3 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS.............................................................................................3 ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY....................................4 UPDATES TO THIS DOCUMENT................................................................................................4 RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS...............................................................................................................4 Statutory Provisions Related to Residential Land Needs...........................................................4 COORDINATED POPULATION PROJECTION........................................................................................6 DETERMINE ACTUAL HOUSING DENSITY AND MIX .........................................................................6 Trendsin the Housing Mix...........................................................................................................6 ActualDevelopment.....................................................................................................................9 Summary of Actual Housing Mix and Density............................................................................9 Woodburn Subdivisions 1998 to 2002...................................................................................... 10 PROJECTED 20-YEAR RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS BASED ON ACTUAL DENSITY........................ 1 1 YEAR 2020 HOUSING AND BUILDABLE LAND NEEDS METHOD- ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT 1988- 2002................................................................................................................................................ 11 HOUSINGNEEDS ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 12 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION........................................................................................................ 12 Education................................................................................................................................... 12 Age.............................................................................................................................................. 14 HouseholdSize........................................................................................................................... 16 Householdsby Type................................................................................................................... 17 VacancyRates............................................................................................................................ 19 Nativity....................................................................................................................................... 20 Income........................................................................................................................................ 21 Employment................................................................................................................................ 23 Housing Ownership Costs in Relation to Income.................................................................... 25 Housing Rental Costs in Relation to Income........................................................................... 26 ActualHousing Costs................................................................................................................ 28 HOUSING NEED MODEL..................................................................................................................29 HOUSING NEED CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 31 Measures.................................................................................................................................... 32 DETERMINE PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS..................34 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDABLE LAND NEEDS PROJECTION METHODS..... 34 Residential and Public/Semi-Public Land Needs Conclusions............................................ 36 Exhibit 4 84 Page 2 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) Interpretation. Median rent in Woodburn, while lower than several comparators,including Oregon as a whole, is slightly higher than median rents in Salem and Marion County, its two closest comparators. This seems incongruous at first glance, considering the lower income levels of Woodburn (see section on Income in this document). However, there are two other factors that are likely to influence median rent in Woodburn—the amount of new rental housing, and household size. Woodburn has increased its supply of rental housing recently (see sections on Vacancy Rate as well as Actual Development). New housing is usually more expensive than older housing, and logically will lead to higher rents unless there is a substantial oversupply of rental units. Woodburn also has the largest household size among the comparators, and most of the household growth is in the form of families (see sections on Household Size and Households by Family Status), which leads to a higher need for larger rental units (2-3 bedroom rather than 1 bedroom). Larger rental units logically cost more than smaller rental units. These two factors may be skewing the rent upward in Woodburn. As household sizes begin to decline in Woodburn over the next 20 years (see section on Household Size), and the recently developed apartments become older, median rent can be expected to drop relative to comparator communities. Median home value in Woodburn has been low and continues to be comparatively far lower than other communities in this analysis, as well as the county and state. This means that Woodburn is providing relatively affordable housing. Woodburn residents can expect to pay less for a house than in most other places around the state. In addition to planning for economic stimuli as indicated in the Economic Opportunities Analysis, Woodburn should continue to encourage low cost housing options. Table 32: Housing Costs, 1990 Housing Costs 1990 Woodburn, Wilsonville Salem Portland Marioneounty Oreton Median Rent(dollars) $ 402 $ 494 $ 387 $ 397 $ 401 $ 408 Median Home Value (dollars) $ 51,900 $ 121,400 $ 60,300 $ 59,200 $ 59,900 $ 67,100 Source: 1990 US Census Table 33: Housing Costs,2000 Hensing Costs 2400 Woodburn— Wilsonville, Salem Portland, Marion County Oregon Median Rent(dollars) $ 599 $ 746 $ 560 $ 622 $ 574 $ 620 Median Home Value (dollars) $ 114,800 $ 227,900 $131,100 $154,900 $ 132,600 $152,100 Source:2000 US Census Table 34: Housing Costs Trends, 1990-2000 Housing Costs Trends 1990- 2000, Woodburn Wilsonville Salem Portland , Marion County Oregon Median Rent(dollars) $ 197 $ 252 $ 173 $ 225 $ 173 $ 212 Median Home Value (dollars) $ 62,900 $ 106,500 $ 70,800 $ 95,700 $ 72,700 $ 85,000 Source: 1990&2000 US Census Housing Need Model May 2005 29 Exhibit 4 85 Page 3 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) The ODCED has developed a Residential Land Needs model that bases housing needs on projected income by age cohort, related to assumptions of types and cost for various housing types over the next 20 years. As described in the brief summary below, it is a complex and sophisticated model: The Housing/Land Needs Models utilize Excel spreadsheets containing components such as templates for inputting specific data that is relevant to a community's housing and/or land needs and graphs for displaying model results. There are two models - one for housing need only and one for housing and the land needed to support that housing- with three versions of each model using parameters appropriate to urban, college or resort (U), medium size rural(M), or small rural(S) communities. The models and their associated templates are designed to use inputted data to calculate, analyze, and display the housing and/or land needs for each community. These files have up to 21 worksheets containing 19 templates and]] graphs that perform different functions in the needs analysis. The model requires a large number of user assumptions to complete many of the 21 worksheets. These assumptions range from those that are fairly standard in a needs analysis (e.g. projected population, vacancy rates, household size) to some that may be unique to the model (e.g. the user must determine what percent of each of five rental housing types will be in each of six rent ranges for the next 20 years). One of the most difficult aspects of the model is that it uses different rental and price ranges than the Census, so the user either has to make assumptions regarding splits in price and rental ranges, or must perform a complete rental survey (including single family house rentals) combined with a full analysis of tax assessor price data. Since we did not have a budget to do a complete rental survey as part of this process, the inputs we used could not be backed by on-ground data. A full copy of the Residential Land Needs Model is provided as Attachment A to this document. Winterbrook ran the model using the tentative coordinated population projection of 34,919, a 20- year timeframe,household size of 2.9, and approximately 100 other assumptions related to housing type, rental status, and price/rent levels (See Attachment A). Projected income by age cohort inputs for the Model were provided by ECONorthwest. The Model produced the result shown on Table 35. Approximately 385 net acres are needed for Low Density Single Family (LDSF), 116 for Medium Density Single Family (MDSF), 94 for High Density Single Family (HDSF), 15 for Manufactured Dwelling Park(MDP), 27 for Low Density Multi-Family (LDMF), 57 for Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF), 14 for High Density Multi-Family (HDMF), and 6 for Mixed-Use(MU). The total acreage needed to serve the 2020 dwelling unit growth of approximately 5,000 units was indicated to be about 714 net acres. When compared with existing housing supply, the total additional acreage needed for 2020 was indicated to be about 339 acres, as shown on Table 36. 9 Note that this does not include land for public uses such as parks and schools,as it is purely dwelling units. May 2005 30 Exhibit 4 86 Page 4 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) Table 35: 2020 Needed Net Acres for Housing LbSF ,MUSE UDSF, MDP LDMF MDMF HBMF MU Total Acres Needed 385.1 115.8 94.0 15.4 27.4 56.7 14.0 5.5 713.7 Source: The Housing/Land Needs Model;Winterbrook Planning Table 36: 2020 Additional Net Acres Needed for Housing LDSF MflSF HD' SF MDP', LI DMF ,MDMF HDMF MU Total New Acres Needed 102.1 114.8 94.0 15.4 27.4 (34.3) 14.0 5.5 338.7 Source: The Housing/Land Needs Model;Winterbrook Planning Winterbrook used the Housing Needs Model results as a base and a guide for this Housing Needs Analysis. Discussions with Woodburn staff,review of the Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, and demographic factors analyzed above were also factors in the Housing Needs Conclusions we reached below. Housing Need Conclusions Woodburn has two major cohorts: a rapidly growing young population that will continue to grow and mature over the next 20 years, and an elder population that should remain fairly stable. Currently, Woodburn is doing fairly well,but can improve in providing opportunities for affordable housing. Part of the affordable housing "problem"is that the new, young population lacks the financial resources of established families. A major part of Woodburn's economic opportunities analysis is to take advantage of its growing workforce by offering the opportunity for jobs to locate in the area. If Woodburn is successful in attracting these jobs, the buying power of residents will improve in relation to housing needs. So, while Woodburn can benefit from a wider range of housing types, and should allow the opportunity for multi-family and small lot single-family residences to develop, it is important to continue to supply traditional single-family housing as well. Currently, Woodburn has two residential plan designations: Low Density Residential and High Density Residential. These designations are implemented by three zones: Residential Single Family, Retirement Community Single Family Residential, and Medium Density Residential. In order to better represent and implement the housing types indicated as needed by the Land Needs Model and by our demographic analysis, we created two new plan designation overlays: a Nodal overlay and Vertical Mixed Use overlay. The nodal overlay would be applied to Single Family Residential,producing Nodal Low Density Residential(Nodal LDR) or Medium Density Residential,producing Nodal Medium Density Residential (Nodal MDR). The Vertical Mixed Use(VMU) overlay would be applied to downtown commercial areas. The two original plan designations,plus the overlays produce five distinct plan areas: • Low Density Residential: This plan designation allows stick-built single-family homes, manufactured dwellings (not parks), and some duplexes. Approximately 30% of new May 2005 31 Exhibit 4 87 Page 5 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) dwelling units would fall into this designation. Capacity ofresidential exceptions areas adjacent to the 2002 Woodburn UGB totaling 295 units was subtracted from this need. • Nodal Low Density Residential: This overlay would allow smaller lot single family homes, zero lot line single family dwellings, and manufactured homes in Low Density Residential areas. Approximately 30% of new dwelling units would fall into this designation. • Medium Density Residential: This plan designation allows duplexes, manufactured dwelling parks, and medium density multi-family dwellings. Approximately 20% of new dwelling units would fall into this designation. • Nodal Medium Density Residential: This overlay would allow slightly higher densities than MDR, and would allow condominiums, townhouses, and rowhouses. Approximately 20% of new dwelling units would fall into this designation. • Vertical Mixed Use: Housing is allowed above retail in Woodburn's downtown commercial area and the proposed nodal commercial area. Approximately 1% of new dwelling units would fall into this category.10 As shown in Table 37 below,this proposed implementation of the new Nodal overlays results in a residential land need of 527 net acres through 2020—about 150 net acres less than would be needed if actual development trends were extended without measures(as shown in Table 8), and about 180 net acres less than the Housing Needs Model indicated (as shown in Table 35). Table 37: Residential Land Needs Net Net Acre Plan Density Percent CSU Need LDR 5.5 30.0% 1195 217 Nodal LDR 8 30.0% 1490 186 MDR 14 19.5% 969 69 Nodal MDR 18 19.5% 969 54 MU 16 1% 50 0 Total 8.9 100% 4673 527 Source:Winterbrook Measures Table 38 provides more detail on the proposed distribution of housing by type and comprehensive plan designation, with projected net density. In order to achieve the densities projected for each housing type, amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and Development Code are required. Thus, Woodburn will need to adopt "measures"to increase density and provide for more affordable housing, as proscribed by ORS 197.296. These measures are addressed in detail in the Comprehensive Plan and Code Amendments proposed in the 2005 Plan, and briefly outlined as follows: 10 Over 100%due to rounding. May 2005 32 Exhibit 4 88 Page 6 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) • Plan for higher density—Woodburn planned for new development through 2020 to come in at an overall density of 8.3-8.9 dwelling units per net buildable acre. This is significantly higher than the actual density of about 7.3 dwelling units per net buildable acre developed between 1988 and 2002. • Multi-Family Mix—Woodburn planned for a ratio of 65% single-family, manufactured home, or attached single family (with nearly 50% of the single-family as "small lot" single-family) and 35% duplex or multifamily for new development in Woodburn through 2020. • Modify Plan and Zones—Woodburn created two new overlay designations, Nodal and Vertical Mixed Use,in order to better fit housing type needs and allow for higher density in mixed-use node areas. We also modified the small lot single-family zone to apply to more than just the"Retirement Community" and created a new high density residential zone. • Mixed-Use Node —Woodburn has designated a nodal development area,in the southwest portion of Woodburn near Parr Road. This area will have a mix of multi-family, small lot single-family, and rowhouses, as well as a small neighborhood commercial center and a location fairly near new industrial jobs. • Minimum Density Standards —Woodburn has incorporated minimum density standards for new subdivisions and planned developments in each of its residential zones. This standard is designed to achieve approximately 80% of maximum permitted densities. Table 38: Housing Need by Type and Density Table and Explanation ous ng Type N4mber of Percentage of New Units Projected Net Woodburn Plan New tints Density District LDR and MH 1378 29% 5.5 SFR (Standard Lot) oda1SF (Small Lot) 1426 30% 8 SFR Nodal Duplex 48 1°/ 8 SFR Duplex 48 1% 8 RM MH in MHP 190 4% 8 RM Attached Single 95 2% 12 RM/Nodal Family Multi-Family 808 17% 14 RM Multi-Family 618 13% 18 RM l Nodal Multi-Family 24 0.50% 16 VMU* Multi-Family 24 0.50% 16 CN/Nodal Totals/Percentages! 4753 100°/ 8.4 Cumulative Density Indicates measures needed. May 2005 33 Exhibit 4 89 Page 7 of 7 Attachmen C. (a) Marion County Coordination Goals and Policies Goal C-1. To coordinate with Marion County regarding planning issues that extend beyond the boundaries of the City of Woodburn, including population allocations, amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and transportation system plans, and achievement of a compact urban growth form, as required by Statewide Planning Goals 2 (Land Use Planning and Coordination), 12 (Transportation) and 14 (Urbanization). Policies C-1.1 Marion County Framework Plan goals, policies and guidelines will be considered when the City considers plan amendments that require Marion County concurrence. C-1.2 The City of Woodburn shall have primary responsibility to plan for community growth within its Urban Growth Boundary, and recognizes its responsibility to coordinate with Marion County to ensure the efficient use of urbanizable land within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. D. Residential Land Development and Housing The 2003 Woodburn Housing Needs Analysis forecasted future housing need by type and density. The City is committed to maintaining a 20-year supply of buildable land to meet identified housing needs. Residential Plan Designations Medium Density Residential Lands Most Medium Density Residential areas are located adjacent to an arterial or collector street or at the intersection of major streets. Care should be taken in developing these areas to ensure that good transportation flow is accommodated and that on-site recreational uses are provided to some extent to alleviate some of the problems caused by living in medium density areas. Medium Density Residential lands are also appropriate in designated Nodal Development areas and near employment centers. Low Density Residential Lands Low density residential areas are the most sensitive land use and must be intensively protected. In general they are not compatible with commercial and industrial uses and some type of buffering technique must be used to protect them. Also, arterials and other transportation corridors can severely affect the usefulness of low density residential areas. In general, low density residential areas have been located according to existing patterns of development and in areas which are protected from high traffic flows and commercial and industrial uses. When greenways are used as buffers between other land uses and low density residential areas it is extremely important to maintain the visual and physical separation that the greenway provides. Small lot Woodburn Comprehensive Plan—Volume I—Goals and Policies September,2012.Page 13 Exhibit 5 Page 1 of 5 90 Attachmen C. (a) single-family residential development is appropriate in Nodal Development areas and may be allowed in Medium Density Residential areas. Small lot senior housing is encouraged adjacent to existing senior housing areas. Public Use In addition to the four major types of land uses (medium density residential low density residential, commercial, and industrial),lands for public use are shown. These are lands, which are used or intended for use by governmental units, including lands which are currently owned by the City or School District. Future acquisition sites are not indicated, however, as this may affect the price the public would have to pay. In most cases, residential land is acquired for park and school use; for this reason, the Public Use category is considered as a "Residential Land Use". Because the location of these sites depends a great deal on price and availability, the City and School District will have to make decisions at the time the acquisition is needed about the best location. Residential Land Use Goals and Policies Policies D-1.1 Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood concept. Neighborhoods should be an identifiable unit bounded by arterials, non-residential uses, or natural features of the terrain. The neighborhood should provide a focus and identity within the community and should have a community facility, such as a school, park, or privately owned community facility to allow for interaction within the neighborhood. D-1.2 Developments in residential areas should be constructed in such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate over time. Zoning ordinances should be strictly enforced to prevent encroachment of degrading non-residential uses. Construction standards in the State Building Code shall be vigorously enforced. Woodburn is committed to adopting a housing code to improve the housing stock in the community. D-1.3 Development should promote, through the use of moderate density standards and creative design, a feeling of openness and spaciousness with sufficient landscaped area and open space to create a pleasant living environment. Higher density areas should be located near jobs, shopping and/or potential transit services. D-1.4 Streets in residential areas should be used by residents for access to collectors and arterials. Residential streets should be designed to minimize their use for through traffic. However, whenever possible, dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs should be avoided. D-1.5 Residential developments should strive for creative design that will maximize the inherent values of the land being developed and encourage slow moving traffic. Each residential development should provide for landscaping and tree planting to enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan—Volume I—Goals and Policies September,2012.Page 14 Exhibit 5 Page 2 of 5 91 Attachmen C. (a) D-1.6 Except in areas intended for mixed use, non-residential uses should be prevented from locating in residential neighborhoods. Existing non-conforming uses should be phased out as soon as possible. D-1.7 Home occupations and combination business and home should be allowed only if the residential character is unaffected by the use. D-1.8 High traffic generating non-residential uses should not be located in a manner that increases traffic flows on residential streets or residential collectors. However, designated neighborhood commercial centers in Nodal Development areas are exempt from this policy. D-1.9 Industrial and commercial uses that locate adjacent to a residential area should buffer their use by screening, design, and sufficient setback that their location will not adversely affect the residential area. D-1.10 High density residential areas should be located to minimize the possible deleterious effects on any adjacent low density residential development. When high density and low density areas abut, density should decrease in those high density areas immediately adjacent to low density residential land. Whenever possible, buffering should be practiced by such means as landscaping, sight-obscuring fences and hedges, and increased setbacks. This policy does not apply in Nodal Development areas. D-1.11 Traffic from high density residential areas should have direct access to collector or arterial streets without having to utilize local residential streets to reach shopping and job centers. Housing Goals and Policies Goal D-2. The housing goal of the City is to ensure that adequate housing for all sectors of the community is provided. Policies D-2.1 The City will ensure that sufficient land is made available to accommodate the growth of the City, consistent with the 2005 Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis. This requires that sufficient land for both high density and low density residential developments is provided within the confines of the growth and development goals of the City. It is the policy of the City to assist and encourage property owners, whenever possible, to rehabilitate and renew the older housing in the City. D-2.2 It is the policy of the City to encourage a variety of housing types to accommodate the demands of the local housing market. In Woodburn, the following needed housing types shall be allowed, subject to clear and objective design standards, in the following zoning districts: Woodburn Comprehensive Plan—Volume I—Goals and Policies September,2012.Page 15 Exhibit 5 Page 3 of 5 92 Attachmen C. (a) Policy Table 2: Needed Housing Types and Implementing Zoning Districts Needed Housing Type Implementing Zoning District(s) Single-Family Detached RS Single-Family Residential Residential R1S Retirement Community Single-Family Residential RSN Nodal Development Single-Family Residential Manufactured Dwellings On RS Single-Family Residential Individual Lots R1S Retirement Community Single-Family Residential In Parks RM Medium Density Residential Attached Single Family RMN Nodal Residential Residential (Row Houses) MUV Mixed Use Village Duplexes On Corner Lots RS Single-Family Residential Generally RM Medium Density Residential RM Medium Density Residential Multi-Family Generally RMN Nodal Residential Above Commercial DDC Downtown Development and Conservation NNC Nodal Neighborhood Commercial MUV Mixed Use Village Government Assisted These "housing types" are based on financing or tenure, and Housing* are not regulated by the City. If the housing type (e.g., single family, manufactured dwelling, attached single family, duplex, Farm Worker Housing* or multi-family) is allowed in the underlying zoning district, these "housing types" are allowed subject to applicable design Rental Housing* standards. * Note that the City regulates housing development to ensure quality construction and design, but does not regulate based on tenure. D-2.3 To ensure that new concepts in housing are not restricted unduly by ordinances, the City shall periodically review its ordinances for applicability to the current trends in the housing market. The RIS District is an example of Woodburn's efforts to providing affordable housing for seniors, by allowing single-family homes on lots as small as 3,600 square feet. D-2.4 To provide for the persons living in the community of a lower income, the City will accept its regional share of low income housing. This policy is not intended to provide an overabundance of low income housing. D-2.5 To provide for needed housing close to neighborhood shopping with a pedestrian orientation, Woodburn shall adopt a new Nodal Development Overlay. This overlay designation shall apply in Southwest Woodburn as shown on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. Special design standards shall ensure a pedestrian orientation and compatibility between the residential and commercial uses. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan—Volume I—Goals and Policies September,2012.Page 16 Exhibit 5 Page 4 of 5 93 Attachmen C. (a) D-2.6 Woodburn is committed to providing affordable homeownership opportunities to its citizens. For this reason, Woodburn zoning regulations will allow rowhouses (attached single-family homes) and detached single-family homes on smaller lots (4,000 sq. ft. minimums)within Nodal Development areas. D-2.7 Woodburn shall amend existing zoning districts to implement the Nodal Development concept to allow: (a) Increased density in the RM Medium Density Residential District; (b) Rowhouses with alley access and front porches in the RM Medium Density Residential District; and (c) Small-lot single family homes with alley access and front porches in the RS Single Family District. E. Industrial Land Development and Employment The 2001 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic Development Strategy provide the basis and policy direction for Woodburn's economic development efforts. Generally, Woodburn is committed to providing the infrastructure and land base necessary to attract higher-paying, non-polluting jobs. This change is necessary to reverse recent trends that saw Woodburn becoming a bedroom community, with residents commuting to the Portland and Salem areas for employment. For Woodburn to be competitive, it must make the most of its key comparative advantage — location along the Interstate 5 Corridor. Woodburn is surrounded by agricultural resource land, therefore the City cannot avoid using agricultural land to provide suitable industrial sites. Consequently, in order to meet the City's economic development objectives, several large parcels along the I-5 corridor have been reserved exclusively for industrial use. To ensure that these industrial sites along I-5 are used solely for targeted industrial uses, Woodburn has adopted stringent policies to prevent the re- designation of industrial sites in the Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay (SWIR) to commercial or residential uses. In addition, large minimum parcel sizes will ensure needed large industrial sites are preserved. Industrial Land Designations Location of industrial lands poses more of a problem than any other use in urban areas. They are essential for the City, and in Woodburn's case, must be expanded to accommodate future needs. In general, this type of land use requires good transportation access, served preferably, but not necessarily, by both railroad and highway. Reserving industrial sites with direct access to Interstate 5 is critical to the City's economic development efforts. Generally, industrial land should not be located adjacent to residential areas without some type of buffering use in between the industrial use and the residential areas; either green space or a major road or other similar buffer. There are five areas that have been established for industrial use in Woodburn. They meet all of the above criteria. They are: 1. In the southeast quadrant of the City; Woodburn Comprehensive Plan—Volume I—Goals and Policies September,2012.Page 17 Exhibit 5 Page 5 of 5 94 Attachment C. (b) IIID II II:M II l. liIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ul t III ilw II I"II V dl III It ll III II I'd M II'„r 10ICN P 11::� September 29, 2017 City of Woodburn Attention: Chris Kerr 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Woodland Crossing(ANX 2017-03, et al.) Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Project Number 2150567.01 Dear Chris: This letter provides some supplemental traffic information the applicant has prepared to respond to verbal and written public testimony at the July 27th Planning Commission hearing. The applicant requests that you forward the following information to the City Council for their consideration during the October 9th hearing. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS FOR THE WOODLAND AVENUE/ROBIN AVENUE INTERSECTION Traffic signals are often identified as the solution to many traffic problems at intersections; but when they are installed at locations where they are not needed, they may negatively affect the safety and efficiency of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic flow. According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)1: Improper or unjustified traffic control signals can result in one or more of the following disadvantages: A. Excessive delay; B. Excessive disobedience of the signal indications; C. Increased use of less adequate routes as road users attempt to avoid the traffic control signals; and D. Significant increases in the frequency of collisions (especially rear-end collisions). Therefore, careful analysis of traffic operations, non-auto users (pedestrians and bicyclists), safety, and other factors should be considered before pursuing the installation of a traffic signal. Mackenzie's transportation engineers have performed an evaluation of volumes at the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection based on five days of data collected from Saturday, September 9, 2017, through Wednesday, September 13, 2017. This data was compared with the traffic signal warrant criteria in the MUTCD. The focus of the analysis was the vehicular volume warrants because pedestrian volumes at the intersection are generally low, and the crash data at this all-way stop does not support the need for a signal. Other warrants are related to physical conditions that are not present at this location (e.g., school crossing, coordinated signal system, at-grade railroad crossing). When considering the installation of a traffic signal, most jurisdictions focus on two warrants: ■ Warrant 1. Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,2009 Edition, Federal Highway Administration , I i5( h 2V,M 9560 I I0!:;!i; 228 1285 �tr.11<llllr"II colllt I'Ivvrl:�i,l (_LIFT, 1,11`1 `d MM VVilvrAvnnur,+F'IUU,I,altl n r, 71 c,t 1,,. �1/II FIN UIfIIM LJUI,w,i::I''I/UUI U,{ II/U�I',oiri/riowi'I/UI1IId: /6!� I I I D i t I'I U I L:I'I l l '1 I�1 U UPM I. FIN IUI I I'�I U I H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-City Council Input-170929.docx 95 Attachment C. (b) City of Woodburn Woodland Crossing (ANX 2017-03, et al.) Project Number 2150567.01 September 29, 2017 Page 2 ■ Warrant 2. Four-Hour Vehicular Volume The evaluation is based on a survey of hourly traffic volumes on an average day, typically a weekday. While weekend conditions can be considered, installing a signal based on weekend volumes, when weekday volumes do not support installation, may lead to some of the concerns cited by the MUTCD. Similarly, a warrant based on peak-hour volumes is available, but is generally not used as the sole consideration for signal installation for the same reasons. The warrant analysis performed at the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection evaluates both Warrants 1 and 2 for the average weekday condition and considers Saturday and Sunday volumes. Because Robin Avenue has the higher functional classification (Service Collector vs.Access Street)and carries higher roadway volumes, it was assumed to be the major street in the analysis, with Woodland Avenue as the minor street. Warrants based on existing traffic volumes were evaluated, along with projections of future traffic under pre-and post-development conditions. Table 1 summarizes the resulting warrant analysis. IN III EXISTING CONDITION(2017) Average Weekday No No Saturday No No Sunday No No PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION(2018) Average Weekday No No Saturday Yes Yes Sunday No Yes POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION(2018) Average Weekday No No Saturday Yes Yes Sunday Yes Yes The following observations can be made: ■ No signal warrants are met under existing conditions(i.e., September 2017 traffic volumes with school in session), on either an average weekday or a weekend day. ■ No signal warrants are met for an average weekday for any conditions (existing, pre-development, or post- development). ■ Under pre-development conditions, warrants are met on both weekend days. ■ Under post-development conditions, warrants are met on both weekend days. H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-City Council Input-170929.docx 96 Attachment C. (b) City of Woodburn Woodland Crossing (ANX 2017-03, et al.) Project Number 2150567.01 September 29, 2017 Page 3 CONCLUSION Based on the warrant analysis and guidance from the MUTCD, a traffic signal is not recommended because warrants are only met on weekends and not on weekdays. Instead, as suggested by MUTCD, "since vehicular delay and frequency of some types of crashes are greater under traffic signal control than under STOP sign control, consideration should be given to providing alternatives to traffic control signals even if one or more of the signal warrants has been satisfied." The following measures, which are consistent with improvements recommended by the MUTCD, have been offered by the applicant to address the intersection safety and operations: ■ Removal of the existing right-turn-only arrow in the right lane of westbound Robin Avenue. ■ Replacement of the "3 WAY" supplemental plaque on the stop signs with "ALL WAY" supplemental plaques ("3 WAY" plaques are not permitted by the MUTCD). ■ Installation of a flashing LED "STOP" sign for westbound Robin Avenue. ■ Installation of a flashing LED "STOP AHEAD" sign for westbound Robin Avenue. ■ Removal or trimming of existing vegetation on the southern tip of the Woodland Avenue median north of Robin Avenue to improve sightlines. ■ Relocation of the southbound stop bar pavement marking on Woodland Avenue north of Robin Avenue to improve sightlines. ■ Modification of pavement marking arrows in Woodland Avenue near Myrtle Street to better explain allowable turn movements. ■ Additional signage on Robin Avenue westbound to indicate that left turns can be made from both lanes and that both lanes provide access to 1-5. ■ Additional signage on Woodland Avenue to provide direction to 1-5. The City of Woodburn does not currently own or operate any traffic signals. Through discussions with City Public Works staff, we understand that they would prefer actions that can improve the safety and operations of the all-way stop controlled intersection, rather than pursuing a traffic signal that only meets warrants under future weekend conditions, would otherwise add delay for drivers on weekdays and off-peak times, and would incur additional maintenance costs. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this information for the City Council's consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, J nifer D nziger, PE ranso rtation Engineer c: Steve Master—MW1, LLC Brian Varricchione—Mackenzie H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-City Council Input-170929.docx 97 Attachment C. (c) IIID II IIl. liIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ul It III ilw I"II V dl III It ll III II II"N M II'„r 10ICN P uulluuuull"u August 8, 2017 City of Woodburn Attention: Chris Kerr 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Woodland Crossing(ANX 2017-03, et al.) Response to Testimony at Planning Commission Hearing Project Number 2150567.01 Dear Chris: Multiple topics were raised during verbal and written public testimony at the July 27 Planning Commission hearing, some of which were previously addressed by the applicant's rebuttal at the hearing. The applicant requests that you forward the following information to the Planning Commission for their consideration during the August 10 hearing. 1. Comments on staff's proposed conditions of approval As noted during the presentation on July 27th, the applicant requests a gravel surface for the RV storage area instead of paving(staff's proposed condition#6)and requests modification of conditions#4,5,8,and 9 to tie them to the multifamily development rather than to the RV storage. 2. Signage, striping, and sightline enhancements near the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection Members of the public observed that the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection is presently dominated by westbound traffic on Robin Avenue, which leads to increased delays and safety concerns for users of Woodland Avenue. The applicant and Mackenzie staff have identified several options to improve operations of the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection: ■ Additional signage on Robin Avenue westbound to indicate that left turns can be made from both lanes and that both lanes provide access to 1-5 (per staff's proposed condition of approval#7), similar to the following: I� VIII illullllllu ONLY IT IIIIIIIIII ■ Removal of the existing right-turn-only arrow in the right lane of westbound Robin Avenue. ■ Replacement of the "3 WAY” supplemental plaque on the stop signs with "ALL WAY" supplemental plaques ("3 WAY" plaques are not permitted by the current version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD)). ■ Installation of a flashing LED stop sign for westbound Robin Avenue (similar to the attached). ■ Installation of a flashing LED stop ahead sign for westbound Robin Avenue (similar to the attached). , I i5( h 2V,M 9560 I I0!:;!i; 228 1285 �tCIKIINIlZII colllt I'Ivvrl:�i,l (_LIFT, 1,11`1 `d MM VVilvrAvnnur,+F'IUU,I,altl n r, 71 c,t N,,. �1/II FIN UIfIIM LJUI,w,i::I''I/UUI U,{ II/U�I',oiri/riowi'I/UI1IId: /6!� I I I D i t I'I U I L:I'I l l '1 I�1 U UPM I. FIN IUI I I'�I U I H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-Planning Commission Response-170808.d ocx 98 Attachment C. (c) City of Woodburn Woodland Crossing (ANX 2017-03, et al.) Project Number 2150567.01 August 8, 2017 Page 2 ■ Removal or trimming of existing vegetation on the southern tip of the Woodland Avenue median north of Robin Avenue to improve sightlines. ■ Relocation of the southbound stop bar pavement marking on Woodland Avenue north of Robin Avenue to improve sightlines. ■ Modification of pavement marking arrows in Woodland Avenue near Myrtle Street to better explain allowable turn movements. ■ Additional signage on Woodland Avenue to provide direction to 1-5. Please note that these are preliminary ideas that would need to be further coordinated with the City's technical staff prior to implementation, and some options may not be acceptable to City or ODOT staff. 3. Traffic signal warrants for the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection Mackenzie's transportation engineers have performed a preliminary evaluation of volumes at the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection and determined that it does not appear to meet MUTCD warrants for a traffic signal. Additionally, a traffic signal at this location would primarily benefit westbound traffic on Robin Avenue, leading to increased delays for southbound traffic on Woodland Avenue. 4. Options for reducing traffic speeds on the Arney Lane extension Staff has proposed condition of approval #8 to require the applicant to examine potential design features for slowing traffic on Arney Lane to minimize traffic from the Woodburn Premium Outlets. As noted during the hearing, the current plans include several items to slow traffic, including on-street parking; all-way stop control at the Steven Street/Arney Lane intersection; roadway curvature designed for 25 mph;and street trees.Other potential speed reduction mechanisms include medians;chokers/pinchpoints; speed humps/speed tables;and chicanes(which create a serpentine roadway with S-curves). Potentially limiting a portion of Arney Lane extension to one-way traffic flow could also be considered. Any change in traffic flow or other design options would need to be further coordinated with the City's technical staff prior to issuance of roadway permits. 5. Screening and security along west site boundary Some abutting property owners to the west expressed concerns about the proposed vegetated screen along the west site boundary and noted reservations about installation of the architectural wall typically required by the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO), due to potential impacts on existing landscaping. Staff has proposed condition of approval#9 to require an architectural wall north of Steven Street, except if abutting property owners do not want a wall. The applicant would propose that the Planning Commission instead impose a condition of approval requiring a chain-link fence with privacy slats along the west site boundary(both north and south of Steven Street) in lieu of either a landscape screen or an architectural wall. See attached diagram. 6. Separation between Arney Lane curb line and residential properties to the west To provide additional separation between the proposed Arney Lane curb and the residential properties to the west, the applicant proposes to modify the street cross-section section by either: (1) eliminating on-street parking in that section, thereby allowing a wider landscape section on the west side of the street; or (2) eliminating the landscape strip on the east side of the street, thereby allowing a wider landscape section on the west side of the street. See figures below with the two alternative sections. H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-Planning Commission Response-170808.d ocx 99 Attachment C. (c) City ofWoodburn Woodland Crossing (ANXZU17'U3 et al.) Project Number Z1SUS67.U1 August O, ZU17 Page ALTERNATIVE l: AR N�EY LANE CROSS SECTION AIDJACENT T�O INE|GHBORS 501 RIGHT OF WAY 6'S,IDIE 6' LANID 12'TRAVEL LANE 12'TRAVEL LANE ITLAND WALK SCAPE SCARE 4'IPAVED SURFACE ALTERNATIVE 2: AR0�EY LANE CROSS SECTION AD]ACENTT�O NEIGHBORS 5TRIGHT OF WAY 6'S,IDIE T PARKING 12'TRAVEL LANE 12'TRAVEL LANE II' LANID WALK SCAPE Thank you for the opportunity to submit this information for the Planning Commission's consideration. The proposed development is appropriate for the site context and is consistent with the City's long-term vision spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan; the project meets approval standards as outlined in the staff report; and City and ODOT staff have concurred with traffic analysis. Therefore, the applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission forward the City Council arecommendation for approval. Please contact nneifyou have any questions. Sincerely, Al�� V"�� BrianVanioohione Land Use Planning Enclosures: Product information sheets for flashing LED stop signs and flashing LED stop ahead signs Potential Striping and Signing Changes Illustration ofproposed screening change along western site boundary c: Steve Master—MVV1, LLC H:\Projects\215056700\6_Final\LTR-City of Woodburn-Planning Commission Response-170808.d ocx 100 ' TAPCO° �i TRAFFIC& PARKING CONTROL CO., INC. ��n : u ��i �� L,�,�;;;;;;;;;;;;,,,,,,iiii �. Solar Powered (110VVersion available) �. No AC Power Required �. Easy Installation �. MUTCD Compliant L/�fJJJfJ v 1(11 lj �. Proprietary Day-VizT' Circuitry �. 52.9% Reduction in Blow Throughs �20� . TAPCO's brilliant innovation of enhancing traffic signs with LEDs (Light-Emitting Diodes) makes intersections safer, reduces accidents and saves lives! Day-VizT"°(Daylight Visible) BlinkerSigns feature an array of incredibly bright LEDs that flash in unison, once per second,commanding the attention of drivers DAY AND NIGHT.Any MUTCD sign can be transformed into a BlinkerSign! Contract Holder Patents #6,943,698;#6,693,556 FSS Contract GS07F-5924R II GS-07F-0234U Other Patents Pending FEAT RIE Attachment C. (c) • Installs easily onto any new or existing sign post •Can be integrated into an ITS(Intelligent Transportation System) • High intensity Day-VizTM o LEDs command attention day and night •Can be programmed to operate continuously(24/7) or on solar time clocks, push-buttons and/or motion(vehicle)detectors • Proprietary circuitry - automatically adjusts light output for maximum o visibility and battery efficiency • Multiple signs can be synchronized • Heightened driver awareness E • Increased visibility at high incident intersections ®` IV'�iV'iussrslVstlii s • New stop sign locations • High incident intersections • Rural roads Patents #6,943,698;#6,693,556 Other Patents Pending puuul uuu It °. rtijihi° j: didlull"j Vit„ uY Sign Specification- MUTCD t Sign Substrate .080 Highway Grade Aluminum 11 ROSS Reflective Sheeting 3MTm DG3-with anti-graffiti overlay MUTCD Compliance MUTCD Section 2A.08 Compliant Day-Viz"I Management System (patent pending) Battery Nickel Metal Hydride(NiMH)-14,000mAh Battery Lifespan Up to 5 years Autonomy-Functionality without Charge Up to 30 days in 24/7 operation Flash Pattern MUTCD Compliant LED Type High Power Luxeon-1 watt LED Life Expectancy Over 100,000 hours Warranty Term 1 Full Year Warranty SmaitActivation Options � ' ui iuumuU i � I 24/7 continuous Time clock activation(Windows based software programmable) Wireless control activation Vehicle detection activation 4 *Allspecificationssubject tochange withoutnotice. Distributed By: For complete specifications and details call or visit www.tapconet.com 5100 W.Brown Deer•Brown Deer,WI 53223 Ph:262.814.7000-800.236.0112 Fax:262.814.7017.800.444.0331 www.tapconet.com•www.tapcostore.com 02 04090001 � • � � � � • � • ' • • � • • � • • � . � �� ,�, �� }. j-. ;� r � u��„ / , i �/ �/�� IIIIIIIP, /��////////////////////� W�, VV �/.. �j/ �. / / ////ii� .AIII�h�i�� yy ��///,: ill / �� j/ �jj�j/ /�� //�� ; !�j,� %ii%////iiii�� /��' �// �� ,..�' " • • • • • � � � � � � •� - • -• •- • • -• • • � � • • � ` ` � • ' '- • • FEATURES nt C. (c) •Installs easily onto any new or existing sign post •Can be integrated into an ITS(Intelligent Transportation System) •High intensity Day-VizTM LEDs command attention day and night •Can be programmed to operate continuously(24/7) or on solar time clocks, push-buttons and motion o 0 (vehicle)detectors •Proprietary circuitry automatically adjusts light output for maximum visibility and battery o _ efficiency •Multiple signs can be synchronized •Heightened driver awareness •Increased visibility at high incident intersections Pm..iCATue:NS •High incident intersections •Rural roads •Advance stop sign warnings Vuuuuuuumuumuu Patents #6,943,698;#6,693,556 Other Patents Pending II I� Sign Specification W3-1 I III VIII Sign Substrate .080 Highway Grade Aluminum Reflective Sheeting 3MT"" DG3T""-with anti-graffiti overlay MUTCD Compliance MUTCD Section 2A.08 Compliant Day--Viz I" Managernent Systern (patent pending) Battery Nickel Metal Hydride(NiHM)-14,000mAh Battery Lifespan Up to 5 years Autonomy-Functionality without Charge Up to 30 days in 24/7 operation Flash Pattern MUTCD Compliant LED Type High Power Luxeon- 1 watt LED Life Expectancy Over 100,000 hours Warranty Term 1 Full Year Warranty Srnart Activation Options 24/7 continuous Time clock activation(Windows based software programmable) Wireless control activation Vehicle detection activation *All specifications subject to change without notice. Distributed By: For complete specifications and details call or visit www.tapconet.com 5100 W.Brown Deer•Brown Deer,WI 53223 Ph:262.814.7000-800.236.0112 �i TAPCO Fax:414.354.5480-800.444.0331 www.tapconet.com 06090036 104 ' SV h� Relocate stop bar and sign p 9 lane distribution ,., o ,, ✓i/� �� lines 9 9 P • Add si na a to im rove to Im rove sight � o ,� Add signage to direct ��, /� �� iaa Remove right—turn an, �Ww�� Add stop ahead signage toy ✓ � � . 1 � �, alert drivers to Add LED lighting to traffic control improve sign visibility increase stop compliance 1 // y �� i / r 1 / � G Remove reduce 11 im � / 1 l J � i „ s / r I 4 / t � i @tlM" . i �� k'ihJf411X'ib!Y,h(�ryU9MJlWNIPNW@MVIJ/dl'Nfi9M1;Y.. i ryy ,. ,... ri, �num9rtretiiioiionmciiAririr t i ii�iioiwlroioiui�ui uiolJuuuii° f �, �r,� � �mNimiui N i iwioimiuiou �Nuiuiuroiwu � y 1 . . � a i r i' 1 f i /I i Portland Vancouver Seattle w POTENTIAL STRIPING A N D SIGNING CHANGES August 8,2017 503.22..95 360.695.7679 206.749.9993 N Job#2150567.01 „ www.mcknze.com m WOODLAND CROSSING Architecture g Interiors Planning-Engineering f z1s05o7oo\4_ouAWINavuaFFic\sIN-MARKIN -567DWI I,I 0e✓0e✓17 142a 1 60 105 ,'i. r.r jj r/fi✓,✓ / /�Edi i /� )l ///ir ii �i i � � �',I ✓ 1 r�(li 1,f6� , �� f�f��f �� /��✓ �� i.��il6 /iii I r � ��;'. o ,� ,' � t" ii��6 ��X G�� l�f��i��/ li�:�� i r/r��✓//� i�wm ��' .✓ ri �/ ly �.I✓r�V ��/ Nf��frf )l��rr��1 i�i� / / t✓rr f ,.//.� ��`, �� /�� „'� ��r"I�i'-�1 r�j��5/%/✓l'9i�%1J1 ✓✓�.��✓��,%�i��e/r ✓;�;i%�,�ii,: iA,see -0 �7 /� l/ ,r 4 IJ d �� ✓/M✓ i� / 1/�� i ■ _ _ _ ) , �% ,�- ) fly ; ¢ �� /�„/./,i�� ;/r<%rine!% �1 fGl� �� , 1., ��,We, •�• • � �1, � � ( �I �1:r��j�jt��Jl�<rA�py� �/,' ;;�/��%�%�/�/ //��ii/d� ii✓/ r t,!�iil % r, fr! r Iii '; ;-� r�,: :� y.9 1) �,lr;�f/%�,✓'./rel/f�.. �i/,rl� ✓x(�;:.%iG M% i/ , 6 • • ,,� �.1 i ;rrl � % / w�f ��,/i✓✓1 %t./ /� ✓1,:,r✓/ % i,'7�/r/,r iir,-/ice (r� � / ,;r i � �.,`,� � �i�;;J��,,a �?i/�I�;°,(,iii%ri�l!!� w�ri�� // ✓� ,� �l � r � l� �,. ( � ,'.r�r 1�%� l�r.��i 1,1 r� ;t>l�'��(..� V� /�j �,r�/rshr/y�,Tl✓/✓//;{i �%i;J�r✓� ��!�u � �tl� i O ,�,li �1 /� ,l r r� 61�;, ��,��r�.,�,}ir'i�yi�, ��Jr k✓;.�� f�,,;�� ✓,drJil%�� (5%�a �i�f.- ii i it ,/ 1,�i✓//./, .% 1,�� rl�� r, �� 1' ✓ ��I. �i,pp� f., iCi p JJ //i/l� i i ,;° iii�� .= Gw !�� ; •. /„�//,� , ., l ,, � :✓f�j'i,1.i IU, ��,�,y�h7�hl'��.: r�'`yri��y�y/�,i�,h„%,�.!, ?✓ 1,/,,.i,. / / �,r�� G A/ ✓ � 1,e1 ,�, �;;�,�i7f"ll�; s,�,;Ir,.: �,�� `✓;;'/� %ni,"��,,,/G/✓i%!re i �;;✓/r Ipi ,,/,li /di }�.�Vie/ %,.. �'g J. /,,t,r//�/�Jr��1 li r'Y,,,!t1 � <, �j, ,��f�. � .,�r�:a�, ✓ r.�,1� �Iri�i�� u/ ��/ � i, �,< l1%��.,�✓v,�, „�tll�.,� ,��,✓�>' Apr,J;...r ,r,.,'��;9i//,,� ��✓��;f,lr r,D�.�.:/✓% �'�/ }i r i:6 ��.,. ✓ ,J„ ;%. i 11 ♦ � i/(<�r`��.� l✓ ,��i/, � ✓�i�a; ,_�,f 611 Fl3Y r ;,N/f r�„i i �si r✓�;`. ♦♦ r��_��_��_.��_�. ."r, i �.,,,, � ,. ,r �, ��" r6:a�� ,,,{.s1 �✓✓,idly //l l 61 i :! / / / //, ii i J. .�: ♦— f „�,t//,�� t„ L ��i.e.fy�� , 'yp�,�, � I f,,:,IJ/t f� i /f ✓ i. � /,6f ,/ -: i i Nei„ ///.,r, ,� ,,nl� ��, �� jj�II '� I; � �`�1! lai d r ii �+' � r ,,"� fl➢/ Mr i4 r� �/' M/ ,�/ , I ♦ /,��.��f ., �I.,, � ��h-r�.-J,U,& r�✓�J„Yi,��j �)✓j�r,�,., ,)„i!�%J/✓ �,f;% �i6 /.. i/ „ � i w �r'n� ,"i,,:.. ��.�.. ��i+d ri a,:r ', wl,�, .'1:�,(If Vl,s., a,1 ,�, i t,✓; J ✓� / Gh i iiia! p,/ / ✓ -� �� .�'�� .Y�r ,��✓� I ,,r,f 1 ,��, � � �� i�.��D �,�, 6 � y� � 7 ��, ✓1�✓ I l r::� ri'6 � �� '� ✓ , — — � �.� J w �6��Y"i�,��r it >I;;��I� � �fl��r�;�> >��y��;I�r ��f�,�� r✓ i "� �,. 11 �_ — — ��.� 'y=l�� x'%✓ �iy�,:� ,'1��.fg�� / ��;�,��d'rUi�,r��.,.J�r�f pB6��r Jef�d��%l.;"'� rf 6j/ �/rr i�� n � "� �� 1� rV` �� Y1��J✓�'lt"i+�� f�,��%"��,��I'�lfy��i�;,�1��%�J��yr 7 y97 1 �f� �r / � � �'✓„ ,:� �„' ,,, � � D�. fel I `�.♦ i k „ i ff r� ✓yf�1�� ✓y'i9f ✓ it lr r i r / ik Cf a �,v' � i' ”' /. . ♦♦ f Ib ,:,j�Jf r r�.,.d pr� 4 1,F, 1/ Ji �� ✓ ✓ p,� l y� ✓dd��r�t✓ d� dl ixl f� kr l - i fl ��.Q r ,��,„✓y r„✓�yi a .G p y r, r i r r i i � u l 99 M Y 1� uM Ii yj II(( lyi 1( N 1� N 1 i 1 �I�I��i��ll ,lri ✓�4j6f �� r r l � 1 � T �. ++ � �,� �r ,�✓ `dI �i�,.pry �� r , .,'� �"`�,`� "" .•.. / /_ • o 11111_11111111111111111111111 �� ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (10/2/2017) Staff recommends approval of the consolidated applications based on the findings submitted by the applicant, which are incorporated by this reference, the supplementary staff findings in this report, as well as the application of the following conditions of approval: 1 . The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the final plans submitted and approved with these applications, except where modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to issuance of any development permit, the property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions of approval in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 3. Prior to the issuance of any development permits, the property owner shall submit a storm drainage hydraulic analysis addressing capacity and impacts on existing culverts, per City and Marion County requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for correcting any necessary deficiencies noted in the analysis. 4. Prior to issuance of any development permit for the residential development, the property owner shall provide and record the required right-of-way dedications, public utility easements, waterline easements, and creek maintenance easements in accordance with the approved plans. 5. Prior to issuance of any development permit for the residential development, the property owner shall provide documentation indicating that the street lighting on Woodland Avenue complies with City and PGE standards. 6. The Recreational Vehicle storage facility must be paved to the standards of WDO Section 3.04.04. 107 7. Prior to issuance of any development permit for the residential development, the measures offered on page 3 of the September 29, 2017 letter from Jennifer Danziger PE shall be made; subject to ODOT and City Engineering approval. 8. Prior to issuance of any development permit for the residential development, the applicant shall modify the street cross-section section along Arney Lane adjacent to the neighbors to the west by eliminating on-street parking to allow a wider landscape section on the west side of the street; in accordance with the following: ALTERNATIVE 1:ARHV ''LANE CROSS SECTION ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORS R GST F WAY "SIDE 6"ILA 1D 13'LAN D 1 S R 1 TRAVEL SHE 1'2'TR VELI NIE �+�,�,P 24'PAVED SURFACE 9. The final plans for the residential development shall be modified to include an architectural wall, meeting the requirements of WDO Section 3.06.06, along the western property line of the subject site on the north side of Steven Street. The requirement to construct the wall may be waived if, prior to construction, written authorization from the adjacent property owner is provided to the City, requesting that the wall not be constructed adjacent to their property. If a wall is not constructed the applicant shall install a fence and/or landscaping that meets the "high screen" requirements of the approved landscaped plans. 10. Any adjustments to the final plans necessary to accommodate the turning movements of a WB-67 truck template at the corner of Arney Lane and Steven Street that would reduce landscaping shall be taken from the south side of the Steven Street extension. 11 .Final approval shall be obtained for all applicable storm drainage, floodway and wetland permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State Lands, Marion County and the City. 108 Attachment E ; � ' N J Fn corpo, rraaed 1889 STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION Date of Public Hearing: July 27, 2017 Date of Staff Report: July 20, 2017 Request The applicant requests an annexation with a consolidated development review to permit a 300 unit multi-family housing development (Woodland Crossing)with an Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage area on a 39 acre property, located generally at the terminus of Arney Lane. File Numbers ANX 2017-03 (consolidated): CU 2017-021DR 2017-031VAR 201 7- 031RCWOD 2017-031PLA 2017-04 Project Location 9065 Arney Lane NE, 2385 Arney Road. and l Juniper Circle Applicant MW 1, LLC Property Steven, Leslie, Shawn, and Drew Stampley; Owner(s) Heirs & devisees of Bennie Sprague; North Hills Properties LLC Planner Assigned Chris Kerr, Community Development Director chris.kerr(a ci.woodburn.or.us Application July 6, 2017 Complete 120-Day Deadline None Comprehensive Medium Density Residential Plan: Low Density Residential (Steven Street extension) Zoning: RM - Medium Density Residential (after annexation) RS - Single Family Residential (Steven Street extension) Adjacent Zoning: Single Family ResidentialRS ( ) to the west; Commercial General (CG) to the south and east; Mahon County Exclusive Farm Use (E FU) to the north Existing Use: Two single-family residences/farm APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Sections 2.02,2.05,2.07, 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 3.04, 3.05, 3.06, 3.07, 3.08,4.01,and 5.04 of Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) as they relate to requests for Annexation, Conditional Use, Design Review, Variances, Property Line Adjustments and Riparian Corridor and Wetland Overlay District approvals. Page 1 of 87 109 Attachment E Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................3 II. RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL...........................................4 III. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................6 IV. APPLICANT'S DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL ...........................................................9 V. CRITERIA/RESPONSE/FINDINGS.......................................................................... 10 VI. SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLANS AND ARCHITECT RENDERINGS..............................87 Page 2 of 87 110 Attachment E I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 300 unit multi-family residential development (Woodland Crossing)with a recreational vehicle (RV) storage area is located on a site west of the Woodburn Premium Outlets and east of the Woodburn West Mobile Estates. Staff is consolidating the applications as is required under the WDO for an annexation that includes a specific development approval. The consolidated applications will require an additional hearing and approval from the City Council. The role of the Planning Commission is to make a formal recommendation on the application, which will be forwarded to the City Council. The applicant proposes to extend Arney Lane from its current terminus to Woodland Ave. along the northern portion of the site. The majority of the 39 acre site is currently outside Woodburn City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This application specifically requests ■ Annexation to bring the site into city limits; ■ Property Line Adjustments to transfer a 100-foot strip of land to the site to allow the eastward extension of Steven Street and to separate the multi-family residential development site from the RV storage site; ■ Design Review for the multi-family dwellings and RV storage; ■ Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District permit for site alterations in the overlay zone; ■ Variances related to(1)screening between uses; (2)landscape buffer requirements; and(3) the location of parking; and, ■ Conditional Use approval to allow the proposed RV storage area to be open to the public. The application addresses all requirements under the WDO, as well as a floodway analysis, a wetland delineation report, a detailed transportation impact analysis (with separate supplemental information requested by ODOT and City Staff) and justifications for the variances. Page 3 of 87 111 Attachment E II. RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff recommends approval of the consolidated applications based on the findings submitted by the applicant, which are incorporated by this reference, the supplementary staff findings in this report, as well as the application of the following conditions of approval: 1. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the final plans submitted and approved with these applications, except where modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to issuance of any development permit, the property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions of approval in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 3. Prior to the issuance of any development permits, the property owner shall submit a storm drainage hydraulic analysis addressing capacity and impacts on existing culverts, per City and Marion County requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for correcting any necessary deficiencies noted in the analysis. 4. Prior to issuance of any development permit, the property owner shall provide and record the required right-of-way dedications,public utility easements, waterline easements, and creek maintenance easements in accordance with the approved plans. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall provide documentation indicating that the street lighting on Woodland Avenue complies with City and PGE standards. 6. The Recreational Vehicle storage facility must be paved to the standards of WDO Section 3.04.04. 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit, an additional sign conforming to the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) shall be located on westbound Robin Lane, indicating that left turns are permitted from both lanes and that I-5 is accessible from both lanes. 8. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, submit a report providing potential design features and their costs which will effectively encourage slower travel speeds and reduce demand on Arney Lane for traffic associated with the commercial uses of the outlet center, as per the recommendation stated in the July 6, 2017 Expanded Operation Analysis memo by Mackenzie. Page 4 of 87 112 Attachment E 9. The final plans shall be modified to include an architectural wall, meeting the requirements of WDO Section 3.06.06, along the western property line of the subject site on the north side of Steven Street. The requirement to construct the wall may be waived if,prior to construction, written authorization from the adjacent property owner is provided to the City, requesting that the wall not be constructed adjacent to their property. If a wall is not constructed the applicant shall install a fence and/or landscaping that meets the"high screen" requirements of the approved landscaped plans. The following are not conditions of the land use approval, but are important NOTES for the applicant to be aware of in conjunction with the future development of this property: • The owner shall ensure all applicable City and County permits for work are obtained prior to the start of work and that the work meets the satisfaction of the permit-issuing jurisdiction. • Prior to building occupancy, all landscaping and screening shall be installed and verified by the City. • Construct private storm sewer system, including detention facilities in accordance with the approved plans and drainage report. All required on-site detention areas for the runoff from this site will need to be provided in accordance with the hydraulic analysis. All on- site detention areas shall be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. • Applicant to comply with Department of State Lands (DSL) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineering requirements for working within wetlands and/or Oregon waterways. Applicant shall also comply with any over governmental body having over jurisdiction over East Senecal Creek. • The Applicant shall provide for the installation of all franchised utilities and any required easements. • Final review of the civil plans will be done during the building permit application. Public infrastructure will be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the City, as well as current Public Works construction specifications, Standard Drawings, Standard Details and General Conditions. Page 5 of 87 113 Attachment E III. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS I J �Y �� IIII mYhN4i�j {451�� IIII , ., �o >k,K` I •y� 1vt SPAN 41RiPlY1W3➢iA 1,^�pyq�y _ SITE p � � td}Y l7*.VNIS I IIII �I.w G ! fflp Y � � I r sr � 9 1 � E ZONING MAP Page 6 of 87 114 Attachment E o/ t i Western property line looking south l' o f r r Looking north from site on Woodlawn Ave. Page 7 of 87 115 Attachment E 'POW", Existing Arney Lane terminus Existing Sprague Lane driveway Page 8 of 87 116 Attachment E IV. APPLICANT'S DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed development will consist of two separate programs. West of the creek, a multi- family residential development is proposed with 300 apartment units, a leasing office, a recreation center and a swimming pool in 13 residential buildings,plus a maintenance building. East of the creek, a storage facility is proposed for up to 127 recreational vehicles (RVs)but no structures. As the multi-family development and the RV storage facility will each be owned and operated independently, the applicant requests that the City structure conditions of approval to be specific to each development so that each facility is not bound by conditions applicable to the other. The development relies on two sequential property line adjustments, which are depicted graphically in Exhibits F and G. Following these adjustments, the resulting lots would include one 25.01-acre parcel for the multi-family residential development and one 9.06-acre parcel for the RV storage area. There will be a minimum 345-foot wide open space between the two developments, which will encompass floodplain, the Senecal Creek East Tributary and associated wetlands, a 50-foot buffer on each side of the wetlands, and a 35-foot creek maintenance easement. The proposed property boundary will run roughly along the southern edge of the channel of the Senecal Creek East Tributary. The closest proposed building will be approximately 150 feet away from the edge of the channel. Design Review for each proposed program is being submitted simultaneously with the annexation application to provide clarity on the proposed development type. The application also requests a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District(RCWOD) Permit for site alterations in the overlay. Proposed work in the RCWOD overlay will include grading, the installation of stormwater management facilities, and right-of-way improvements to the portion of Arney Lane that runs through the RCWOD (though no alterations are proposed within the creek or wetlands themselves). A Variance is requested for the screening requirement of Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 3.06.05, in order to utilize landscaping instead of a wall to satisfy the buffer requirements and to limit buffer plantings to the five feet closest to the property line(see Exhibit K). Lastly, a Conditional Use is requested so that the RV storage area may be available for use by the general public. Page 9 of 87 117 Attachment E V. CRITERIA/RESPONSE/FINDINGS 4.01 Decision-Making Procedures 4.01.07 Consolidated Applications An applicant may request, in writing, to consolidate applications needed for a single development project. Under a consolidated review, all applications shall be processed following the procedures applicable for the highest type decision requested. It is the express policy of the City that development review not be segmented into discrete parts in a manner that precludes a comprehensive review of the entire development and its cumulative impacts. Response: A consolidated review is requested for this application. This application includes multiple requests that will allow for the development of a multi-family residential development and a recreational vehicle (RV) storage area, on a site that is currently located outside of city boundaries. This application requests: annexation to bring the site into city limits;two Property Line Adjustment to accommodate the extension of Steven Street and create separate lots for the RV storage site and the residential development; Design Review for the multi-family dwellings and RV storage; a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District(RCWOD) Permit for site alterations in the overlay; a Variance for the screening requirement of Section 3.06.05; and Conditional Use approval to allow public use of the proposed recreational vehicle storage area. The highest level of review for the proposals is the Annexation, which is processed as a Type IV review. This application requests Type IV approval for the proposed development.This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the requirements of 4.01. A. Annexation and Zone Change 5.04 Type IV(Quasi-Judicial)Decisions 5.04.01 Annexation B. Mandatory Pre-Application Conference: Prior to requesting annexation to the City, a Pre- Application Conference (Section 4.01.04) is required. This provides the city an opportunity to understand the proposed annexation and an opportunity to provide information on the likely impacts, limitations, requirements, approval standards, and other information that may affect the proposal. Response: A pre-application conference was held on January 19, 2017.This standard is met. C. Criteria: 1. Compliance with applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding annexation. Response: Applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are outlined in this section below. 1. G-2.1 For each proposed expansion of the City, Woodburn shall assess the proposal's conformance with the City's plans, and facility capacity and assess its impact on the community. Response:The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Medium Density Residential, which allows for multi-family residences at up to 16 units per acre. The proposed development at this site includes Page 10 of 87 118 Attachment E multi-family housing plus RV storage.The proposed residential development consists of 300 apartments. The proposed RV storage area is a special permitted use in Medium Density Residential areas. Utilities and roadways are available in close proximity to serve the site and no capacity constraints have been identified in the correspondence from Public Works staff, the Fire Marshal, or the School Superintendent.This goal is met. 2. G-2.2 Woodburn will achieve more efficient utilization of land within the City by: 3. (a) Incorporating all of the territory within the City limits that will be of benefit to the City. Response: The proposed annexation will allow development of multi-family housing and an RV storage area. This project will help meet the City of Woodburn's housing demands, and add to the variety of housing options as mandated by Statewide Planning Goal 10. Inclusion of the RV storage facility assists the project economics and makes the overall property a viable site for 300 multi-family units. The provision of land for these purposes serves as a benefit to the City.This goal is met. 4. (b) Providing an opportunity for the urban in fill of vacant and under- utilized property. Response: The proposed annexation site is partially developed but primarily vacant property, bordered on three sides by City of Woodburn parcels. Annexation of this site will allow for the development of housing on under-utilized parcels of land.This goal is met. 5. (c) Fostering an efficient pattern of urban development in the City, maximizing the use of existing City facilities and services, and balancing the costs of City services among all benefited residents and development. Response: The site is bordered on three sides by the City parcels which are served by existing facilities and services. The location of this annexation area and development will help meet the City's housing demand while minimizing the cost of extending facilities and services. The utility extensions required to serve the site are relatively limited, allowing for efficient development.This goal is met. 6. (d) Requiring master development plans for land within Nodal Development Overlay or Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay designations prior to annexation. Master plans shall address street connectivity and access, efficient provision of public facilities, and retention of large parcels for their intended purpose(s). Response: The proposed annexation site is not located within the Nodal Development Overlay or the Southwest Industrial Reserve.This goal does not apply. 7. G-2.3 Woodburn will use annexation as a tool to guide: B. (a) The direction, shape and pattern of urban development, 9. (b) Smooth transitions in the physical identity and the development pattern of the community,and 10. (c) The efficient use and extension of City facilities and services. Response:The proposed annexation site is bordered on three sides by developed area within City Limits. Allowing infill would create a continuous urban area and a smooth transition between the developed urban areas to the east and west. Additionally, development in this area would be an efficient use of City facilities and services, as the development will connect to adjacent existing services. As there are existing Page 11 of 87 119 Attachment E sanitary and water mainlines adjacent to the site and all proposed entryways will connect to existing streets, the cost to extend these facilities would be minimal compared to potential annexation territories not bordered by the City on three sides.The annexation and development in this area allows for the City to meet housing demands with the most efficient use of resources.Additionally,the proposed RV storage will satisfy a community need for high-quality secure storage facilities.This goal is met. 2. Territory to be annexed shall be contiguous to the City and shall either: a. Link to planned public facilities with adequate capacity to serve existing and future development of the property as indicated by the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan; or b. Guarantee that public facilities have adequate capacity to serve existing and future development of the property. Response: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to the City on three sides. Correspondence from the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and School Superintendent (Exhibit E) indicates that the agencies have sufficient capacity to serve the site upon development(provided that the developer analyzes utilities and installs necessary infrastructure). Public water is available near the site in Woodland Avenue,Arney Lane, and Sprague Lane; public sanitary sewer is available along the site's western boundary, in Woodland Avenue, and in Sprague Lane; and storm drainage can be managed on site and released to the Senecal Creek East Tributary.This standard is met. 3. Annexations shall show a demonstrated community need for additional territory and development based on the following considerations: a. Lands designated for residential and community uses should demonstrate substantial conformance to the following: 1) The territory to be annexed should be contiguous to the City on two or more sides; Response: The proposed annexation area abuts the City of Woodburn along its east, south, and west boundaries.This standard is met. 2) The territory to be annexed should not increase the inventory of buildable land designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Low or Medium Density Residential within the City to more than a 5-year supply; Response:This proposal is consistent with the City of Woodburn's Comprehensive plan,which designates the site as Medium Density Residential. The proposed development would add 34 acres of Medium Density Residential land to City Limits. This area was classified in the Buildable Lands Inventory as Residential-Vacant and Residential-Partially Vacant land.The number of other vacant large residential lots in the City is limited.This annexation is consistent with the City's plan to provide sufficient buildable land for the City's growth. The Woodburn Residential Land Needs Analysis indicates that the City had a 2020 residential land need of 526 acres, so the proposed 34-acre annexation arguably constitutes a fraction smaller than a 5-year supply.This standard is met. 3) The territory proposed for annexation should reflect the City's goals for directing growth by using public facility capacity that has been funded by the City's capital improvement program; Response: The site abuts City Limits and the proposed annexation will make use of public facilities previously installed to serve development in northwest Woodburn. Any necessary utility extensions can be made available to serve development of the site.This standard is met. Page 12 of 87 120 Attachment E 4) The site is feasible for development and provides either: a) Completion or extension of the arterial/collector street pattern as depicted on the Woodburn Transportation System Plan;or b) Connects existing stub streets, or other discontinuous streets, with another public street. Response:The nearest collector street is Arney Road,while the nearest access street is Woodland Avenue. The Transportation System Plan does not illustrate any future arterials or collectors through or adjacent to the site. The proposed street layout would extend Steven Street into the site, and extend Arney Lane NE west across the northern lot line of the property; these street extensions will be dedicated as public streets. A private driveway is proposed on Sprague Lane to allow access to the RV storage site. This standard is met. 5) Annexed fulfills a substantial unmet community need, that has been identified by the City Council after a public hearing. Examples of community needs include park space and conservation of significant natural or historic resources. Response:The proposed annexation will increase the supply of developable, serviceable residential land within City Limits.The City has only minimal multi-family residential lots available for development at this time.This standard is met. b. Lands designated for commercial, industrial and other uses should demonstrate substantial conformance to the following criteria: 1) The proposed use of the territory to be annexed shall be for industrial or other uses providing employment opportunities, 2) The proposed industrial or commercial use of the territory does not require the expansion of infrastructure, additional service capacity, or incentives that are in excess of the costs normally borne by the community for development, 3) The proposed industrial or commercial use of the territory provides an economic opportunity for the City to diversify its economy. Response:The site is designated Medium Density Residential.This standard does not apply. D. Procedures: 1. An annexation may be initiated by petition based on the written consent of: a. The owners of more than half of the territory proposed for annexation and more than half of the resident electors within the territory proposed to be annexed;or b. One hundred percent of the owners and fifty percent of the electors within the territory proposed to be annexed,or C. A lesser number of property owners. Response: The application proposed the annexation of two parcels. Exhibit C includes signatures from both property owners on a Petition for a Consent Annexation and Waiver of Time Limit form,while Exhibit D includes Certification of Registered Voters forms signed by the Marion County Elections Office certifying that there are not registered voters on the properties proposed to be annexed.This standard is met. 2. If an annexation is initiated by property owners of less than half of property to be annexed, after holding a public hearing and if the City Council approves the proposed annexation, Page 13 of 87 121 Attachment E the City Council shall call for an election within the territory to be annexed. Otherwise no election on a proposed annexation is required. Response:The proposed annexation was initiated by both property owners(100%of the property owners of the territory to be annexed).This standard does not apply. 3. The City may initiate annexation of an island(ORS 222.750), with or without the consent of the property owners or the resident electors. An island is an unincorporated territory surrounded by the boundaries of the City. Initiation of such an action is at the discretion of the City Council. Response:The proposed annexation area is not surrounded by City boundaries all sides and the City has not initiated annexation.This standard does not apply. E. Zoning Designation for Annexed Property: All land annexed to the City shall be designated consistent with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, unless an application to re-designate the property is approved as part of the annexation process. Response: The proposed annexation territory is designated as Medium Family Residential on the City of Woodburn's Comprehensive plan. Upon annexation, the parcels will be designated with the Medium Family Residential zone (RM). The proposed developments are consistent with this zoning, as demonstrated in this narrative.This standard is met. F. The timing of public improvements is as follows: 1. Street dedication is required upon annexation. 2. Dedication of public utility easements (PUE)is required upon annexation. 3. Street improvements are required upon development. 4. Connection to the sanitary sewer system is required upon development or septic failure. 5. Connection to the public water system is required upon development or well failure. 6. Connection to the public storm drain system is required upon development. Response: The applicant requests deferral of the dedication of street right-of-way and public utility easements until construction drawings have been prepared by the applicant's engineer and reviewed by City staff to ensure that the dedication is sufficient to accommodate the new streets and PUEs. Street improvements and connections to the sanitary sewer system, the public water system, and the public storm drain system will be constructed during development,as will be demonstrated at the time of permit submittal.This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the annexation requirements/criteria of 5.04. B. Property Line Adjustments 2.02 Residential Zones C. Development Standards(Tables 2.028-F) Page 14 of 87 122 Attachment E Lot Area, Minimum Any other use Not specified$ 25.59 Acres 8.91 Acres (square feet) Lot Width, Interior,flag or cul- 50 N/A Approximately Minimum(feet) de-sac lot 650' Cornerlot 80 156' N/A Lot Depth,Average All lots 90 Approximately 900' Approximately 600' (feet) Street Frontage, Interior,corner or 40 Approximately 47' Minimum(feet) cul-de-sac lotX1730' Minimum Residential Any other use 12.8 12.83 N/A Density (units per net acre) Maximum Multiple-family 16 12.83 N/A Residential Density dwelling (units per net acre) Any other use Not specified$ N/A N/A Front Setback and - 205,10 20'at minimum 20' Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet) Side Setback, ! Primary structure- Same as rear 72'at minimum N/A Minimum(feet)' Any other use Accessory structure Same as primary Approximately 59' N/A Rear Setback, Any other use 36 Approximately 220' N/A Minimum (feet) except nonresidential use abutting DDC, NNC, CG, IP,SWIR,or IL zone for building heights over 28' Nonresidential use 109 N/A N/A abutting DDC, NNC, or CG zone Lot Coverage, Any other use Not specified$' N/A N/A Maximum;(percent) Building Height, Primary structure 35 35' N/A Maximum (feet) Accessory Structure 15 Approximately 13' N/A 5.Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02),if any 8.The minimum lot dimensions,maximum density,and maximum lot coverage are determined by setbacks,off- street parking,and landscaping requirements. 9.A house of worship shall be setback at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 10.Infill lots between developed lots:average of abutting residential buildings,',plus or minus 5 feet,but not less than 10 feet Response: Table 2.02E above demonstrates how both proposed lots, and their developments, will meet all applicable criteria, after the proposed Property Line Adjustments requested with this application. These standards are met. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria of 2.02. Page 15 of 87 123 Attachment E 5.01 Type 1(Administrative)Decisions 5.01.08 Property Line Adjustment, Consolidation of Lots Response: This application proposes two separate property line adjustments. The first (PLA 2017-03) would transfer 100 feet of land to the development site to accommodate the extension of Steven Street, while the second would separate the multi-family site from the RV storage site. Illustrations of the two proposed property line adjustments are included in Exhibits F and G, respectively. B. Criteria: 1. Lot area, depth, width, frontage, building setbacks, vehicular access and lot coverage comply with the standards of this ordinance(Sections 2 and 3); Response: Responses are provided for each of the proposed property line adjustments. ■ The following response addresses the first property line adjustment (PLA 2017-03). Tax lot 052W12131310100, the Woodburn West Mobile Estates development, is zoned RS (Single Family Residential). For corner lots, this zone requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 80 feet, a minimum lot depth of 90 feet and a minimum street frontage of 50 feet.The property line adjustment would decrease the lot size by 0.42 acres,yielding a lot area of 14.26 acres, a lot width of over 1,500 feet, a lot depth of nearly 200 feet and a street frontage of over 1,500 feet. Front and rear setbacks would be unaffected by the property line adjustment and the resulting 123-foot side setback exceeds the required 5-foot setback. Vehicular access would be unaffected by the property line adjustment. The existing structures on site have a lot coverage of approximately 20% and the resulting lot coverage following the property line adjustment would be approximately 21%, well below the maximum 40% in the SR zone. Tax lot 052W121300300 is outside city limits and is zoned Urban Transition by Marion County. The property line adjustment, which would transfer 0.42 acres to this property (yielding a lot size of 20.68 acres), would not decrease the lot area, depth, width, frontage, setbacks, vehicular access or lot coverage.This standard is met. ■ The second adjustment is addressed via responses within this narrative to all standards applicable for the proposed developments.This standard is met. 2. Existing easements are accurately reflected, Response: Existing easements are accurately reflected on the survey within Exhibit F and Exhibit G. The surveyor prepared the drawings based on a current title report.This standard is met. 3. Existing land use and development on the subject property comply with the requirements of prior land use actions,and Response: The existing manufactured homes within the Woodburn West Mobile Estates development would remain unaffected by the proposed property line adjustments and there are no known prior land use actions that would be affected by the property line adjusting that lot. The existing land uses within the annexation and development site (tax lots 052W121300100 and 052W121300300) are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed development.This standard is met. 4. Buildings and structures abutting the adjusted property lines comply with State building codes and with respect to current occupancy. Response: The first proposed property line adjustment would transfer 0.42 acres from tax lot 052W12131310100 to tax lot 052W121300300. As illustrated in Exhibit F, the nearest structure on tax lot 052W12131310100 would be over 123 feet from the adjusted property line and thus would continue to Page 16 of 87 124 Attachment E comply with Building Code fire separation requirements. New manufactured dwelling parks are not permitted in the RS zone but the existing development can continue as a nonconforming use.The location of structures on tax lot 052W12B00300 is unaffected by the first property line adjustment so this action does not affect Building Code compliance. The existing buildings on tax lots 052W12B00100 and 052W12B00300 are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed development.This standard is met. 5. Property line adjustments are surveyed and monumented to the requirements set forth in State statutes (ORS Chapters 92 and 209)and recorded by the County Surveyor. Response: Following approval of the application by City of Woodburn, the applicant's surveyor will monument the property line adjustments and file records of survey as required by state law.This standard is met. C. Procedure: The Director shall review and approve the application when it is found that it meets this Ordinance and the State Building Codes. Response:This standard is understood. Staff Response: The application meets the requirements/criteria for Property Line Adjustments. C. Design Review 2.02 Residential Zones B. Approval Types(Table 2.02A) 1. Permitted Uses (P)are allowed outright,subject to the general development standards of this Ordinance. 2. Special Permitted Uses (S) are allowed outright, subject to the general development standards and the special development standards of Section 2.07. 3. Conditional Uses (CU) may be allowed, subject to the general development standards of this Ordinance and conditions of Conditional Use approval. 4. Specific Conditional Uses (SCU) may be allowed, subject to the general development standards of this Ordinance, the specific standards of Section 2.08, and conditions of Conditional Use approval. 5. Accessory Uses (A) are allowed outright, subject to the general standards of this Ordinance. Multiple-family dwelling Permitted Use Rights-of-way,easements and improvements for streets,water,sanitary Permitted Use sewer,gas,oil,electric and communication lines,stormwater facilities and pump stations. Common boat, recreational and vehicle storage area Special Permitted Use Response: This proposal includes the development of multi-family dwellings, a recreational vehicle storage area, and new right-of-way. Multi-family dwellings and new rights-of-way are permitted outright in the RM zone. Recreational vehicle storage is considered a Special Permitted Use in RM zones. All Page 17 of 87 125 Attachment E applicable standards for Special Permitted uses are addressed in Section 2.07.03.This Special Use will be processed as a Conditional Use per Section 5.03.09, and all applicable criteria are addressed in the corresponding section of this narrative.These standards are met. C. Development Standards(Tables 2.028-F) Lot Area, Minimum Any other use Not specified$ 25.59 Acres 8.91 Acres (square feet) Lot Width, Interior,flag or cul- 50 N/A Approximately Minimum(feet) de-sac lot 650' Cormerlot 80 156' N/A Lot Depth,Average All lots 90 Approximately 900' Approximately 600' (feet) Street Frontage, Interior,corner or 40 Approximately 47' Minimum(feet) cul-de-sac lot >1730' Minimum Residential Any other use 12.8 12.83 N/A Density (units per net acre) Maximum Multiple-family 16 12.83 N/A Residential Density dwelling (units per net acre) Any other use Not specified$ N/A N/A Front Setback and - 205,10 20'at minimum 20' Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet) Side Setback, Primary structure- Same as rear 72'at minimumN/A Minimum(feet) Any other use Accessory structure Same as primary Approximately 59' N/A Rear Setback, Any other use 36' Approximately 220' N/A Minimum (feet) except nonresidential use abutting DDC, NNC, CG, IP,SWIR,or IL zone for building heights over 28' Nonresidential use 109 N/A N/A abutting DDC, NNC, or CG zone Lot Coverage, Any other use Not specified$ N/A N/A Maximum;(percent) Building Height, Primary structure 35 35' N/A Maximum (feet) Accessory Structure 15 Approximately 13' N/A Page 18 of 87 126 Attachment E 5.Measured from the Special Setback(Section 3.03.02),if any 8.The minimum lot dimensions, maximum density,and maximum lot coverage are determined by setbacks,off- street parking,and landscaping requirements. 9.A house of worship shall be setback at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 10.Infill lots between developed lots:average of abutting residential buildings,plus or minus 5 feet, but not less than 10 feet Response: Table 2.02E above demonstrates how both proposed lots, and their developments, will meet all applicable criteria, after the proposed Property Line Adjustments requested with this application. These standards are met. Staff Response: The application meets the above criteria. 2.05 Overlay Districts 2.05.02 Interchange Management Area Overlay District B. Applicability The provisions of this Section apply to all Type 11 — V land use applications that propose to allow development that will generate more than 20 peak hour vehicle trips (based on the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual) on parcels identified in Table 2.05A. The provisions of this Section apply to all properties within the boundary of the IMA. Response:This proposal is for Type II-IV applications that would generate more than 20 peak hour vehicle trips (see Exhibit Q. The proposed development parcels do not have a vehicle trip budget identified in Table 2.05A, but are within the Interchange Management Area Overlay District, therefore the remainder of this section applies.All applicable standards are addressed in this section of the narrative. C. Vehicle Trip Budgets This Section establishes a total peak hour trip generation budget for planned employment (commercial and industrial)land uses within the IMA. 1. The IMA trip budget for vacant commercial and industrial parcels identified in Table 2.05A is 2,500 peak hour vehicle trips.An estimated 1,500 additional peak hour residential trips Page 19 of 87 127 Attachment E are planned within the IMA. The IMA vehicle trip budget is allocated to parcels identified in Table 2.05A on a first-developed,first-served basis. 2. Parcel budgets are based on 11 peak hour trips per developed industrial acre, and 33 peak hour trips per developed commercial acre. 3. The parcel budget for each parcel will be reduced in proportion to actual peak hour vehicle trips generated by new development on any portion of the parcel. 4. The City may allow development that exceeds the parcel budget for any parcel in accordance with this Section. b w� 4 xe w�, FiVre 2.05B .-. Inttrchange Mmagennw nt,Vea FitLann&uyr and Submeas Page 20 of 87 128 Attachment Vehicle Trip Budget bv Parcel(Pai-cel Budget) Table 2.05A Subarea Assessor's Tax Lot C omprehensive Buildable Ivlaximum Peak 0*�2W14 00600 05,2W14 00800 0*�2W14 01000 0*�2W 14 01100 0 j;2W 13 01100 F 05,2W14 01500 SWIR 96 L056 0*�2W14 01600 I Commercial W;2W12CO2400 66 W;2W14 02300 6 198 0;2W14 02000 8 2 64 L Commercial 0 j;2W 14 02 100 5 165 05,2W13BD 00900 (westerly Portion) 0;2W13BD 01600 Response: The project site is located within the IMA but is not part ofany subarea identified in Figure 2.05B and Table 2.05A of the code; therefore, it does not have a specific trip budget associated with the parcel. Furthermore, asthe site will be residentially zoned, the overall commercial and industrial lands trip budget does not apply. Staff Response: Staff agrees that the|KHA trip budget does not apply. D. Administration This Sect/on delineates responsibilities of the City and ODOTto /non/tor and evaluate vehicle trip generation impacts on the 1-5 interchangefrom development approved under this Sect/on. 2. A Traffic Impact Analysis (7IA) /s required for all land use applications subject to the provisions of this Section. The 7IA must meet City and ODOTcd/n/n/strct/ve rule (OAR Chapter 734, Division 52) requirements and shall include an evaluation and Page 21ofQ7 129 Attachment E recommendation of feasible Transportation Demand Management(TDM) measures that will minimize peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development. Response:The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted with this application (Exhibit L) addresses requirements established by the City of Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO), Section 3.04.05 and ODOT's Analysis Procedures Manual (APM). As shown in the TIA, all study area intersections are anticipated to operate within City and ODOT mobility standards during the AM and PM peak hours with the proposed Woodland Crossing development except for the intersection of Woodland Avenue and Robin Avenue. Traffic simulations of the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection indicate that delays are likely to be much lower than estimated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Supplemental analysis performed in response to comments and questions from ODOT and City staff(see Exhibit M and N, respectively) produce results corresponding to Level of Service B at this intersection and demonstrate that standards are met if left turns on the east leg are distributed with 60% from the left lane and 40%from the right lane.All turn lanes have adequate storage with no anticipated queue spillover into adjacent lanes. No off-site impacts are anticipated for the proposed Woodland Crossing development;therefore, no mitigation will be required. Mackenzie transportation engineers recommend that signage along Robin Avenue clearly indicate that left-turns can be made from both lanes and that both lanes provide access to I-5.This standard is met. 2. For a land use application subject to the provisions of this Section: a. The City shall not deem the land use application complete unless it includes a TIA prepared in accordance with TIA Requirements, b. The City shall provide written notification to ODOT when the application is deemed complete. This notice shall include an invitation to ODOT to participate in the City's review process,- C. rocess,c. ODOT shall have at least 20 days to provide written comments to the City, measured from the date the completion notice was mailed. If ODOT does not provide written comments during this 20-day period, the City's decision may be issued without consideration of ODOT comments. Response:This land use application is subject to the provisions of Section a., and includes a TIA prepared in accordance with TIA requirements and in consultation with ODOT staff. This procedural guidance is understood. 3. The details of City and ODOT monitoring and coordination responsibilities are found in the Woodburn—ODOT Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA). a. The City shall be responsible for maintaining a current ledger documenting the cumulative peak hour trip generation impact from development approved under this Section, compared with the IMA trip budget. b. The City may adjust the ledger based on actual development and employment data, subject to review and concurrence by ODOT. C. The City will provide written notification to ODOT when land use applications approved under this Section, combined with approved building permits, result in traffic generation estimates that exceed 33%and 67%of the IMA trip budget. Response: The project site is located within the IMA but is not part of any subarea identified in Figure 2.0513 and Table 2.05A of the code; therefore, it does not have a specific trip budget associated with the parcel. Furthermore, as the site will be residentially zoned, the overall commercial and industrial lands trip budget does not apply.This standard does not apply. Page 22 of 87 130 Attachment E 4. This Section recognizes that vehicle trip allocations may become scarce towards the end of the planning period, as the 1-5 Interchange nears capacity. The following rules apply to allocations of vehicle trips against the IMA trip budget: a. Vehicle trip allocations are vested at the time of design review approval. b. Vehicle trips shall not be allocated based solely on approval of a comprehensive plan amendment or zone change, unless consolidated with a subdivision or design review application. C. Vesting of vehicle trip allocations shall expire at the some time as the development decision expires. Response: The project site is located within the IMA but is not part of any subarea identified in Figure 2.0513 and Table 2.05A of the code; therefore, it does not have a specific trip budget associated with the parcel. Furthermore, as the site will be residentially zoned, the overall commercial and industrial lands trip budget does not apply.This standard does not apply. E. Allowed Uses Uses allowed in the underlying zoning district are allowed, subject to other applicable provisions of the Woodburn Development Ordinance and this Section. Response:The proposed multi-family residential development is a permitted use in the RM zone, and RV storage is a Special Permitted Use, which may be allowed in the RM zone through a Conditional Use. Compliance with all applicable provisions for these uses is demonstrated in this narrative. This standard is met. F. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments 1. The provisions of this Section (2.05.02.F) apply to all Comprehensive Plan Map amendments within the IMA. This Section does not apply to Zoning Map amendments that result in conformance with the applicable Comprehensive Plan Map designation, such as Zoning Map amendments that occur when land is annexed to the City. Response: This application proposes the annexation of two parcels designated as Medium Density Residential on the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan.The City would designate the property Medium Density Residential in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. No Comprehensive Plan Map amendments are requested.This section does not apply. 2. Applications for Comprehensive Plan Map amendments and for Zoning Map amendments shall determine whether the proposed change will significantly affect a collector or arterial transportation facility. Response: In conjunction with the annexation, the City would designate the property Medium Density Residential in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. No Comprehensive Plan Map amendments are requested so no significant effect analysis is required by the Transportation Planning Rule. This standard does not apply. Page 23 of 87 131 Attachment E 3. To ensure that the remaining capacity of the 1-5 Interchange is reserved for targeted employment opportunities and needed housing, this section imposes the following prohibitions on Comprehensive Plan Map amendments within the IMA: a. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that will increase the net commercial land area within the IMA shall be prohibited. b. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that allow land uses that will generate traffic in excess of the IMA trip budget shall be prohibited. Response: No Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is proposed as part of this application.This standard does not apply. G. Interchange Capacity Preservation Standards Land use applications subject to the provisions of this Section shall comply with the following: 1. Peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development shall not, in combination with other approved developments subject to this Section, exceed the IMA trip budget of 2,500. Response: Based on ITE trip generation data, the proposed development is estimated to generate an average of 154 AM peak hour trips, 186 PM peak hour trips, and 1,974 daily trips (see Exhibit Q. These rates are significantly below the IMA trip budget of 2,500 peak hour trips.This standard is met. 2. Peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development shall not exceed the maximum peak hour vehicle trips specified in Table 2.05A for the subject parcel, except: a. Development may be allowed to exceed the maximum, if the development will contribute substantially to the economic objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Residential development on a parcel zoned Commercial shall be allowed to exceed the maximum. Response: The project site is located within the IMA but is not part of any subarea identified in Figure 2.05B and Table 2.05A of the code; therefore, it does not have a specific trip budget associated with the parcel.This standard does not apply. 3. Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures shall be required to minimize peak hour vehicle trips and shall be subject to annual review by the City. Response: As indicated in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Exhibit L), the site is expected to generate 183 PM peak hour residential trips with the proposed multi-family housing and 3 PM peak hour commercial trips with the ancillary RV storage. Transportation demand management strategies are anticipated to be required for employment (commercial and industrial) uses to ensure compliance with applicable vehicle trip budgets.This site will be residentially zoned so TDM measures are not appropriate. This standard does not apply. Staff Response: Staff concurs with the responses provided above and finds these criteria are met. Page 24 of 87 132 Attachment E 2.06 Accessory Structures 2.06.02 Fences and Walls A. Location and Height Abutting a Street in Residential Zones 1. The height shall comply with the vision clearance area standards,Section 3.03.06. 2. The heightshall not exceed 42 inches(3%feet)above the ground elevation under the fence or wall located at the lot line abutting the street. 3. The height may increase one foot for each 6 feet of setback from the lot line abutting the street. Fences may increase to their maximum height(7 ft) when flush with the house or garage. 4. For corner lots, one frontage shall not exceed the standards in #2 above. The alternative frontages are treated as interior lot line(s), allowing fencing in excess of 42 inches up to, and equal with, the house frontage. The remaining frontage shall not exceed the 42 inch limitation. 5. For through lots, abutting streets and/or alleys on two opposite frontages, the rear frontage opposite the front is be treated as an interior lot line, allowing a maximum height of 7 ft. 6. Fences and walls may be constructed in the special setback, provided the property owner agrees to removal at such time as street improvements are made. Response: A 6-foot architectural wall is proposed along the southern portion of the proposed extension of Steven Street, to screen the road from the manufactured home park to the south (the owner of the manufactured home park has required this wall as part of the sale of the 100-foot strip of land addressed by property line adjustment PLA 2017-03). As this wall is at least 25 feet from the proposed property line along Steven Street,the 6-foot height complies with the maximum 7-foot height allowed when at least 24 feet from the right-of-way line. The western portion of the wall is proposed to be limited to 3.5 feet to comply with criterion (4) above. No fences or walls are proposed along the extension of Arney Lane.The existing fence along Sprague Lane is proposed to remain in place to secure the proposed RV storage facility.There are no special setbacks at this location.All vision clearance area standards are addressed in Section 3.03.06 of this narrative.This standard is met. B. Height in Yards Not Abutting a Street 1. In residential zones, the maximum height of a fence or wall other than for corner and/or through lots,shall be seven feet, relative to the ground elevation under the fence or wall. Response: The existing fencing along the south and east lot lines of the proposed RV storage lot abuts a commercial zone and is less than 7 feet high. This application proposes additional perimeter fencing (no taller than 7 feet high) along the north/west lot line of the RV storage facility,as shown in Exhibit H, Sheet C2.1. No fences or walls that do not abut a street are proposed elsewhere on site.This standard is met. D. Fence Materials 1. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction offences and walls, such as wood, stone, rock, or brick, or other durable materials. 2. Chain link fences are acceptable as long as the fence is coated and includes slats made of vinyl, wood or other durable material. Slats may not be required when visibility into Page 25 of 87 133 Attachment E features such as open space, natural areas, parks and similar areas is needed to assure visual security, or into on-site areas in industrial zones that require visual surveillance. 3. For manufacturing, assembly,fabricating,processing,packing,storage and wholesale and distribution activities which are the principle use of a building in industrial districts, the preceding standards apply when visible from, and within 20 feet of, a public street. Fi2ure 106 — Fence or Wall Height 0000 fre�rrch � fm54 irrhe" imrhfl iw ..0 6ft 12 ft 1.8 ft 24 ft Figure 2.06E Stepped Fence or Wall i VIslIon Clearance Areas ��" � �� s'.<;. Ilepf Sidewalk 7 "s ... if'r f �-Property line F162 feet 5 ,N l feet ..... 18 feet %u..r 4 feet g, \ [�Vstrrneefr�rrr :15presperty�III ne Iifla3 NII7IIUI1l fuJY it`il Y1'Y k.,I YY"I 1 U Response: The perimeter fencing proposed along the north/west lot line of the RV storage area will be coated chain link,with slats made of one of the approved materials.The proposed architectural wall along the southern side of the Steven Street extension will be constructed of masonry block(see Exhibit J).These standards are met. Page 26 of 87 134 Attachment E 2.06.03 Structures A. Accessory structures attached to a primary building shall be considered as a portion of the primary building and subject to the some requirements as the primary building. Response: A detached accessory structure is proposed on the residential lot to house a maintenance building. No attached accessory structures are proposed.This standard does not apply. B. The minimum separation between detached accessory structures and the primary building shall be six feet. Response: A detached accessory structure is proposed to house a maintenance building on the west side of the residential lot.The structure is approximately 47 feet from the nearest primary building, as shown in the site plans (Exhibit H).This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria for Accessory Structures. 2.07 Special Uses 2.07.03 Common Boat, Recreational and Vehicle Storage Area A. Applicability 1. When a Boat, Recreational and Vehicle Storage Area is established as a special use, it shall comply with the following use and development standards. 2. When a Boat, Recreational and Vehicle Storage Area is incorporated in the review of a residential development, the following criteria shall serve as guidelines. Response: Per Table 2.02.A, Recreational Vehicle Storage is permitted as a Special Use in the RM zone. This section applies, and all relevant criteria are addressed in this narrative. B. The storage must be operated by either a homeowners'association or a property manager of the apartment, Manufactured Dwelling Park or residential complex. Response: The RV storage area will be managed by the operator of the facility. A Conditional Use is requested for Section 2.07.03 to allow the RV storage area to operate independently of a residential development pursuant to WDO 5.03.09.All applicable criteria for Conditional Use approval are addressed in Section 5.03 of this narrative. C. The storage area is limited exclusively to the storage of the resident's vehicles, boats or trailers, recreational vehicles, utility trailers and horse trailers. Response:The proposed RV Storage area is proposed to be a public storage area, not restricted to use by residents. Conditional Use approval is requested to allow this modification pursuant to WDO 5.03.09. All applicable criteria are addressed in Section 5.03 of this narrative. Staff Response: See section 5.03 for Staff responses to these criteria. D. Storage areas and driveways to the storage area shall be paved to the standards of this ordinance (Section 3.04.04). Response: The driveway to the storage area will be paved with asphalt to a minimum depth of 2" per Section 3.04.04.As was confirmed during the Pre-Application Conference,the RV storage area may consist of gravel to better facilitate stormwater drainage. Six paved vehicle parking stalls are proposed. No storage areas are proposed on the multi-family residential lot.This standard is met. Page 27 of 87 135 Attachment E Staff Response: Staff disagrees with this response. The WDO is clear that the storage areas and driveways must(shall) be paved. Therefore,the standard can only be met with a condition of approval requiring the RV storage area to be paved. E. Outdoor lighting shall be directed away from residential property and public streets. Response: All outdoor lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential properties and public streets, as shown in the photometrics plan, Sheet C2.313. Where lights are located near property lines, they will have shields on the back to prevent glare on neighboring properties.This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria for outdoor lighting at this time. 3.01 Streets 3.01.03 Improvements Required for Development A. With development, the Internal, Boundary, and Connecting streets shall be constructed to at least the minimum standards set forth below. Response: The Section demonstrates compliance with all applicable standards for the streets proposed with this development.This standard is met. B. Internal Streets. Internal streets shall meet all standards of WDO and the TSP. Response: An internal street is proposed to run through the site, along the north and a portion of the west lot lines;the street will extend Arney Lane westward and curve southward at the northwest portion of the site to connect with the eastward extension of Steven Street. This proposed street extension has been designed to comply with all applicable standards, as shown in Sheets C2.1 and C2.1A of the site plans. The 50-foot right-of-way width was selected to meet WDO and TSP standards for local residential streets, with modifications to sidewalk and roadway lane widths as requested by City staff.This standard is met. C. Boundary Streets. The minimum improvements for a Boundary Street shall be: 1. One paved 11 foot travel lane in each direction, 2. On-street parking on the side of the street abutting the development, if on-street parking is indicated in the TSP; 3. Curb on the side of the street abutting the development, 4. Drainage facilities on the side of the street abutting the development, 5. Street trees on the side of the street abutting the development,and 6. A sidewalk on the side of the street abutting the development. Response: Improvements are proposed to a portion of Woodland Avenue abutting the site, which is classified as a boundary street for that portion within 260 feet of the site. The development proposes to widen the east side of Woodland Avenue south of Steven Street to provide an 11-foot travel lane, on- street parking,and curbing(the west side of the road already has a travel lane at least 11 feet wide).There is an existing drainage ditch on the side of the road which will remain in place. However, given the constraints of the existing development along both sides of Woodland, no sidewalk, street trees, or new storm facilities are proposed along this portion of the road since the roadway has insufficient right-of- way.This standard is met. Page 28 of 87 136 Attachment E D. Connecting Streets 1. The minimum improvements for a Connecting Street shall be one paved 11 foot travel lane in each direction. 2. Connecting streets shall extend from the boundary street of a development, to the nearest intersection that meets the cross-section and improvement requirements of this Section, or 1,000 feet, whichever is less. k �Jry�Ati�1 .p hvie✓,1"%`do Street a u sm,r,Mw f w�� VrnrNr 11. Response:The boundary streets proposed with this application will connect to existing connecting streets (Arney Lane and Woodland Avenue south of the point where it is defined as a Boundary Street). The improvements to Woodland Ave parallel to the west lot line will be no farther than 260 feet from the development, as shown on site plan C2.1 in Exhibit H. Both connecting streets have travel lanes in excess of 11 feet in each direction. No new connecting streets, or changes to existing connecting streets, are proposed with this development.These standards do not apply. 3.01.04 Street Cross-Sections A. These standards are based on the functional classification of each street as shown in the Woodburn TSP. The street right-of-way and improvement standards minimize the amount of pavement and right-of-way required for each street classification, consistent with the operational needs of each facility, including requirements for pedestrians, bicycles, and public facilities. Response: The TSP street standards have been incorporated into this section of the WDO. Functional classifications are established by City Council when it either adopts or amends the TSP. Figure 7-1 of the Woodburn TSP does not designate Arney Lane as an Access Street so therefore it defaults to the local street classification. Additionally, Chapter 7 of the TSP catalogs which streets fall into each functional classification, and Arney Lane is not designated as a Service Collector in that list, so per TSP page 7-3 "the remaining streets within the UGB are designated as local streets." During discussions at the pre- application conference, City staff advised that the applicable street requirement was a 50-foot right-of- way, which is consistent with Figures 3.011 and 3.01.1 of WDO 3.01.04. However, in response to staff's request for additional roadway width, the street cross-section has been updated to be similar to the Access Street section (but no parking, landscape strip, or sidewalk on the north side as that edge is the urban growth boundary). This lane configuration fits within a 50-foot right-of-way. The section of the narrative responds to applicable criteria for the street types proposed with this development. Page 29 of 87 137 Attachment E B. All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the cross-sections depicted in this Section. 1. For the cross-section illustrated in Figures 3.01G-J, the street shall have fewer than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT)per day when all future street connections are made. Response:The cross-sections for the streets proposed with this application are illustrated in Figures 3.011 and 3.01.1 (local streets), while City staff has requested use of the cross-section in Figure 3.01E (access street).To accommodate staff's request,the proposed street extension of Arney Lane NE will be designed in accordance with Figure 3.01E (with parking on one side of the street) across the north and northwest lot lines, as shown in Exhibit H, Sheet C2.1. Arney Lane is proposed to have a sidewalk on the south side but not on the north side as the north edge of the proposed right-of-way will align with the urban growth boundary. Arney Lane NE will be designed with 12-foot lanes but no parking lane at the northeast portion of the site, as shown in Sheet C2.1A due to the width constraints imposed by the location of the wetland. As the TSP does not identify this street connection as an access street, collector, or arterial, staff has indicated that the proposed 50-foot right-of-way width typically associated with a local street is appropriate at this location.This standard is met. LIC UTILITY PUBLIC U'T�LITY �: k EASEMENT �� '�� %� �� ASEMENT 6' 6' 12' 12' ' 6' SIDE LAND B' TRAVEL TRAVEL 8' LAND SIDE Ile 1 WALK SCAP'E PARKING LANE LANE PARKING SCAP WALK 1' 40' Row=66' Figure 3.01E—Access Street/Commercial Street �� Ig PUBLIC unLITY PUBLIC',hJTIL RASEWu'L 7 5110W 1,11111 IP1IRIK1.1,1 9'SGAIEL TRAVELILANO, SK +r ILA I 29, ROW ----------------------------------------------------------------------__________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Figm 10 11 Local Residential Shtet witSide Page 30 of 87 138 Attachment E �r o, f 1 FsLr ..,,.� EASEMENT t LAND f ALK $CAPE L�W�� LANE � $CAP _. _er 2 a' R ,50, igure : 01J L,twai Rcsidcn isil Street wild°: No Parking 2. The cross-section illustrated in Figure 3.01H, is optional in infill situations, or where adjacent streets are similarly constructed. Street trees shall be located in a street tree easement outside the public right-of-way. Response: The proposed layout will include a landscape strip with street trees in between the proposed street and sidewalks along the proposed extension of Arney Lane NE and Steven Street(with the exception of the constriction at the creek crossing, where no landscape strip is proposed in order to avoid wetland alterations).The cross-section illustrated in Figure 3.01H is not proposed.This standard does not apply. 3. Figures 3.01K-N illustrate one-way and two-way traffic concepts for downtown streets. Response:The proposed development does not propose any new construction of, or changes to existing, downtown streets. Figures 3.01K-N do not apply. C. For local residential streets which are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan, rights-of-way and improvements are determined by the Director at the time of development, based upon the existing and future estimated average daily trips of the development and surrounding development. Response:The proposed local residential streets are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan.The street will be dedicated as a public local road as directed by City staff. The 50-foot right-of-way width was selected to meet WDO and TSP standards (with improvements using the widths for Access Streets). The Transportation Impact Analysis included as Exhibit L and supplemental information included as Exhibit M and N contain information on existing and future estimated average daily trips for the development and surrounding area.This standard is met. D. Streets designated as Arterials or Collectors in the TSP which are located within the Historic Settlemier Transportation Corridor do not require bicycle lanes or a center turn lane, unless the Director determines that a turn lane is warranted forsafety reasons. The existing pavementshould be used to the extent possible to preserve the historic corridor. Response: The site is not located in the Historic Settlemeier Transportation Corridor. This standard does not apply. Page 31 of 87 139 Attachment E 3.01.05 Street Layout B. Block Standards 1. Block length shall not be less than 200 feet and not more than 600 feet, except where street location is precluded by any of the following, a. Natural topography, wetlands,significant habitat areas or bodies of water,or pre- existing development, b. Blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited-access highways, collectors or railroads, C. Residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Response: Street location is precluded in this area by the wetland and creek that runs diagonally through the site, meeting criterion 3.01.05.B.1.a. In order to provide block lengths of less than 600 feet through the site, development would have to run through the Senecal Creek East Tributary and associated wetlands. Instead, the proposed development is laid out so that no development will occur in the delineated wetland boundaries, resulting in a block length in excess of 600 feet.This standard is met. 2. In any block that is longer than 600 feet, as measured from the right-of-way line of the street to the right-of-way line of the adjacent street, a bikeway/pedestrian facility shall be required through and near the middle of the block. 3. On any block longer than 1,200 feet, pathways may be required through the block at 600 foot intervals. 4. In a proposed development, or where redevelopment potential exists and a street connection is not proposed,one or more bikeway and pedestrian facilities may be required to connect a cul-de-sac to public streets, to other pathways, or to the project boundary to allow for future connections. Response:The proposed development will result in blocks longer than 1,200 feet.The Senecal Creek East Tributary and associated wetlands run diagonally through the entire length of the site. A pedestrian and bicycle path is not proposed between the residential site and the RV storage site, because that would require development through this environmentally sensitive resource and would compromise the security of the RV storage facility. Instead, there will be at least 345 feet of open space between the two developments, which will include floodplain, the Senecal Creek East Tributary and associated wetlands, a 50-foot buffer on each side of the wetlands, and a 35-foot creek maintenance easement. The closest proposed development will be a building located approximately 150 feet away from the edge of the channel (besides the required improvements to the existing road at the north end of the site). Pedestrians in the residential development will have direct access throughout the site via an internal sidewalk, leading to each building and from the Steven Street driveway to the eastern Arney Lane access point. The RV storage site will have pedestrian access to the surrounding area via Sprague Lane.The application requests a Conditional Use to Standard 2.07.03.0 so that the RV storage area is open to the public and will operate independently from a residential area, therefore a connection between the two uses is not necessary. Bikeway/pedestrian facilities through the wetland and creek are not appropriate and have not been anticipated in the 2009 Woodburn Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. This standard does not apply. Page 32 of 87 140 Attachment E C. Street Access Developments comprised of 25 or more dwelling units, including existing units, shall have at least two means of public street access from a cul-de-sac, dead-end street, or other street. Those two or more means of public access must be two non-overlapping public street routes to a major arterial identified in the TSP. Response: The proposed residential development will have three means of public street access. Two driveways will have direct access to Arney Lane NE to the north of the site, which connects to OR 219 via Arney Road, Robin Avenue, and Woodland Avenue. One driveway will connect to Steven Street at the west of the site,which connects to OR 219 via Woodland Avenue.According to the City of Woodburn TSP, OR 219 is the closest Major Arterial to the site.This standard is met. 3.01.06 Street Names A. All public streets and private manufactured dwelling park streets shall be named, after providing the Woodburn Fire District with an opportunity to review and comment. Response:The streets proposed with this application will be extensions of existing streets,Arney Lane NE and Steven Street, and will be named according to the streets they connect to. No new street names are proposed.This standard does not apply. B. Public and private manufactured dwelling park streets shall be named as follows: 1. The street name shall not duplicate an existing street name, unless there is reasonable assurance the named streets will be connected in the future. 2. New streets shall be designated with the some names as existing streets only if they fall in the some grid line and there are reasonable assurances that the street will connect with another section of the numbered street. 3. Street names shall not sound like another street name or cause confusion. 4. Street names that are deliberately misspelled, frivolous, or reflect the name of the developer or family members shall not be allowed. Response: The street proposed with this development will extend and connect two existing streets to each other: Arney Lane NW and Steven Street.The street extensions will be assigned the same names as the streets they are connecting to. No new street names are proposed.This standard does not apply. C. Streets shall be further named with a suffix. 1. Except as indicated in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan, the following suffixes designations apply to new streets, as follows:... Response: The street proposed with this development will extend and connect two existing streets to each other: Arney Lane NW and Steven Street.The street extensions will be assigned the same names as the streets they are connecting to. No new street names are proposed.This standard does not apply. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria of 3.01. Page 33 of 87 141 Attachment E 3.02 Utilities and Easements 3.02.01 Public Utility Easements A. The Director shall require dedication of specific easements for the construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities located on private property. Response: A Public Utility Easement will be provided with this development. As shown in the site plans, Sheet C2.1, dedication of a 5-foot wide public utility easement will be provided south or east of the sidewalk along the proposed extension of Arney Lane NE and Steven Street, along with a 16-foot public water main easement through the site. There is an existing public sewer easement in the Steven Street extension.There is also an existing public storm line in the Steven Street extension that does not appear to have a corresponding public easement. As part of property line adjustment PLA 2017-03 the applicant proposes to create a public storm drainage easement in the vicinity of the Steven Street extension. This standard is met. B. A five-foot wide public utility easement shall be dedicated along each lot line abutting a public street. Response: As shown in the site plans, Sheet C2.1, a 5-foot wide public utility easement will be provided south or east of the sidewalk along the proposed extension of Arney Lane NE and Steven Street. This standard is met. C. As a condition of approval for development, including property line adjustments, partitions, subdivisions, design reviews, or Planned Unit Developments (PVDs), the Director may require dedication of public utility easements. Response: A Public Utility Easement will be provided with this development. As shown in the site plans, Sheet C2.1, dedication of a 5-foot wide public utility easement will be provided south or east of the sidewalk along the proposed extension of Arney Lane NE and Steven Street, along with a 16-foot public water main easement through the site.This standard is met. 3.02.02 Creeks and Watercourse Maintenance Easements A. Public improvement and maintenance easements shall be dedicated along all creeks and other water courses. On streams and waterways where development is regulated, based on Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA)flood hazard delineation, the minimum width shall be adequate to accommodate the 100-year floodway. Response:The Senecal East Tributary runs through the proposed development site. According to FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps 41047C0117G and 41047C0119G, this site is outside the limits of FEMA's detailed flood study.This standard does not apply. B. On other open channel water courses, such easements shall, at a minimum, extend from the top of one bank to the top of the other bank. These easements shall include an additional 20 feet in width at the top of the bank along the entire length, on one side of the open channel. Response: As shown in the site plans, Sheet C2.1, the proposed creek maintenance easement will encompass the entire width of the creek and wetland area to provide City staff with flexibility to maintain the channel. The creek easement will extend across the entire length of the creek through the property. The maintenance easement extends to Arney Lane to provide an access route from the public street to the maintenance area.This standard is met. Page 34 of 87 142 Attachment E C. On all piped systems, the easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet in width. Wider easements may be required by the Director, when needed to accommodate the installation of, or access to, larger and/or deeper pipes. Response: No new piped watercourse systems are proposed with this development. This standard does not apply. 3.02.03 Street Lighting A. Public Streets Public streets abutting a development shall be illuminated with street lights installed to the standards of the City and the electric utility. Response:The proposed public street will be illuminated with street lights compliant with City and Electric Utility Standards, as shown in the Photometrics plan, Sheet 2.31B in Exhibit H.This standard is met. 3.02.04 Underground Utilities All permanent utility service to and within a development shall be underground, except where overhead high-voltage(35,000 volts or more)electric facilities exist. Response: All proposed utility connections will be provided underground as required. This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria of 3.02. 3.03 Setbacks and Open Space 3.03.01 Setbacks A. Setbacks 1. No required setback provided for any building or structure shall be considered as providing a setback for any other building. Response: No required setback for any building is considered as providing a setback for another building. All setbacks are provided as required as shown in the site plans, C2.1 in Exhibit H. This standard is met. 2. No required setback for any building or structure shall be considered as providing lot coverage for another building, except for a common area not required to be located within a lot, when owned by a homeowner's association in a Planned Unit Development(PUD). Response: No required setback is proposed as providing lot coverage for another building.This standard is met. B. Setbacks shall be open and unobstructed by buildings or structures from the ground to the sky, except as may otherwise be permitted in this Section and in Accessory Structures(Section 2.06). Response: The proposed setbacks for both the multi-family residential development and the RV storage area will be open landscaped areas, unobstructed by any structures, as can be seen on the site plans (Sheet C2.1 of Exhibit H).This standard is met. Page 35 of 87 143 Attachment E C. No portion of a lot necessary to meet the standards for lot area, width, frontage, setbacks, lot coverage, open space, or other requirement of this Ordinance shall have more than one owner, except through a zoning adjustment, or variance. Response: The proposed Property Line Adjustments will result in one lot for the multi-family residential site and one lot for the RV storage site. Each lot will have one property owner and will individually meet all standards for the lot and its respective development.The narrative demonstrates how each lot meets all applicable development standards.This standard is met. 3.03.02 Special Setbacks A. Special Setbacks are necessary when the existing street right-of-way is less than the designated right-of-way in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan. Special Setbacks ensure that development will conform with setback and vision clearance requirements, after a full right-of- way has been acquired. Response:This application includes a proposal to extend Arney Lane NE west across the northern property line, then curving south around the northwest corner of the property to connect with Steven Street. Both Steven Street and Arney Lane NE are local streets and the street extensions will meet the City of Woodburn TSP standard ROW width of 50 feet for a local residential with no street parking. The existing ROW width at Sprague Lane, which is also a local street, is 60 feet. Therefore, special setbacks are not required. B. Special setback distances shall be measured at right angles to the center line of street rights-of- way. Response:The street extensions of proposed with this application will be constructed to the width set out in the City's Transportation System Plan. Therefore, a special setback is not required for the proposed multi-family development at the north end of the site.The existing right-of-way width for Sprague Lane is 60 feet.Therefore, no special setbacks are required for this development.This standard does not apply. C. Where dedicated rights-of-way are less than the Special Setback, the setback abutting a street shall be measured from the Special Setback.All regulations applicable to setbacks abutting streets and vision clearance areas shall apply to the area between the lot line and the Special Setback. Fences and walls are allowed up to the property line. Response: The dedicated rights-of-way adjacent to the proposed development site are greater than or equal to the Special Setback for a local street with no street parking. No special setbacks are required for this site and this standard does not apply. nu m Major Arterial 50 feet' Minor Arterial 37 feet Service Collector 36 feet Access Street/Commercial Street 33 feet Local Street,60' right-of-way 30 feet Local Street,52' right-of-way 26 feet Local Street,50' right-of-way 25 feet 1.See TSP for varying rights of way along Highway 99E Page 36 of 87 144 Attachment E 3.03.03 Projections into the Setback Abutting a Street A. Chimneys,flues, bay windows, steps, eaves, gutters, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, planter boxes and other ornamental features may not project more than 24 inches into the setback abutting a street. Response: The closest proposed buildings in the multi-family residential development are 20 feet from the property line at their nearest point. No architectural elements are proposed within a setback abutting a street. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard does not apply. B. Covered, unenclosed porches, extending not more than 10 feet beyond the front walls of the building, shall maintain at least a 10 foot setback from the property line or Special Setback. Response:The proposed porches for the multi-family residential development will extend 8 feet from the front walls of the building. There are no proposed buildings or porches closer than 20 feet from the property line.This standard is met. C. A balcony, outside stairway or other unenclosed, unroofed projection may not project more than 10 feet into a front setback. Response: The closest proposed buildings in the multi-family residential development are 20 feet from the property line at their nearest point. No balcony, outside stairway or other unenclosed, unroofed projection are proposed within a 20-foot setback from the street property line.This standard is met. D. Arbors, archways, pergolas and trellises shall be exempt from the setback abutting a street. Response: No arbors, archways, pergolas or trellises are proposed with this development. This standard does not apply. E. Uncovered decks, not more than 18 inches above final grade, shall maintain at least a three foot setback from the property line or Special Setback. Response: The closest proposed buildings in the multi-family residential development are 20 feet from the front property line at their nearest point. No uncovered decks are proposed within a 3-foot setback from the property line.This standard is met. F. Flag poles shall maintain at least a five foot setback from the property line or Special Setback. Response:There are no flag poles proposed within a 5-foot setback from the property line.Any flag poles proposed at a later date will comply with this standard.This standard is met. 3.03.04 Projections into the Side Setback A. Chimneys,flues, bay windows, steps, eaves, gutters, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, planter boxes and other ornamental features may not project more than 18 inches into a side setback. Response: The closest proposed buildings in the multi-family residential development are farther than the 36-foot side setback standard. No architectural elements are proposed within a side setback. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard is met. B. Fire escapes, when not prohibited by any other code or ordinance, may not project into a side setback farther than one-third of the width of the setback, or less than three feet. Response:There are no fire escapes proposed with this development.This standard does not apply. Page 37 of 87 145 Attachment E C. Uncovered decks, not more than 18 inches above final grade, shall maintain at least a three foot setback from the property line or Special Setback. Response: The closest proposed buildings in the multi-family residential development comply with the required 36-foot side setback. No decks are proposed within a side setback.This standard is met. 3.03.05 Projections into the Rear Setback A. Chimneys,flues, bay windows, steps, eaves, gutters, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, planter boxes and other ornamental features may project not more than 24 inches into the rear setback. Response: The closest proposed multi-family residential building will be setback approximately 60 feet from the property line. No architectural features are proposed within 24"of the rear setback. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard is met. B. A balcony, outside stairway or other unenclosed, unroofed projection may not project more than 10 feet into a rear setback. In no case shall such a projection come closer than 6 feet from any lot line or Special Setback. Response: The closest proposed multi-family residential building will be setback approximately 60 feet from the property line. No balconies, outside stairways or other unenclosed, unroofed projections are proposed within 24" of the rear setback. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard is met. C. Covered, unenclosed porches, extending not more than 10 feet beyond the rear walls of the building, shall maintain at least a 10 foot setback from the property line or Special Setback. Response: The closest proposed multi-family residential building will be setback approximately 60 feet from the property line. No porches are proposed within 10 feet of the rear setback. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard is met. D. Uncovered decks not more than 18 inches above final grade shall maintain at least a three foot setback from the property line or Special Setback. Response: The closest proposed multi-family residential building will be setback approximately 60 feet from the property line. No decks are proposed within 10 feet of the rear setback. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard is met. E. No permitted projection into a rear setback shall extend within ten feet of the centerline of an alley, or of a rear lot line if no alley exists, or within six feet of an accessory structure. Response: The site does not abut an alley. All proposed buildings on the multi-family parcel exceed the required 36-foot rear setback, and no projections are proposed within the setback. No buildings are proposed in the RV storage area on the south lot.This standard is met. F. Accessory structures are not considered projections into a rear setback, but have separate setback requirements listed in this Ordinance(Section 2.06). Response:An accessory structure is proposed to house a maintenance building along the western lot line of the residential development. Section 2.06 of this narrative demonstrates how the proposed accessory structure meets all applicable criteria.This standard is met. Page 38 of 87 146 Attachment E 3.03.06 Vision Clearance Area A. A vision clearance area (Figures 3.03A and 8)is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and a driveway, or a street and an alley, in which visual obstructions are limited for safety purposes. B. The vision clearance area is formed by a combination of the following lines: 5. At the intersection of a public street and a driveway: a line extending ten feet from the intersection along the back of curb, a line extending ten feet along the side of the driveway, and a third line drawn across the corner of the lot that connects the ends of the lines. � 1 1''Z I "qty'. SidewalM ' III p P-Poky lino } p UmwUmwV � mVIIVIIVIIVIIMINmi. UIIUIIUIIUI a 1 N Figire 3 63? S'ision Cleuance Area in All Zones Except DDC'. Response: This development proposes four new driveways to public streets (two from the residential development to Arney Lane NE,one from the residential development to Steven Street, and one from the RV storage area to Sprague Lane). As shown on the site plans (Sheet C2.1 of Exhibit H), clear vision areas are provided as required at each of these driveways.This standard is met. C. Vision clearance area shall contain no plants, fences, walls, structures, signs, parking spaces, loading spaces, temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding 42 inches in height (measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists,from the street centerline), except: 1. Trees, provided branches and foliage are removed to a height of 7 feet above grade, 2. Utility poles, 3. Utility boxes less than ten inches at the widest dimension;and 4. Traffic control signs and devices. Response: This development proposes four clear vision areas where new driveways will be provided to public streets (two from the residential development to Arney Lane NE, one from the residential development to Steven Street, and one from the RV storage area to Sprague Lane). As shown on the site plans (Sheet C2.1 of Exhibit H), no obstructions over 42" in height will be placed in the clear vision areas. This standard is met. D. The Director shall have the authority to modify the standards for vision clearance areas upon finding that the modification is appropriate, due to one-way traffic patterns. Response:There are no one-way streets adjacent to the site.This standard does not apply. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria of 3.03. Page 39 of 87 147 Attachment E 3.04 Vehicular Access 3.04.03 Driveway Guidelines and Standards A. Number of Driveways 1. For residential uses, the maximum number of driveways per lot frontage shall be one. For purposes of controlling driveway access, every 100 feet of frontage is considered a separate lot frontage. 2. A minimum of two driveways shall be provided in developments with: a. 30 dwelling units in single-family or duplex dwellings,or b. 100 dwelling units in multiple family dwellings (200 if all dwelling units are equipped with automatic fire sprinklers),or C. 100 living units in group care facilities or nursing homes (200 if all living units are equipped with automatic fire sprinklers). Response: The proposed multi-family development will have 300 units and over 1,000 feet of street frontage, therefore a minimum of two driveways is required. As shown in the Exhibit H Sheet C2.1, three driveways are proposed.This standard is met. 3. For nonresidential uses, the number of driveways should be minimized based on overall site design, including consideration of: a. The function classification of abutting streets, b. The on-site access pattern, including parking and circulation, joint access, turnarounds and building orientation, C. The access needs of the use in terms of volume, intensity and duration characteristics of trip generation. Response: There is one driveway proposed for the RV storage, which is the minimum necessary for the site.This standard is met. 4. Unused driveways shall be closed. Response:There are currently no unused driveways on site.This standard does not apply. B. Joint Access 1. Lots that access a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, or Service Collector should be accessed via a shared driveway. 2. A partition,subdivision, or PUD should be configured so that lots abutting a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, or Service Collector have access to a local street. Access to lots with multiple street frontages should be from the street with the lowest functional classification. 3. Every joint driveway or access between separate lots shall be established by an access easement and maintenance agreement to the satisfaction of the Director and revocable only with the concurrence of the Director. Response: Both proposed developments will only have direct access to local streets; neither development directly abuts a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, or Service Collector. A wetland divides the two proposed developments so a shared driveway is not feasible between the two sites. No shared driveway is requested or required.This standard does not apply. Page 40 of 87 148 Attachment E C. Interconnected Parking Facilities 1. All uses on a lot shall have common or interconnected off-street parking and circulation facilities. 2. Similar or compatible uses on abutting lots shall have interconnected access and parking facilities. Response: The proposed Property Line Adjustments will result in one lot for the multi-family residential development and one lot for the RV storage area, and there will not be more than one use on either lot. The uses within each lot will be interconnected with an internal circulation system. However, a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District runs through the development site between the two proposed uses, so creating interconnected access of parking facilities through this area is not feasible as it would require development through wetlands.This standard is met. Page 41 of 87 149 Attachment E Access Requirements uirements cable 3.04,E I to 4 Dvellin as. 5 of More Dwellitu; or Commercial of Living Units or Lr-xinne Units. School.. orIndustrialUse Individual Lots � Blouse of "orship Flab Lot Access Width feet' 0 rnlinni1nn111nn 24 milnirnlum 3 0 mirninium (See Fi2me 3.04A) 1 Ilnilnilnluunnl 1 mirninium 20 maxiMIT111 20 maaxi1 uun Paved�Vidtll 4 i niinin num 24 minni111u111 n11Iln1i111Q1111 0 maximum 3 maaxi11uu n (f eDriveway a}- 0 maxinnnu m (Add if a turn lane is (Add 8' if an tnurnn. (feet) s. lnl'o�°ided) lane is pro-,-ided) alntufau c tuur'ed Dwellllna Park 10111111111111111 11/a 111"a . Curb Flare Radius (feet) 15 111111rr1111M 25 mi nIlIllnllm 30 rnnrrnrllnlll111. N''Ltilon"Arteria.l,. Nlilnor,venial. rn/a 50 Iln lnirnluunnl 50 nnninnini um Throat Service Collector Length (feet) :access on' Local nn,''aw HCl Inlilninn1un11 20 n11in1i11n1u111 Street C-'orller Access of Local 30 rnlinni1nn111nn 30 Ilnlnirnluunnl 3 0 lnnirnillnlulln. t_1ean'a,Il1ce Street Guidelines n Service Collector 50 rnlirni1nn111nn 50111lnirnluurnn 50 mirninium (See Fim'e M:ilnor Arterial 245 minlinnnunnn 45 mirnfi nuum 245 rinirnilnnuurnn NL jor Arterial 300 millinnlu m 300 Mirnlllnualn 300 rnnirnilnnuurnn Driveway on the I? nnlin1i1n11u111 HCl Inlilninn1un11 50 n11in1i11n1u111 L�ri�7e��jy same parcel. Sepaarationl :access or Local Guideli nesStreet 11011e 11011e 11011e ('teeth '1, Sen-ice Collector 50 min11111u n1 50 11111nnn11um 50 minn1111u111 ('See Frelrr'e 3,.04B) Minor nor,a i'teriaa,l -145 111r11IlIln1&1Il11 245 111n111111A1111 245 n11Iln1n11111r11 N''Ltilor arterial 300111r11Iln11&1m 100 111n111111u111 300 min1n1111111n1 Page 42 of 87 150 Attachment E Access Requirements 'Table 3.04,E I to 4 Dwellinas. 5 or Mbre Dwelling or Commercial of Living Units or Livin2 Units. School. or hidustrial Use Individual L6]Lots House of'W'orship Access to a Mltilor or Minor Required Required Required Arterial. Tumarounds Required if the (see Figme driveway length Requirements 3.04C) Access to any to the lot located Requirements per the per tile other street f4thest froin the INVoodburn Fire District IYoodbtmi Fire street exceeds 150 District feet ..................................... .................. 1. The separation should be maximized. Diriveways on abutting lots, need not be separated from each other. ind may be combined into asinale shued 3,. Diriveways C)�17 er 40 feet tong and S ell7ing one dwelling unit may have a paved surface 12 feet wide. 4. NonvithstandinP tile width,, listed in this table. tile minfinurn clearance around a fire hydi-ant shall be provided(See FiPure 3.044). 5. Throat len2th is measm-ed from the closest off-street parking or loading space to the right-of-Way. A throatapplies only at entrances, (See Figure 3.05B). 16. Maximum of 4 individual lots can be Sell7ed from single shared drj�7CNN-ay (See Figiu-e 3,.0 1 D). ............................................................................................... PAW;d swrfmrR, Caid flame v PaVed SUrrace ............. 12. Page 43 of 87 151 Attachment E Figure 3.04A — Flag Lot Access'Width I �� ..I ....� a �w r�onlsmr�nlw ..�. ..... IIIA^'' r�n�rt�i ..�� .. �,��.. �,' urromur ?¢ � Li ,.,,, III Figure 3.044 — Comer Clearance and Drn-eiwati Spacing v,r -'radius 126'radbuis w fitl" 96"01ameder CulAo-s.¢ " T 2S radiius 1121'Mamm-erMead 20" Altennglwe to 120'hiammmerhead Figure 3.040; — Acceptable Tu rfurowids(from Oregon Fire Code Figure D103.1) 13. 26' f� z®' Figare 3.641D — Minimum Fire F1.y 14. drail[Clear ailice(from Oregon Fere C'a ie Figure D163.'1) Staff Response: The application meets the criteria of this Section. Page 44 of 87 152 Attachment E 3.04.04 Improvement Standards The portion of a driveway on private property shall be paved with: A. Portland cement concrete to a minimum depth of six inches, or B. Asphalt concrete to a minimum depth of two inches, or C. Brick or pavers with a minimum depth of two and one-fourth inches. Response:The portion of the proposed driveways into the multi-family residential area and the RV storage areas will be paved with asphalt concrete with a depth of at least 2 inches.This standard is met. 3.04.05 Traffic Impact Analysis A. A Traffic ImpactAnalysis(TIA)may be required by the Director prior to the approval of a City access permit when the Director estimates a development proposal may generate either 100 or more additional, peak hour trips, or 1,000 or more additional daily trips, within ten years of a development application. Response: This proposed development is expected to generate approximately is estimated to generate an average of 154 AM peak hour trips, 186 PM peak hour trips, and 1,974 daily trips, therefore a Transportation Impact Analysis is required. A Transportation Impact Analysis is included with this application as Exhibit L,with supplemental materials included as Exhibit M and N.This standard is met. B. A TIA shall evaluate the traffic impacts projected of a development proposal and the estimated effectiveness of potential traffic impact mitigation measures. Response: The Transportation Impact Analysis included as Exhibit L evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed development and the estimated effectiveness of potential traffic impact mitigation measures. The transportation study indicates that all study area intersections are anticipated to operate within City and ODOT mobility standards during the AM and PM peak hours with the proposed development except for the intersection of Woodland Avenue and Robin Avenue. However, as traffic simulations of the Woodland Avenue/Robin Avenue intersection indicate that delays are likely to be much lower than estimated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology, no mitigation will be required at the location or elsewhere in the study area. Additional discussion in Exhibit L indicate that further analysis produces results corresponding to Level of Service B at this intersection and demonstrate that standards are met if left turns on the east leg are distributed with 60% from the left lane and 40% from the right lane. Mackenzie transportation engineers recommend that signage along Robin Avenue clearly indicate that left-turns can be made from both lanes and that both lanes provide access to 1-5.This standard is met. C. The methodology for a TIA shall be consistent with City standards. Response: The methodology for the Transportation Impact Analysis is consistent with City, County, and ODOT standards, as demonstrated in Exhibit L. Staff Response: With the proposed condition of approval related to additional signage,the application meets the criteria of this section. Page 45 of 87 153 Attachment E 3.05 Off-Street Parking and Loading 3.05.02 General Provisions A. All required parking and loading spaces shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the standards of the WDO. Response:The applicant agrees to retain and maintain parking spaces as required by the WDO. No loading areas are required or proposed.This standard is met. B. The land for off-street parking and loading areas shall either be: 1. Owned in fee title by the owner of the structure or site being served by the parking area, or 2. Subject to legal documentation to the satisfaction of the Director, establishing permanent use of off-street parking that is under separate ownership. The parking, subject to such a parking agreement, shall be in compliance with all requirements and development standards of the WDO. The agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder and filed with the Director. Response: Off-street parking will be provided on the same lot as its intended use, and will be owned by the property owner of the proposed use. No loading areas are required or proposed. Standard B.1 of this paragraph is met. C. When calculations for determining the number of required off-street parking spaces results in a fractional space, any fraction of a space less than one-half shall be disregarded, and a fraction of one-half or greater shall be counted as one full space. Response: This method of calculation was used in determining required parking numbers for the development.This standard is met. D. Location 1. Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided on the some lot as the primary building or use except that: a. In RS, R1S or RM zones, parking spaces for non-residential uses permitted in the zone may be located on another site, if such site is within 250 feet of the lot containing the primary building, structure or use. Response:All off-street parking will be provided on the same site as its associated use.This standard does not apply. 2. Off-street parking shall be located either in the some zone, in a more intensive zone or in a zone where parking is allowed as a permitted use, orsubject to approval as a conditional use. Response: All off-street parking will be provided on the same lot as its associated use. No parking is proposed in a zone other than RM.This standard is met. 3. In residential districts, off-street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a yard abutting a street, except within a driveway leading to a garage or carport. Response: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow parking within the yard abutting Arney Lane, with screening provided via landscaping. This parking location is consistent with subsection E.2, below. With the approval of the variance, this standard is met. Page 46 of 87 154 Attachment E Staff Response: Staff concurs with the variance and agrees that with the variance,the application meets this criteria. E. Setback 2. Parking, loading, and circulation areas shall be set back from a property line a minimum of five feet, unless there is a shared use agreement to the satisfaction of the Director, verifying shared use between the separate properties. Response: As shown in the site plans, Sheet C2.1, where parking for the multi-family residential development abuts the street there is a 5-foot landscaped setback. For the RV storage area,there is a 10- foot landscaped setback for parking abutting the property line.This standard is met. F. All vehicle parking and loading areas shall be paved to the standards of this ordinance (Section 3.04.04), except that in the IP, IL, SWIR, and P/SP zones, storage areas used for equipment that may damage pavement may be stored on a gravel-surface storage area. A gravel storage area shall be constructed to a minimum of surfacing of:six inches of one inch minus to three inch minus gravel. If three inch minus is used, the top two inches shall be one inch minus. The property owner shall maintain a gravel storage area to ensure continued drainage and dust control. A paved access apron to any paved access road is required, regardless of the storage area surface. Response:The proposed development site is not located in a IP, IL,SWIR, or P/SP zone.All vehicle parking areas will be paved per requirements, as is demonstrated in Section 3.04.04 of this narrative. Per City staff during the Pre-Application Conference, the RV storage area may consist of gravel (as it is storage rather than parking)to better facilitate stormwater drainage.This standard is met. Staff Response: Staff does not agree with this response and is proposing a condition of approval requiring the RV Storage area to be paved per the standards of the WDO. With the proposed condition, the application meets the criteria of this section. G. All vehicle parking, loading, and storage areas shall be graded and provide storm drainage facilities approved by the Director. Response: All vehicle parking, loading, and storage areas will be graded and will include storm drainage facilities, as shown in the grading plans included with this application (Exhibit H Sheets C2.2 &C2.2A) and discussed in Exhibit L.This standard is met. H. All parking spaces, except those for single-family and duplex dwellings, shall be constructed with bumper guards or wheel barriers that prevent vehicles from damaging structures,projecting over walkways so as to leave less than four feet of unobstructed passage, or projecting over access ways, abutting properties or rights-of-way. Response: As shown in the site plans, Exhibit H Sheet C2.1, wherever vehicle parking abuts a walkway, a wheel barrier is provided, leaving 6 feet of unobstructed passage.This standard is met. 1. Maneuvering areas shall be designed in compliance with this Section (Table 3.05C). Off-street parking areas shall be designed so that no backing or maneuvering within a public right-of- way is required. These provisions do not apply to single-family dwellings or duplexes. Response:Table 3.05C below demonstrates how both proposed developments will meet the dimensional requirements for maneuvering areas. Both proposed developments will have ample maneuvering room so that no backing or maneuvering within a right-of-way is required. The multi-family development will Page 47 of 87 155 Attachment E have drive aisle widths of at least 24 feet and interconnected drive-aisles around each building, or pair of buildings, to facilitate backing and circulation.The RV storage area will have backing space of at least 32'; Sheet C2.1 of the site plans shows the backing areas for safe maneuvering of recreational vehicles. This standard is met. J. All uses required to provide 20 or more off-street parking spaces shall have directional markings or signs to control vehicle movement. Response:The multi-family residential development is required to have more than 20 parking spaces.The parking areas will have directional markings to control vehicle movement, as shown in the site plans (Exhibit H, sheet C2.1).This standard is met. K. Except for single-family and duplex dwellings, off-street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of a space. The total width of the lines shall delineate a separation of two feet. The lines shall be four inches wide(See Figure 3.05C). Response:Compliance with this standard is demonstrated via a note Sheet C2.1 and detail on Sheet C2.1A. Off-street parking spaces will be delineated by double parallel lines as required.This standard is met. L. For nonresidential uses: 1. Parking and loading areas should be illuminated at an average of 0.2 horizontal foot- candle at ground level(or 0.5 horizontal foot-candle if the applicant states that personal security or vandalism is a likely or severe problem), with a maximum uniformity ratio of 20:1 (maximum to minimum). Response: The Photometrics plan included as Sheet C2.31B in Exhibit H demonstrates compliance with these standards. The RV Storage site will have an average of 0.3-foot candle and a uniformity ratio of 6. This standard is met. 2. Entrance areas to the building should be illuminated at an average of 0.5 horizontal foot- candle at ground level(or 1.0 horizontal foot-candle if the applicant states that personal security or vandalism is a likely or severe problem), with a maximum uniformity ratio of 15:1 (maximum to minimum). Response: There are no buildings proposed at the RV storage site and the other site is a residential use. This standard does not apply. 3. Illumination shall not shine or reflect onto residentially zoned property or a public street. Response: All proposed lighting will be shielded so as to not shine or reflect on to neighboring properties or the street.This standard is met. M. Required parking spaces shall be available for parking of operable vehicles of residents, customers, patrons and employees and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of fleet vehicles, except for those fleet vehicles: 1. Driven by an employee to the site each work day from home, or 2. Stored during periods other than normal business hours. Response: The proposed uses are Multi-Family Residential and Self-Storage for recreational vehicles. No parking spaces will be used for fleet vehicles on either site. The RV storage lot will have 6 designated vehicle parking spaces and 127 spaces dedicated for RV storage. The residential development will have 600 vehicle parking spaces total,which meets the minimum required amount; no spaces are proposed to be used for storage of vehicles or materials.This standard is met. Page 48 of 87 156 Attachment E Staff Response: If the proposed conditions of the approval are included, the application meets the criteria of 3.05.02 3.05.03 Off-Street Parking A. Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces 1. Off-street vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than those set forth in this Section (Table 3.05A). 2. Off-street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed two times the amount required in this Section (Table 3.05A). Dwellings 2/dwelling unit 634(2.1/unit) N/A Self-Storage 1/6 units,maximum of 6 N/A 6 spaces Response:The proposed multi-family residential development will have 300 units,therefore according to Table 3.05A,600 parking spaces are required.As shown in the site plans,600 spaces are proposed for this development. The RV storage area is classified as self-storage per City staff, and is therefore required to have 6 parking spaces (1 per 6 storage units, with a maximum of 6 spaces). As shown in the site plans, 6 spaces are provided in three areas with the RV Storage development.This standard is met. B. Accessible parking shall be provided in amounts not less than those set forth in Table 3.058. The number of accessible spaces shall be included as part of total required vehicle parking spaces. Accessible Pat-king Ratio Standards `II able 3.05B Total Spaces` Minnnnun Total Minnnnnunx Vann Mininnunn "tib heelchair Accessible Spaces° I.AccessibleSpaces User OlrA-°'Spaces 1to?_ 1 1. 6tof0 2 1. 51 to 7_5 3 1. 76 to 100 4 1. 101 to 150 5 1. 151 to 200 t 1. 01 to 300 7 1. 301 to 400 S 1. 401 to 500 9 501 to 100,0 5 oftoral 1 in evert S accessible 1001 or nnore "ill phas 1 for each 100 spaces or portion thereof spaces Over 1000 1. "Van Accessible Spaces"and Akheelchair laser 0.n 1. are incluurled in"Total:Accessible Spacers." ''. Facilities providing outpatient services recgunire ten percent of the total nuuntber of parking spaces to be accessible spaces. 3. Facilities that specialize in treatment or seMces,for persons with mobility impairnnnents req re,ala percent of the total innuilber of parking spaces to be accessible spaces. Page 49 of 87 157 Attachment E Response: The proposed multi-family residential development proposes 600 parking spaces, and is therefore required to have 12 accessible spaces including 2 wheelchair-user-only spaces.As shown on the site plans, 13 accessible spaces including 2 wheelchair-user-only spaces are provided.The RV storage area is required to have 1 ADA space, which will be provided on site near the driveway.This standard is met. C. A maximum of 20 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces may be satisfied by compact vehicle parking spaces. Response: No compact spaces are proposed on either site.This standard is met. D. Off-street vehicle parking spaces and drive aisles shall not be smaller than specified in this Section (Table 3.05C). s 111111611111111101 0°(Parallel) Stall Width 9' 9' N/A Standard Curb Length 22.5' 22.5' N/A Stripe Length 8' 9' N/A Stall to Curb 8' 9' N/A Drive Aisle 24' 24' N/A Width 90 degrees Stall Width 9' 9' 9' Standard or Curb Length 9' 9' 9' Accessible Stripe Length 19' 19' 19' Stall to Curb 19' 19' Drive Aisle 24' 24-29.15' 32-36' Width Car Accessible Stall Width 6' 8' N/A Aisle Curb Length 6' 8' N/A Stripe Length 19' 19' N/A Stall to Curb 19' 19' N/A Drive Aisle 24' 24' N/A Width Van Accessible Stall Width 8' 8' 8' Aisle Curb Length 8' 8' 8' Stripe Length 19' 19' 19' Stall to Curb 19' 19' 19' Drive Aisle 24' 24' 32-36' Width 1.A parking space may occupy up to two feet of landscaped area or walkway.At least four feet clear width of a walkway must be maintained. 2.Space width is measured from the midpoint of the double stripe. 3.Curb or wheel stops shall be utilized to prevent vehicles from encroaching on abutting properties or rights-of- way. 4.The access aisle must be located on the passenger side of the parking space,except that two adjacent parking spaces may share a common access aisle. 5.Where the angle of parking stalls differs across a drive aisle,the greater drive aisle width shall be provided. Page 50 of 87 158 Attachment E Response:The majority of the proposed parking stalls for the residential development and the RV storage area will be provided at 90 degrees, with a few parallel spaces in the residential development near the west property line. The residential development will provide 281 uncovered 90-degree spaces 9 feet in width and 19 feet in length and 19 uncovered parallel spaces 9 feet in width and 22.5 feet in length. 300 additional spaces will be provided in carports 9 feet in width and 19 feet in length.The drive aisles in the residential development will range from 24 to 29.15 feet in width. The vehicle parking spaces in the RV storage area will be 9 feet wide and 19 feet long, with a drive aisle width of 32-36 feet. This standard is met. E. All uses that are required to provide 10 or more off-street parking spaces and residential structures with four or more dwelling or living units shall provide a bicycle rack within 50 feet of the main building entrance. The number of required rack spaces shall be one space per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 rack spaces. Response:As shown in the site plans(Sheet C2.1 in Exhibit H), 20 bicycle racks throughout the residential development, with 80 spaces total and at least one rack per building.The residential development layout includes 13 separate buildings, so there is not one main entrance, but the majority of the bicycle parking spaces will be within 50 feet of a building entrance.This standard is met. F. Garages 1. For single-family and duplex dwellings, a. The parking spaces required by this section (Table 3.105A) shall be in a garage or garages. b. There shall also be an improved parking pad, abutting the garage doorway,for each opposing parking space within the garage. Each parking pad shall have the minimum dimensions of 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. Response: No single-family or duplex dwellings are proposed with this application.This standard does not apply. 2. For multi family dwellings, one-half of the parking spaces required by this Section (Table 3.05A)shall be in a garage or garages. Figazre 3.055 — Pxking Spaces in G:uage(31ue)and hnproved Parking Pact(Yellow) Response: For the 300 multi-family residential units proposed, 600 parking spaces are required and half of those are required to be located in garages. As shown in the site plans (Sheet C2.1 in Exhibit H), 300 spaces will be provided in carports underneath each apartment.As opposed to fully enclosed garages,the proposed carports will give drivers a better line of sight when backing out into the drive aisles,which will Page 51 of 87 159 Attachment E increase pedestrian safety on the sidewalks provided along the building elevations. Per City staff,carports will be an acceptable means to meeting this requirement.This standard is met. Staff Response: The language in this Section of the WDO seems to indicate that fully enclosed garages are required for even a large multi-family apartment complex that has a parking lot open to the public, such as this one. There is a distinction in the WDO between carports and garages in some areas, but it is not consistent throughout the Code. It's important to note that when garages are required for single- family and duplex developments under the WDO,there is also an accompanying requirement to provide a "parking pad" outside the garage, a minimum of 20 feet in depth (see the yellow area in the graphic above). This additional area is required to be on private property so that the driver of a car is not backing directly into traffic from their garage. In the case of parking lots — which are typical for commercial centers and multi-family parking areas - the opportunity for this critical "parking pad" is impossible. Staff has made an interpretation that the requirement for a garage in the case of multi-family dwelling units in a parking lot is satisfied with carports. This is a reasonable and practical interpretation for a variety of aesthetic and most importantly,safety factors. Having individuals opening garage doors and having cars backing into drive aisles from an enclosed garage would be dangerous and Staff would not approve it. Staff finds that the application meets the criteria and will process a clarification of this particular Code language during the next set of amendments to the WDO. G. Additional design standards apply in the DDC zone (Section 3.07.07.C.12), MUV zone (Section 3.07.08.K), and NNC zone(Section 3.07.09.8). Response:The proposed development site is not located in the DDC, MUV,or NNC zones.These additional design standards do not apply. Page 52 of 87 160 Attachment E AWe Threat (see Table 3.04A) Whed stop \ n Y d Q,'W' Figure3.05B -Parking Space and Aisle Dirnensuons. �... ,emu........... H7r"nl fTC". .4y I.,aa'n,0ructadriuru,;� Figure 3.45C" - Parking Space Striping 3.05.04 Off-Street Loading A. Off-street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less than those set forth in this Section (Table 3.05D). B. The off-street loading facilities shall be on the some lot, or site, as the use or structure they are intended to serve. Required loading spaces and required parking spaces shall be separate and distinct, except that if authorized through a land use decision, a parking area may be used for loading during those times when the vehicle parking area is not in use. Page 53 of 87 161 Attachment Loaffing Space Requirements Table 3.,05D Use mid Area(square�feet) Njillillijull Nuniber of Nfininnun Size of Space(feet) Spaces Width Length Heq�lit Office 0-4999 0 12 30 14 5,000—41999 1 42,000 or more 2 Nonresidential uses,except office,,in the CO,CG, md NNC zones, 0-99919 1 12 30 14 42,000—81999 3 82X0 oi more 4 All LL&es in the IR IL and SWIR zo�ies 0-1 L999 squ,-Te feet 1 36,000—59999 3 12 60 14 60X0—K9199 4 100.000,or 1110re I additional for eich 5U00 sclu.ue feet of fraction thereof Response: The proposed uses are Multi-Family Residential and Self-Storage (for recreational vehicles). The zoning for the annexed area will be Medium Density Residential (as the she is designated on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan).Therefore, according to Table 3.05D, no loading spaces are required for either site.These standards donot apply. C. Additional design standards apply in the industrial zones (Section 3.07.10.B.2). Response:The proposed development site is not in an industrial zone.This standard does not apply. 3.05.05 Shared Parking A. Shared parking shall be allowed through a Zoning Adjustment, Design Review, Conditional Use, or Planned Unit Development.... Response: As is demonstrated in Section 3.US.U3.Aofthis narrative and the attached site plans, Sheet C2.1, both the residential development and the RVStorage area meet minimum parking requirements. This proposal does not require a shared parking agreement to meet parking requirements.Section 3.05.05 does not apply. Staff Response: With the interpretation made related tmcarports above,the application meets the off- street parking standards. 3.06 Landscaping 3.06.01 Applicability The provisions u/this Section shall apply: A. To the site area for all new or expanded non-residential development, parking and storage areas for equipment, materials and vehicles. B. Single-family and duplex dwellings need comply only with the street tree and significant tree provisions u/this Section. Response: The proposed development includes an RV storage area on one lot and a multi-family residential development on a separate lot.The provisions of this Section apply to the RV storage area per Page 64ofQ7 162 Attachment E subsection 3.06.01.A. It is assumed that these provisions also apply to the multi-family residential site.All applicable criteria are addressed for both developments. 3.06.02 General Requirements A. Building plans for all uses subject to landscaping requirements shall be accompanied by landscaping and irrigation plans. Response: Landscaping and irrigation plans are included with this application as Sheets 1-2.0-1-2.7 of Exhibit H.This standard is met. B. All required landscaped areas shall be irrigated unless it is documented that the proposed landscaping does not require irrigation. Response: As specified in the notes on Sheet L2.0 in the landscaping plans, all new planting areas will be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system. Irrigation zones will be valved according to plant types, exposure, and microclimatic conditions.This standard is met. C. All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% of ground coverage within 3 years. Response: As specified in the notes on Sheet L2.0, all shrubs and ground cover will be installed at a size such that 80%ground coverage will be achieved within 3 years.This standard is met. D. Installation of plant materials and irrigation specified in an approved landscaping plan shall occur at the time of development and shall be a condition of final occupancy. Should site conditions make installation impractical, an acceptable performance guarantee may be approved, subject the requirements of this Ordinance(Section 4.02.08). Response: As specified in the notes on Sheet L2.0, installation of plant materials and irrigation will occur at the time of development as required.This standard is met. E. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping,fences, and walls in good condition, so as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead plants shall be removed and replaced, in conformance with the original landscape plan. Response: The property owner(s) agree to maintain all landscaping, fences, and walls in good condition as required.This standard is met. F. The required number of plant units shall be met by a combination of plant materials listed in this Ordinance(Table 3.06B). Response: The landscape plan Sheet L2.0, included in Exhibit H, demonstrates the Plant Unit Value and Minimum Size for each proposed planting,in accordance with Table 3.0613.The proposed plantings include a mix of large, medium, and small trees and shrubs, lawn and living ground cover.This standard is met. G. Required plant units need not be allocated uniformly throughout specified landscaping areas, but may be grouped for visual effect. Response: The proposed landscaping plan shows the distribution of planting materials, which will be distributed evenly in some areas and grouped in some areas for visual effect.This standard is met. H. Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of bark mulch or decorative rock, a minimum of two inches in depth. Response:As specified in the notes on Sheet L2.0,all landscaped areas not covered by plant materials will be covered by a layer of bark mulch 2"to 3" in depth.This standard is met. Page 55 of 87 163 Attachment E I. A six inch high concrete curb shall be provided between landscaped areas and parking and circulation areas. Response:Where landscape areas abut parking areas, a 6" high concrete curb will be provided to protect the landscaping (see Sheet C2.1).This standard is met. J. Plant materials shall be appropriate to the climate and environment of Woodburn. Inclusion of plants identified in "Suggested Plant Lists for Required Landscaping". published by the Portland Bureau of Development Services, can be used to meet this standard. A landscape architect, certified arborist or nursery person may also attest to plant appropriateness. Response: Proposed plant materials were selected by Mackenzie landscape architects from the Portland Bureau of Development Services' "Suggested Plant Lists for Required Landscaping." The complete list of plant species is shown on Sheet L2.0 of Exhibit H.This standard is met. K. Prohibited trees identified by this ordinance (Table 3.06C) do not count towards required landscaping. Response: No prohibited trees are proposed on site. Landscape Sheet L2.0, included in Exhibit H, includes a list of all the proposed tree varieties. Proposed tree varieties include: ■ Paperbark Maple ■ European Hornbeam ■ Eastern Redbud ■ Dawn Redwood ■ Yoshino Cherry ■ Swamp White Oak ■ Japanese Pagoda Tree ■ Western Red Cedar ■ Bowhall Maple ■ American Yellowwood ■ London Planetree ■ Linden ■ Green Vase Zelkoa ■ Red Alder ■ Incense Cedar ■ Pacific Crabapple Page 56 of 87 164 Attachment E ■ Tupelo ■ Bald Cypress None of the trees proposed on site are listed in Table 3.06C.This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the above listed landscape standards. 3.06.03 Landscaping Standards A. Street Trees Within the public street right-of-way abutting a development, street trees shall be planted to City standards, prior to final occupancy. 1. One tree per every entire 50 feet of street frontage shall be planted within the right-of- way, subject to vision clearance area standards and placement of public utilities. 2. Street trees shall be planted according to the property's zoning, and the abutting street's classification in the Transportation System Plan: a. Large trees shall be planted along Major and Minor Arterial streets. Large trees shall also be planted along all streets in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District(NCOD), regardless of street classification, b. Medium trees shall be planted along Service Collector and Access/Commercial Streets, C. Small trees shall be planted along all other streets. 3. The Director may modify this requirement, based on physical constraints and existing conditions, including the location of driveways and utilities.Such modification may include relocating the street trees to abutting private property. Response: The proposed residential lot will have approximately 1,370 feet of street frontage along the proposed extension of Arney Lane NE.This frontage is required to have at least 27 street trees. As shown in the landscape sheets, (Exhibit H), 31 street trees are proposed.The proposed extension of Arney Lane NE will be a local residential street. The street trees proposed will have a PU value of 8 or 10 and are classified as medium or large trees. Where Arney Lane NE crosses the wetland and Senecal Creek East Tributary, the right-of-way improvements are proposed to be narrowed to avoid filling in the wetlands; therefore, no street trees are proposed on this portion of the road.This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the landscaping standards for street trees. B. Site landscaping shall comply with Table 3.06A. Setbacks abutting a street 1 PU 15 square feet Entire setback excluding driveways Buffer yards 1 PU/20 square feet Entire yard excluding off-street parking andlloading areas abutting a wall' Other yards 1 PU/50 square feet Entire yard,excluding areas subject to more intensive landscaping requirements and off-street parking and loading areas Page 57 of 87 165 Attachment E i m m Off-street parking and loading areas 15. • 1 small tree per 10 21. ••RS, 111S, RSN, RM, RMN, P/SP CO, CG and MUV parking spaces;ort zones: 20% of the paved surface area for off-street parking,loading and circulation 16. e 1 medium tree per 15 parking spaces;or' 22. • DDC, NNC, IP,,IL, and SWIR zones: 10% of the paved surface area for off-street parking, loading and 17. e 1 large tree per 25 circulation parking spaces 1 • Landscaping shall be within or immediately adjacent to paved areas 18. 19. and 20. • 1 PU/20 square feet excluding required trees Common areas,except 3 PU/50 square feet Entire common area those approved as natural common areas in a PUD 1.Trees shall be located within off-street parking facilities,in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces. 2. Required landscaping within a setback abutting a street or an interior lot line that is within 20 feet of parking, loading and circulation facilities may also be counted in calculating landscaping for off-street parking,loading and circulation areas. Response: The landscape plans in Exhibit H demonstrate compliance with the required planting calculations. For the multi-family development, for setbacks abutting streets, 1,066 PU are required, and 1,650 PU are proposed. Buffer yards require 332 PI and 426 PU are proposed off-street parking is 2,398 and 24 large, 40 medium trees, or 60 small trees; the plan proposes 9,486 PU in the off-street parking area with 115 large, 137 medium, and 74 small trees. In the RM zone, 20% of the paved surface area for parking and circulation is required to be landscaped, which corresponds to a minimum area of 47,960 square feet. The plan proposes 86,597 square feet of landscaping within or adjacent to the parking and circulation areas. In common areas, 16,761 PU are required, and 20,393 PU are proposed. A variance is requested to limit the required buffer yard plantings to those areas within five feet of the property line rather than filling the entire area from property line to buildings (see response to WDO 5.03.12, landscaping plans in Exhibit H, and illustration in Exhibit J).With the approval of the variance request,this standard is met. For the RV storage, for setbacks abutting streets, 556 PU are required, and 643 PU are proposed. Buffer yards require 294 PI and 376 PU are proposed. The minimum PU for off-street parking is 1,247 and 5 large, 9 medium, or 13 small trees; the plan proposes 1,857 PU in the off-street parking area with 1 significant, 2 large,55 medium,and 6 small trees.20%of the paved surface area for parking and circulation is required to be landscaped, which corresponds to a minimum area of 2,299 square feet. The plan proposes 24,840 square feet of landscaping within or adjacent to the parking and circulation areas. This standard is met. Page 58 of 87 166 Attachment E Staff Response: Staff concurs that a variance request is necessary and that if approved,the application meets the landscaping standards of 3.06.03. Page 59 of 87 167 Attachment E 3.06.04 Plant Unit Value 1.Significant tree' 15 PU each 24" Diameter 2.Large tree(60-120 feet 10 PU each 10' Height or 2"Caliper high at maturity)1' 3. Medium tree(40-60 8 PU each 10' Height or 2"Caliper feet high at maturity)1 4.Small tree(18-40 feet 4 PLI each 10' Height or 2"Caliper high at maturity)1j 5. Large shrub(at 2 PU each 3 gallon or balled maturity over 4'wide x 4' high)1 6.Small to medium shrub1 PLI each 1 gallon (at maturity maximum 4' wide x 4' high)1 7. Lawn or other living 1 PU/50 square feet ground cover' 8. Berm 2 1 PLI 20 lineal feet' Minimum 2 feet high 9.Ornamental fence z 1 PU/20 lineal feet 2%-4 feet high 10. Boulder' 1 PLI each Minimum 2 feet high 11.Sundial,obelisk, 2 PU each Minimum 3 feet high gnomon,or gazing ball z 12. Fountain 2 3 PLI each Minimum 3 feet high 13. Bench or chair 0.5 PU/lineal foot 14. Raised planting bed 0.5 PU/lineal foot of Minimum 1 foot high,minimum 1 foot wide in least constructed of brick, greatest dimension interior dimension stone or similar material except CMUz 15.Water feature 2 per 50 square feet None incorporating stormwater detention 1. Existing vegetation that is retained has the same plant unit value as planted vegetation. 2. No more than twenty percent(20%)of the required plant units may be satisfied by items in dines 8 through 15 Page 60 of 87 168 Attachment E � I� RIMINI ' Almira Norway Maple Acer platanoides"Almira" Sidewalk damage Box Elder Acernegundo Weak wood,sidewalk damage Catalpas Catalpa Species Significant litter(hard fruit 12"or more as elongated pod) Desert,or Velvet,Ash Fraxinus velutina Susceptible to bores,crotch breakage,significant litter Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Not as street tree Elms Ulmus Species Susceptible to Dutch Elm disease European Ash Fraxinus excelsior Disease susceptible,significant litter Fruit bearing trees Not appropriate dueto fruit Ginko,or Maidenhair, Ginko biloba Disgusting odor from squashed fruit when female Tree near male Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Susceptible to insects and disease,crotch breakage, significant litter Hackberry or Sugarberry Celtis Species Significant litter(fleshy fruit) Hickory, Pecan Carya Species Significant litter(hard fruit) Holly Ilex Species Sight obstruction (evergreen, low foliage) Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum Significant litter(inedible nut) Lavalle Hawthorne Crategus lavellei Hazardous(thorns on trunk and branches) Lilac Syringa Species Sight obstruction(low foliage), pollen allergies Oak Quercus Species Significant litter(hard fruit) Pines Pinus Species Sight obstruction(evergreen,low foliage) Poplar,Cottonwood Poplus Species Brittle,significant litter Profusion Grab Apple Malus"Sargent" Significant litter(fleshy fruit)'; Silver Maple Acer saccaharinum Sidewalk damage, root invasion into pipes Spruces Picea Species Sight obstruction(evergreen,low foliage) Sweetgum Liquidambar styruciflua Significant litter(hard fruit) Thundercloud Plum Prunus"Thundercloud" Significant litter(fleshy fruit)'; Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Sidewalk damage Walnuts Juglans Species Significant litter(hard fruit) Willow Salix Species Root invasion into pipes Winter Crab Apple Malus"Winter Gold" Significant litter(fleshy fruit) Page 61 of 87 169 Attachment E 3.06.05 Screening A. Screening between zones and uses shall comply with Table 3.06D. Screening Requft-eineiits T'able 3.06D N=No screemng required F'=Sight-obscuring fence required W=Architfcturil w'all required D=Architectural wall- fence-or hedge,may be requifed m the Design Review pfo'ce:gs Adjacent p�rop e ties—zon e or use theft rtctives the beliefit of CO C 7� Property being Developed—must '4 pro-vide ,creeniiig if no 7j�. comparable screening exists Oil 5 IS,- abutting protected property Z RS. RIS. Or RSNI zone N N N N N N N N RM,or RMN zone W' D W2 D W2 W2 D W2 D W, DDC' or NNC' zone N N N N N N N N N _\7 N Noilresidential use iii CO zoiie W' W2 'W" N W' W" N W2 D W, CG or NILJV zotie W' W2 D D D D D W2 INF2 D W' Outdoor stora,—D-e in CG or NIUV wl! W�; WI-3W17 Wn; W17 W1. Wa3 W13 W1.3 -wl.3 ,3, 1 1 Z101le 3 3 3 IP. IL. or SWIR zotie W' W' D W' D D D w3 Wj 'w- W, L,;S p Permitted ust� D D N N N N N D D ' 7 D Z olle C onditional use D D D D D D D D D D D po�, Single-family dwelling. chiplex., N,7 N 7 N 7 N7 N-7 N 7 N7 1" 7 N7 N,' N7 Child Care facility. Or 2roup horile I I I I I I Mul tip le-fiaillily dwelliiilg.child INT21 w275; 447{x'2; w27 w', w2.5. Care fiacility� 'g'l�onp hoille or D D 'w"J.8 D D 5.8 5,8 �.9 S nursinlg 11011le Noilresidential use iii a,residential W' W2 D D D D D W] -wr2 D W' Z0111.1 Martufactured of)"elhia2 Park tV'21 W2 aV2 W2 �Nr2 W] -wr2 -\N72 D Boat. recrtational. and vehiclt sfora,ge pad.if--,vithin 10 feet ofa F' F' F' F' F N F' F' F' F F-? Property Blit I I I I I I I I Common boat. recreational.and wZ wZ w2,4 NvZ wZ �,2r � W2T4 W'22�4 � W'22.4 vthiclestora2e area 4 4 4 -1 � D 4 _d Page 62 of 87 170 Attachment Table 3.06D N=No screeiung required F=Sight-obscuring fence required W=ArcLitectural wall required D=Architectufal wall,fence,or hedge irmy be required in the Design Review process that rectives the bentfit of comparable screening exists Oil ti)— facilities except for sill2le-faillily W2, W, WIT W, W, w I facility. or,aroup holne 1. Screenirig is mily required from the view of abutting streets, pirkiiig lots. atid residentially z,oned Six to sevell feet ill Ileicylit 3. Six to nint feet ill lleilght 4. Abuttinlg streets iliust a1sc-) be screened 5. Screelilrig is reciiiii-ed abutting multiple-family&A7elliligs,. colimiel-c I ial or Mdustrial uses only 4r 4r 6. In inclustiial zones, screening is required onlyxliere the reffise collection facility is in a yard abutting a, public street. parking lot. or residentially zoned property. Child care fq -)I S. Child care facility for 13 or more clii1dren. group laoine for six or niore persons. General notes: 9. Screening is siibject to licight hillitations for V'isioli Cleara,nce Areas(Section 3.03.06)and.94jacent to streets (Section 2.01.02' 11. Where a aall is required arid is located more tharl.two feet from the property lilie. the yard areas on flie ext,erlor of the -x911 shall be larldscaped to a clensivy ofone plant imit per 20 square feet. Response: After the proposed Property Line Adjustments, the western lot line of the subject she will be located entirely within the boundaries of the residential lot.The residential lot will be a Medium Density Residential use abutting a Single Family Residential use tothe west,which requires a6'7-foot high wall as screening. On the east side of the residential lot, and to the east and south of the RV storage area, the uses will abut Commercial General zone, and, according toTable 3.06D, a 6'7-foot high vxa|| is required. Avariance is requested forthis standard,as this application proposes satisfying the screening requirement with vegetation rather than vxa||s (see response to VVDO 5.03.12 and illustration in Exhibit K). The Woodburn Premium Outlets currently provide extensive vegetation along their west property line (this site's east property line) which effectively screens the property line. In other locations where an architectural vxa|| would be required, a 6-foot high screen of shrub planting is proposed, subject to variance approval. As shown in the landscaping plans, a 6-foot high screen is proposed along the portion Page G3ofQ7 171 Attachment E of the residential lot abutting a RS zone, and along the south and east lot lines of the RV Storage lot where the site abuts a CG zone. The portion of the residential lot line that abuts a CG zone (at the northeast portion of the site) is in a wetland; no work is proposed in this area so as to not disturb the wetlands and because the adjacent lot already contains a high screen of vegetation.All applicable criteria for a variance request is addressed in this narrative.Walls are proposed around garbage/recycling facilities as required. With the approval of the variance request, this standard is met. Staff Response: Staff concurs that a variance request is necessary and that if approved,the application meets the landscaping standards of 3.06.05 B. All parking areas, except those for single-family and duplex dwellings, abutting a street shall provide a 42-inch vertical visual screen from the abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the screening include plant materials, berms, architectural walls, and depressed grade for the parking area.All screening shall comply with the clear vision standards of this ordinance(Section 3.03.06). Response: On the proposed multi-family residential lot, parking abuts the proposed extension of Arney Lane NE along the northern lot line and northwest corner of the development. As shown on Sheets L2.4, L2.5, and L2.6, a low screen of shrubs, with a minimum height of 42" is proposed where parking abuts the street on this site. On the RV storage site, parking does not directly abut a street; however, parking and storage on this site will be completely screened from view from the right-of-way by a 6-foot high screen wall of shrubs (Exhibit H, Sheet L2.7).This standard is met. Staff Response: The application meets the visual screening requirements for parking areas adjacent to a ROW. 3.06.06 Architectural Walls A. This Section shall apply to required architectural walls in all zoning districts. Response: An architectural wall is proposed along the southern side of the proposed extension of Steven Street.This section of the narrative addresses all applicable criteria as it pertains to this proposed wall. B. Design Standards and Guidelines 1. An architectural wall shall meet the texture, color, and articulation requirements on the face away from the proposed development. 2. An architectural wall should meet the texture, color, and articulation requirements on the face toward the proposed development. 3. An architectural wall shall have a minimum three inch horizontal articulation of at least one linear foot of the wall of intervals not more than 40 feet;and 4. An architectural wall shall have a minimum six inch vertical articulation of at least one linear foot of the wall of intervals not more than 40 feet. 5. An architectural wall shall incorporate at least two colors. 6. An architectural wall shall have an earth tone coloration other than grey on at least eighty percent(8016)of the surface. 7. An architectural wall shall be architecturally treated with scoring, texture, or pattern on at least eighty percent(8016) of the surface. Response: Architectural walls are proposed around the garbage/recycling areas and along the south side of Steven Street. Each wall is proposed to be constructed of split-face concrete masonry unit(CMU) blocks in earth tone coloration so as to be attractive to the viewer.The garbage/recycling area walls are shorter than 40 feet and thus do not require horizontal or vertical articulation. The wall along Steven Street will Page 64 of 87 172 Attachment E be nearly 200 feet long and will require horizontal or vertical articulation at intervals of 40 feet or closer. While the final design of the wall will be deferred until construction drawings are prepared, an image of the proposed wall type is included in Exhibit H, Sheet L2.3.This standard is met. Staff Response: The architectural wall proposed meets the requirements of this Section. C. Retaining walls should/shall meet the texture and color requirements of architectural walls in or abutting residential districts, where the texture and color requirements apply to the visible face of the retaining wall. Response: No retaining walls are required or proposed on site.This standard does not apply. 3.06.07 Significant Trees on Private Property A. The purpose of this Section is to establish processes and standards which will minimize cutting or destruction of significant trees within the City. Significant trees enhance neighborhoods by creating a sense of character and permanence. In general, significant trees on private property shall be retained, unless determined to be hazardous to life or property. Response: Trees on site will be preserved where possible. All significant trees proposed to be removed will be replanted per City requirements. All tree removal is detailed on the demolition plans (C2.1) included in Exhibit H. Sheet C2.4(Significant Tree Removal Plan) illustrates that three significant trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed RV storage facility. Site grading and soil compaction associated with RV parking is anticipated to lead to root damage that would negatively impact the trees, and furthermore, recreational vehicles have vertical clearance requirements that conflict with the location of the existing trees. Eleven significant trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate construction of the extension of Steven Street as required by the City; these trees are directly in the alignment of the architectural wall, roadway, or sidewalk and their associated grading alterations.Those significant trees with locations that would cause property damage are proposed for removal, as it is not possible to retain those specific trees without hampering the viability of the project. Significant trees outside the footprint of proposed development areas will remain in place, including two large trees which will flank the Steven Street extension and serve as visual centerpieces to the landscaped entry to the development.This standard is met. B. The provisions of this Section apply to the removal of any significant tree and the replacement requirements for significant tree removal. Response:This application proposes the removal of 14 trees of 24" or greater in diameter. All applicable standards are addressed in this Section of the narrative. Page 65 of 87 173 Attachment E C. A Significant Tree Removal Permit shall be reviewed as a Type 1 application to authorize the removal of a significant tree, subject to the following: 1. Approval of Significant Tree Removal Permits shall be held in abeyance between November 1 and May 1, to allow inspection of the deciduous trees when fully leafed. 2. For the removal of a diseased or dangerous tree, a report from a certified arborist or an arborist approved by the City shall be submitted, certifying that the tree is dead or dying, structurally unsound, or hazardous to life or property. 3. If the Director is uncertain whether the arborist's opinion is valid, the Director may require a second arborist's opinion, and may require that the second opinion be done at a time when trees would be fully leafed. 4. A dangerous tree may be removed prior to obtaining a permit in an emergency, and the owner shall apply within three days for the removal permit, pursuant to this Section. Response:All removal of significant trees is proposed to accommodate the development. Per City staff, a Type I Significant Tree Removal Permit is not required as the tree removal is proposed to facilitate development rather than due to the health of the trees.This standard does not apply. D. The issuance of a significant tree removal permit requires the property owner to replace each tree removed with one replacement tree. Each replacement tree shall be at least two inches in caliper. Each replacement tree shall be of a species not prohibited by this Section. The replacement tree shall be of the some size range at maturity as the significant tree replaced. Response:This application proposes the removal of 14 trees of 24"or greater in diameter. Each significant tree will be replaced as required.The proposed landscaping plan will result in a large net increase of trees on site. Well over 100 trees will be planted that are capable of reaching 24" or more at maturity. This standard is met. E. A tree required by the development standards of this ordinance (Section 3.1) or as a condition of permit or land use approval shall qualify as a replacement tree. In the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), the replacement tree shall be planted on the some property as the significant tree replaced. In other zones, the property owner shall choose the method of replacement. Replacement shall be accomplished by: 1. Planting one tree on the subject property, 2. Planting one tree at a location determined by the Woodburn Community Services Department;or 3. Paying a fee-in-lieu to the Woodburn Community Services Department for the planting of one tree at a future time by the City. Response: Fifteen significant trees are proposed to be removed with this proposal. As shown in the landscape plans,well over 100 trees will be planted that are capable of reaching 24" or more at maturity and qualify as replacement trees.All proposed replacement trees will be located on the subject property. Standard 3.06.07.E.1 is met. F. The property owner shall pay a mitigation fee for each required replacement tree that is not planted pursuant to this Section. The applicant shall pay the mitigation fee into the City's tree fund. The amount of the mitigation fee shall be established by the City Council in the Master Fee Schedule, based on the average value of a two inch caliper tree available from local nurseries,plus planting costs. Response: Fifteen significant trees are proposed to be removed with this proposal. As shown in the landscape plans,well over 100 trees will be planted that are capable of reaching 24" or more at maturity and qualify as replacement trees. No mitigation fee is required.This standard does not apply. Page 66 of 87 174 Attachment E Staff Response: The application meets the standards for significant trees on private property. 3.07 Architectural Design 3.07.01 Applicability of Architectural Design Standards and Guidelines A. For a Type I review, the criteria of this Section shall be read as "shall" and shall be applied as standards. For a Type 11 or 111 review, the criteria of this Section shall be read as "should"and shall be applied as guidelines. Response:The Design Review included in this application will be processed as a Type III review,therefore these criteria are addressed as guidelines rather than standards. All applicable guidelines for the Multi- Family Residential development are addressed in this section. 3.07.05 Standards for Medium Density Residential Buildings Note:A medium density residential building is any building where the predominant use is multiple family dwelling, nursing care or group care facility. A. At the time of application, the applicant shall choose whether the Design Review shall be conducted as a Type 1, ll, or 111 review(Section 5.01, 5.02, 5.03). For a Type I review, the criteria of this Section shall be read as "shall"and shall be applied as standards. For a Type 11 or 111 review, the criteria of this Section shall be read as "should"and shall be applied as guidelines. Response:The Design Review included in this application will be processed as a Type III review,therefore these criteria are addressed as guidelines rather than as standards.All applicable guidelines for the Multi- Family Residential development are addressed in this section. The RV storage area will not contain any residential buildings and is not addressed in this section. B. Open Space 1. Private Open Space a. Ground Level Courtyard (1) Units within five feet of the finished grade, should/shall have at least 96 square feet of private open space, with no dimension less than six feet. (2) Ground level private open space should/shall be visually and physically separated from common open space, through the use of perimeter landscaping or fencing. Response: Each unit located on the ground-floor will be provided with a patio of 8 feet deep and 12 feet wide,with an area of 96 square feet, as shown in the floor plans (Exhibit 1).The patio will be distinguished from public open space by perimeter landscaping, with a low screen of shrubs at least 42" in height, as shown in the Landscape plans (Sheets 1-2.1-1-2.7) and A.10 of Exhibit H.This guideline is met. b. Balcony. Units more than 5 feet from the finished grade should/shall have at least 48 square feet of private open space in a balcony, with no dimension less than six feet. Response: Each unit above the ground floor will be provided with a balcony 8 feet deep and 12 feet wide, with an area of 96 square feet, as shown in Exhibit 1.This guideline is met. Page 67 of 87 175 Attachment E 2. Common Open Space and Facilities a. Common open space and facilities consist of the site area and facilities not devoted to dwellings, parking, streets, driveways or storage areas that are available for use by all residents of a development. b. Required yard setbacks should/shall be included as common open space. C. Open Space and Facility Design Guidelines and Standards. (1) A minimum of 30 percent of the net site area of each medium density residential development should/shall be permanently designated for use as common open space and facilities. (2) The common area should/shall include at least one open space containing 2,000 square feet, with a minimum width of 36 feet. (3) Facilities to accommodate children's or adult's recreation, meeting or education activities should/shall be provided at a ratio of 36 square feet of outdoor, or 12 square feet of indoor, common area per dwelling unit or living unit. The minimum improved common area for this purpose should/shall be 720 square feet of outdoor or 240 square feet of indoor space. The space for such improvements may be counted as part of the common area required by Section 3.07.05.B.1.c.2 at a 1:1 ratio for outdoor space and 3:1 ratio for indoor space. Response:As shown in the site plan, Sheet C2.1 of Exhibit H,the multi-family residential lot has a net area of 23.38 acres. Therefore, the open space requirement is 7.0 acres. The proposed multi-family development provides over 13 acres of open space. There are 300 dwelling units proposed, therefore either 10,800 SF of outdoor, or 3,600 SF of indoor, common recreation area is required on this site. The pool and spa area between buildings B and M provide an open space of over 4,000 square feet with one dimension of at least 80 feet, exceeding the corresponding requirements for 2,000 square feet and 36 feet, respectively. Additional recreation space is provided via the two play areas, bringing the total provided outdoor recreation space to 15,712 square feet. The indoor recreation space has an area of 3,915 square feet.The proposed multi-family development thus exceeds the minimum requirements for both outdoor or indoor common recreation space.This guideline is met. C. Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 1. Building Mass and Facade a. Buildings should/shall have no dimension greater than 150 feet. Response:The proposed buildings will be 144 feet or 148 feet wide, not including the balconies which are included to meet the open space and architectural variety requirements.This guideline is met. b. Every two attached dwelling or living units should/shall be offset by at least four feet in depth. Response: This application proposes to use the balconies and stairs to break up the fagade and provide architectural variety, rather than offsetting the units themselves. Each attached dwelling is offset by 8 feet in depth, as the balconies extend out from the wall and serve to break up the mass of each dwelling unit.This design solution satisfies the intent of the guideline. C. Individual buildings located within 28 feet of a property line should/shall have a varied setback at least four feet. Response: Buildings A &J have portions of the building within 28 feet of the property line. There will be two 12-foot wide balconies on each building wall facing the street. The balconies will serve to create a Page 68 of 87 176 Attachment E varied setback, as they extend 8 feet from the building wall.This design solution satisfies the intent of the guideline. d. A flat roof, or the ridge of a sloping roof, should/shall not exceed a horizontal length of 100 feet without providing a difference in elevation of at least four feet. Response: No flat roofs are proposed. Rather than provide a 4-foot vertical difference in roof elevation every 100 feet, as illustrated on the elevations in Exhibit I, each section of sloping roof has an overall length of 50 feet or less before it is terminated with a difference in elevation of approximately 2% feet. This design solution satisfies the intent of the guideline. e. Buildings should/shall incorporate a porch or recessed entry for each ground-level dwelling or living unit. Covered porches and entries should be at least 30 square feet, with no dimension less than six feet. This provision does not apply to buildings for residential care. Response: Each ground floor unit contains a porch 12-feet wide and 8-feet deep,totaling 96 square feet. This guideline is met. f. All habitable rooms, except bathrooms,facing a required front yard should/shall incorporate windows. Response: Each room, except bathrooms and rooms with balconies, that connects to an outer wall will include windows. Compliance with this standard is demonstrated in the floor plans and elevations included as Exhibit I.This guideline is met. g. Staircases providing access above the first floor level should/shall not be visible from a street. Response:As shown in the floor plans,elevations,and perspective drawing included as Exhibit I,staircases will be enclosed within an entryway, so will not be visible from the adjacent streets.This guideline is met. 2. Building Materials, Texture and Color a. The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade should/shall be: (1) Either siding, brick or stucco. Plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood and sheet press board should/shall not be used as exterior finish material, and (2) Either white, tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or shaded with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown. Shading colors with brown or black to create earth tones or tinting colors with white to soften the appearance. (3) Fluorescent, "day-glo,"or any similar bright color shall not be used on the facade. Response: As depicted in Exhibit I, the exterior finish of the proposed residential buildings will consist of stucco, HardiePlank siding,trim, and glazing. None of the prohibited materials is proposed.The proposed color of the siding is medium brown, which creates a soft earth tone that is balanced by white siding and tan stucco accents.This guideline is met. Page 69 of 87 177 Attachment E b. The roofing material should/shall be either composition shingles;clay or concrete tile, metal, or cedar shingles or shakes. Composition shingles should/shall be architectural style, with a certified performance of at least 25 years. Response: As depicted in Exhibit I and shown in the materials board (Exhibit J), the proposed roofing material is composite shingles.This guideline is met. 3. Pedestrian Circulation a. The internal pedestrian system in medium density residential developments should/shall connect to other areas of the site, to other building entrances and to adjacent streets. b. When a residential building is sited within 24 feet of a street right-of-way, the building should/shall contain entrances directly accessible from the street. Response: Sheet C2.1 of Exhibit H demonstrates compliance with pedestrian circulation requirements. A sidewalk is provided around each building, and sidewalks are provided across drive-aisles to connect each building to the other buildings and the common areas on site. The internal pedestrian circulation system connects to the public sidewalk at the driveway to Steven Street and the eastern driveway to Arney Lane NE. Buildings A and J are within 24 feet of a right-of-way and connect to the on-site sidewalk system which then connects to the public sidewalk on Arney Lane. A pedestrian link is not proposed between the residential site and the RV storage site, because that would require development through environmentally sensitive resources (the creek and wetlands). Instead, there will be at least 345 feet of open space between the two developments, which will include floodplain, the Senecal Creek East Tributary and associated wetlands, a 50-foot buffer on each side of the wetlands, and a 35-foot creek maintenance easement. The closest proposed development will be a building located approximately 150 feet away from the edge of the channel (besides the required improvements to the existing road at the north end of the site). Pedestrians in the residential development will have direct access throughout the site via an internal sidewalk network leading to each building and from the Steven Street driveway to the eastern Arney Lane driveway.The RV storage site will have pedestrian access to the surrounding area via Sprague Lane.The application requests a Conditional Use to Standard 2.07.03.0 so that the RV storage area is open to the public and may operate independently from a residential area,therefore a connection between the two uses is not necessary. Bikeway/pedestrian facilities through the wetland and creek are not appropriate.This design solution meets the intent of the guidelines. Staff Response: In conjunction with the information provided in 5.03.02 below, Staff concurs that the plans submitted meet the guidelines of WDO 3.07. 3.10 Signs 3.10.10 Permanent Sign Allowances Permanent signs shall not exceed the number, size, or height specified in the following tables, and shall comply with the other regulations noted in the following tables. Response: No signs are proposed with this application. Any signs proposed at a later date will designed and installed in compliance with these standards of Section 3.10.This standard does not apply. Page 70 of 87 178 Attachment E 5.01 Type 1(Administrative)Decisions 5.01.10 Sign Permit B. Criteria:Applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the sign standards of this Ordinance. C. Procedure: The Director shall review proposal signs for compliance to City regulations. 23. Response: No signs are proposed with this application.The applicant understands that any proposed signs will need a sign permit. All procedures and standards will be followed when signs are proposed at a later date.These standards do not apply. 5.01.11 Significant Tree Removal Permit B. Criteria:Applications shall be reviewed for compliance with this Ordinance. C. Procedure: The Director shall review and approve the proposal for compliance of this Ordinance. Response: Compliance with all applicable criteria pertaining to removal of significant trees was demonstrated in Section 3.06.07 of this narrative.This application includes a request for a Significant Tree Removal Permit approval. 5.03 Type III(Quasi-Judicial)Decisions 5.03.02 Design Review, Type 111 B. Type 111 Design Review is required for the following: 1. Non-residential structures in residential zones greater than 1,000 square feet in the RS, R1S, RM, and P/SP zones. 2. Multi family dwellings not meeting all architectural design guidelines and standards. 3. Structures greater than 2,000 square feet in the CO, CG, MUV, DDC, and NNC zones. 4. Structures greater than 3,000 square feet in the IP, IL, and SWIR zones. 5. For sites with existing buildings in the CO, CG, MUV, DDC, NNC, IP, IL, and SWIR zones, expansions or new buildings that increase lot coverage by more 25%. 6. Change of use that results in a greater than 25%increase in required parking. Response:While the application meets nearly all architectural design guidelines,Type III Design Review is required as the proposed multi-family residential development does not meet selected guidelines (in which case alternate design solutions are proposed to meet the intent of the guidelines). Per WDO 3.07.05.C.1.b, every two attached dwelling or living units should/shall be offset by at least four feet in depth. This application proposes to use the balconies and stairs to break up the fagade and provide architectural variety, rather than offsetting the units themselves. Each attached dwelling is offset by 8 feet in depth, as the balconies extend out from the wall and serve to break up the mass of each dwelling unit. Additionally, per WDO 3.07.05.C.1.c, buildings within 28 feet of a property line should/shall have a varied setback at least four feet. Buildings A and J will be within 28 feet of a property line. Rather than vary the front plane of the building wall, this application proposes to use two 12-foot wide balconies on each building wall facing the street to create the appearance of a varied building plane. Finally, WDO 3.07.05.C.1.d states that roof ridges should not exceed a horizontal length of 100 feet without providing a difference in elevation of at least four feet. The proposed design instead utilizes shorter roof sections (50 feet or less)with smaller elevation differences(approximately 2%feet)to provide a visually appealing roof line. This application is for a Type III Design Review and includes all required submittal information. This standard is met. Page 71 of 87 179 Attachment E Staff Response: Staff concurs that the alternative designs proposed for the three elements noted satisfactorily address the intent of the guidelines. The WDO specifically encourages flexibility in design and the applicant has provided detailed renderings and a narrative as to how the proposal achieves the intent of the Code. D. RCWOD Permit 2.05 Overlay Districts 2.05.05 Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District B. Boundaries of the RCWOD 1. The RCWOD includes: a. Riparian corridors extending upland 50 feet from the top of the bank of the main stem of Senecal Creek and Mill Creek and those reaches of their tributaries identified as fish-bearing perennial streams on the Woodburn Wetlands Inventory Map,and b. Significant wetlands identified on the Woodburn Wetlands Inventory Map. Where significant wetlands are located fully or partially within a riparian corridor, the RCWOD shall extend 50 feet from the edge of the wetland;and C. The 100-year floodplain on properties identified as vacant or partly vacant on the 2005 Woodburn Buildable Lands Inventory. 2. The approximate boundaries of the RCWOD are shown on the Zoning Map. The precise boundaries for any particular lot should be verified by the property owner when making a land use application. Map errors may be corrected as provided in this Ordinance (Section 1.02.04). Response: The Senecal Creek East Tributary runs through the proposed development site and is, along with the immediate surrounding area, located the RCWOD as illustrated on the Zoning Map. A wetland delineation has been performed by Wetland Solutions Northwest, LLC to allow identification of the precise boundaries of the RCWOD (see Exhibit Q). The floodplain limits calculated in Exhibit S fall within the proposed wetland and 50-foot wetland buffers.This section therefore applies and all applicable standards are addressed in this section of the narrative. C. Permitted Uses and activities The following uses and activities are allowed, provided they are designed and constructed to minimize intrusion into the RCWOD: 1. Erosion or flood control measures that have been approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands, the U.S. Army Corps of engineers, or another state or federal regulatory agency 2. Maintenance of existing structures, lawns and gardens 3. Passive recreation uses and activities 4. Removal of non-native plant species and replacement with native plant species 5. Streets, roads, and paths that are included in an element of the Comprehensive Plan 6. Utilities Page 72 of 87 180 Attachment E 7. Water-related and water-dependent uses, including drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities,flood control projects, drainage pumps, public paths, access ways, trails, picnic areas or interpretive and educational displays and overlooks, including benches and outdoor furniture Response: The RCWOD runs through the proposed development site. The work proposed within the RCWOD is limited to grading,installation of stormwater facilities(e.g.,detention ponds), planting of native species, and right-of-way improvements to the existing portion of the roadway that runs through the Overlay, as shown in Exhibit H.The proposed detention ponds will be located within the wetland buffers, as depicted in the Utility plan (Sheet C2.3). City staff has indicated that the westward extension of Arney Lane NE across the northern lot line is required to be dedicated as a public street(though it is not included in the Comprehensive Plan or TSP). This will entail paving of the road to create a two-lane street, with a sidewalk along the southern portion (See Sheets C2.1, C2.1A). However, as this portion of the site currently has an existing graded gravel road, this right-of-way work will not create an added impact or disturbance to the nearby wetlands. No alterations are proposed within the wetland boundary itself(just within the 50-foot buffer).This standard is met. D. Prohibited Uses and Activities 1. New buildings or structures or impervious surfaces, except for replacement of existing structures within the original building footprint 2. Expansion of existing buildings or structures or impervious surfaces 3. Expansion of areas of pre-existing non-native landscaping such as lawn, gardens, etc. 4. Dumping, piling, or disposal of refuse, yard debris, or other material 5. Removal of vegetation except for: a. Uses permitted by this Section b. Perimeter mowing of a wetland for fire protection purposes; C. Water-related or water-dependent uses, provided they are designed and constructed to minimize impact on the existing riparian vegetation; d. Removal of emergent in-channel vegetation that has the potential to cause flooding, e. Hazardous tree removal. 6. Grading, excavation and the placement of fill except for uses permitted by this Section. Response: The work proposed within the RCWOD is limited to grading, installation of stormwater facilities, planting of native species, and right-of-way improvements to the existing portion of Arney Lane NE that runs through the Overlay, as shown in the site plans (Exhibit H). The grading and installation of stormwater facilities meets criteria 2.05.05.C.6&C.7. While improvements to Arney Lane NE is not listed in the Comprehensive Plan, the improvements to the existing gravel road are being required by the City of Woodburn. No prohibited uses or activities are proposed within the overlay. No alterations are proposed within the delineated wetland boundaries.This standard is met. E. Variances The restrictions of this Section may be reduced or removed if they render an existing lot or parcel unbuildable or work an excessive hardship on the property owner. The reduction or removal shall be decided through the Variance process. Response: No variances are requested for the standards from Section 2.05.05. This standard does not apply. Page 73 of 87 181 Attachment E F. Site Maintenance 1. Any use, sign or structure, and the maintenance thereof, lawfully existing on the date of adoption of this ordinance, is permitted within the RCWOD. Such use, sign or structure may continue at a similar level and manner as existed on the date of the adoption of this ordinance. Response:The existing residences on site are outside the boundaries of the RCWOD.The only use in the RCWOD proposed to remain in place is the roadway at the north end of the site.As part of this proposal, the City is requiring this road be widened, extended westward along the northern property line, and dedicated as a public street (Arney Lane NE).This standard is met. 2. The maintenance and alteration of pre-existing ornamental landscaping is permitted as long as no native vegetation is disturbed. Maintenance of lawns, planted vegetation and landscaping shall be kept to a minimum and not include the spraying of pesticides or herbicides. Vegetation that is removed shall be replanted with native species. Maintenance trimming of existing trees shall be kept at a minimum and under no circumstances can the trimming maintenance be so severe as to compromise the tree's health, longevity, and resource functions. Vegetation within utility easements shall be kept in a natural state and replanted when necessary with native plant species. Response: The Landscape plans included in Exhibit L H demonstrate compliance with this standard. Proposed landscaping alterations will all take place within the two 50-foot wetland buffers. No changes are proposed to the wetland area outside the wetland buffers. Landscaping within the wetland buffers will consist of a native riparian mix and stormwater plantings (shown on Sheet L2.0). Landscaping will be maintained in a healthy state.This standard is met. G. Site Plan When a use or activity that requires the issuance of a building permit or approval of a land use application is proposed on a parcel within, or partially within the RCWOD, the property owner shall submit a site plan to scale showing the location of the top-of-bank, 100-year flood elevation,jurisdictional delineation of the wetland boundary approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (if applicable), riparian setback, existing vegetation, existing and proposed site improvements, topography, and other relevant features. Response: All applicable information required by 2.05.05.G is contained within the site plans included as Exhibit H of this application. The RCWOD boundaries are established using 50-foot wetland and riparian setbacks based on the wetland delineation (Exhibit Q) and the flood elevation as established in Exhibit S. This standard is met. H. Coordination with the Department of State Lands The Oregon Department of State Lands shall be notified in writing of all applications to the City for development activities, including applications for plan and/or zone amendments, development or building permits, as well as any development proposals by the City that may affect any wetlands, creeks or waterways. Response: The applicant submitted the wetland delineation report to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) as required (see Exhibit Q). No alterations are proposed within the delineated wetland boundaries. Further correspondence with DSL staff, included as Exhibit R, confirms that improving Arney Lane does not require wetland removal/fill permits.This standard is met. Staff Response: A condition of approval has been included stipulating that all work must receive permits from the authorizing agency. Additional conditions of approval are included requiring Page 74 of 87 182 Attachment E subsequent hydraulic analysis confirming the capacity of the Senecal Creek and the exiting culverts. The application meets the criteria of 2.05. 5.01 Type 1(Administrative)Decisions 5.01.09 Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District(RCWOD)Permit B. Criteria: 1. The applicable standards of this Ordinance and the findings and action proposed by the Division of State Lands,or 2. A finding, verified by the Division of State Lands, of error in delineation of the RCWOD boundary. Response: Compliance with all applicable criteria pertaining to a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District (RCWOD) Permit was demonstrated in Section 2.05.05 of this narrative. The RCWOD boundary has been established in part based on the wetland delineation report included in Exhibit Q and the floodplain analysis in Exhibit S.This standard is met. C. Procedure:The Director shall review the permit and approve it upon a determination that it meets the criteria of this ordinance. Response: Compliance with all applicable criteria pertaining to a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District (RCWOD) Permit was demonstrated in Section 2.05.05 of this narrative. This application includes a request for a RCWOD Permit approval. Staff Response: The application meets the criteria of 5.01. E. Variance 3.05 Off-Street Parking and Loading 3.05.02 General Provisions D. Location 3. In residential districts, off-street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a yard abutting a street, except within a driveway leading to a garage or carport. Response: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow parking within the yard abutting Arney Lane, with screening provided via landscaping. This parking location is consistent with subsection E.2, below. With the approval of the variance, this standard is met. Staff Response: Staff concurs that if the variance is approved,criteria is satisfied. Page 75 of 87 183 Attachment E E. Setback 2. Parking, loading, and circulation areas shall be set back from a property line a minimum of five feet, unless there is a shared use agreement to the satisfaction of the Director, verifying shared use between the separate properties. Response: As shown in the site plans, Sheet C2.1, where parking for the multi-family residential development abuts the street there is a 5-foot landscaped setback. For the RV storage area,there is a 10- foot landscaped setback for parking abutting the property line.This standard is met. Page 76 of 87 184 Attachment E 3.06 Landscaping 3.06.05 Screening A. Screening between zones and uses shall comply with Table 3.06D. Screening Requirements Table 3.06D 'N':=No zueenLag iequiredN=Architectural v&I YaquLved F=Sight-obscuriap feace:Yequred I DI=Arcbatectiw3l w3 H,,fence,or hedge:inay be NeqUi3ed Ln the Demfn Re-clew process AdjacentP roperfies—zoneoruse that receives,the benefit of screening 2� jg 5� 19� 1 77 �P tf 7 c h-operty being Developed-must :3 C: PP provide screening if noI tj 2 IV" conip.uable screening exisrS 011 =:3 -2 F- 7 q LE �p -_, 44 abutting p�rotected property "I 71; YZ ;F �'J -I-- �Z -' Rs. RIS. or KSN zone N N N N N N N N N N N l or RNTN zone W- D W- IND W-2 D N I W" DDC'or NNS"'zone N N N N N N N N N N N Nonresidential use in CO zone V V W' N "AT' IN' N V D N W' CG or NR;Vzone V V D D D D D W-1 %172 D W' Chitdoor sto�rage in CG or MLTV W' V, W" W" W" W" W].3 wLf,-1 -¢.a wLf,3 zone 3 3 3 3 3 3 IR IL.or SVIIR zcnie W-' W-' D W-' D D D W-3 X173 w, W, pl,,S,p Permitted use D D N N N N N D D N D Mile Conditional ust D D D D D D D D D D D SingJ,e4hunfly divelling, duplex, 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 - child care facility 1, air group houle N lvfi�il'tipile-�faiiiily,d�k�e.11�ing, child V,1, iar2.5, �1725. Cale facility, gmupi honle of s D s D 5'2 S'S Z'9 D D S nursing home Nwiresidealtial use in a residential °= W- D D D D D W-2 X172 D W2 Mile I I I Nt-mufactiared dwelling park, W2 W2 W2 W2 IV 4 72 v IV %172 %1" D Boat.recreation ll- i�icle storage pad,,if witl-in 10 feet of a F, F2 F2 F2 F2 N F1 F F2 F2 F2 properly(fine I Con unon boat.recfearioixil. and W 21 W.21 �171'4 �kT.21 W.2 W.21 r2..4 W� „4 W� .4 W� ,4 v ;area 4 4 4 4 vehicle storage D 4 Page 77 of 87 185 Attachment Table 3.06D D=Arcbatec=31 w3n,,fence,o�r hedge!may be Yeqlnled Ln the:Design Review procell that receives the benefit of S- C T screening 24 C n-epei'ty being Developed—must 40 I-D provide screening if no !:,. 3 coulpar-able screening ex115;r5 011 abutting protected property Re:ffise and recycling, collection facilities except fix single-family IV, 'A", W-7, W` W-7, W-7, W7'e,7 dvy-elling,duplex,, cl-�ild care facilit-V7, Or g�cilp home 1. Screer�ing,is only required from the view of abutting streets:,parking,lots 7 and residentiall-y zoned property. Storage sliall not exceed the height of the 5,creening. 2. Six to sv.,en feet in height 3. Six to nine feet in height 4. Abutting, streets must also,be screened. 5. Screening,is required abutting midtiple-family d�vellings, commef cial CT industrial uses only. 6. In,industrial zcmes. screening, is required or�y where the refuse collectim facility is in a yard abutfing, a public street, parldng lot, or residentially zoned property. 7. Child cife facility for l2cr fewer children, group home for five or fewer per'S"Ons, 81. Child care facility for 13 cr moTe children, group home for six or more persons, P. Screenin g is subject to,height limitations,for Vision C'learance. Areas,(Section 3.03.06) and qdj acent to streets (Section 2.01.02). 10. 'No screening is required where a building wall abuts a property line. 11. INhere a wall is,reqidred and is loCated More t"all t"o feet fron'the JroPertY l'ne7 the yard areas on the exterior of the wall shall be Imidscaped to a dew.,ity of one plant imit pier 20,ciclu'are feet. Response: After the proposed Property Line Adjustments, the western lot line of the subject she will be located entirely within the boundaries of the residential lot.The residential lot will be a Medium Density Residential use abutting a Single Family Residential use tothe west,which requires a6'7-foot high wall as screening. On the east side of the residential lot, and to the east and south of the RV storage area, the uses will abut Commercial General zone, and, according toTable 3.06D, a 6'7-foot high vxa|| is required. Avariance is requested forthis standard,as this application proposes satisfying the screening requirement with vegetation rather than vxa||s (see response to VVDO 5.03.12 and illustration in Exhibit H). The Woodburn Premium Outlets currently provide extensive vegetation along their west property line (this site's east property line) which effectively screens the property line. In other locations where an architectural vxa|| would be required, a 6-foot high screen of shrub planting is proposed, subject to variance approval. Avariance is also requested to limit buffer plantings to the five feet closest to the property line rather than filling the entire area from property line to buildings.As shown in the landscaping Page 7QofQ7 186 Attachment E plans, a 6-foot high screen is proposed along the portion of the residential lot abutting an RS zone, and along the south and east lot lines of the RV Storage lot where the site abuts a CG zone.The portion of the residential lot line that abuts a CG zone (at the northeast portion of the site) is in a wetland; no work is proposed in this area so as to not disturb the wetlands and because the adjacent lot already contains a high screen of vegetation.All applicable criteria for a variance request is addressed in this narrative.Walls are proposed around garbage/recycling facilities as required. With the approval of the variance request, this standard is met. Staff Response: Staff concurs that if the variances are approved,the application meets the criteria of this section. 5.03 Type III(Quasi-Judicial)Decisions 5.03.12 Variance B. Criteria: A variance may be granted to allow a deviation from development standard of this ordinance where the following criteria are met: 1. Strict adherence to the standards of this ordinance is not possible or imposes an excessive burden on the property owner, and 2. Variance to the standards will not unreasonably impact existing or potential uses or development on the subject property or adjacent properties. Response: A Variance is requested to WDO 3.05.02.D.3, which precludes parking within yards abutting streets in residential zones. As illustrated on Sheet C2.1, 53 parking spaces are proposed within the setback abutting Arney Lane (near Buildings B and K). Moving these parking spaces elsewhere on site is not feasible due to the site constraints imposed by the location of the RCWOD, the need to provide two parking spaces per unit, and the minimum density standard for the site,which necessitates providing 300 residences and 600 parking spaces.The 53 parking spaces proposed within the street setback continue to comply with the requirement in WDO 3.05.02.E.2 that parking areas shall be set back five feet from property lines, and all the parking spaces would be screened from the street by plantings as illustrated on Sheets L2.3-L2.6. A second Variance is requested to WDO 3.06.05, which requires screening in the form of a 6-7-foot architectural wall along the east and west lot lines of the residential lot and the south and east lot lines of the RV Storage area.As illustrated on Exhibit H,this application proposes screening in the form of a 6-foot high screen of shrubs. This substitution will not negatively impact adjacent developments, as the developments will still be sufficiently screened from view. The proposed screen wall will have a greater positive impact on the surrounding areas than would an architectural wall as the vegetation will create a softer, more aesthetically pleasing view from adjacent properties, reduce opportunities for unsightly graffiti, and improve air quality.There are also locations where an architectural wall is not warranted due to the presence of existing fencing and vegetation both on-site and on abutting properties; at several of these locations no additional screening is proposed (see Exhibit H) due to the existing mature landscaping and the location of wetlands which preclude construction of a wall. A third Variance is requested to WDO 3.06.03, which per Table 3.06A requires buffer yards to landscape the "entire yard excluding off-street parking and loading areas abutting a wall." Based on the WDO definition of "yard," which states in part that "A setback is the minimum required distance between a structure and a lot line,whereas a yard is the actual area between a structure and a lot line,"this standard would require impractically dense plantings filling in all open space between structures and the property Page 79 of 87 187 Attachment E lines. Additionally, it is unclear how to apply this standard in areas where there are no structures. As an alternative solution, this application proposes screening in the form of a 6-foot high line of shrubs for a width of 5 feet, as illustrated on Exhibit H (Sheets L2.0-L2.7). This planting pattern will provide a dense screen that blocks views across property lines, as depicted in the images on Exhibit H, Sheet L.I. Based on the evidence provided, this standard is met. C. Factors to Consider: A determination of whether the criteria are satisfied involves balancing competing and conflicting interests. The factors that are listed below are not criteria and are not intended to be an exclusive list and are used as a guide in determining whether the criteria are met. 1. The variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure, which would cause the property to be unbuildable by application of this Ordinance. Factors to consider in determining whether hardship exists, include: a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no control related to the piece of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but not limited to, lot size,shape, and topography. b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties can be made of the property without the variance. C. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. 2. Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent properties. Factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the variance materially injurious include, but are not limited to: a. Physical impacts such development will have because of the variance, such as visual, noise, traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. b. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. 3. Existing physical and natural systems,such as but not limited to traffic,drainage,dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected because of the variance. 4. Whether the variance is the minimum deviation necessary to make reasonable economic use of the property, 5. Whether the variance conflicts with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Response:Three Variances are requested,the first to allow parking of 53 cars within five feet of the Arney Lane right-of-way (WDO 3.05.02.D.3); the second to seek relief from the requirement to construct architectural walls along the site perimeter(WDO 3.06.05); and the third to propose an alternative buffer yard screening technique in lieu of WDO 3.06.03. The Variance to the parking location standard is necessary due to the RM zone's minimum density standard and the City's multi-family parking standard, which together require 300 dwelling units and 600 parking spaces. The developable area is constrained by the locations of the roadway,the stream,wetlands,and floodplain so there is limited space to provide all the required parking, and the applicant does not wish to alter those natural features. The proposed plantings between the parking area and the street will limit visual impacts from vehicle parking,and there are no existing structures across the street which have their front doors oriented toward the proposed parking area. The alternative to placing parking spaces in the front setback would be to seek a variance from the minimum number of parking spaces,which could lead to off-site parking that may inconvenience others. Thus, the proposed parking location Variance was determined to have the least impact while allowing the development to meet the density standards required by the WDO and the Comprehensive Plan. The factors in subsections 1 through 5 are met and provide evidence in support of the requested variance. Page 80 of 87 188 Attachment E The Variance to provide screening in the form of a continuous planting of 6-foot high shrubs rather than the required 6-7-foot high wall, and to utilize existing plantings and fencing to provide screening, is proposed because the substitution will create a more pleasant, open space for residents than would a wall enclosure. Substitution of vegetation will be more aesthetically pleasing from adjacent properties while adequately screening the development. The existing and proposed landscaping will not cause any visual or noise impacts;on the contrary, it will serve as a visual and auditory buffer.This variance will have no impact on area traffic, dramatic land forms or parks. According to the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, the site contains areas of low and moderate landslide susceptibility, with the low susceptibility in the proposed development areas and moderate susceptibility primarily on the slopes along the Senecal Creek East Tributary.' The proposed plantings will in no way contribute to landslide hazards. Rather, a vegetated screen will serve to reduce erosion and regulate drainage. The proposed change in buffer material,with a high screen of shrubs and/or existing fencing and plantings instead of an architectural wall, is the minimum change necessary to create the desired look and feel of a pleasant, welcoming multi-family residential development and RV storage facility. The variance does not conflict with any component of the Comprehensive Plan.The substitution will adequately serve the intent of the Woodburn Development Ordinance to screen the RM zone from adjacent developments with different uses. The owner agrees to maintain the on-site vegetation in a healthy state to provide a pleasant view, and avoid any nuisance for neighboring properties. The factors in subsections 2 through 5 are met and provide evidence in support of the requested variance. The Variance to provide buffer yard screening utilizing a five-foot-wide, six-foot-high hedge, is proposed because the substitution will create a more pleasant, open space for residents than would a continuously- planted buffer yard extending from the property line to the structures. The proposed high screen vegetation will adequately screen the development, as depicted in the images in Exhibit H, Sheet L.I.The proposed landscape high-screen buffer will not cause any visual or noise impacts; on the contrary, it will serve as a visual and auditory buffer.This variance will have no impact on area traffic,dramatic land forms or parks; and the proposed plantings will in no way contribute to landslide hazards. A vegetated screen will serve to reduce erosion and regulate drainage. The proposal requests a change in buffer width since a five-foot-wide hedge will achieve the screening effect desired by the City, and is the minimum change necessary to create the desired look and feel of a pleasant, welcoming multi-family residential development and RV storage facility. The variance does not conflict with any component of the Comprehensive Plan. The substitution will adequately serve the intent of the Woodburn Development Ordinance to screen the RM zone from adjacent developments with different uses. The owner agrees to maintain the on-site vegetation in a healthy state to provide a pleasant view, and avoid any nuisance for neighboring properties. The factors in subsections 2 through 5 are met and provide evidence in support of the requested variance. Staff Response: Staff spent considerable time working with the applicant to minimize any adverse impacts that each of these variances would have on the surrounding properties. The applicant revised the plans to adjust the parking on the west property line,relocated accessory structures and increased the height,type and density of the landscaping to address these concerns. However,the impacts of a new public street along the rear property line of several of the existing, adjacent homes cannot be adequately buffered with simply landscaping. Staff is recommending that, provided the adjacent property owners agree, an architectural wall be provided along the western property line north of the Steven Street extension. Regarding the parking proposed between the buildings and street:in addition to the reasons outlined above, the unusual shape of the parcel ("L" shape), in conjunction with the 'http://www.oregongeology.org/slido/index.htmi Page 81 of 87 189 Attachment E desire to have central play areas make the proposal acceptable. Staff finds that with the additional architectural wall included as a condition of approval,the variance criteria are met. F. Conditional Use 2.02 Residential Zones B. Approval Types(Table 2.02A) 1. Permitted Uses (P)are allowed outright,subject to the general development standards of this Ordinance. 2. Special Permitted Uses (S) are allowed outright, subject to the general development standards and the special development standards of Section 2.07. 3. Conditional Uses (CU) may be allowed, subject to the general development standards of this Ordinance and conditions of Conditional Use approval. 4. Specific Conditional Uses (SCU) may be allowed, subject to the general development standards of this Ordinance, the specific standards of Section 2.08, and conditions of Conditional Use approval. 5. Accessory Uses (A) are allowed outright, subject to the general standards of this Ordinance. Multiple-family dwelling Permitted Use Rights-of-way,easements and improvements for streets,water,sanitary Permitted Use sewer,gas,oil,electric and communication lines,stormwater facilities and pump stations. Common boat, recreational and vehicle storage area Special Permitted Use Response: This proposal includes the development of multi-family dwellings, a recreational vehicle storage area,and a new right-of-way. Multi-family dwellings and new rights-of-way are permitted outright in the RM zone. Recreational vehicle storage is considered a Special Permitted Use in RM zones. All applicable standards for Special Permitted uses are addressed in Section 2.07.03.This Special Use will be processed as a Conditional Use per Section 5.03.09, and all applicable criteria are addressed in the corresponding section of this narrative.These standards are met. Page 82 of 87 190 Attachment E 2.07 Special Uses 2.07.03 Common Boat, Recreational and Vehicle Storage Area A. Applicability 1. When a Boat, Recreational and Vehicle Storage Area is established as a special use, it shall comply with the following use and development standards. 2. When a Boat, Recreational and Vehicle Storage Area is incorporated in the review of a residential development, the following criteria shall serve as guidelines. Response: Per Table 2.02.A, Recreational Vehicle Storage is permitted as a Special Use in the RM zone. This section applies, and all relevant criteria are addressed in this narrative. As the proposed RV storage is being requested simultaneously with residential development, the criteria below are guidelines rather than standards. B. The storage must be operated by either a homeowners'association or a property manager of the apartment, Manufactured Dwelling Park or residential complex. Response:The RV storage area will be managed by the operator of the facility,separate from the operator of the multi-family development. As this criterion is a guideline rather than a standard, Conditional Use approval is requested for Section 2.07.03 to allow the RV storage area to operate independently of the residential development pursuant to WDO 5.03.09.All applicable criteria for Conditional Use approval are addressed in Section 5.03 of this narrative. C. The storage area is limited exclusively to the storage of the resident's vehicles, boats or trailers, recreational vehicles, utility trailers and horse trailers. Response:The proposed RV Storage area is proposed to be a public storage area, not restricted to use by residents. As this criterion is a guideline rather than a standard, Conditional Use approval is requested to allow this modification pursuant to WDO 5.03.09. All applicable criteria are addressed in Section 5.03 of this narrative. D. Storage areas and driveways to the storage area shall be paved to the standards of this ordinance (Section 3.04.04). Response: The driveway to the storage area will be paved with asphalt to a minimum depth of 2" per Section 3.04.04.As was confirmed during the Pre-Application Conference,the RV storage area may consist of gravel to better facilitate stormwater drainage. Six paved vehicle parking stalls are proposed. No storage areas are proposed on the multi-family residential lot.This standard is met. E. Outdoor lighting shall be directed away from residential property and public streets. Response: All outdoor lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential properties and public streets, as shown in the photometrics plan, Sheet C2.3B. Where lights are located near property lines, they will have shields on the back to prevent glare on neighboring properties.This standard is met. Staff Response: Regardless of what may have been discussed at a pre-application conference,the RV Storage area is required to be paved. A condition of approval requiring it to be paved in accordance with the standards of the WDO is provided. With the proposed condition of approval and the approval of the conditional use related to ownership,the standards are met. Page 83 of 87 191 Attachment E 5.03 Type Hl(Quasi-Judicial)Decisions 5.03.09 Special Use as a Conditional Use A. Purpose: The purpose of this Type 111 decision is to allow modification or elimination of specific development standards required for Special Uses listed in this Ordinance (Section 2.07). Modification or elimination of specific development standards are approved as a Conditional Use. Response: This application requests Conditional Use approval for the proposed Recreational Vehicle storage area proposed on one lot. Recreation vehicle storage is considered a Special Permitted Use in RM zones. This Special Use may be processed as a Conditional Use per Section 5.03.09. This request is being made to allow elimination of the guidelines that the facility be managed by the manager of the residential development (WDO 2.07.03.13) and be used exclusively by the residents of the multi-family development (WDO 2.07.03.C).The proposed RV Storage area is proposed to be a public storage area, not only for use by residents of the adjacent lot. Compliance with all applicable criteria is demonstrated below. B. Criteria: 1. The proposed use shall be permitted as a Special Use within the zoning district. Response: Per Table 2.02A, Recreation vehicle storage areas are considered a Special Permitted Use in RM zones. This Special Use can be processed as a Conditional Use per Section 5.03.09. This standard is met. 2. The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. Response: Compliance with all applicable development standards for the zoning district is demonstrated in the responses to the Design Review criteria in this narrative.This standard is met. 3. The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible include: a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use, Response:There is an existing RV park in the CG zone immediately south of the proposed RV storage area. Other surrounding uses include single family and mobile home residential units to the west, and commercial areas to the east.The RV storage area will be sufficiently screened and buffered from adjacent uses through high screen shrub walls to the east and south, and at least 330 feet of wetland area at the north and west, so no negative impacts on neighboring residential areas is anticipated. This application proposes only as many RV parking spaces as can safely fit within the confines of the site (after the proposed property line adjustments), given the required drive aisle width to allow for safe turning and backing areas, required number of car parking stalls, setbacks, and the 50-foot buffer from the adjacent wetland. As shown in the site plans (Exhibit H, Sheet C2.1), the proposal provides a coherent layout that is suitable for the size and shape of the site and meets all required development standards. In spite of its RM zoning, the proposed RV storage lot is not suitable for multi-family residential development due to the triangular shape of buildable land that results from the presence of the creek and wetlands. Furthermore,the site abuts commercially-zoned property on the east and south and is isolated from other RM property by Senecal Creek East Tributary. The RV storage area is intended to meet demand for the use within the City of Woodburn, and will efficiently use an irregularly shaped area that may otherwise not be developed to its full potential.This standard is met. Page 84 of 87 192 Attachment E b. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving the proposed use, Response: Utilities and roadways are available in close proximity to serve the site and no capacity constraints have been identified in the correspondence from Public Works staff, the Fire Marshal, or the School Superintendent (Exhibit Q. The RV storage facility would not have any structures that would require connections to public water or sewer. The facility would provide stormwater management in accordance with City standards.This standard is met. C. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment, such as: 1) Noise, Response: The proposed use requiring Conditional Use approval is an RV Storage Area. The recreational vehicles will not be occupied, so the only activity anticipated will be vehicles occasionally entering and exiting the lot. No additional noise is expected.This standard is met. 2) Illumination, Response: Lighting will be provided to illuminate the site as necessary without causing glare on adjacent properties.As shown in the photometrics plan (Exhibit H, Sheet C2.31B), lighting placement will be minimal at the properties lines. Where lighting is proposed along property lines, it will be shielded away from neighboring properties.The average illumination for the site will be 0.3 foot-candles,with less illumination near the property boundaries.This standard is met. 3) Hours of operation; Response: The proposed RV storage facility will be a self-service operation where customers access the site via a security gate at times that are convenient to their schedules.There will be no specific operating hours but it is anticipated that the majority of visits will occur at times similar to the operating hours of the neighboring Woodburn Premium Outlets and thus will have no greater impact on the living environment than the existing commercial development.This standard is met. Air quality, Response: The proposed use requiring Conditional Use approval is an RV Storage Area. The recreational vehicles will not be occupied, so the only activity anticipated will be vehicles occasionally entering and exiting the lot.Therefore,the impact on air quality from these vehicles will be minimal, and the proposed landscaping will contribute to improved air quality. Any impacts on air quality resulting from the vehicles will be mitigated by the landscaping plan. Two rows of trees (97 trees total), will be planted along the northwest lot line, along with various stormwater plantings and a row of native riparian plants. Rows of 6-foot high screen shrubs will be planted along the entire south and east lot lines. Additionally, the 8.91- acre site (after the proposed property line adjustment)will leave 5.38 acres of undisturbed wetland area. The proposed and existing landscape plants will improve the area quality for the site and the surrounding area.This standard is met. 5) Aesthetics,and Response: The proposed recreational vehicle storage area will be located on a lot tucked behind the Woodburn Premium Outlets and adjacent to an RV park to the south.The development itself will include gravel and asphalt parking areas and drive aisles. No buildings are proposed. Placement of the RV storage facility at the east end of the site minimizes visual impacts on the proposed multi-family development to the west. The RV storage area will be screened and buffered from adjacent uses through 6-foot high screen shrubs to the east and south, and at least 330 feet of wetland area and two rows of trees at the Page 85 of 87 193 Attachment E north and west.The surrounding landscaping on all sides will improve the aesthetics oft he area and shield view of the vehicles from neighboring sites.This standard is met. 6) Vehicular traffic. Response: The Transportation Impact Analysis (Exhibit L) demonstrates how the proposed development will impact vehicular traffic in the area. The proposed use requiring Conditional Use approval is an RV Storage Area. The recreational vehicles will not be occupied, so the only activity anticipated will be vehicles occasionally entering and exiting the lot. Access will be from a private driveway from Sprague Lane, behind the Woodburn Premium Outlets,so access to the site will not disturb neighboring residential areas to the west. As shown in the Transportation Impact Analysis, Sprague Lane is a local street which does not experience heavy traffic or congestion; Sprague Lane is used solely for access to the shopping centers east of the proposed development site, and for parking and loading behind the Woodburn Premium Outlets, just beyond the proposed driveway. As the Transportation Impact Analysis demonstrates, all study area intersections of the proposed development are anticipated to meet City, County, and ODOT mobility standards for all scenarios, and no mitigation is required.The RV storage site is expected to generate an average of 3 AM peak hour trips and 3 PM peak hour trips, and 32 daily trips. If the site were developed with multi-family housing then the transportation impacts would be more significant and the residents would be inconvenienced by commercial traffic from the Woodburn Premium Outlets, particularly at peak shopping times.The RV storage facility will result in lower traffic volumes and increased compatibility with neighboring uses.This standard is met. d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies;and Response: Section 5.04.01.0 of this narrative demonstrates how the proposed development conforms with each applicable Comprehensive Plan policy.This standard is met. e. The suitability of appropriate standards of this Ordinance and other proposed conditions of approval to ensure compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. Response: The applicant acknowledges the City's authority to impose conditions of approval on the project, to the extent evidence demonstrates that such conditions are warranted to address reasonably anticipated impacts.This standard is met. Staff Response: Staff concurs that the application meets the standards for a Conditional Use. There should not be any adverse public impacts related to modifying the ownership or public use requirements for RV Storage areas. Page 86 of 87 194 Attachment E VI. SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLANS AND ARCHITECT RENDERINGS SEE ATTACHED Page 87 of 87 195 WOODLAND CROSSING APARTMENTS AND R.V. STORAGE WOODBURN, OREGON Architecture A Interiors Planning Engineering o� DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL Portland,OR 503224.9560 � Wncc ,,WA fI SITE 3606957879 Seem;WA 206.749.9993 4 www.mcknze.wm MACKENZIE „a!! Client MVA LLc >< Il520 CONGER ST. / EIIOENOR 97402 Jf I, I 1541)743_n NrN � i PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY EXISTING UNDEVELOPED AREA II I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (OUTSIDE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY) I EXISTING PRIVATE PROPERTY acuBwra VICINITY MAP _ .. CITY OF WOODBURN,OR f III / �� \\\ TITTi LI IT�ITI LI777 ARNEY LANE NE Pre;.e (�) IIIA II CROSSWOODLAND NG WOODBURN,OR SITE INFORMATION /1k , 1 MARION COUNTY TAX LOTS 052W1 (AS ADJUSTED 00100 VO USTED IA SEPARATE 00 PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT, j' CITY OF WOODBURN FILE#PLA / I 2017-03)) sT ,'L --- /LDEVELOPER PLANNING / MASTER DEVELOPMENT,LLC MACKENZIE C `\ CONTACT: STEVE MASTER CONTACT BRIAN VARRICCH[ONE 520 CONGER STREET 1515 SE WATER AVE //% EUGENE,OR 97402 PORTLAND,OR 97239 PHONE: (541)743-8111 PHONE:(503)224-9560 /., FAX:(503)228-1285 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SURVEYOR MACKENZIE NORTHWEST SURVEYING,INC. YYY l EXISMGI //� / ,//,,, CONTACT: STEVEN TUTTLE CONTACT:CLINT STUBBS MANUFACTURED 1515 SE WATER AVE 1815 NW 169TH PLACE,SUITE 2090 YHOME PARK / B' /� / PORTLAND OR 97239 BEAVERTON,OR 97006 I _ / \ �/ / PHONE: (503)224-9560 PHONE:(503)8 7 UI fj� // FAX: (503)228-1285 FAX:(503)048-2179 2179 ENGINEERING ARCHffECT EXISTNG MACKENZIE MACKENZIE WOODBURN/ CONTACT:GREG MING CONTACT DICK SPIES POR WATER AVENUE WATER AVENUE / I / I CUTLETS PORTLAND, PORTLAND,OR 97239 PORTLAA ND,OR 97239 r.; O/ PHONE:(503)224-9560 PHONE (503) 560 FAX:(503)228-128-1285 FAX: (503)228-128-128 5 N k I f ®p f SHEET INDEX PROPOSED RV. ©-"1'1`P1 F / " APRVEo STORAGE FACLTY C1.0 COVER SHEET a xm o r LEGEND oeoruPeooUoENxoT o"eE USED N1 of 3 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY w PRsuwTA —1oE RN OEOWOUS TREE GAS NEIER II / ,;/I//,' 2 of 3 ALTA/NSPS LANG TITLE SURVEY REVISIONS' CAS VADE I �/ / ,//�A' ' 3 of 3 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY CCNfFR015 WEE NS S�x AXS aDELTA LTTA YRS ANOIm II // f / t FlPo:HNINNT U1.1Y POE I of 4 WOODLAND AVENUE(SURVEY) i so 9U¢r NNE Umm uFNT CONNEC➢ON POYFA V-T II // EECPo1 NEA 2 of 4 WOODLAND AVENUE(SURVEY) :AA N6 E. PD•A dUNCPDN 11 3 of 4 WOODLAND AVENUE(SURVEY) YAIEA VOLTS POW RSEA /F 7 4 of 4 SPRAGUE LANE(SURVEY) A OOL�IE OIEIX-W � PORO WONSFOANER �� vAAA vMILI SHEET JOIT Ed-'y // �;- j - C2.0 DEMOLITION PLAN NR IEIEASE VUVf - 1flFAlOIE/mENSON VAULT I /� P �// f I , C2.0A DEMOLITION PLAN-ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION SINITARY SERER CIEAN OUT lOfAlmE/mEN9W JJNCRW AO% I ♦ /( E _ Y` SPNITNtY 3 NNNOIE 1flFAlOIE/mENSM RISA ` �� t �!/ �'-'�.r�� \\((QT��l� C2.1 SITE PLAN STON sM CUAN OUT SOUL JUNCRON BOX SHEET TITLE: STOMA SEiEA CATm MSN - • SfN _ e r EXISTING RV. \ 1, C2.1A SITE PLAN-ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION COVER STaa SEVEN N.WHOE O BOU.Nm PAW C2.2 GRADING PLAN SHEET NNIHO% �. ns \�Y`' +r C2.2A GRADING PLAN-ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION RICHT-6-NAY UNE —___ RE PAVEYfNr \,WA BOUNDARY UNE ———— OvixsNBBieEeAn)r 1 ` C2.3 UTILITY PLAN 1-1 INE YUBEACNc C2.3A UTILITY PLAN-ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION CERMNE C2.3B PHOTOMETRICS PLAN 01101 POW ONE C2.4 SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVAL PLAN CIMS .. .. .. ONRIEO➢YR: mCE OF PA ERBIT SIEPHONE uNE 12.0 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND LEGEND El mmr _----_—_— IEIEN9m ONE SITE MAP 12.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN FENCE UNE GIS UNC " CI.O UDO O 50 UDO ]DO12.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN CJUNL D)CE SIOAN SR UNE 1U0 DRANK BY:GIM EVE 12.3 LANDSCAPE PLAN wUencE aro No:raac m SMITIAY SERER INE CHECKED BY:MN9 (IN FEET) 12.4 LANDSCAPE PLAN ul�N O NAIEA uNE -- -- 1 igen- too n. SHEET la x u,t5 veNxUxc eiL Lovcm RETLAND OE1 Rmffi —YR�N�N� L2 5 LANDSCAPE PLAIN sr 511E LlGxr C WNFlC 9rNK NIS L2.6 LANDSCAPE PLAN 12.7 LANDSCAPE PLAN C1.0 JOB N0. 215056701 REVISED 06/29/1 `WJV V1 �RK.a,N-1.1111—„MINI oA,°aoSP;r� egg DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/0617 11 urluTY STATEMENT I REEL 3373 PAGE 479 '> THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED ""•. - x`"' m FROM HELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS, OWNER: CROSBY LAND CO., LLC REEL 1797 PAGE 54 SEA.LF '+.& r z As �L �XRp oo>U THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE .+ ,O F H +,3 *'� .� #,F{�; }„ UNDERGROUND URURES GROWN COMPRISE ABL SUCH POINT O"B@INNING b` "4R 'Ax N m p 3 uTUBES IN THE AREA,EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. I THE NORTHWEST-10111 THE TAX LOT 700 OWNER: CARL F. TOWLES, "ET AL." �' �.,.�,`.,P T ,�.�;, �* � �....� ,T-��r� Q�THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE DONADON LAND CLAIM ^V ON URUTES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT WTWAM DARST N0.CO MAP 05-2W-01 C p /� ' 5./rR� LOCATION INDICATECATED AS HOUGH HE ACCURATELY AS THAT IBLE FROM 113 TAX LOT 800 °, $�r« L.* I a VJ p N`V MAP 05-2W-010 a x Y4r �q�=?- INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE TELYAS HAS NOT l .fi:' K F PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UHUTES N8656' £ i-0 x]'d ,: '� L"i. 35°W it 53' �, (S9vce 59'E s]a.To3 102 t ./ EMS "E zoos• \ O� a i T } Z " _..._ / , + r If 1 r Xx P LD 9CHERRY — kv Do VICINITY MAP UD NOTES NOT TO SCALL i 1. TAX LOT 1100 DOES NOT HAVE A PHYSICAL ADDRESS THE ADDRESS FOR TAX LOT 100 IS 965 ABBEY LANE NE,AND THE ADDRESS FOR TAX LOT 300 IS 2385 SPRAGUE LANE. p SCALE 1' 50 FEET LLLJ �� / g 2 THE GROSS COMBINED PROPERTY AREA IS 8222 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. Z / S TAX LOT 7100 HAS DIN THE ACCESS 70 SHE PIN. AX RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ARNEY LANE HE THROUGHUNIMPROVED THE ED RIOT ROADWAY EASEMENT NEE N Z A GRAVEL ROAD LOCATED IN LANE EASEMENT AS SHOWN. 7A%LOT tTOU 7Jm HAS ACCESS TO THE UNIMPRO`hD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF NIXIA U ` £ STREET,THERE IS NO CURRENT YI}OWLAR ACCESS AT THIS PONT. TAX @T 100 HAS VEHAIAAR ACCESS TO THE PUBUC RIGHT-CE-WAY BE p w :z „/ /' / ARNEY LANE NE,AS SHOWN. TAX LOT 30D HAS YEWCUM ACCESS TO SPRAGUE UNE.AS SHOWN. �\ / , i / / rn\Z� 4. ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE BASED ON C-0S MEASUREMENTS PER THE OREGON FdAt-LATHE QiSS NETWORK USING THE NGYD 1996 DATUM.Xv _ Q v v o 5 THE YAM MAP PROPERTY I1 LOCATED IN THE NON SHADED ZONE EF EC TWO SEPARATE FLOCS INSURANCE RATE MAPS FOR MARION COUNTY, � 1 OREGO7 W1H MAP NUMBERS E OUTSIDE E 0-YEAR FLO HAVING EFFECTIVE PATES OF JANUARY 7$2000.NOUN SHAM ZONE'X IS DEFlN@ AS:°AREAS DETERMINED TO BE W1GOE THE 500-YEAR FIOOUPIAIN,: Z i ID- AA� 6. WETBANDS AREAS ARE BASED ON FIELD RES LAD DELINEATION MARKERS PLACED BY WETLAND SOLUTIONS NORTHWEST,LTG � i I � z d O • _.' '.4,` TAX LOT 1100 !' . 7. THE UNDERGROUND UTIURES ARE BASEDON THE MARKINGS PER LOCATE TICKET NUMBERS 16275641,16275643,76275645 76284781. o w x / ' 16284788 AND 16284788. o MAP 05-2W-010 f POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS NO POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS WOE OBSERVED AREA = 28.143 ACRES, MORE OR LESS /1 _ ' ± GRT PROPERTY PERTAIN ONLY TO 100 SURVEYORS NOTE, EE TIRE REP AND PR DESCRIPTION IVIG THE AX UDE i MAP 1 � � 05-2W-070,SFE SHEET 2 AND SHEET d FOR INFORMATION REGARDING iFE OTHER TAX LOTS INCLUDED IN THIS SURVEY. 0 - --_— - "NO BUILDINGS OBSERVED" � TITLE REPORT INFORMATION i THE PROPERTY RED BY AND NATIONAL TI ARE PER THE F OREGON EN ORT R N AN R FT1 00 DAIS OF.NOVEMBER 3,2076 AT 8:06 AM,PREPARED BY FIDFUT'NATIONAL TILE COMPANY Cf ORECCH PATH OEDER NUMBER F1150054096-FIMWv23. r / GENERAL EXCEPTIONS 1-5 AND SPEOHC ITEMS AND EXCEPTIONS 6-12 ARE NOT PLOTTAB E. ` �r � ' � N � � PROPERTY DESCRIPTION(TAX LOT i1DD� BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM OF WILLIAM DARBY NO.60 IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RAN(£2 111 {/J r j Q (T OF THE WU METTE MERpIAN IN MARION COUNTY,OREGON,IND E SOUTH EGGS 59°EAST ALONG THE NORTH UNE W"THAT PROPERTY _ - DESCRIBED IN THAT DEED TO ROY G.Army MID RECORDED IN VOLUME 552,PAGE 526 OF MARION COUNTY,DEED RECORDS 973.70 FEEF a- H N TO AN BRON PIPE;THENCE SOUTH 8E'S728°EAST 20281 FEET TO AN IRON ROD:THENCE SOUTH 16'30'52'WEST 590.79 FEET TO AN PROPERTY,THENCE NORTH 89°08' ROD;1}ENCE SOUTH Y47'5Y WEST 600.95 FEET TO AN 920N ROAD ON ME KITH LINE OF SAID P R SAID SOUTH ONE 99241 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID ARNEY PROPERTY;THENCE NORTH w U 0°35'43°EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PROPERTY 1170.74 FEET TO iNE POINT OF BEGINNING W 'C¢ ALSOWEN AN EASEMENT FOR AGWAY HT UTILITY PURPOSESAUK OVERIN AND ACROSS A TSTRIPHEA OF LANG ADJOINING,THE.AND BEING 30 PR IN MOTH AND MEASURED NORTHERLY AT STB ANGLES TO A UNE ON ROD AT UN SOUTHEAST NO.CORNER OF RE ABDVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND EXTENDING SOUTH 88'08'EAST�&37 FEET 70 AN IRON R00 AT COUNTY ROM N0.611 BOUNDARY RESOLUTION Z THE BASS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE OREGON STATE PLANE 070RDINATE SYSTEM,NORTH ZONE,NAD 83(2011). MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN USING THE OREGON REAL-TIME CNSS NETWORK THE WESTERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY WAS ESFABUSH@ BY HOLDING THE MONUMENT AT(m) SLEET�.THE LOT 5 - '� - �.` SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY WAS ESTABLISHED BY HOLDING THE MONUMENT AT 101)AND HOLDING THE MONUMENT A FOR UNE. LANE REMAINDER OF TIE BOUNDARY FOR TAX LOT 1100 WAS ESTAAISH@ BY BELONG FUND.MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ANO NOTED. t SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION 1 / TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT,LED AND FIDELITY NATIONAL TITRE COMPANY OF OREGON: LOT 4 IED—, THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY DN MUCH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE MEN THE 2018 i MDES,A STANDARD DETAIL 2-5,7MENTS FOR ALTA SPS BAND DTLEIREW.ETI JOINTLY WORESTK WASICO AND EDON D BY ALTA AND 1, INCLUDES ITEMS 2-5 7(a),8,11 AND 19 TABLE A itElEOF. THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPUTED ON DECEMBER 21, � .z / %'-' / � �\ 2916 AND C. I LOT 3 ,, OREGOtl H.S.NO 54 DATE OF PLAT OR MAP: / j / ` 0lEGON RIES.NO 55469 �� BLOCK 8 1 // - _-4 a FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS L e s- 8 0 ALTA u 101 5/87 IRON ROD WTH NO CAP:DEED 7O 760 cv . d 702 i IRON PIPE,BEARS NO3O525 E 0. AS NOTED O OI LOSE 7°IRON PIPE;BEARS ED3113'25'11 ADD {N 104 7 f2'IRON PIPE:BEARS NBUT19'53'W 0.70' CDW/ — — � a SX IRON ROD WIH me STAMPED LLT a assoc PLS 1362°: CHS PAREDFOFt 1 LOT 2 l / i ,I - _ •� _. _ r- O CD 106 WAS N8799'53°W 046' PRE - - _ _---- X 196 5/8°IRON RW WITH NO CAP,BEARS N8739'53'W 0.55 LEGEND MAW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT J ¢ 0 107 5/8'IRON ROD WITH YPC STAMPED'LAND MARKERS LS 1831',HELD DECIDUOUS TREE f"\ 120 til W 177 5/8°IRON ROD WTH UPS STAMPED*LAND MARKERS LS 1831`, EUCEt&,OR 97A07� BEARS Ne7W'02°W 0.33' CONFORMS TREE \ T 1 - O 712 5/8`RCN RW WITH YPC STAMPED"DLT M ASSOC,PIS 1362*: BEARS N87'19VIN 0.48 FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT • REVISIONS: LOT 1 YY i it 3°BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE STAMPED N.W.GLC 60';HELD ___ _- INITIAL RETE/SE,JAR 6,2017 A RHcnr-OF-wnv ONE i - i n _ � nb 5/8'INCH RDD Wm NO Gaa:HELD J - J / `""- /8 BRON ROD WITH NO CAP HELD BOUNDARY UNE l. 775 5 , PROPERTY UNE ____ __ / CCNTERWNE REGISTERED o HSE'SPRUCE /^ 1 / / EASEMENT _______ ______ Ll OVINTRON NEKIA STREET �/ �� STORM OUTFALL 637 FENCE A.L (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAY)b m c� / / T GONC.42" E. - SURVEYOR / _ __ ,TY LL STAVEORM EDGE - �- UN.MPROVEO'TREE, STORM OUTFALL -- i GDNG 42`IE=763.5' STORM SEWER UNE +�^'in aez STORM OUIFA CUNWNSSA88L5 a -- HE STUBBS CONC 42°LE.=U63.3' 111 / -------------------------- w - --- - aulcwu.wTE:ae)w/1e � , -- �� RNesva'ro'W 9az+i') I � M i / SDG'ROADWAY RUE Paur a BEGINNING TAX LOT 100 AND unu EASEMENT -- ss7vD'azt e91.2a ss POINT- ACC I _ __ __ 76. __ .PkOPERTY OESC1aPilON�__ �;E 867.41* JDB NUMBER PONT OF COMMENCEMENT AND ,_ BLOCK 7 0 ,sa7Doort 73s4Rs aNn _ _ zwaz rosn -asn_" ;, --'iTd cRnv[L i_ (sae'asaRe .. pR _ _ --------------------------------- w NORTHWEST MRICORNER LF—CEL81,PAG'1629, MARION COUNTY DEED RECORDS, ' o / Po � 191 r oR_ IaID7Di' �r---q�----E �Bsgsr MAP ,i SHEET-75 228 Ocn ARNEY ERNE NE�ROTWOODAFSHP- 1 OF 3SEE SHEET 2 aN uBEOT 5 (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 197 LEGEND �� DECIDUOUS TREE GAS METER ® RIGHT-OF-WAY INE -- -- POWER LINE - --""'- --"'"_ ____------------------------------------ _ _ __ 306 ROADWAY �T E __ AND UTILITY EA----- T 582, tlJY WIRE ANCHOR �R, IJORIDARY LINE OERNEAD WIRE - --�+^+----^�_ -__. � � _ _ ,'�3 CONIFEROUS TREE UlliTY POLE ..__ EAS-M- _ PROPERTY LINE TELEPHONE LINE - --m- -'a- _ _ ----ary ARE HYDRANT A ELECTRICAL METER ® L CENiERlME —_ _____— GAS LME - -�- �- _-. PAY- WATER -- s' WATER BLOWOFF atieo POWER JUNCROT BOX O z ROAD GRAVEL �` •�/�Qo� -� - BARRICADE �� r z � WATER METER ® MVAC UNIT © CREEL(CENTERLINE ----> --- - STORM SEWER LME - �^^- -"m- p� � m WATER VALVE POWER TRANSFORMER TFR OURS - WATER LME - -^^'- -""•_ U ASPHALT DIXIRLE ARNEY '.°ate zE 1. YELLOW SSPE v LANE NE • WELL"C STREET LIGHT EDGE OF PAVEMENT - - -- WETLAND BOUNDARY -W-W----W- � ,_ .� �. �. ® _-�UBLIC RSH—,—OF—WAY") =W SANITARY SEWS?CLEAN OUT P"' TEIEPHONE/TElENSION VAULT � EASEMENT __- ___-_ ______. �� \ W - _ _ WHIM 70' �'� sl/� L.A ❑S TELEPHONE/TELENSICN RISER • FENCE LINE �/ -�--- - cr CATCH BASIN ® SIGN a a / O R MANHOLE DOLLARD ® GRAVEL EDGE ________________ ASPHALT d UNDARY WEST PIT.WITH NUMBER AS SHOWN �a .._ TREE IN M `- - 20546 10'FIR SEE SHEET 1 ___,� 20593 SRR 13'S RUCE / j` - '� 20550 10'FIR NEKIA STREET 1 STORM OU1FALI 20551 9"FIR a %`' LONG 42°I.E. 7637 20555 11"ITE (P'JKLC RIGHT-OF-WAY)p /'� ,lrl _/ Ste,W1FA(L 20555 10"OR UNIMPROVED STREET I- f 20559 '0'FlR __ 14.79' - TAX LOT 1100! POLE WIN DROP 2D5si ,o'AR a 112 'o, �CRIG 42" F_163.5' AND TRANSFORMER 21111 9'FlR �) MAP 05-2W 01C — --- — s6RMw w ----- �� z9ssa e"FTR a= 177 .. / j STOR h2 I E 763.3Y 20565 0 i D9J OROAOWASEAffN 20566 8_FUR o I i > LOT - �PONL A, ,Q ; i 'L �� ACCn - 65 -_ PERrPR(>PER7Y DESCRIPTION 20568 7 AR O I L< ---- CO PONT OF COMMENCEMENT AND �_/ - - _ __ _ -�- S871KY02'E 135416 1'L'F Q�4? K o I O TRUE POINT OF BESNNING A xo55z - 29+`_71 I" 7762.85 ...-1;D-' GRAVEL. ___ 20571 "RR \w N ,' i (�V'ae'o5'E iJ9e.s7 - � Ott_ _ 20572 B"FIR NORTHWEST CORNER OFREAL81,PACE 1629. 101 •,. / / DEVISE RU A za�es7 ID7 _ '�-'w 200576 8 AS V'z MALEIC!COUNTY QED f�LYN10SVK A ~`Y Gl c> O (fS J f -�j ,-� fl/ _GRAVEL />tze2a5ae xa ¢ - S 20576 7`1R �-�¢ _ 1 �A i i- ! tiv( atAVE 20581 10FlRT INCET l A17 2205M 8"F`W4'INCH \' ! � X5818LOi 5 � / c&-wi-u -L / FIR1 2056. To'FIRTAX LOT 100 , w 3Q m'FIR 7 �r\.Y 20595 V FIR Z to MAP 05- 7! 2W-128% ±1 6 IDIFlRTREES" (} + ,- I "I STORM INLETS l / 20599 5'FIR a -{ STORM ALL CONC.42°I.E. 163.8' 20602 12°MR &' t CFP LE=167.7` t C3 OT 4 AREA = 13.819 ACRES,r/MORE OR LESS I t 7.UU SPA GAS LOCATE MARKS % Or j o I k -tTrALDER hi�E3 - 7x�}-. t�l TREES W'YIN THE WETLAND AREA i :rr nz y HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ASPHALT )B 6•-,r AIDER 7AEEs t GRAVEL LOT 3 ' 'l 58719'52"E 727.90' \ : i f ROCK WALL I! 1 // IOPDGRAPHIC SDRVEI1NG FORHIGH CONTOURS GRAVEL HOUSE 1 4 T L / HAS NOT BEEN DOE WITHIN THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES !FF VJ yl / LOT 2 � IF I g .J 219 4 GAR G / 1 ASPHALT - 1f , 50 1 I Jv I/ RUIt�a�Un e>'>;r .0 Lot 1 / f SC 1 - PO vnRt LICPT AND �� / FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTQNS NOON B TOT 5 8°IRON ROD WITH NO CAP;HELD Pored Tu oX - / „ry__ // 106 518`IRON ROD NTH NO CA;BEARS N6719'"0.53' SJB'IN ROD NTH YPC STAMPED"IACD MARKERS LS 1831',HELD 5/e'IRON ROD WTH YPC STAMPED LAND MARKERS LS 7831';BEARS N87WOZW HIS N871953W 048' v 5/8'NON ROD WiN YI'C STAMPED'GLAND k1AR�5 LS 8362".SEARS 119 6/6'IRON ROD Wnt we srANem'uND MARkERs Ls 1831';rinn i V ! 7 - / �e'�'•'t 1Q0 518'IBM ROD WAR YPG STAMPED"LAND MARKERS IS 7801';HAD 985 1/2"IRON PIPE HELD -,E- CPPt2OU1FAl1 \��. --.1 1 I.E.'1]4.0' Z - / / /1T5 / 12B,SEE S ETI THE RILE REPORT AND PROPERTY REGARDING BELOW TAX LO ONLY TO TAX LOT 100 MAP 05-2W- J 128,SEE SHEET 1 AND SHEET 3 FOR INFONIARON REGARDING THE OTHER TAX LOTS INCLUDED IN THIS SURVEY. Q TITLE REPORT INFQRMA11ON 1)EKCEPHON NUMBER PER PREUNWURY REPORT THE PROPERTY M,PREPARED AND ADEUTEXCEPTIONS ARE PER TGE PRELIMINARY REPORT WITH AN R NIJMVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 3, 2016 AT 8:00 AM,PREPARED 8Y RDELITY NATIONAL BILE COMPANY OF OREGON WITH ORDER FYJMBER FLI50054C®O-FRdWV23. / J AS°NAL7 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS 1-5 ARE NOT RENTABLE_ i5W ALTA 1 +�W Bp S a SPECIAL ITEMS AND RECEPTIONS 6,1,9,10 AND THOSE SHOWN BELLOW ARE NOT PLOTTABLE. S AS N01ID DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT,INCLUDING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS THEREOF, RECORDING DATE APRIL 79,RTO7 oR COW BEGINNING NP. REEL 1777.PAGE 498 a CLS !/ ,y_ SURVEYOR'S N01F TNS DOCUMENT WRONGED PROOF THAT A PERMIT WAS EMIL AUTHORIZING'WRAND ALL NECESSARY FQR PREPARED�: d \ `R CONSTRUCTION C&PHASES 1,2 AND 3 W"THE W ODBINN COMPANY STORES,THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST.THIS MASTER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT / ) V EXCEPTION CAN NOT BE PLOTTED. 720 W.BROADWAY EUGENE.OR 97401 w SEE SHEET, / �� PROPERTY DESCRIPTON TTAX LOT 1007 C TOPOGR PHO SURVEING FOR CONTOURS / �� A TRACT O AND LOCA U WITHIN HE WL Al LATEST DONATION AND CLAIM N0.80 AND VA DIN HE HAS NOT BEEN DONE WHEN THE WETLAND BOUNDARES / �O� NORTH HALF OF SECTCON 1Z TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, 2 WEST OF THE WUAMETTE MERMAN,MARION COUNTY, REVISIONS: �� OEGO7,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS OWS INITIAL RELEASE.JAN.C 2017 (v O .._�' / ,J{ '�:� // > C0_\� COMMENCING AT ARVEY 5/8 INOR IRO.'ROD WIN A YELLOW PLASOC CAP MARKED IAND MARKERS AS DENOTED IN COUNTYMw OF LAND CHANTED TO RAY SPIEY�,Ifl2.AND GLIA MSTAMEPLEY BNTING YDED RECORDED MW REEL 81,PAGE E NORTHWEST COMER OF A Tt&29.OF THE MARION(AUNTY DEED RECORDS(THE TRUE PONT OF BEGINNING);THENCE.TRACING THE NORTH LINE OF THE BARBA DONATION -'-''�/ / 1 //' / �� Q .�.7 EAST 354,49LAND CLAN,SAID FEET LNE HONG TO A POINTTIINMCOMMON KID TTHEHE INDENORTHR ZEUNEST CORNTHEER OFPA TLEYRACTOFIG.OF A DWOBOIE•T0 PROFEss;ONAL -� 4" CRNG REALTY CROIP-WUWBIJRN,LLC.BY GEED RECORDED W REEL 1396.PAGE 814,Of THE MARION COUNTY LAND SURVEYOR �(7/ DEED RECORDS;THENCE SOUTH 14.4651•WEST 397.58 FEET;THENCE RUTH 4D55'22'WEST 308.1)FEET, THENCE SOUTH 3079'47'WEST 396.05 FEET;THENCE NORTH WM&54°WEST ICES FEET;THENCE NORTH m �OD �� 005Y287 WEST HALM FEET;THENCE NORTH 8824'23'WEST 723.62 FEET;THENCE NORTH 003704'EAST �BGON� 0 / TREES WITH THE WETLAND AREA 277.53 MEET TO THE TRUE POINT O BEGINNNO AND HE TERMINUS OF SAID LEGAL DESCRIPICHL HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY qR N.SEUB89 BOUNDARY RESOLUTION �r+cWa wrz;as/�/7M THE HAM OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE OREGON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,NORTH ZONE.HAD 83(2011). ASPHALT MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN USING THE OREGON SAL-LIME MISS NETWORK ,108 NUMBER ii9lU7 THE WESTERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY WAS ESTABUSHED BY HOLDING THE MONUMENT AT 713(SEE SHEET 1)AND U)(9E SHEET 3). c��/A �' 12200 120 '/ POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS THE MOST SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY WAS ESTABLISHED BY HOLDING MOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWY AND 1500 TAX LOT 300 A/ - i8a NOTED ME M057 SOD ERLTHE RECORD DIST CE SHOD ANWEST INS WAS ESTABLISHED SURVEYNUMORHOLDING THE C39M74�MA4I�COUNTY SSEE SEE�ORYEY CANDOOS.7HE NTHAT O p P/ /. NO POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS WERE OBSERVED. WAS EXTENDED NOR SHEET MAP 05-`2W-128 / WESTERLY SCHATIN5F PUSHED WAS ESTABLISHED BY HOLDING A RECORD DISTANCE SOUTHERLY FROM THE MONUMENT AVE),,PER Arc / / -- STORM PUTFALL SURVEY NUMBER 34143. 2 Vf 3 CPP}E=1730' / 198 _LOT 3 SEE SHEET 2 "E FOUND MONUMENT OESCRIP170NS S�IS HIGH TO( iW Sj8'IRON ROD PATH TO STAMPED"W&H PACFIC',HEIR t I 887'18'52'E 727.90' r t RC(Tt WAIL I J TOPOGRAPHIC.-IINS FOR CONTOURS w q fsab'4riq'E x24a2'j _ f HAS N05 BEEN DONE Ni7HIN THE WEIlAND BOUNDARIES 71D 5/8'IRON ROD WUH IPC STAMPED'OLT&ASSOC.PLS 1367;BEARS N8799'S3"W 0.09' r� g f //J// ,f 7 � .-- HOUSE 7 / /8' VJ 7118 5 IRON RCD WITH TED STAMPED MARKERS IS 1831,HELI 1 GRAVEL j ( / / 119 5{8'IRON RW WITH YES STAMPED"LAW MARKERS LS 1831'HELD W.s. Z 120 SIT IRON RCD WTH YPC STAMPED'LAND MARKERS LS 1831'NERD �j w w / 3 LOT 2 /i/+� 0.4' 127 5187 IRON RW GOTH YPC STAMPED'NORTHWEST SURAE'ING INC',HEA }' PC t ff \ *, f 5/2'IRON ROD WITH DIFF;�DYPC STAMPED'NORTHWEST SURA£YING INC}HDD �'m W ww Wo w> .� i 27➢ 1 ASPHALT 5/8'LION REST WMTN NO IN NO CAPS HELD i 6ARAG ,}� % 1 /,/ / 313 5j8,RON RW ;BEARS N8236'52'W 0.48'FROM 312 � I /1 a t RV w6NUP f, i Ji t 1911 � �`-� _ i" __ - �' J I f-___- —- i POLIATHu�i Ah01 / PDKLit JUNCTION BOX , LEGEND HERE HYDRANT k GAS METER WATER METER WY WARE ANCHOR WATER VALVE Unum POE o WELL CAS G POWER VAULT © o z O TAX LOT 100ELECTRICAL MEIPR SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT oma' v STORM DUVALL POWER 9JNCTWN 80X MAP 05-2W-12B PP 12'I.E.= 4D' swTe TANK D HVAC UNIT ® N o / \t - -r _� R"' /• STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN ® v POWER TRANSFORMER Wo STORM SEWER MANHOE CST STREET LIGHT TA BOIARO ff TEIFPNONEfiEEEVS07 RIXR 4 FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT • SIGN zF Z \ j i BERLAND BOUNDARY TEST PIT �>< ASPHALT WITH NUMBER AS SHOWN N z mo t RHCUr-w-waY UNE — ——— ��3' YXi t f /J BOUNDARY UNE d PROPERTY LUNE / ¢ O'.N7ERUNE —_—____ OR EEX CENTERLINE - � CURB r> } J r� / � /j �• EDGE W PAYMENT - -- -— En `, \ C}_- Ali^ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING FOR CONTOURS EAS" - - HAS NOT BEEN DONE WTHIN THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES FENCE LIKE EP TV -- __ ___ FEAR FEA GE POWER LET - — — - r 4� Q ,`ltd OVERHEAD WIRE -- - - - - 1 _ -- �� /� // �� a�y�i mmAoKuNE --- -- co v��0�� GAS LINE m �'Q � STORM SEWEIHNE - W ♦; s' f i/ TREES WTLIN THE WERANO AREA / ` �d �Q POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS WATER ONE —— g _ / HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN ON IRIS SURVEY / a/ i _.WIM-w®-Ine-rm.-rm- �q Q NO POTENTIAL ENCROL VEN15 WERE DMERIED. OPERAND BOUNDARY / t 6/ a ASPHALT �IN� H 88'SS'35 W MUST 120 TAX LOT 300 &�/ 185 - _ SURVEYOR'S NOTE THE TIRE REPORT AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BELOW PERTAIN ONLY TO TAX LOT 300 MAP 05-2W-12B,SEE SHEET i AND SHEET 2 FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OTHER TAX LOTS INCLUDED IN THIS SURVEY MAP 05-2W-128 $TOM Au '"--� i I / /i t ceP}E=HILI TITLE REPORT INFORMATION(b EXCEPTION NUMBER PER PRELIMINARY REPORT AREA - 20.257 ACRES, `d THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND EXCEPTIONS ARE PER TELL PRELIMINARY REPORT WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 3, n ff / �.-- 2016 AT @OO AM.PREPARED BY FIDELITY NATIONAL THE COMPANY OF OREGON WITH ORDER NUMBER'1150054088-1 LL MORE OR LESS / � '-' / co / r/ ` GENERAL IXCPii(WS/-5 ARE NOT PLO/TABLE SPECIAL ITEMS AND EXCEPTIONS 7,8,11-14 AND THOSE LISTED BELOW ARE NOT PLOTTABLE z M? �� ASPHALT �EASEMENT(S)FOR THE PURPOSE(S)SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCDOCUMENT,O)MEN �� PURPOSE ROADWAY *2;' / TREE ORMAIION FEWRMNG DATE MARCH 6,1946 / BETOKEN No VOLUME CCDAR/ CE ISHEREBY AFfEOTS REFERENCE MADE 1D SAID DOCUMENT FOR FULL PARRWLARS. mj i - i 24130 NF31 CEDAR 24131 Y EVERGREEN 24132 22'CEDAR LOCATION'S NOTE THE EASEMENT DESCRIPTION DOES NOT HAVE THE ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO DESCRIBE THE ROADWAY 24133 27'CEDAR SCALE 1" 50 ET Q / = FE LOCATION NOT AND CAN NOi BE PLOTTED. i J '1 J7 x3/ ) / ` /' 24135 17 O'ED 10 EASEMENT(S)FOR THE PURPOSE(S)SHOWN BROW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FIX27H @7 A DOCUMENT 7 'd 24138 16"CEDAR WI�$ 1 1 2`T \ / 24137 10'CEDAR IN FAVOR OF: PER GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY L ' t T ` PURPOSE: ELECTRICAL LINES,TELEPHONE UNES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES 24138 17"CEDAR RECORDING GATE: JULY 16.1956 Q\ / 24139 13"CEDAR ftECOIM NO VOLUME 490,PAGE 172 1500 ALTA f/ 24W 12'CEDPR AFFECTS: REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO SO DOCUMENT FOR FULL PARTICULARS ScuE AS NOTED j J I 24321 t 24141 le DEAD CEDAR t HOUSE STY 24321 OF OJOUS CLUSTER SORNEYOR'S NOTE:THE EASEMENT DESCRIPRON IS NOT ADEQUATE DUE TO ITS REFERENCE TO A POWER POLE THAT APPARENTLY 24322 DECIDUOUS OUSTER NO LONGER EXISTS.THE EASEMENT CAN NOT BE PLOTTED. COW 24323 22'CHERRY CHS t ¢r r SHED WIN CONCRETE 24324 21'CEDR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION(TAX LOT 300)OD WALLS 24325 8'DEaoucuS A K)R. X365' �.ASPHALT' 24326 45'DECDUOUS BEGINNING AT AN IRON ROD ON THE WEST ONE O THE WILLIAM DARST DONATION LANG CLAM IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE 2 WEST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN MASTER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 24327 70"NOCUOUS IN MARION COUNTY,OREGON.WHICH POINT IS 18.25 CHAINS NORTH 059'EAST FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAD SENATOR LAND CLAIM:THENCE.NORTH 059' 120 W.BROADWAY \ 24i t EAST ALONG THE WEST I.LNE OF SAID DONARON LANG CNM 79.35 CHAINS lD THE MOST NCR111ERLY$WTNWEST CORNER OF A TRACT O LAND CQNVEYED TO RAY EUGENE,OR 97401 / } 24118 STAMPIEY AND MYRA B.STAMP Y,HUSBAND AND WEE,BY BED DATED FEBRUARY 28.1946 AND RECORDED MARCH 6,1946 IN VOLUME 340,PAGE 306,DEED U x nA RECORDS FOR MARION COUNTY,OREGON;THENCE SOUTH ABDO EAST ALONG A SOUTH LINE OF SAID STAMHLEY TRACT,10.97 CHAINS:THENCE SOUTH 0'30'FAST y 24330/ ALONG THE MOST EASTERLY WEST LINE OF SAD STAMPLEY TRACT,1&57 CHAINS,THENCE SOUTH SEEK EAST ALONG A SOUTH UNE OF SAID STAMPLEY TRACT 12BB CONCRETE FOUNDATION AD 1 CHMN%THENCE SOUTH 1136'WEST 0.31 CR A CHAIN;THENCE NORTH 883&WEST 12.60 CHAINS;THENCE SOUTH 78'45'WEST 11.65 CLANS TO THE PLACE OF REVISIONS: BEGINNING. INITIAL RE USE.JAN.6,2017 Z3 3 SAVE AND EXCEPT:A 20 EGOT WADE STRIP C LAND,SAID S1fdP SONG DESCRIBED AS A 20'ROAD ON SURVEY'NUM�R 8479 OF THE MARION COUNTY SURVEY __ 2 i32 2 1 _ '�'2 RECORDS,SAID STRIP DEAD PORTION OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN VOLUME SAE,ON PAGE 264 O THE MARION COUNTY DEED RECORDS LOCATED M THE'MULAM / rl 182 / /- / GARA"k SITED t 2 ti, ACCESS PONT (50I55'wtC'1 - DARST NOTATION LAND CLAIM NUMBER 60 IN THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER O SECTOR 12,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE 2 OUST IN THE WILLAMETTE MORGAN IN CiAV1. 1 `h _ S67K7'i YE 83687 "y THE CITY WOODBURN,MARION COUNTY,OREGON,SAN STRIP BEING MORE PARRCULARLY DESdBBED AS FOLONS P EXCEP110N PROPERTY ,R� REGIS FRED -_ ____ N F BEGINNING AT A 3 4'RON PIPE,SAD PIPE HAVING BEEN SET IN SURVEY NUMBER 7218 IF THE MAKER COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS,SAID PIPE BEING ON RIE WEST '; PROFESSIONAL IOU \L S87'27'77`E 832,95'- -J$,g MOTE OF WAY LINE OF ARTERY ROAD ANO ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 7HAT TRACT DESCR®ED IN IU,tE 340,PACE 3(M O THE MARION COUNTY GEED ftECOmS; LAND SURVEYOR a E FER C M TIAL `'SQ `I\ U'Ess'aa'w PA'.) THENCE SOUTH 09'23'29'WEST,ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF ARNEY ROAD,A DISTANCE C6 20.23 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89'2053°WEST,PARALLEL WTH TACC CY r ` 3Q �+� lHE SOUTH ONE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 340,ON PACE 306,OF THE MERGE COUNTY DEED RECORDS A DISTANCE OF 832.05 FEET TO AN ANGLE PONT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 546,ON PAGE 264 OF THE MARION COUNTY OED RECORDS;THENCE NORTH 00'32'59'EAST.A / I lsB'A6".Sq) i ��- +C3` OISTANOF OF SON FEET TO AN ANGLE IRON,SAID MONUMENT HAVING BEEN SET IN SURVEY NUMBER 7218 OF THE MARION COUNTY SURVEY RECORDS AT AN ANGLE oRcooH // J T56'W 269.21 F S'\ PONT ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THAT TRACT DES RMED IN VOLUME 340.ON PACE 306;THENCE SOUTH 89'2053'EAST.ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THAT DEBTOR A691515B8S JR. $ P 9C l TRACT DECEMBER IN VOLUME 340,ON PACE 264 OF THE MARION COUNTY DEED RECORDS,A DISTANCE OF 835.16 FEET. ;Y j7 vlW', tl ,' / CY TAX LOT ZOO—�i_ fi\ BOUNDARY RESOLUTION REMOVALDAMD6/3o/1s 9 REEL 521 PAVE 3(�J ` \ THE BASIS OF(RATINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE OREDIN STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,NORTH ZONE,NAD 8'.{201). MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN USING RHE "ss 'TEDOE FENS �Y (� MAP 05-2W-128 l 5.� \ OffCAN REAL-77ME(MSS NETYPoPoC. JOB NUMBER wON OWNER' FIRST INTERSTATE [SANK OF OREGON \('n THE WESTERLY PROFFRTY BOUNDARY WAS ESTABLISHED BY HOLDING THE MONUMENT AT 113(SEE SHEEN 1)AND W.THE EAST UNE WAS ESTABLISHED BY HO EIG 1500 122 \ THE MONUMENT ATM AND G Bim,THAT UNE WAS EXTENDED NORTHERLY THE RECON DISTANCE SHOWN ON SURVEY'NUMBER 34143,NATION COUNTY SURVEY NO2'40'D7"E DONT OF BEGINNING TAX LOT 602 I \ RECORDS.THE NORTHWEST CORNER WAS ESTABLISHED BY HOLDING A RECORD DISTANCE SOUTHERLY FROM THE MONUMENT AT ii(SEE SHEET 2),PER SURVEY 579.29' PONT ON WEST LINE OF THE \ \\\\ NUMBER 34143. THE SOUTHWEST STREET WAS ESTABLISHED BY HOLDING THE RECORD DISTANCE N[R1}1EM,Y FROM THE MONUMENT ATL3iJ,PER SURVEY NUMBER SHEET \ WWAM DARST DONATION LAND CLAM MAP 05-2W-128 �\ 24417. 3 V( 3 s3 31z � 199 m _ O N 6'HIGH WOOD FENCE TAX LOT 3070 — N a MAP 05-2W-128 r TAX LOT 602 o U 6'HIGH CYCLONE FENCE ~� /-"1 f MAP 05-2W-12B ',`?.� Z 6'HIGH WOOD FENCE 7 67 �cwi�x� _ rnaoac ?p(701 J 14. \ '� 12565 ,� W O civ z "WILLOWBROOK ESTATES" \gX,- ��) a � EXISTINGI f \ 3 w I GARAGE BLOCK 8 LOT 2 - i 30' 30' _,m a`w LOT 4 12563 s EXISTING w;> GARAGE cr EXISTING a HOUSE F I o EXISTING CD HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE LOT 6 ��` 12593 to \ -yfa3 LOT 5 Y� CD �. zI� EXISTINGz HOUSE LOT 1 EXISTINGEXISI7NG z GARAGEXISTING GARAGE EH USE 3f,o EXISTING LOT 3 GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING - o GARAGE r F-�ffa B"CAST IRON WATER LINE W o 'NO OUTLET" AVENUE - -- �i W Eli DRIVEWAY APPROACH (I s��2 - l o CIT (TYPICALs r - - ) A R ADA AD AMP RAMP STREET SIGN i "NEKIA ST/WOODLAND AVE" � AOA RAMP RAMP - _ _ q ADA s� SS1 f LOT 4 "WILLOWBROOK ESTATES" q LOT 8 STREET SIGN LOT 5f BLOCK rJ Z WILLOW AVE/WOODLAND AVE' "WILLOWBROOK ESTATES" a J o ( % LOT 3 30' ah SD2 9 7 � LEGEND =0 1500 TOPO AS NOTED DECIDUOUS TREE (D GUY WIRE ANCHOR E— lID P'� UTILITY POLE 10., atAval er: i1NN CONIFEROUS TREE POWER VAULT © CHECKED BY. CHS FIRE HYDRANT STREET LIGHT >$ PREPARED FOR. WATER METER ® TELEPHONE/TELEVISION RISER ® MASTER DEVELOPMENT NOTES WATER VALVE D4 SIGN TREE INFORMATION TABLE STORM SEWER INFORMATION 120 W BROADWAY v , 12563 TREE CLUSTER (SDI) EUGENEOR 97401 CATCH BASIN BOLLARD 1)THE FIELD SURVEY FOR THIS MAP WAS COMPLETED ON JANUARY 13,2017. 12565 15"CHERRY RIM=1802S SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 12567 22`CHERRY I.E.10"OUT(W)=177.0' STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN IM FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT • 2)ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE BASED ON MARION COUNTY BENCHMARK 9432. THE BENCHMARK IS A 2-1/2"BRASS DISC, 12593i1'EVERGREEN SO2 MANHOLE STORM SEWER MANHOLE ® REVISIONS: AND HAS AN ELEVATION 181.43 FEET ON THE NGVD 1929 DATUM. 20001 13"SPRUCE RIM=180.10' MAILBOX RE INITIAL RELEASE JAN.26,2017 3)THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE OREGON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM,NORTH ZONE,HAD 83(2011), LE.TO"IN(SE)=176.8' I.E.10"IN(NE)=176.7' RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE - - - - — 4)THE RIGHT-0F-WAY WIDTHS WERE ESTABLISH USING INFORMATION FROM RECORD SURVEYS,PLATS,AND THE TAX ASSESSOR'S E.12°OUT(SW)=176.6' MAP. SD3 CATCH BASIN BOUNDARY LINE RIM-179.67 PROPERTY LINE REGISTERED 5)THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT PROVIDED VAIN A TITLE REPORT FOR THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO WOODLAND AVENUE. NO LE.10°OUT(N)=177.3' PROFESSIONAL EASEMENTS HAVE BEEN PLOTTED. CENTERLINE - LAND SURVEY) 6)THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE BASED ON THE MARKINGS PER LOCATE TICKET NUMBERS 16275641 AND 16275645. ALONG CURB WOODLAND AVENUE UTILITIES WERE ONLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF NEKIA STREET. SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION FENCE UNE OR O N POWER LINE --- - -- --wr,- .LLwurc�a moz SS1 MANHOLE CUNTDN H.STUB JR. RIM=180.68' OVERHEAD MIRE -- - UTILITY STATEMENT RENEWAL DATE:06/30/18 E.8°IN(E)=171.0' TELEPHONE LINE - - -- - - - -THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS THE I.E.8°IN(S)=170.9' 10. 16' SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA,EITHER T.E.B"OUT(W)=170.7' STOOL SEWER LINE - -- JOB NUMBER M SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN SCALE 1" = 20 FEET THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE ODES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM (M MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER LINE - INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. RIM=181.23' - -s"x 1500 I.E.8"IN(S)=172.4' WATER UNE - - - -vu,- - M LE 8"OUT(N)=172.5' SHEET 1 OF 4 200 TREE INFORMATION TABLE o N TAX LOT 602N E 26934 18"OAK 24"OAK MAP 05-2W-128 TAX LOT 1299 o MAP 05-2W-1 12B 1 12997 32"FIR o \ DENSE BRUSH �_----.._ _.._._.. 73031 34"OAK '� Z 13032 26"OAK F twj tt i "WILLOWBROOK ESTATES" ' 13033 28"OAK (nao<= 13036 26'OAK O- LOT 5 ' 13051 3037 28"OAK s Z B t K 7 13085 1 083 3038 21"OAK N SS5 13087 13039 9"CHERRY � � 5" \ 130527 73040 12°CHERRY z m <w LOT 3 ySD1 3_D84 - 13041 39"OAK 130531�I}" - '- -s"�-�- ----a,u-- _ 13042 11'OAK o W �1'L✓1l` f 73043 18"FIR EXISTING EXISTING 13048 ry ,13054 13044 30"OAK x HOUSE 13 9 f 13045 10"CHERRY a HOUSE �(g'`� EXISTING 7 'P7 13055E\ f 13046 SPLIT 9",6"CHERRY HOUSE ' EXISTING EXISTING 13050 13082 f 73047 SPLIT 11",7"CHERRY \` GARAGE 13046 13048 6"CHERRY HOUSE LOT 2 ` -._ / �'"� 113045 r�^y;•�/ �✓ 13049 9"CHERRY 13044 "'" LOT 1 ( 13050 9"CHERRY / / 13081 13051 SHUT 12",10'CHERRY 13042 EXISTING (*13043 / i i ( !"S 13079 13052 10"CHERRY GARAGE 0 ' ��VVV___ __ 13053 12°CHERRY 1 039/ 13038 'f 13054 SPUT 13",10°CHERRY EXISTING 13040/6 0 � 13055 27"CEDAR T" " � z LOT 4 GARAGE 13041 7, fi t ! (I 13080 13077 25"OAK -� (:� . 13078 39°OAK F m 1303 f 13036 M78v 13079 36°OAK E%IS11NG f 13080 36"OAK z 13081 18"OAK _ ® GARAGE EXISTING � / �� 13082 6"CHERRY ��o - - -- _ HOUSE _ t /f 13083 6"CHERRY 13084 8"CHERRY + g 13085 SPOT 9",8°CHERRY i 13087 V OAK SD4 - �✓�'`'� 180— f 13031 ( 13077', SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION z` 13032 \jo �-- -!`"'-- =-,_ ~ �., "•-- rte "�_ _ "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH" j / r SS3 MANHOLE DRIVEWAY APPROACH �, RIM=179.14' (TYPICAL) (�/ ( I % I.E.4"IN(SE)=174.3' -- - �- -,. 130 ' / I.E.8"OUT(N)=174.1' s ADA RAMP - s,w--- -, _ �- ,v�y-- _ '.° / 12994 J SS4 MANHOLE p / ( RIM=179.38' - 12"IN(79.FINo ti�� SD5 44 ADA RAMP- �" "" °� � 780, f Pl 12'OUT(SW) mN _ r - ��' r LIGHT POLE MhTH DROP #(JI.E.-163. f i a� Dqy - z Y ,R f —180 .- ' - w>� - - - ��2993 _. --- , ._ ._ — — SOID 41 � 12997 �MANHOLE � 1 --_""^---^-� _ f RIM 17N.33' W \ t �/ SOD , _`"'""-- •-"":.`s, 12 a k- s58 MANHOLE cn "WILLOWBROOK ESTATES" STREET SIGN —� L� 'Q "JORY STREET/WOODLAND AVE" �""�- ', " --..., -7T8 \ SD93 W RIM=179.01 W -\� 1 -- OB V) 12.OUT(E) sD9 BLOCK 5 I f ADA RAMP �` SD14 Lij FLOWUNE I.E.=174.6 (ED LLJ LOT 9 J _ \ 71, -� aDA RAMa A�� i LOT 11 yrs j "WILLOWBROOK ESTATES" LOT 12 �a j EEST sw� LEGEND "ST J I 11 BLOI'K 11. /r SD11 °STEVEN STREET/WOODLAND AVE" o f J7 DECIDUOUS TREE 7TREE STUMP J'l / 1( LOT 15 GUY WIRE ANCHOR � AYMI 1500 TOP i J J J CONIFEROUS TREE �:c"' AS NOTED 4'� UTILITY POLE `zy BRAVANG 084RABD BY I FIRE HYDRANT POWER VAULT j 7 WATER METER ® STREET LIGHT #zMAN TWW LOT 10 r SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CEJ SIGN WATER VALVE TEIEPHOTE/TELEVISION RISER ® E PREPARED eY: aC "WOODBURN VILLAGE NO. 1" T 1 / � J 1 ! ff- 1 I SON SEWER CATCH BASIN IN BOLLARD ® MASTER W.BROADWAY HT ! 3 ' 1 g /LOT 10 LOT 13 STORM SEWER MANHOLE G FOUND PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENT i EUGENE,OR 97401 1 BLOCK Z MAILBOX 3Q' r � „ - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE REVISIONS: J fJ IJ I fr , II r 1 4 BOUNDARY UNE INITIAL RELEASE FEB.3,2017 20, :7 STORM SEWER INFORMATION J7 `�� sss � PROPERTY CENTERUNE UNE 14 CATCH BASIN SD8 CATCH BASIN (MD STORM CULVERT _ - - -, -- - -, - RIM=180.09' RIM=178.51' I.E.12"IN(NE)=777.4' DITCH REGISTERED LE.10"OUT(SW)=176.9' I.E.10"IN(W)=176.0' SD14 STORM CULVERT WRB LANE SURV YOR 505 CATCH BASIN I.E.12"INT(SWO(N) 175 I.E.12"OUT(SW)=177,2' RIM=182.85' I.E.12°OUT(NW)=175.5' EDGE OF PAVEMENT — — — — — —— _� ,-� �- LE.90°OUT(SW)=179.6' SD9 CATCH BASIN FENCE UNE --- - -- -- - C'J- SD6 CATCH BASIN RIM=178.33' POWER UNE . adz RIM=176.94' I,E.10'OUT(SE)=176.1' CANTON H.�STUB&S JR. LE 10 IN(NE)=17770 DITCH INLET OVERHEAD WARE --- -�•-- -- - 55469LS I.E.15"IN{ .' SDE)_- RIM=177.76' RENEWAL DATE.06/30/18 SCALE 1" = 20 FEET I.E.15"OUT(W)_??? I.E.10"IN(NW)=175.9' UTILITY STATEMENT TELEPHONE.LINE -m- SD7 MANHOLE I.E.12"OUT(SE)=175.8' STORM SEWER LINE -en- THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE M NUMBER o .y m RIM=780.00' S011 CATCH BASIN SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA,EITHER -%a+- I.E,.10"IN(N)=175.3' RIM=178.63' IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES SHOWN ARE IN 1500 I.E.12"IN(S)=175.3' I.E.8"OUT(N)=177.3' THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM «+T- I.E.15"OUT(W)=175.2' (MD MANHOLE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RIM=180.63' SHEET I.E.12"IN(NW)=175.1' r} /NC E.12"OUT(S)=1759` ` Vr 201 /f 73052 SD13 \ o E 13048 W,13054 1 _ s--_ _ ---- � =o,n�'V P l 1304: ° ^' "- -=axx-.�-_•_- _ _ _. sn _ s,,,,_ __.-sou _.-.- 13055� 1 WITH DROP �++ (� POLE � 1305013648� 3082 j __ -._ - _ l ara--cQ, d Z O N� 13044 13045(D\/ /J fi 13042 T 13081 043 f {,. f 13079 1 =3 w �y,'��J[, m Z's 13 W V MOBILE HOME z P.N39 f 13038o 3,d13080 13036 t f 13037 J , 13078 f J j f 0 �D MOBILE HOME z /�/ti U) f 1 LEGEND (''� i V � %� rFDEaDUOUS0 GUY W1R'c ANCHOR �13031 f13077 q UTILITY POLE13032 ' r STREET LIGHT t,® TELEPHONE fTET.EWSiCN PoSER ®POLE WITH DROP LG SIGN AND TRANSFORMER cv o TAX STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN ® MAILBOX ® 730 1 TAX LOT 10100 STORM SEWER MANHOLE X94 r MAP 5-2W-12BB f RIGHT-OF-WAY LONE j LIGHT POLE WITH DROP "' BOUNDARY IJNE --� 12997 12998 PROPERTY LINE z s CENTERLINE SCALE 1" = 20 FEET v -•-,:�_� �" � I DITCH CURB 12999EDGE OF PAVEMENT — ——— --— S014 FENCE UNE o POWER ONE W ADA RAMP ''�, "�_��'� OVERHEAD WIRE D Os � 730�04' TELEPHONE Ute w STORM SEWER INiE SANITARY SEWER ONE -sw- J SDI5 W °7 STREET SIGN '"",.., "SPEED 25" W ! "STEVEN STREET/WOODLAND AVE° �rz Li LOT 15 —tao—=x � UTILITY STATEMENT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND LOT 1 "WODDBUNN WEST MOBILE ESTATES" U71LI71E5 SHOWN COMPRISE AU.SUCH UTILITIES IN 7HE AREA,EITHER INRwCE OR g ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER�S NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND SD7 UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE *00%0, �, SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES S *00 /8V�W p 8�© DRIVEWAY APPROACH t �� (TYPICAL) N W14 �� '�►� DR G ND, 1500 TOED NQ WAN1" LOT 13 -� �'� AS NOTED UMID BY TREE INFORMATION TABLE PROPERTY \ " \ aY, 'W" COMMON OIEMM : CHS _ 72994 18"OAK " ~` '� �C 12997 32`FIR \� ��,, �.'�"�, FFEPAFEMEFCR- MASTER DEVELOPMENT 12998 30'FIR 12999 50"FIR 80''�\ V �->� !�R �"^"..� 120 W.BROADWAY 13004 75'DECIDUOUS LOT 12 \ EUGENE,OR 97401 13031 34"OAK ti 13033 268 OAK STORM SEWER INFORMATION SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION �'��. `,=``� REVISIONS: 13036 26'OAK SD7 STORM CULVERT SS7 MANHOLE LOT 10 13037 28"OAK LOT 11 ., _ INITIAL RELEASE FEB.3,2077 13038 21"OAK I.E.12"IN(NE)=177.4' RIM=179.70` - �A 5014 STORM CULVERT 72"IN(NE) 73039 9`OAK 12"OUT(SW) ~' 13040 12"OAK LE.12"OUT{SW}=177.2' s 4 ADA RAMP ` 13041 39'OAK SD15 STORM CULVERT FLOWLINE LE=163.0' O 13042 11"OAK I.E.12"OUT(NE)=177.9` V 4 13043 8"FIR SD16 STORM CULVERT STREET SIGN t�q, 1 REGISTERED �. PROFESSIONAL 13044 30"OAK " SD20 '�� LAND SURVEYOR 13045 10°CHERRY I.E.7?'IN(SW)=778.2' LOT 9 WOODLAND AVEjLINDA ST" ..._�_ 13046 SPLIT 9',6"CHERRY SD7 STORM CULVERT f ,___ 13047 SPOT 11°,7"CHERRY I.E.12"IN(NE}=178.0' e 13048 6"CHERRY SD78 STORM CULVERT f.7 �� ry `\ m- 13049 9"CHERRY LE,12"OUT(SW}=177.6' r�f0�n C`�`�QCk�� t �J-'' CUNTON��BS JR. 13050 9"CHERRY 5019 CATCH BASIN [J r' 13054 SPLIT 73",70°CHERRY RIM=178.70' URnW I i,! RENEWAL DATE:06/30/16 13055 27'CEDAR I.E.12"OUT(SE)=177.4' VJL// co 13077 25'OAK 5020 MANHOLE `�� f� 5079\.. r 13078 39"OAK RIM-178.92' NL! 1 e. !q l J JOB NUMBER 13079 36"OAK 12'IN(NW) f /j ^�,� 13080 36"OAK �50�O 13081 18°OAK 27 OUT =175.6' 1 ztT �'-- ! 13082 6'CHERRY J J` ,30, / SHEET 3OF4 202 m STORM SEWER INFORMATION TREE INFORMATION TABLE SD21 CATCH BASIN / f M E 24130 31"CEDAR RIM=779.77 / // �o�5, 24131 T EVERGREEN TRAP OUT(E) 24132 22"CEDAR J' "1 w U SD22 CATCH BASIN 24133 27'CEDAR Z RIM=180.54' 24134 7"CEDAR o I.E.12°OUT(W)=174.4' 24135 17"CEDAR �a 0 0523 MANHOLE 24136 16'CEDAR / ,z RIM=7 BD.88' 24137 10°CEDAR 3p. 7 LE 12"M(W)=172.5' 24138 17°CEDAR LE.7Z"IN(E)=172.5 24139 13"CEDAR - l ��'► LE.42"IN(SW)=172.1' 24140 i2"CEDAR f -rz m w I.E.42"OUT(N)=772.0' 24141 14"CEDAR Q$,�j �0 z .Q>5624 CATCH BASIN 24321 ?°DECIDUOUS t� ADA RAMP p w RIM=180.52' 24322 ?"DECIDUOUS / , °JCC LE.12"OUT(E)=177.3' 24323 22"CHERRY / °/ 502 MANHOLE 24324 21"CEDARSQ2 0. RIM-181.91 24325 8"DECIDUOUS .: a+� 42`O (SE)=171.4' - 24326 45"DECIDUOUS / J� FIR PARKING 24327 iD"DECIDUOUS �' 42"OUT(NW)=.5'O 24327 1D°DECIDUOUS //s_ ,,,,.rte 245994 "� / " SD26 FIRE LANE" APPRDNO WATETLEYR 0.5'OF "NO PARKING" / tt5r STANDING WATER IN PIPES 24595 70°MAPLE ,as" . fes SD26 CATCH BASIN 24597 9"MAPLE �� RIM=181.6' 24598 71"MAPLE ' 4, TRAP OUT(SW) 24599 11 MAPLE D 6 SD2 CATCH BASIN 24600 10°DECIDUOUS" 45 24602 37FIR .4 of RIM=175.38' P _s.... / A z TRAP OUT(E} 24603 27"CEDAR TMZ _ _ -- i 0 ADA RAMP TAX LOT 701 o ASPHALT - _ _ �. o ' MAP 05-2W-12B " SD21 SD22 _ i P�`��" ASPHALT -- - - ---sTM----sTM-- -s>v-�,? '' -� 95 - �b�0'tL \ �� I SD2 ��.,�°.� N Q 2 TAX LOT 200 \°'' /� 2 MAP 05-2W-12B _ "SPEED BUMP° I m TAX LOT 200 MAP 05-2W-12B NO PARKING 24134i ® � --�� 6'HIGH CYCLONE FENCE ( 1 - ,1 24139 24130 i 8. 0V1 `24325. 24138 24136 24135 24137 24140 24147 0 24137 i CHAIN GATE 24132 • $'=L 24327 i 1 24324 0J 24733 GRAVEL r SHED WITH CONCRETE W yin '., 24326 BLOCK WALLS _` TAX LOT 602 Z " F4l MAP 05-2W-128 � F / 24,323 / METAL GATE 2244433322 91ED ~� r 24321 EXISTING HOUSE "'l "'I80---.� CONCRETE FOUNDATION A g 00 0 -- V �� LEGEND o DECIDUOUS TREE (D POWER VAULT EE D'Af No.: 15OU TOPO 6'HIGH CYCLONE FENCECONIFEROUS.�� POWER JUNCTION BOX OO AS NOTED GARAGE GARAGE STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT R TELEPHONE/TELEVISION RISER ME a r: TWW WATER METER ® SIGN own Rt CHS WATER VALVE ca BOLLARD ® PREPARED FOR TAX LOT 300 ~' STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN FOUND PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENT • MASTER DEVELOPMENT MAP 05-2W-12B STORM SEWER MANHOLE ® 120 W.BROADWAY MAILBOX ® EUGENE,OR 97401 % � RIGHT-OF-WAY ONE REVISIONS: BOUNDARY UNE INITIAL RELEASE:FEB.3,2017 PROPERTY UNE CENTERLINE 24803 �t �V _ - _ - _ \ CURB � � s � - a FENCE LINE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL POWER UNE - - - -Pss- - - -"*s- LAND SURVEYOR TELEPHONE UNE STORM SEWER LINE - - - -sTM+- - - -sTM- oRE ON WATER UNE - -- -rA+r-- - -w.r- uxwm t._CUNTON55489LS JR. RENEWAL DATE:08/38/18 SCALE 1" = 20 FEET UTILITY STATEMENT JOBNUMBER i THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE 1500 SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND URUTIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA,EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES SHOWN ARE IN SHEET EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHCUGi HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTIU ES. 4 OF 4 203 LEGENDA, DEUWOUS TREE GAS METER © RIGHT-OF- Y UNE CONIFEROUS TREE GUY WOE ANCHOR 8OUNDARY UNE R� ef UDDry POE `Ts. �J�' \ LIMI S OF DISTURBANCE /� / '`' ArChlt@CtUrB^^Interiors __ PROPERTY UNE --- -- �• ARE HYDRANT 52 OECTRICAL METER 0 \ (MINIMAL DEMOLITION 2 / /� / / / / g�Engineering CENIETLNE REQUIRED FOR WIDENING) / / �/ Planning En in WATER BLOWOFF awea ROVER JUNCTION BOX / A `*� tf "•rs� \1/ /\\ WATER METER ® HVAC UNIT ® CREEK CENTERLINE - - SO WATER VALVE W ROVER TRANS MER 0 CUNB �?"� WELL CASING ® STREET UGHi '� EDI£OF PAVEMENT n_ '" I / / '� / Portland,OR SANITARY SEVER CLEAN OUT ott TOFPHCNE/TBEMI VAULT EF EASEMENT \`v a / SPDC TANK 0 TOFPHONE/TBEMSON MEER ® / / / 503.224.9560 360.695.7 LYNCH STYLE CATCH BARN ® SIGN FENCE UNE EXISTING �d ` Vencawar WA WA DGE SidAl SENB2 NPNHIXE ® BOLLPAD O GRAVEL OEU ---------------- MANUFTUfIED REMB BOALL VEGETATION WITHIN ASUNDARY. .SEE SURVEY Y FOR ALLI' A' ` '. �/OQ'�' AID A �::}i!;1>l 1 ,. _ _ l j 206.]49.9993 MAILBOX HE FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT NETLAND DELINEARON —MB—wl�wle—MB— IY -M 1`4 -J/ !I HOME PARK UNDERGROUND UTILITIES(AND /� _ \ -- T _ MA�. APPURTENANCES)TO BE / /O KEN PROTECTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY {{:: 2} AND NOTED OTHERWISE 13 TREE,,,, 4 �y =" IF ` Client •" r _ Mm LLC REMa 8(/ ,, 1 _ 50 CONGER ST. 25"/TREE P, / 34h PI :4t A T EUC3B'P Ofl 97b2 �; O /„ �,r I (son Ana am I 26 TREE�" ' /O / v a 28 PROTECT RIRO ECT IV NG --.ewo.w._.... REM(36iREE 1 / M RREXISTiRESIDENiiALAM LY rI t E {��•� \_-- -�....�..�.. —�,- - _ _gin __ - ,.: -�,.--- c0 O 10 ((a V30'TREE / ,,,,,rel/I h? w,>url G I ht;s uE�I I „y„ I �p -- ----- -------- ----------------------- t -- t , REMOVE - ------ D "" .........,,. DENSE SHRUBBERY WITHIN " .PROPERTY LIMITS TS,f A iLES FIL - WOODLA CROSSING WOODBURN OR v / �I RFB V � EST F 1 NO E: ALL TREES PROPOSED FOR \, REMOVAL ARESMALLER THAN 24" �aF`� `, DIAMETER U LESS NOTEDOTHERWISE LIFT , 1 V`` " ....... V I.. ` B GROWTH BOUNDARY \� �� , v TT TFEC TT T � . eN r REMO (� , 27"TREE �\ /� "� \ I 77 \ \ W �w ti. ♦`♦♦♦ ��, �� \ y v A� � o MEFz,R HE PROD ♦♦ I HES NZIE AND ARE.HE PROPERTY DL � v EXISTING R.V. ��:� A v �`. V -°OUT PRIOR-ITONJMRMISFIOND REMOVE ALL IMPROVE EN iS WITH IYJ 7 / PARK w `�, BOUNDARY. SEE SURVEY FOR \` �� \ / """"'\ 1 I REVISIONS' FURTHER INFORMATION (TREES T "'� '� 8 GREATER THAN 24 CALIPER TO BE \ \ " t REPLANTED PER CITY _... 1 S PLl14waNpELEA .Fi y / �USOM�'' �� REQUIREMENTS IF FOUND, {{{ppp �` I DECOMMISSION SEPTIC SYSTEM PER \ I{ �1 MARION COUNTY REOU IREMENTS. 1l /� REMOVE ALL IMPROVEMENI)S WITHIN 27"OTREE J" �L ' k BOUNDARY.SEE SURVEY FOR r I O lT .I Z-0 FURTHER INFORMATION. O REMOVE ,. I\\ \ �y „ „ 45 TREE=J \�`` "\ (�� \T \. „1. r----------- 1. OTE T T. ,, , ,/`— `0 - �" - - - _ 1 Illy O �O ♦ .......'DECOMMISSION 31 TRE T%;E•„ lt,, - "` �y � - '--' ♦ WELL PER STATE / v E'.. �yy \ l 1 _ W`.�C� ?c+ g'" O .,� OF OREEMENTS ✓. 6„ ®, s---- :----��s- -- :----,��- ,\ ..,,.,, �4 \� 1C, ' t1',IGH_ REO IR ;`pz E I ROCK WPL4.` t' , y� I SHEET TITLE: tt R s , T GRAVEL A �.,� �'1, C\ PLAN DEMOLITION o r, �ETE _ ITT ,�.l � 1 42rI'Ceo \� ry FF \1 �ICE . / HIE TOP OF BANK IS NOT Q / DEFINED BEYOND THIS POINT_ ,,, , \ r WERAND DEVELDPS INTO PONDS m'�,r A�. O ♦ �IAFAE ,c Q DRAWN BY.GIM F AND MARSHES ��' t \ `♦ / " \ DECOMMISSION \ ♦ 1 l ♦� CHECKED BY.GIM SEPTIC SYSTEM PER >>` MARION COUNTY .♦ '"' SHEET REQUIREMENTS w�w ♦ DEMOLITION PLAN " e/ \ , ' IIIIIII C2.0 cso 5G o 25 5G QD 2dG EXISTING b + SEE SHEET MATCHLIN - OUTLETSV O�� , ��r ___ E C20A WOODBURN -- ,E — JOB NO. 2150567.01 REVISED06/29/x{ 111-N1,��° -E°s�:x," 204 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/06/17am aslr„ „ mliiil PlanningEngineering rt rc actnin um-ntenrso � MATCHLINE_ SEE SHEET C2.0 503224.9560WA V360696.]879 `j�• 1 '� www.mclmze.com �iS y MACKENZIE Glimt II I,LLC.,....a.. 520 CONGER ST. (QE RIG E,OR 97402 (s4�)Karam / %J, J �I REM VE BOUNDARY.ALLSEESUURVEYNFOR WITHIN i LEGEND FURTHER INFORMATION. ALL 1 I' UNDERGROUND UTILITIES(AND I ,I APPURTENANCES)TO BE Prn'ect DECIDUOUS THE GAS METER PH PROTECTED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY I GAS VALVE I -I NOTED OTHERWISE. EGD CONIFEROUS ME WRE ANCHOR F— 1 ROE HYDRANT �pQ URUTY POLE al'I Ln$ WOODBU RN,OR ARE DEPARTMENT CONNECRON }�, POWER VAULT © MIER BLOWOELECTRICAL METER FF v wea d � WATER METER Pole.uNcnrn Box EXISTING WATER VALVE A POWER RISER ® "� .... .. DOUBLE(HECK VALVE ® POWER TRANSFORMER 0 WOODBURN xnnR VAULT o STREET urHi OUTLETS � J NR RELEASE VALVE TELEPHONE/TEIEWSION VAULT D I , I.., SANITARY aWIR CLEAN OUT �' TELEPHONE/TEIEWSION JUNCRON BOX I I\li SANITARY SERER MANHOLE 7EIEPHONE/TEIEWSION RISER EXISTING® I PRIVATE STORM SEVER CLEAN OUT 'p` SIGNAL AINCIION BOX ® I ?✓q STORM SEVER CATCH GAIN ® SON PROPERTY STORM SEVER MANHOLE BOLLARD �• I /1 MAILBOX 0 FOUND PROPERTY COINER MONUMENT RICHT—OF—WAY UNE —— 1 I BOUNDARY UNE ——— PROPERTY UNE •., CENTBUNE r DITCH CURB EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT FENCE UNE I � GRAVEL EDGE ___ ___ r POWER UNE ——P"a F — OVERHEAD WRE ———oNw I Z TEIFPHONE UNE ———� TEIFNSION UNE —— GAS UNE IIT li STORM SEWER UNE •••••••••• �µ'.....".... SANITARY SEWER UNE m. el W I� WATER UNE ©pL WETLAND DEUNEARON —WTP WTB— Q 'N' L xtcn�5 x[ `Eo Fn I [olRa�.mNCS M[i 7RPRIC SIGNAL WRE ———rs I _ V I "�wo REP FoDU D IN IRHOUR OREWRIN MANNER,1N I REVISIONS aovxc I Dore`" 3 xEN9m5 f- 1 20 so o DEMOLITION PLAN So imGG SHEET TITS: _ DEMOLITION LINFBBT, PLAN I I_ ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION DRAWN BY.-GIM CHECKED BY:MWB SHEET C2.0A JOB NO. 2150667.01 REVISED 06/29/17G1WJV 1 Zp5 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/017 , BUILDING COUNT 13 BUILDINGS.. (24 APT.PER BUILDING,12 IN BUILDING W/REG CENTER \ LEGEND AND LEASING OFFICE) DECIDUOUS TREE GAS METER -- RICHT-OF-WAY UNE PARKING COUNT 800 PARKING STALLS• -- -- COVERED 282(SHADED) GJY N1flE ANCHOR ADA 13 (SHADED) I lW BOUNDARY CINE —-- -- WHEELCHAIR USER ONLY'STALLS / / / CONIFEROUS 7PoI (INCL x ) UpUn POLE - -300 Archlt@CtUre^^InterlOVs PROPERTY UNE -- - UNCOVII2E0 SEE DETAIL 8 ARE HYDRANT i EIFCTRICAI METER 221 ON C21A FOR / 2 / /\ / / / Planning Engineering FLOOD IFNI--Y BIKE PARKING 84 SPACES ENLARGEMENT `v/ 'w WATER BLOWOFF POVER JUNCRON BOX �_ \ ` / J / CREEK CENTERUNE APARTMENT Caurvi VISION` ARAN WATER METER HVAC UNIT I BEDROOM 28 APARTMENTS ` / / Q WATER VALVE POVER TRANSFORMER CURB - 2 BEDROOM 159 APARTMENTS \ \ iREANGLESE- �1 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS WELL CASING STREET LIGHT -LT'T`EDGE OF PAVEMENT - 4 BEDROOM 18 APARTMENTS `t \ .3�t 30'x30(TYP)/ 7 / 7 / / Por lor4 OR SANITARY SEVER CLEAN OUT TEIFPHONE/TETEMSON VAULT --300 ------- EASEMENT ------------- TOTAL UNITS 300 APARTMENTS -�_\ 503.224.9560 SPDC TANK TEIFPHONE/IBEN90N Po9:A 11.NOTE. ALL PARKING STALL STRIPING i0 BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY '+rro n ` l / W 360.6952679 FENCE UNE w -„ LYNCH STYLE CATCH BA9N � ® SICK OF WOO BURN W.D.O.SECTION]OS.Ox.K. SEE DETAIL 9 O SHEET G2.IA. SeettlR WA STORM SEWER NANHOIE BIXLPAp GRAVEL EDGE •.NOTE UNITS TYPES ARE TO COMPLY WITH O S S C SECTION 1107 AND I.C.C. \\ _ ry 1.' "' _ 206.249.9993 MNIROX MAIL FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT WETLAND DEUNEARON —MW—WF�WIB—MB— All 7.1 CHAPTER 10 A MINIMUM OF 2%OF RIE UNIT COUNT(6 UNITS)ARE i0 BE T \ �r F�yO " WWW.cl nZ com ' TYPE A i0 COMPLY a:J ODL A N E) -- -- --— GARBAGE AND RECYCLING m EXISTING a " '° ` '�Y AVENUE MAC K E N Z I E MINIMUM PARKING STA11 PAVING SYSTEM BUILDINGS ARE TO BE PROVIDED WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER /� o f :HIT PA�MENT BIHE RAS 0 s srEM PER oss.c.9m.zs' MANUFACTURED a's I' �1 ..e p iNl<KNE95 ro BE z ASPnxr II. i ' CGiCRETE PAVEMENT 19.225.]0 ar 9fi PARKING Sino LENGTH(FT.) :,mp I W T (wALKs/nRlvEwnrs) j MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TABULATIONS HOME PARK N [t I "-----„ Cl�mt SITE LIGHT p z �j I �' „.,., Mm LLC OtnVIL s1RFncwc PARKING sine BUMP srGP - LOT AREA DEDICATED NEi BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER nw I I 1 -- „, ,,;,,, "' 540 CONGER ST. (GROSS) RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA UNITS ACRE pOi w, 7 / I I __ 7- EVC�F 11A 97402 25.59 AC 2.21 AC 23.38 AC 300 12.83 o a Z 1 / I -- / I _ w EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5'ACCESSORY W SETBACK(SIDE) _..1�•�,�.� � — �+.�.�. -- —— —— - -- N GARBAGE AND LING 3fi'BUILDING a m � ' _ SETBACK(SIDE) 77 5'PARKING 1 I I \ SETBACK(SIDE) \ 1 TO BESCREENEDCITH I I DETENTION I —_ —— _ _ — `- TIF__� / -\ ��—POND — 55 24 �--_ 9 �� 1--� WALLS(TYP) (TYP) _ — 22.5' � "" � OWY I v ss — PART OF II1 j/ I zzSo, - 24' RESIDENTIAL J— / _ ® PROPERTY �j Wre�Mle� 11\ ll z� J 0 - TYP g V ss_ee>oeess eeee \ (LANDSCAPE ONLY) D 6'TYP I TYP RIGHTS TYP 24' RIGHT-OF-WAY I PrGle�t .. s \ NC' LIMI D /j ��` � l♦ Tom. ..... I'....... ss _ se sq 81 N //DISTUs of / _e IRBANCE WODD9URN•OR , ,; / �/j �f v TYPI I RED CENTER ,� /z O I LEA ING OFFICE 2 r / I rr'P ° PEDEs2 a za SPA'` - -- \� ��( PROPOSED ENTRANC AN I POOL O 24' \ 1 ('/ j'' RESIDENTIAL / / +,,,�``��•.a' �� : �///T, a"a� �• �� E /�,�� '� �'R � ° DEVELOPMENT /�.. 'ljJ) , / TQ4�1�3' �, DETENTION 35 t DETENTION& // , // /?�2 j�//// \` /.��> // POND M .. CONVEYANCE SWALE ' ,� ,��•\ \ am LIMITS OF (TVP) FLOODPLAIN �... � ✓/��.��Att. 2. 26' (TYP) nt^Ty \ I I t rm „?° ,r f V'? v ♦ Vii,, i A V Y /; /' '♦ ETER *♦,/ /� PERIMi` \\ VISION A 1 \ / RANCE TRIA S 1 �� vv F _\\ \,�� rYP 244' I (TYP)OO, \/ o "r / 0 v\ �� 9 m N3 URBAN / I TYP GROWTH i 5 1 ° 3 ♦ i♦ �� ♦ / ti EaEs�nYn ze' BOUNDARY { P i 50 WETLA io; ,v j%/i// / ��i9 ♦ � SETBACK a 41 lo, N "p� �J° \♦\\'\\ ///// � ///� `\\. \\\ 29.15' ,q `I (SIDE) .v a '� '° .♦ ♦ \\ ��- �/ � �� ♦� ♦\ EXISTING I o ✓P N �, °°s `\ ♦ �♦♦ 'AGS e ///�PG�\� // /, naen I 0 M N „ R.V.PARK /i'° / / R ♦� TYP Q i W I HEST DR-RIE,ARE,HE FN°FENTY AT w !F r: + 5 ti J° �..:.\ \;� /;!/ 4>,�'}Y//,/�/ \ ♦♦ \ G R 12a Z I cK NZE "°ARE PAT'A BE ueEo t tae+ a ,C,,ur a :•.,so \ \ � K TYP NA°nourPve ouEDwu" j 20 Z EV15I0N5: I TTA"PERMIRAION MANNER, 50 B1W1FFER ND R MEMS nEN4wG DFLEA DRIVEWAY SEE INC 1 / TW49r' \ �� r j/ PAVED DR /j// \/\j/j/', ♦Q ..\\� 'moi ,� I.. E AND ENTRY AREA / GAT d f _ I p F^ ♦ /�j /��' /j I z 20' 0]030]031::: T,' Ait ♦v ��/j/j� gi i Qe �� •�� sETBncK 30]5 H0]0 A ]°3 A/ a `.H N I v3D• �w > >� ,, ,,,,,,;,,,, A.w ♦, Al TYP VISION CLEARANCE p RELOCATE 10' I„r / ///'♦/ / \\' \ \CIN ti TRIANGLES 10'.10'(TYP) ? / UTILITY SETBACK moi✓'- // / ///�//�// Q\ \ 29 C�B�NETS (SIDE) I // `\\ \\ QR'�1P� ��`.� I+ <; SHEET SITEPLANi. /i/ TT, PROPOSED R.V. (TYP) p ♦v �x9' �� r/ ' STORAGE �i/°o/O/ 5 0,/ ( x ovv v �, I°1 ' '20'SETBACK / "'/i/ij//�/� /i /// O♦ A a I (FRONT) FACILITY / /' V / ��// / /%//7 ♦♦V - ) I 1 ! 9Cf / / Ez, ��i 1 / RECREATIONAL VEHICLE(R.V.) STORAGE LOT ///�'' j v♦ ( J I I l LOT AREA NON-BUILDABLE ry0N BUILDABLE NET BUILDABLE 45'ft.V.STALLS 30'R.V.STALLS PASSENGER CAR STALLS ACRE I / 1 (GROSS) (NETUNO/STREPAI/ (SETBACKS) AREA (12'x 45) (12'x 30') STALLS(9':19') (BUILDABLE) "// / ,/./FI€,T4apF BPJ9K� 8.91 AC 5.38 C 0.89 AC 2.fi4 AC 29 98 fi 50 '*n.: \ //// �11E ¢TMIINru IN N \ 49 ii?? ', % ,1r I DRAWN BY:GIM INCLUDES ONE IE �� G� Qyl \ \ ``\ // ';i r, J I _ / IN ACCESSIBLE '''' CHECKED BY:GIM / STALL ONETRIPEO ", ,iii/ /�/ a1F.0 // ;\'.��\`.., / y / SHEET / / SITE PLAN TT, a / SO o zs so 100 2GG //� // //i m-cv ci Imo- C2.1 WOODBURN . � / // / � MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C2.1A IN PERT // I 5G OUTLETS o IT: ', �D, I i I I JOB N0. 2150567.01 REVISED 06/29/xr{{ 206 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/06/17 Q K aK aaK lr„�o 1® 50Architecture--Interiors Planning Engineering \ // /j i _ MATCHLINE- j/ %% �.� `��, f I I SEE SHEET C21 W LL_ ` � r `I ?I Q ��/ to Portland,OR /Q �.f f W 5032249560 Venmuver.WA r ' 0 360.69.7879 y. 'N' 1_ t Z 7 o I m F 6Bdtt10WA .yDq�� W 206.]49.9993 iZ www.mclmze.com J al al �a W MACKENZIE 17/ Climt '. \ p / //i i" , .. // /ii,�ji I Q 520 LLC `\� 520 LLCCONGER 8T. �ij//j(�..jT.,fi�`i jj //,;j �j//j// I-"-•�I �" (54RIG�B'E��97402 ,.; 31 2 ARNEY LANE(WEST OF CREEK) SQUARE OR ROUNDED OP9. TIONS ,��;:< /i /i,�ii�% /// /'� � I I • ,`(a)EXISTING 42.: \ / ;/;•%, / /" / - �/� Ip PIPE CULVERTS IN FEET) —- W It. ` I...�,\ ,�9„�-•-aA«/�/,,,,//�;j/Oj//////i�//i/i,,,, I I� 1444,. ii �. 1, 50' m WHEEL 5' 6'i 5.5i 1 5' 12 12 4' 4.5' STOP ^• - 1 z w �1 rc wW�lII o�fI o u oI J f tWOODLAND D D z ` o CROSSINGg PARKING SPACE STRIPING w $ =I �' m o w000euRN,oR C2. N.T.S. I - - IS a d "I ol3 z WOODBURN I I I a l a l 4 OUTLETS LETS I I i W VARIES '.. Imo- I --I-VARIES - / a I PRIVATE - Ii PROPERTY p ARNEY LANE(CREEK CROSSING) I LOCATED DITCH DRAIN I �I 1 InOn= l0 IF END SIDEWALK "\ QOLgNO I 4 Cf I CURB RAMP(1:12 MAX) C2.1 � ERLIN I 5 SAWCUT EXISTING \ v 6'WIDE uNDING �\ �/ I 35' S' 45' 22' 24.5' 10.5' ��_�. PAVEMENT -\ i I x = �R25' - ...CURB RA`12 MAX) R25' JOIN EXISTINGI O z 0 I 8'WIDE LANDIN CURB&SIDEWALK o < a u rco o u "� I I mQ WE a o u 4 Lu 55 Z FI I. r STppZ I Cz, V I I I 14 g I Nz E Ea � ©��k��s FE�RREh DRAW N o ARE To.PROPER"pI .Q I, TMn a`aEP po"oucEo N"rwPPANCRE SEE SHEET C2.1 WI, EISS WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR LEGEND REVISIONS: STEVEN STREET+WOODLAND AVENUE rad ARNEY LANE(CONNECTION TO EXISTING) ,E g a�� , SITE PLAN-ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION C21 0 0 6 o xo w =_"?p TE / C'2 50 0 25 50 100 100 IN FEET (IN FEET 1,,,m- l0 At I,.. (Iry ET) I min Fe so r �� 70' 2 fi' S 22' 22' 17' SHEET TITLE: VARIES(50'MIN) J Jwz SITE PLAN VARIES 20. 3 3 - �z - = ARNEY LANE VARIES VARIES 14'} ,, r ,'MIN CROSSING AND 26.5'MIN 5' fi' 12' 12' 8'MIN 11' 7.5' 6• 6' o l Iw l a CONNECTION �z iw wz 1z - i= o a�l to ol= i to P w p u MAINTAIN EXISTING DRAINAGE W W fA DITCH IN PLACE. PROVIDE CURB o a o � o a ,x SLOTS FOR DRAINAGE. BREAK o < Iw r CURB AT EXISTING DRIVEWAYS. -c==s- --- ---- ---- ---- ------ '.. DRANK BY.-GIM PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL WALL -� CHECKED BY:GIM SHEET STEVEN STREET CONNECTION WOODLAND AVE.WIDENING ARNEY LANE(EXISTING AT TERMINUS) (/� C2. a a s a xa a C2 s a x.s s 10 xa C21 Ia o s Ia 20 w C2.1A (IN FEEm) (IN FEET) (IN FENm) 1 1—= 10 fL 1,nch= 5 It. JOD NO. vaft7•01 REVISED 06/29/17G1WJV 111,A,R,NPFR 1111SARNIIII, RPTfaISSERN 207 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL O4/O617t� 7 / LEGEND DECIDUOUS FREE cns METER -- MEN r-DF-wnv LINECONIFEROUS 1REE ——— ——— GVY W,FFICIRE ANCHOR BOUNDARY LINE \ (' / v / POLE !(/ Architecture Interiors PROPERTY LINE FIRE HYDRANT ELEcrRICAL METER Planning Engineering WATER BLOWOFF POWER JUNCIFON BOX CENTERLINE / Co WAFER METER HVAC UNIT CREEK CENTERLINE WAFER VALVE POWER TRANSFORMER CURB "• . //� �� / / WELL CASING STREET LIGHT -- EDGE OF PAVEMENT SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT TELEPHONE/FELEVISION VAULT `,_ I/E i / \ 503.224.9560 EASEMENT ETHIC TANI TELEPHONE/FELEVISION RISER _ LYNCH S1YIE CATCH BASIN - SIGN FENCE UNE \ \ / Venca695 WA " / 360.695.7679 STORM SEWER MANHOLE BOLLARD GRAVEL EDGE {,y I Seel6e,WA TI MAILBOX FOUNOSURVEYMONUMENT wenANDDeuNEAnoN —wta—wls—ma—wta— EXISTING �..w�D4N�gV� � �� T _ MACKENZIE� T/ C 206748998 FINISHED FLOOR FEE MANUFACTURED �i ELEVATION Qum". f HOME PARK , "� W`� T h ��I�� o CONCERT50 30; _�„ Lf.„ MWF,LLC E 974M d� ixISTING SI GLE FAMILY j RESIDENTIAL A� ,170.7 �� ' � � � �� D � _ ti9 ' � xsx `� 7 $ ISO. A 7jJ iJ7 / A Q I V PrOie�t \ FFE-17a3,'\ A 116 ria �+ WOODLAND e.e� . �..,...,.. ... � CROSSING \� I.Sx /C \ WOODBURN,OR FFE=175.7 B/ ` F 7� . _J 1.ix PIE-177A \T 5 170.... 176 FFE-176.5 ' r I/ T Iq ❑ 00 f ` . . 1 F DET �I� 176.7 OND(T 1 69. . 1 �... .. 170.7176.D \ �\\ \,, ._.... , r: , IF 173.5 FFE-177.5 ,�O ��•' of) `,..,,, ♦ h 173.5 \,, 636 CNO GRADING 168.7 .11 1, / / / F " PROPOSED 1 ( / FFE-176.6 1 WETNTEA EO URBAN ` l 1 ,OUNDARIES 1 it.ex GROWTH Wy j ti �� BOUNDARY , ,o �� h S��i 156.LSI 3 � � � u _,76.9 D. .X` HO 9y�F v EXISTING iia 17.0 \ �X` R.V.PARK 1G e � �Aw`N AaE�;�E�FwTFLRTY DF �� "`> e. � 1 FFE— 1 Q K W v ANO o E No,,o BE TIED E S o eE OWG'R N vMANNER,I \ \ � �� I l FFE-177.0 \ z �.WTnouT PR OR WRITTEN Pwn ss oN \\\\ Z REVISIONS: I � R 1 L .� 167. 'S• T ,_ ...... ,�Q \ �� s�m oxs a SIN. rr re 1.1x` ' I \ ds — W F Hz A /�I 173 5\(,' kFE-176.6 1 ¢� / /� a;�X, \`\ "f?r I SHEET TITLE: \ f' BL V � �A o GRADING PLAN r, / ,� �' i � YY J �� 1 1, 7• ♦ A „ I 1` =175.5` GRADING QUANTITY ESTIMATE _ SITE cur FILL NET ` ) II ` �. '��_ I FFE—t75.6 ft.V. 3.000 Cy ].000 Cy 0 Cy +,,, / \ I':I1 GS H f 11 RESIDENTIAL lfi 000 CY IB 000 CY 0 cY +.. TI f Y DR B I ROAD 1,300 CY 1,]00 CY 0 CY ""; ATI/ I \16 I�i 10 F(T \ {677 Y 1 / \1�k AVM BY. J✓L7 IllAv'S / TOTALS 20,300 CY 20,]00 CY 0 CY '+ CHECKED BY:GIM L T, T 1 SHEET v. .._ c2z +, 1 t� GRADING PLAN "E-A" ' � 50 0 25 50 100 C2.2 200 EXSffING MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C2.2A WOODBURN I. FEET ft, OUTLETS � ,; �..,,.� ✓ w:—" I� JOB NE' 2150567.01 REVISED 06/29/x{ R�„,��I° T °s�:x,°” 208 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMffTAL 04/06/17 Architecture Interiors 1 RED5 � \ 1 Planning�Engineering 125' �� —= S MATCHLINESEE SHEETC2.2 I � 'h. O ; O O O - Poftnd,,OR 603224. 80 60.695.7879 \ '\, tfi9,y 3~ a 35.M.,WA 168.7 3 206749.9993 www.mclmze.com q� I ,l ,. MAX MACKENZIE ---- ��.r — ---- ':; z T �r�l' /L7 C'7L�. ' I 1fi5.9 ----_- ! s Climt . .......a.. \Y`� .Ate,... ma 9 — 1fi3.4 \ \ ` .�A I I IN , � 9 '� �I �CONOEB sr. Euoa�,aB e7402 r2 FILL SLOPE AT RV SITE c�,� 1 w r ! NO PROPOSED FILL WITHIN 4 I 6. DELINEATED WETLAND 2 10 0 5 10 20 40 1640 0 4 BOUNDARY ihl., � ,' (3)42 CULVERTS ,,..... i au1 Y ry \ 1636 m .III \�'"...IES, 9 lA,. 1fi6.5 50' LEGEND // 24 RMIN 26 RMAX IES r l 167.2 Oz Project fiQ8 h WOODLAND DECIDUOUSwee cns METER . < w Gs VALVE )1/ !� o z CROSMG w a m' w CONIFEROUS FREE cuv wlRe ANCHOR ,'"'^ ,y t ,„� 169.6 o WOODBURN OR FIRE HYDRANT UTILITY POLE / !J2 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION POWER VAULT y ,'`TF, o a 0- ELECTRICAL METE LEVEL GRADE WAFER METER POWER J NC110N RBOX EXISTING I ,a7 3 - AT PE WATER TER E STRIAN o J WATER VALVE POWER RISERODBURN / '0 AREAS(iYP) 2'MIN 3 WOBENCH DOUBLE CHECK VALVE POWER TRANSFORMER 1 / WATER VAULT STREETLIGHT - OUTLETS -- ------AR RELEASE VALVE TELEPHONE/TELEVISION VAULT ! 177.4fpT �/�T STORMWATER PD. (TIP)SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT TELEPHONE/IELEVI5ION JUNCTON BOX / \ EXIS I ING -DEPTH V , "' -- SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TELEPHONE/IELEVI5ION RISER A a STORM SEWER CLEAN OUT SIGNAL FUNCTION PDX 179J J... PRIVATE STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN SIGN 178 PROPERTY STORM SEWER MANHOLE BOLLARD �I' lrFILL SLOPE AT RESIDENTIAL SITE MAILBOX - FOUND PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTn I I 2 10 0 5 10 20 40 II RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BOUNDARY LINE -- '/ �� ,I I (1N....1 ' 1 1 inch= TO It. PROPERTY LINE I(<I I 11 l CENTERLINE 'I JI`Iol DITCH CURB 50' EDGE OF PAVEMENT I�° 180.2 180.2 3 7 i 1 I �IN VARIES 29.5' VARIES EASEMENT FENCE LINE - GRAVEL EDGE N NW. POWER LINE IR U/a ? x a a a OVERHEAD!MRE IL I I - TELEPHONE LME '.III TELEVISION LINE I I 3 I� 3'MAX RETAINING WALL GAS LINE EF II / I (DOES NOT OCCUR STORM SEWER LINE / 0' 7' ! OVER CULVERTS, MIN I 42'i SEE SHEET C2.1 A) SANITARY SEWER LINE E r - _ _ _-_-_- WRIER LINE 4 _ 6 MIN (3)42-CULVERTS WETLAND DELINEAPON —WTB—WTB— I/' ,III PROPOSED 8'PUBLIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL!ARE - WATER MAIN Y.p[P..0 o E ry R[o WITHOUT FLUOR FWRL"N PERNIANION I �4� ROADWAY AT CULVERT CROSSING REVISIONS: oA 2 1cWvaa a�xIXl . 10 0 5 10 20 40 91E£i ]inch=E 10 It. T� GRADING PLAN—ARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION loo 200 SHEET TITLE: GRADING PLAN T INSET, ARNEY LANE '1°°°- 50 Ct CROSSING AND CONNECTION DRAWN BY.-GIM CHECKED BY:GIM SHEET C2.2A JOB NO. 2150667.01 REVISED 06/29/1 G1WJV 1 �R�. N�,RWIIRR�WNI INt oA.1a sP, 209 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/06/17 l�1 o.o �. \ \ LEGEND DEaouous FREE CTLs METLR a RILwr GF wnv LINE —-- - — �� „�� -::A f� O- 1��l GUY WIRE ANCHOR BOUNDARY LINE EXISTING 16'PUBLIC CONIFEROUS MEE ,,, CD / Unury POLE m, �� n. Architecture-Interiors PROPERry LINE . FIRE HYDRANT Q ELECTRICAL METER p �' 9 W Engineering WATER BLOWOFF meo POWER LUNO➢ON BOX 51 CENTERLINE �\ wO CON EC PUBLIC O�EXIS NSG �/,� Co Planning En in WATER METER HVAC UNIT ® CREEK CENTERLINE OO MANHOLE / A WATER VALVE W POWER TRANSFORMER .�1® CURB •• A ^�� WELL CASING ® STREET LIGHT �T"t�= EDGE OF PAVEMENT O l l r A PortMntl,OR '•� a PUBLIC CT TO EXISTING B' SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT TELEPHONE/TELEVISON VAULT EASEMENT ��\ PUBLIC WATER MAIN / A 503.724.9560 sEPnc EPHONE/rELENSTON RISER LYNCH TYANKANK G1TCH BASIN ®® STLLIGN FENCE LINE " __ / Y360.695.7 TYLE WA STORM SEWER MANHOLE ®� BOLLARD GRAVEL EDGE EXISTING \ ` �� _- EXISTING B'PUBLIC 206.749%.9993 MAILBOX r? FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT WETLAND DEUNEAFON —eTe—wTe—M'Ie—eTe— MANUFACTURED RELOCATE EXISTING CATCH ( / '^�\' _ / WATER MAIN - i �: www.mcknzesom BASIN IN DITCH AND / -� POWER LINE --M SITE LIGHT 4 _ HOME PARK RECDNNEcr To 12PUBLICI / -•, -._ w _ M AC K E N Z I E OVERHEAD WIRE -an GAS LINE - STORM SEWER '�' _ -,,-.n - - ;.� TELEPHONE LINE -m STORM SEWER LINE - 'n / 5'P.U.E. / / W _ ,an,_,,_ _ �_ Client L•^ u_ SANITARY SEWER LINE - wi m7 520 OIXJCBi ST. TELEVISION LINE -n EXISTING 12 LIJ „" �^,.. EIKIB"E,QR 97402 WATER LINE - -M� EXISTING 12'STORM } - SEWER sA"7"R`sEw \ li SAN�ARYNG 12* CONNEL<T TO E1IS NG \ I,� 2 PUBLIC N DIE _-- r MAN ole P ixISTING SI GLE FAMILY �� .e PUBLIC IuNHDLes�GH -BASINS. RESIDENTIAL :AND PIPE 'POND l FIRE \ ,•^W'°. ( l CONN ON -___�___ ____ �` I I —�� n wAPUB RBUC Bow I 1 DEP / III I J I _ s P.0 E. \ Prole t �Ni —.,_— � ,�v WOODLAND �———— ♦� (T P.) aNr CROSSING �. w \ PUBLIC FIRE C STORM TO CRs " WOODBURN,OR 16PUBLIC WATER \a I _ \\ \ �, \T .. n HYDRANT(TW. I I....MAINNASEMENT(TYR) B oil F„✓ m• \\ ��.;. h L — —w. PUBLIC FIRE I I a"°,,,,e ) \ ' HYDRANT(TRP. I ...., �... I T P _ A 1 "'P�;;� .. . 1 I ^. SITEU...�` €. l PUBLIC STREET CATCH "'ABASI S.MANHOLES. AND 1 lu \ r (TYD•� r' I Y PIPE W v E <� € POND,; �� PUBLIC ERRE YD ADAb h \ XIf \ \ A M HYDRANT(Tw.l RANT(Tw.) lI •. �' "� w u f \ 'A,, LI FIRE \\ „ F �^ 1011 C A GO 1pPO D 1.. ., 5 P.U.E. Ems,.11" F \ STORM Toau URBAN T(ETRT)$\ M16 PUBLIC WA AIN EASEMENT GROWTH fl Fff\ BOUNDARY v `nomn- \ � HYDRANT,(TTP.) l• 5 �"I .� ku VARNz -, . � EXISTING \ STORM OUTRALI `� II �T tV A ” G \ S'PRIVATE ,,,. O ul R cHT�ResERveo k ---, THESE DRAW NGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF R.V.PARK " �A SANITARY µTe TO CREEK \ \ 'k G e'Pueu EWER ° K I I I MAcI<ENz e ANO ARE NOT To Re ueeo s� T wA ore REPR000YEo N ANY MANNER ATL \ GIT \ v E wlTnouT Pe TRP.) `V..1`' W. � \LS., L",� • \� I� I REVIS[ONS'oR wRTTEN PERM° � 0 ON 5'PIU.E. z r ,\� >rP o/ \\ ( I I s 9EMSwpi GSTTEA \ \ 4 I„ I SoRNI tr\ T,. / / ADV �� I f 1 I I PUBLIC STREET LIGHT (ESTA L °, .r H �� I I (TYP) PueucE Jnr o � REEK STORM Cq ♦ �� vt y HYDRANT T LYtEIX —�ti, — -- a 1", �. — A� v / -�- �- o SHEET TITLE: � '; � �\`i� \ DOVAR L!A I � � I UTILITY PLAN J . qSt \Li��3ATER MAN PUBLIC "'VVV I I I PH, VA PUBLIC \—,, / /, J I I AI i � ''+ '\ ♦ �,� \ f / P` f A f I I 'I� DRAM BY.GIM PNDP.U.E .I I CHECKED BY:GIM I EL f SHEET I UTILITY PLAN zaG 2 n _ C2.3 so o zs so loo EXISTING '\ �" " II . MATCHLINE—SEE SHEET C2.3A H FEET i WOODBUROUTLETS \ STORM TO�c w� w�:�— I doe NO. 2150567.01 REVISED 06/29/x{ 210 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/06/17 mliiil rc rtecture-ntenors Planning�Engineering r ,_.jam A I I II ', I I I MATCHLINE- 1 SEE SHEET 2.3 ra 503224.9560 " „;, 5 IP I, I ""-^--_- Vexmu-WA �M\ �,,,, ' j I ��"•"`. 360.695.]879 `' PUBLIC STREET CATCH 206749.9993 www.mClalzOCOm BASINS,MANHOLES, I, AND I2' PIPE MACKEN2IE, In s I Ip CONNECT TO Climt EXISTING 42" km LLC STORM CULVERT 510 CONGER ST. ��. 5'P.U.E. i (})EXISTING EIKIB'lE,CR 97402 STORM (No 743-=/42.. CULVERTS 8"PUBLIC Iy \ WATER 1 —a,M LEGEND EXISTING i Pro t DECIDUOUS TREE GAS METER ® ,. I �'1' PRIVATE jec „ ELECTRICAL WOODLAND GAS VALVE A. ', SERVICE CROSSING CONIFEROUS TREE GUY WIRE ANCHOR E- FIRE HYDRANT Q UTILITY POLE `a+ � IQC �.......,� 1 I WOODBIiiN,OR FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION }{ POWER VAULT © WATER BLOWOFF aFeO ELECTRICAL METER ® I WATER METER POWER JUNCTION BOX 9 CONNECT TO I WATER VALVE DG POWER RISER ® EXISTING EXISTING 8' J DOUBLE CHECK VALVE m POWER TRANSFORMER ® WOODBURN WATER MAIN II II rlil ..,E WATER VAULT OO STREETLIGHT sC'-1y I� I AR RELEASE VALVE VTBO TELEPHONE/TELEVISION VAULT ET OUTLETS f SANITARY SEWER CLEAN CUT TELEPHONE/TELEVISION JUNCTON BOX L I I E ,T EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ® TELEPHONE/IELEN5ION RISER m I IT T - STORM SEWER CLEAN OUT SIGNAL JUNCDDN DDA ® �I PRIVATE } ORM SEWER CATCH BarIN ® �g JI �i PROPERTY STORM SEWER MANHOLE ® BOLLA+D MAILBOX - FOUND PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENT r I RIGHT-OF-War LINE -- I� BOUNDARY LINE __ STORMI SEVER PROPERTY LINE EXIS IIII I CENTERLINE - PUBLIC II I DITCH WATER I V 4 I CURB EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT FENCE LINE J� GRAVEL EDGE POWER LINE ---� - OVERHEAD WRE e I I TELEPHONE LINE ---m I Jla Z I. TELEVISION UNE -- GAS UNE -- STORM SEWER LINE - TM -- .w iI ij j S SANITARY SEWER UNE - -+� -- I Jjo WATER LINE — —w. —— I �I Z I © ACHENz E WETLAND DEUNEATON —WT6 WTB— S NIAAN x E,HE P-E P o a A o p E x TRAFFIC SIGNAL WRE ---� I �' REPRoouc RseD All WlHOUI PRORFWR N, MRMxSON I I REVISIONS aovxc nre o 4 xEW9M5�� 91E£i I T� UTILITY PLAWARNEY LANE CROSSING AND CONNECTION _ 23 5o a Z5 5o Tao E00 SHEET TITLE: UTILITY PLAN T INFEET, ARNEY LANE j_- 50 " CROSSING AND CONNECTION DRAWN BY.-GIM CHECKED BY:GIM SHEET C2.3A JOB NO. 2150667.01 REVISED 06/29/17G1WJV 1 111-F,N�,Rw�11--INR IN1 o sPAYCIE" 21 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04/017 DEaouou5 FREE cns METER Rluw r-GF-wnv LNF —–– ––— O- GUY WIRE ANCHOR RROPERTY UNE CONIFEROUS 1REE � � / �` , Co unury POLE _ �(/ ', Architecture-Interiors PROPER N uNF _ '_ 2 p� , FIRE HYDRANT ELECTRICAL METER D ° �� / /� / �, , Planning Engineering WATER BLOWOFF POWER JU OOR Box CENTERLINE ��`� �/ // , M Co M M WATER METER HVAC UNIT Ed CREEK CENTERLINE OHO WATER VALVE POWER TRANSFORMER 0 CURB WELL CASING STREET LIGHT K` EDGE OF PAVEMENT �� C , A \ Portlantl,OR SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT TELEPHONE/TELEVISION VAULT I'„] / 503.224.9560 EASEMENT ------------- / SEPTIC TANk TELEPHONE/TELEVISION RISER a FENCE LINE LYNCH STILE CATCH BASIN I I ARM LIGHTING ZONE STATISTICS EXISTING ` `I*M%WA STORM SEWER MANHOLE C), ROLLPRD GRAVEL EDGE CALCULATION Al ACE MINIMUM NAXIMUN(FOOT UNIFORMITY \"��„ ° 206.749.9993 MAILBOX FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT WETLAND DELINEATON f - v a - f - ZONE (FOOT-CANDLE)(FOOT-CANDLE) CANDLE) RAi10 MANUFACTURED ° www.mcknzesom AREA LUMINAIRE W[TH 48W, ROADWAY I 0.3 I HOME PARK ,& , L 0.5 FOOT-CANDLES --------- 5 77>r'[ TYPE SUMEN LED OPTICS ON VPI25' G, R.-ULD!RA E 0.3 0.1 0.8 6.0 A W r. II MACICE NZIE 0.2 FOOT-CANDLES -———- + + - °"'"°""'"”'""°`""° (30'POLE FOR RV STORAGE) 0.1 FOOT-CANDLES AREA LUMINAIRE W[TH 75W, W - _ ""'"' W � Client FOOT-CANDLE SPOT '0,4 3137 LUMEN LED LAMPING, aJ o U Mm LLC TYPE 5 OPTICS WITH HOUSE 1 I �. _ '(� a.. ., ., f� ,„ -- - 520 CONGER ST. SIDE SHIELDS ON 30'POLE I A f I g _ IUCOFl 9742 2 – ixISTING SI GLE FAMILY NST r � �� o-,. ,—,__ �� Co RESIDENTIAL - �. d � N any N A .p .nY� N _. w � f'l j," 1 Project in I w in w,,.\ in N �...•,g f" W p �,.... o' WOODLAND CROSSING . 1 O O* U W W W + —ice WOODBURNr OR ger " o* N N W W o t „Tj +tea + BA A w ' v + p,,_. a d N d a A, o \ a O,W \ �, �' \\ v od J d" W p; If1 „,...rr M1 t, A y o ,°� N \ y * i A T T W TOP' y, ANT OA, ` * o* O* d — %'O 0 0 0 w A J N A W N \+ w -� W C A URBAN . A o � d �-• � N � � O �v GROWTH BOUNDARY \ O N f O�' Y, �\ j\G � // o o\ \\ A Z o+ o o+ o �f �, � d� a UJI O* OA O e O* W W A !r , o d M1 M1 r z o+ o+ o+ \ o+ o � AD A W w A A � � A \ z EXISTING d a a ad ,r \ \ I r* a mi__� ; / A Q ©AjLED R.V.PARK w A A w � 's v A A THpIT DRANNG,ARE THE PROPERTY OF + (.o+ M SASTR E AGO ARE NOT*0 BE USED J �ba N W ) � � DB REPRODUCED N ANY MANNER W / w WITHOUT FR V'A / REVISIONS: WRITTEN YERMe * o* * oA OA o r AU v� -741 ro*� `' :'�, `^ �d W 'ROwswa'p ryE�°0 zq T 1! + o e ✓ IYT o* a d o o o o d ¢ �\ N 0 o+ + + + + AN,I; TN L A � IW �\ I A, �1 �\ 11\ f �V zz UP Ir,fn .Cv tm�Y\ �oN oW SHEET TITLE:/ — PHOTOM OR ETRICSL o+ `\ e PLAN a d I A w ,or of OR o o+� o A w a Ilk �� ilp,to N r . ADDRAWN BY:GIM CHECKED BY.GIM SHEET PHOTOMETRICS PLAN \ `„ YG I C2.3B SO o 25 SO 100 EXISTING WOODBURN I IN 8667) �� , , �M1 f,A,.., �`} ��on sa a OUTLETS n, `W W "AID I ! IBB NO. 2150567.01 ID REVISED 06/29/x{ <11R��-N�AI.IT�R�„A,r,I DAT°a°s�:x," 212 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMffTAL 04/06/17 h LEGEND DECIDUOUS TREE GAS METER RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE —-- --— ~`✓*:,� / n J / / \,/ \/ ` / GUY LNflE ANCHOfl —--—-- \`/ll ((( 7 XIC-/ CONIFEROUS TREE Unun POLE / / t / Architecture a Interiors PROPLRTY UNE BOUNDARY UNE -- I �`��, Q� ARE HYDRANT ELECTRICAL METER \ ^ 2 / �� /\� /� / / / / Planning Engineering WATER BLOWOFF F PIME BOX CENIETWNE /.^, (� WATER METER HVAC UNIT CREEK CLNTLRUNE WATER VALVE POVER TRANSFORMER CURB g NEl1 CASING STREET UGHi '""'-.,. / 7 / f!/ Portla4.9 OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT SANITARY SEVER CLEAN OUT TELEPHONE/IEEMSON VAULT 503214.9560 SEPTI TANK IEEPHONE/MEMSON MEEA EASEMENT 1.,, RJ / /�/)) /�/ Ve—,,�WA LYNCH STYLE CATCH BA360.695.7 9N SICK `"'"«.„„ -. " D��N�� "^w-^-.nom 99 FENCE UNE * --� +�—� ... STORM SEVfiR MANHOLE BOLLARD .,, '../✓i f� 206.]499993 MAILBOX FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT NETLAND DEUNEAnON EXISTING I� _OQ / J www.mcknzesom GRAVEL ET%£ —xla—��N—MN— MANUFACTURED ELEVEN SIGNIFICANT TREES q e E C ,r PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL FOR THE C ,�. .. y y ^,,,,_„: M AC K E N Z I E EXTENSION OF STEVEN STREET I RE OVE7- 24" �'.`..,,,,Y .„, ~� HOME PARK 24 AND `T,°:;,.." client II' , 3 ,.TREE w.. '..-`' LLC REMOVE 1 ..------EX�STING SINGLEFAMILY' I ..�. - — s2ocoru4sRST. REMOVE 1 - - "�'�"... EUC3B�F OA 97402 25"TREE __ y�� ' 6.2s' '/ I .. -- (54D 743-ant _ I REMOVE 7T REE / I -- 3 REMOVE 18", ✓w — —— 3s'TREE 20".za". RESIDENTIAL i I ....... ———— TREE _ „� ..... 30 E ----11111111111 ----- -,—__ I ............... II —Ine_„19 .•.,.• ................� I ..-� .:. , .L... ,� ,l l l...l/ ... ., �,vl ...,;.. ^ �� I l 111 l l i ; � 1 I 11-11 1111� � I� r¢� illy Ptoreee I WOODLAND CROSSING WOODBURN,OR � I / a� ! � EE 1 / "- �' ^° \ �� I URBAN �� GROWTH I� BOUNDARY / \ `REMOVE 27”TREE,* /....... .�/ q I .. / "ED SIGNIFICA T TREES RE /\^ .. �� \\, aM/R PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL FOR THE I ACNENZE zoiT 0 uM RGHT�RESFRVEU t + PROPOSED RV STOR G FACILIJY `F THESE DR-RIE,ARE TUE PHOPEHTY of MnAINz R EU ARE I NOT To MANNER, EXISTING R.V. i �'� �� °�o��P°°oN` ",TE J / PARK REVISIONS: \ ,'\, -✓.. /l \ W N PERM 06 ON 1-'L f /,�� ✓,,.-� �;........ I S�MaxS fl4waNpaEA I REMOVE i...a '- 1 l� '45"TREE t/ \ t� w@\ REMOVE F'b.� I _.... J , ,l!\ J 1 Ell �`��ka^r \ I �� A w -- -- �: �K ,� .. mw SHEET TITLE: rTI I T1 SIGNIFICANT `� I TREE REMOVAL r IT PLAN �i � .,,'' SI NFICANE MORE I NT DIAMETER rMEAS TREES ARE URE005' + "*+„µ /.., ABOVE / J I �.. DRAM BY:GIM CHECKED BY:MWE I.. III I I SHEET / TREE REMOVAL PLAN ^ 411, l , C2.4 50 0 25 50 100 POOR EXISTING c IN FEET 1 WOODBURN I .,n SE HE OUTLETS 1, �1 �1 Joe ND. 2150567.01 oaMA,o o As A AALC1A 1,1 mal%a1 REVISED 06/29/x{ "°`n"`"°"°'� ^°"° 213 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMffTAL 04/06/17 SCREENING SHRUB PLANTING NOTES PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY (IIIIIIIII RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Sf7F IT P1 ANT UNIT VAI UE I. ALL LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING LAYOUT i0 CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE WOODBURN Architecture^^Interiors DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(WDO). I Planning Engineering LOW SCREEN-42"MIN.HEIGHT 2. THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PUNT UNITS SHALL BE MET BY A COMBINABON OF PUNT MATERIALS LISTED IN ILEX CRENATA'COMPACTA' COMPACT JAPANESE HOLLY 38°O.C. 8'X8' 2 TABLE 3.OBA/B OF THE WOO.PLANT UNITS MAY BE GROUPED BUT MUST BE DISTRIBUTED UNIFORMLY -— PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS'ZABELIANA' ZABEL LAUREL 3fi"00 Cc 6'X6' 2 THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.SCREENING BETWEEN USES SHALL COMPLY WITH TABLE 3.06D OF THE WOO. ARBUTUS UNEDO'COMPACTA' COMPACT STRAWBERRY TREE 36°O.C. 6X6 2 3. ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE OF A SIZE UPON INSTALUPON SO AS TO ATTAIN 80%OF • . . . . . GROUND COVERAGE WITHIN 3 YEARS. 4. INSTALLATION OF PLANTS AND IRRIGATION SHALL OCCUR AT THE DME OF DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE A ' -—____ HIGH SCREEN-6'MIN.HEIGHT ° C. CONDITION OF FINAL OCCUPANCY. - Portlen$OR MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE fi0"O. 10'%10' 2 5. ALL NEW PLANTWG AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED BY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.IRRIGATION ZONES TO BE HH \ 503.224.9560 VALVED ACCORDING TO PLANT TYPES,EXPOSURE,AND MICROCLIMATIC CONDITIONS. yencauwr yyp I /I ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE 60O.C. 10'%10' 2 6. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN ANY AND ALL NECESSARY PERMITS REQUIRED FOR TREE AND LANDSCAPE REMOVAL. D J'� 360.695J879 OSMANTHUS HETEROPHYLLUS HOLLY LEAVED OSMANTHUS 60"O.C. 8'X8' 2 7. EXISTING AREAS PROPOSED FOR NEW PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEARED AND LEGALLY DISPOSED UNLESS " ' ' \ Seem;WA NOTED OTHERWISE. \ " +' • 206.7499993 8. C ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY NURSERY STOCK,WELL BRANCHED AND ROOTED,FULL FOLIAGE, y MIXED TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING FREE FROM INSECTS,DISEASES,WEEDS,WEED ROT,INJURIES AND DEFECTS WITH NO LESS THAN MINIMUMS \ ' " B \ www.mcknZecom SPECIFIED IN AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK,ANSI Z60.1. 9. ALL TYPICAL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED BY A LAYER OF ORGANIC MULCH i0 A DEPTH OF 2 i0 "\ '4 MACKE NZ I E.. E COMMON NAME SIP-- -1 IT PI AND 11FT III IIF 3 INCHES. ° .", TGFFc �E 11 I Climt AGER GRISEOM PAPERBARK MAPLE AS SHOWN xs'xzo• 4 LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS—MULTI-FAMILY \ ` ' " M 52COMMST. LLC CARPINUS BETULUS'FASTIGIATA' EUROPEAN EDBUD AN AS SHOWN 30'X10' 4 EUOB'F OR 97402 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD AS SHOWN 30'X30' 4 ( ))747-8111 MET SEQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES DANK REDWOOD AS 910WN 70X30' 10 LANDSCAPE AREA REOUIRED PROVIDED PRUNUS YEDOENSIS YOSHINO CHERRY AS SHOWN 40X80 8 OPEN SPACE 6.9 ACRES I3.11 ACRES QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK AS SHOWN 60'X70' 8 RECREATION SPACE 10.800 SF 15.712 SF SOPHORA JAPONICA JAPANESE PAGODA TREE AS 910" 50'X75' 8 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING AREAS 47,960 SF- 86,597 SF F THUJA PLICATA WESTERN REOCEDPR AS SHOWN 150'X70' 10 9 SHRUBS ANO GROUNDCOVER PLANT UNIT(PU)CALCULATIONS MULTI-FAMILY , a ® BERBERIS NERVOSA GULL OREGON GRAPE 24°O.C. 2'X2' 1 \ �,VIDED P. <11��aaa�� L CORNUS SERICEA'KELSEY[' KELSEY DOGWOOD 24"O.C. 2'X2' 1 SETBACKS ABUTTING STREETS 1,066 1,650 3EQ2UIRED PU PRO CISTUS HYBRIOUS ROCK ROSE 48"O.C. 4'X4' 1 BUFFER YARDS J06 426 DAPHNE ODORA DAPHNE 38'O.C. 4'X4' 1 OFF-STREET PARKING 2.398/24L,40M,OR 80S TREES 9,488/115L,137M,AND 74S TREES \ HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA OA LEAF HYDRANGEA 48°O.C. 6X6 2 COMMON AREAS 16,761 20,393 ILEX CRENATA'COMPACTA' COMPACT JAPANESE HOLLY 36'O.C. 6X6 2 G K ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE 10'O.C. 15'%IS' 2 CORNUS SERICEA REDTIYIG DOGWOOD 48°O.C. 6X6 2 HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR OCEANSPRAY 48"O.C. 8'XIV x LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS—RV STORAGE NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO 36 O.C. 6X6' 2 Prapct MAHONIA ACIIIFOLIUM OREGON GRAPE 38°O.C. 4'X4' 1 LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED PROVIDED PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS PACIFIC NINEBARK 36°O.C. 10'%10' 2 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING AREAS 2,299 SF 24,840 SF \ H I WOODLAND RISES SANGUINEUM RED-FLOWERING CURRANT 48°O.C. 8'X8' 2 CROSSING ° SARCOCOCCA RUSCIFOLIA FRAGRANT SARCOCOCCA 36"O.C. 4'X4' 1 SPIRAEA JAPONICA JAPANESE SPIREA 36O.C. 3'X3' 1 PLANT UNIT(PU)CALCULATIONS-RV STORAGE \ - WOMMIRN,OR VIBURNUM DAVIDII DAVID VIBURNUM 36"O.C. 3'X3' ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI KINNIKINNICK 12 O.C. - 1/50SF SETBACKS ABU THING STREETS 556 643 \ FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS SAND STRAWBERRY 12"O.C. - 1/503 BUFFER YARDS 294 376 PROPOSED RV STORAGE FACILITY MAHONIA REPENS CREEPING MAHONIA 24°O.C. - 1/503 OFF-STREET PARKING 1,247/5L,9M,OR 13S TREES 1,857/2L,55M,6S NEW TREES AND 1 SIGNIFICANT TREE D SEED MIXES TURF MIX CELEBRATION MIX N/A - 1/503 BY SUNNPRK SEEDS NATIVE RIPARIAN MIX SIREAMBANK MIX N/A - 1/503 BY SUNMARK SEEDS NOTE: MINIMUM SIZE OF ALL TREES i0 BE 10'HEIGHT OR 2"CALIPER AT INSTALLATION PARKING/STREET TREESBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING SUF AT IARIRDTY P1 AND I TREES YARD PLANTING LOCATIONS ACER RUBRUM'BONHALL' 80 ALL MAPLE AS SHOWN 50'X15'(MEDIUM) 8 -�SCALE:N.T.S. CLAORASTIS KENTOKEA AMERICAN YELLOWWO00 AS SHOWN 75'X70'(URGE) 10 TILIA S ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANETREE AS SIOWN 80'X95'(URGE) 10 TILIA CORDATA LINDEN AS SHOWN 85'X50'(LARGE) 10 ZELKOVA SERRATA'GREEN VASE' GREEN VASE ZELKOVA AS SHOWN 85'X75'(URGE) 10 LEGEND-YARD PLANTING LOCATIONS NOTE:MINIMUM SIZE OF ALL TREES TO BE 10'HEIGHT OR 2"CALIPER AT INSTALLATION "BUFFER YARD"PER NO TABLE 30fiA STORMWAT ER PLANTING "SETBACKS ABUTTING A STREET"PER WDO TABLE 3.O6A E COMMON NAME SP PI AND 11FT III IIF TRFFG "OTHER YARD"PER 00 TABLE 3.06A O AGER GRISEUM PAPERBARK MAPLE AS SHOWN 25X20' 4 'h,I ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER AS SHOWN 60'X40' 8u't CALOCEORUS DECURRENS INCENSE CEDAR AS 4HOWN 100'X30' 10 "WATER QUALITY PLANTING" „(F,pi'�'YWw MAWS FUSCA PACIFIC CRABAPPLE AS SHOWN 20'X20' 4 "usp, � ��” NYSSA SYLVATICA TUPELO AS 910WN 75'X60' 10 ""1• ° ^'^�•I�4„ THUJA PLICATA WESTERN REDCEDAR AS SHOWN 150'X70' 10 �AA' vu�y� TAXOOIUM DISTICHUM BALD CYPRESS AS 910" 100'X60' 10 �ba� uI^N✓mW� ® SHRUBS ANO GROUNOCOVER (4,. BERBERIS NERVOSA GULL OREGON CRAPE 24°O.C. 4'X4' 1 CORNUS SERICEA'KELSEYV KELSEY DOGWOOD 24'O.C. 2'X2' 1 © MA KE ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 36°O.C. 8'X8N ' 2 L AC,,N a[C0117 o SPIREA BETULIFOLIA BIRCHLEAF SPIREA 24"O.C. 3'X3' 1LxE. uawlxGs All LUE"0 PILI or VACCINIUM OVATUM EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY 36°O.C. 6X6 2 MAox NZIE 0 D A ENRNOT L2"EIIED ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE 10'O.C. 15'%I5' 2 CORNUS SERICEA RED IG DOGWOOD 48°O.C. 6'X6' 2 REVISIONS: HO DISCUS DISCOLOR 0 EANSPRAY 48"O.C. 8'X8' 2 NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO 36°O.C. 6X6 2 S�x�Ws Ixc o.T PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS PACIFIC NINEBARK 38"O.C. 10'%10' 2 ' RISES SANGUINEUM RED-FLOWERING CURRANT 48°O.C. 81X8' 2 ARCTOSTAPHTLOS UVA-URSI KINNIKINNICK12"O.C. - 1/503 FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS SAND STRAWBERRY 12 O.C. - 1/503 L23 HERBACEOUS PLANTS - -- CARE%OBNUPTA SLOUCH SEDGE 12 O.C. 1/50SF CA EX iESTACEA NEW ZEALAND ORANGE SEDGE 12"O.C. - 1/503 IRIS DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS IRIS 12"O.C. - 1/503 _ JUNCUS EFFUSUS SOFT RUSH 12" 1/503 �� • JUNOIS PATENS CALIFORNIA GREY RUSH 12"O.C. - 1/503 \� �' L2.1�D ♦♦ A I I SHEET TITLE: i♦ �� - L2.4 r " ♦i I LANDSCAPE L2.21NOTES �� ♦'ti♦ •� III LEGEND AND I L2.5 �,,T� ♦ ♦ H 0 � ♦� � I�.'�i I I DRAWN BY: ADS \ \\ L2 v L II CHECKED BY: SPT T4�i LrL SHEET S L2.0 KEY MAP -/ JOB NO. ^�C^C�-AM HU °"° ""°" DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL O4f06/17 `•JW,V1 REVISED OS 29/ =1111.°.x-1—L°R�."°"° a,Iao=,°°<,, 214 �o o a o. ,e. mliiil WETLAND BOUNDARY,TYP. Architecture^^Interiors 50 WETLAND BUFFER,TYP. Planning-Engineering Y 503.224.9560 360.695.]6]9 T T seett1%WA 206.7499993 www.mcknzecom c MACKENZIE Client Mm LLC 520 CONGER ST. teaII49 8111 97402 �99y` � o ° 00000 00000 MAINT. — N BLDG. = J � w - 0 � wRrcject p o y WOODLAND J CROSSING WOODBURN,OR 49�q` ° 000 9y h I qS` rc� RT � � ©PU R F"9 R R�9 LANDSCAPE PLAN °xAw�"11 AaE 0P`x 9E UTE AND-E N9,,o eE R, MAOROREPRODUCED IN 2tl o ie 2tl 6o -ITEN REVISIONS: x�xs 1 inch F620 !L Cwsixc oni[ L2.3 • • �--� � � L2.1 9 - � �� • • SHEET TITLE: L2.4 ♦i ' LANDSCAPE L2.2, 1 i PLAN L2.7� ��V L2.5 ♦ V ♦ �A •� \ \♦� � I�'. i •I DRAWN BY: All \\\\ L2 v L ,I CHECKED BY: SPT \ T4�i IrL SHEET S L2.1 _D KEY MAP -/ JOB N0. 215056701 °"° ""°" DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04f06/17 •JW,V1 REVISED 06 29/ E.xaR," s 111—N1,"° ao=,°°<,, 215 �o o a o.. ,e., ARCHITECTURAL WALL,SEE SHEET ' L2.3 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GARBAGE/RECYCLING TO BE SCREENED WITH WALLS.T'P. .,..Ave.....,...,....n�iae„ , ........D111 ..... U., m �_ _ � """"""°"`"'""'°'°" •°°° Architecture-lnteriors Planning Engineering T P ftl.d,OR 503.224.9560 MATCHLINE —SEE SHEET L2.3 �^.69.WA 00 mminiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI 360.695.]6]9 s` WA WA 206.]499993 D www.mcknzecom J MACKENZIE., Mm LLC at t _ 0 520 CONCIER ST. to 0 0 0 641u�74�.1-811197402 W a D 1 0 0 o I = Z 0 a VA r J \ a o m U m 0 0 I m D co 0 m P,Oject D 0 I WOODLAND I 17, CROSSING N ? WOWWRN,OR � a 0 a o a o � 0 o 0 o a a o o� ❑❑ o o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 o 0 0 0 PLAYGROUND O Jo 0 � ao E �o 7 o o KEN�EI ND ARS O'l2 9 ME E 11—Ell xE'NANNE,9F E N9,,o NE x E6 m w°HREPRODUCEDIITEN E MxEx \� N REVISIONS' x,Pauslxc ontt WETLAND BOUNDARY,TYP. N �� 50'WETLAND BUFFER,T'P. p L2.3 _ I _ 7r a o o ♦♦ L2.1 9 ♦♦ � J �� ♦ � SHEET TITLE: 0 0 0 0 i♦� �� L2.4« " i LANSCAPE o �� v ♦♦� L2.2 �� PLAN O O O O ` \ ♦ , 79 ♦ vv v i L2:�' K \\\ ♦♦ � ? � \ ♦ � '�}y 11 DRAWN BY: ADS LZ C. r , CHECKED BY: SPT S� see T SHEET _. LANDSCAPE PLAN 04-vE� v L2.2 �� GL - 2 KEY MAP 20 o Na 20 60 � ]n FEETJOB N0. 2150567 ( ) IJW,V011 20 ,< REVISED 06 29/ x uo Su'ml aN 0 00 0 =UaKPE xN-1-111—NI,IN� A,Ia�r<x� 216 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04 0617�� L2.3�•• • '' - 1111111111 L2.1 9 _ �� Architecture-Interiors Planning a Engineering , -- `�1 s n 3.5'HIGH ARCHITECTURAL WALL, ; �` \�\ 'r L2.2, , LG.4 SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET `��, Portl.d,OR 503.224.9560 WA 360.69.7M WA - 206.7499993 L2.7� % L2.5 _ www,mcknzesom �� f� • MACKENZIE., Mm �.� 520 LLC COMM ST. \ ' VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE,TYP. 6'HIGH ARCHITECTURAL WALL, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET Z _\KEY MAP (2)SIGNIFICANT TREES TO REMAIN _ -I �1 Project / EXISTING AND PROPOSED WOODLAND UTILITIES THIS AREA I CROSSING I WOOMURN,OR I I � I MATCHLINE —SEE SHEET L2.2 rill ARNEY LANE � � = MATCHLNE —SEE SHEET L2.4 ` LANDSCAPE PLANS H „y xo a to xo a eo [IN FEET) AllPR9`- E ` M` E M i0 GR NZIE AND HGUiPG�GNZ W �,ppIN AN'1- RI USED REVISIONS: S�.M ".I. .25 ryry ` so s�¢r II VERTICAL ARTICULATION:AT LEAST 6”POP-UP, AT LEAST 1'WIDE(EVERY 40'OR LESS) SHEETTITLE.A r �— LANSC PE J " I�1 I i�lI F I [ ) — T PLAN 11 •� 1'L i j `�I rIff 1 CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS(CMU) L 1 L 7 1 DRAWN BY: ADS I HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION:AT LEAST 3" I I CHECKED BY: SPT BUMPOUT AT LEAST 1'WIDE(EVERY 40'OR LESS) I ARCHITECTURAL WALL SHEET L2.3 I L2.3 r{ JOB N0. 21.IIJW/01 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04f06/17 REVISED 06 29/ 217 o a mliiil Architecture x Interiors Planning.Engineering Rortlwd,OR MATCHLINE—SEE SHEET L2.3 503.224.9560 0IIIIIIIIIIIII— VancaWA 0IIIIIIIIIIIIIGARBAGE/RECYCLING i0 BE 360.6969.5.]6]9 VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE, SCREENED WITH WALLS,TYP. fieetnR WA ` TYP.TRIM PLANTINGS TO RNEY LAN MAXwww.m206.]499993 VISION CILEARANCEZTRI/ANHGLE << < r< <+t ` cknzecom MACKENZIE., at t ........... MM LLC 520 CONGER ST. 6a1�Ji43-9�nt 97402 I NCIA ` UJI UJI w In 0 0 0 0 Pra� T WOODLAND Z I CROSSING _ WOODBURN,OR < B 0 0 0 I A . HOT ' TUB I POOL r, 0 Q I O a IN O 0 O �A,Car O m �ro w O cn O 2 y O m ©LKxla� EaE t CI:NZIE"ND ARE NxCSERA 1 xE No,,'o°OfeCA EOE xw HGUTPrpo OR-I moa D IN A�Ni�'MxA NExo REVISIONS: .1P. I�lxcax O s7 m o.re L2.3 — - �--� L2.1 SHEET TITLE: L2.4 'i ' LANDSCAPE L2.21 1 i PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN L24 2a o la 2a a fia ,L2,] � � � 'U �O♦ �� i G L2.5 A � �INET� % � �� ,—- 20 EL \ DRAWN BY: ADS CHECKED BY: SPT T4�i IrL SHEET S L2.4 KEY MAP -/ JOB NO. 215056701 ° DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04f06/17 •JW,V1 REVISED 06 29/ °.xaR," s 111—N1,"° ao=,°°<,, 218 �o o a �� 1111111111 Architecture-Interiors Planning.Engineering ` Po OR i 503.22M4.94.9 560 Vanc.69.W V 360.696.]6]9 MP, xaelG w 206.]4999933 � www.mcknzecom O 0 MACKENZIE., O O O \\\\ 0 cant ,.. Mm LLC O 0moniiiiiiiiiiiiiI52EOCONGER uc POR 97ri02 0 tsar�n�-ent \ O O O « O � 0 see SN��X22 O O O oO MP,�cNL�NE, L \\\ ❑❑ � � Prapct o 0 0 caoD SSING O O � WOODBUFMI,OR O� O O O O O O O « PLAYGROUND O Z O < D K D D + m �I O MAIL D, O O �Z RE'FR No E, P"9NNER,9F °Ko ZIE D A E""9,,o NF°.E6 -OR AMIIIENM12—SIGN O ` REVISIONS �. UMo..E O o sFFsy� + L2.3 O c __ SHEET TITLE: L2. 9 - _ • a LANDSCAPE �' �� L2.2 i ♦ PLAN 6 W50'WETLAND BUFFER,TW.ETLAND BOUNDARY, iTY L2.4 A ,I• �/� �` \\\ ,� GARBAGE/RECYCLING TO BE SCREENED WITH WALLS, TYP. L2. O � � ♦ \v �� a L2.5 6 • .. A�%� DRAWN BY: ADS \ � - I CHECKED BY: SPT \ \ ' SHEET LANDSCAPE PLAN v L2 • io v` _ L2.5 2a o 2a w w �V�� 1— C^C�M 2Q IL KEY MAP r{ JOB NO. 2150W.01 °"° ""°" DESIGN REVIEW SUBMfTTA_ 04 06/17 111-E."-1—=°R�."°"° a,Eao=,°°<,, 219 �o ,.Fo �,00 a o mliiil Architecture-Interiors Planning.Engineering P ftl.d,OR 503.224.9560 360..6969 Vanc .WA 5.]6]9 S`T%WA 206.]499993 www.lncknzecom `T MACKENZIE., e 'I `Mm LLC 520 CONGER ST. `SFRsy sa` e°Rin 97402 F $�,42s VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE, TYP. TRIM PLANTINGS TO MAX. D 0 HEIGHT OF 42'WITHIN VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE + P,ox.t WOODLAND D III CROSSING \ D WOODBURN,OR / � O O -k D O D Z m \ D <Ie e, S gV WETLAND BOUNDARY, TIP. 50'WETLAND BUFFER,TW. ©"J 'ar2_s%EavEu All MWY NE NNo D I rAE NAA E,of E A E Nor�0 NE u£ED H ItEPx96UGE6 N TnauT PR oa V.m iT[ REVISIONS: x��lxc onreonre L2.3 • — — - �--� L2.1 lull �� • • • SENEGAL C SHEET DS REEK i�� 6. L2.4' " �i ! LANDSCAPE EAST TF11g�ARY �� L2.2, M �• PLAN �� • • LANDSCAPE PLAN ;L2.7 , •' L2.5 K L2.8 xo o to xo 4o ao �"zaIrL V�� I�'.'�i • DRAWN BY: ADS \ \\ L2 v L ,I CHECKED BY: SPT T4�i IrL SHEET S L2.6 ADKEY MAP -/ JOB N0. 215056701 ° DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04f06/17 •JW,V1 REVISED 06 29/ xaR,"�s=°R�."°,"° a,�ao=,°°P�", 22� ,FF�., o a � L2.3�•• • '' 1111111111 �♦ L2.1 0 ♦♦ Architecture-Interiors = �� ♦% - 7 _ i Planning Engineering % L2.4 L2 V �♦♦� L2.2 1 OR / �� ♦♦ \\\ ♦ a•I+ X03.X360.69.7 A 93 L2. nzesom 7 ; \\\ ;♦ L2.5 _ 206.]489 - www.mckom �'9Y �� \♦� H _•� MACKENZIE Mm LLC \ \\~, L2.6 •I 52( T. E5M11CONGER Ju •�nl 97402 _ KEY MAP WETLAND BOUNDARY, TYP. 50'WETLAND BUFFER,TW. Prapct WOODLAND = CROSSING WOODBURN,OR 9`0 u„"dv�a,✓' F 2011 —T D1111- ©� PeO 1—OE FE NOE E0 BE-D ore REPeoEeEo"A”.HA""E" REVISIONS: PRO OSE R.V.STORAGE FACIL \ SHEET TITLE: g09 LANDSCAPE PLAN 19 19 (1)SIGNIFICANT TREE - TO REMAIN VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE, _ f TYP.TRIM PLANTINGS TO MAX.HEIGHT OF 42"WITHIN DRAWN BY: ADS VISION CLEARANCE TRIANGLE \ CHECKED BY: SPT 8012 SHEET _ LANDSCAPE PLAN L2.7 20 10 20 40 80 I w ET 1 �n� C Mfftt JOB N0. 21JVW/VI 1 men FE 20 1t REVISED D6 29/ °�11°" DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04 06/17 "aR," s111—N1,," ao=,o<,, 221 �" .,,,,.�,.a".."m,e Iii♦ 4 B V' October 9, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott C. Derickson, City Administrator N. Robert Shields, City Attorney SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining Agreement with Woodburn Police Association RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Woodburn Police Association ("the WPA"). By the time of the City Council meeting it is anticipated that the WPA membership will have ratified this agreement. BACKGROUND: The City and the WPA recently concluded a series of bargaining sessions aimed at producing a successor contract. The City Attorney acted as the City's lead negotiator with Human Resources Director Mel Gregg and Lieutenant Jason Millican also on the City's negotiating team. The City Administrator, Police Chief and Finance Director were instrumental in reaching the new agreement. Numerous bargaining sessions were conducted and a tentative three year agreement was reached with the WPA's negotiating team. The monetary impact of the new agreement is within the City's budgetary parameters. DISCUSSION: The City and WPA engaged in a professional bargaining process that was efficient and responsive to economic and operational realities. Ratification of the new contract allows both parties to continue working together and to avoid the expensive mandatory arbitration process available to public safety unions under state law. Oregon statutes require that the total compensation (i.e., wages and benefits) of the Woodburn Police be "comparable" to other jurisdictions within the state. By ratification of the contract, the City and the WPA have agreed that this comparability standard is met. Some highlights of the new agreement are as follows: Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x City Attorney_x Finance—x- 222 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 2 1 . Contract Term. A three-year term from July 1 , 2017 to June 30, 2020. 2. Wages. Effective and retroactive to July 1, 2017, the City shall increase the wages of all Police Officers by three percent (3%) and Community Service Officers by four percent (4%). Effective July 1 , 2018, the City shall increase the wages of all Police Officers by two and three quarters percent (2.75%) and Community Service Officers by four (4%) percent. Effective June 30, 2019, the City shall increase the wages of all Police Officers and Community Service Officers by two and one half (2.5%) percent. A 20-year longevity step for officers totaling 7% was added. The "trainee step" (which was formerly 95% of the beginning wage) was eliminated. 3. Health Insurance. The new agreement continues the present cost sharing arrangement where WPA members pay 5% of their health care premium and the City pays 95% ("95-5"). This arrangement is typical in many Oregon police contracts. Additionally, any premium amounts higher than the $2,200 monthly employer premium cap are paid 50% by the employee and 50% by the employer. 4. Numerous Operational Issues: Many operational matters, including seniority, work hours, outside employment, special assignments, holidays, vacation, sick leave, other leave, training, and disciplinary procedures were addressed during bargaining. Most of these changes are technical in nature and are intended to allow the Woodburn Police Department to function more efficiently and provide even better service to the community. 5. New Article Addressing Tuition Reimbursement: A Tuition Reimbursement Program was added to the agreement which is consistent with what the City provides for its other employees. City reimbursement is capped at 50% of the amount of tuition for courses approved by the City Administrator which are deemed directly applicable and beneficial to City goals and objectives. The Tuition Reimbursement Policy is further limited to the budgetary resources available to the Police Department. 223 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 3 6. New Article Addressing Liability Insurance: In another new article, the City agreed to contribute an amount not to exceed $5.00 per month towards the funding of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAL) Legal Defense Plan. This plan provides each officer with legal representation if there is ever an investigation arising out of the officer's performance of his/her duties as an employee (i.e., a police officer involved shooting). 7. Legal Updates: Finally, since the last WPA Collective Bargaining Agreement was ratified in 2014, numerous changes have occurred in state and federal law. These changes were discussed by the bargaining teams and the new agreement was updated to reflect them. A draft of the new agreement, as tentatively agreed to by the parties, is attached to the ratification resolution for your review. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed new agreement ensures that Woodburn police officers' "overall total compensation" is at least equal to the compensation of police officers in "comparable" jurisdictions, as is required by state law. The financial impact of the new agreement is supported by the current budget. Finally, the new agreement meets the City Council's financial objectives per the adopted Five Year Financial Forecast and Budget Policies. 224 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3042 RESOLUTION NO. 2104 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WOODBURN AND THE WOODBURN POLICE ASSOCIATION BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2017 AND ENDING ON JUNE 30, 2020 WHEREAS, the purpose of labor negotiations is to reach an agreement on matters relating to wages, hours, working conditions, and fringe benefits for certain represented employees; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn ("the City") and the Woodburn Police Association ("the WPA") have engaged in a number of good faith bargaining sessions in order to reach a new Collective Bargaining Agreement ("the Agreement"); and WHEREAS, negotiating terms for the City and the WPA have tentatively agreed to the contractual terms for the Agreement subject to ratification by the WPA, by majority vote of its membership, and the City, through City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the WPA recently ratified the Agreement at its membership meeting and the Agreement is before the City Council for approval; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the form of Agreement tentatively agreed to by the parties and ratified by the WPA membership is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A." Section 2. That the City Administrator is authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City once it is in an approved final form. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Page 1- Council Bill No. 3042 Resolution No. 2104 225 Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2- Council Bill No. 3042 Resolution No. 2104 226 �'I'1 r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU Pri,e�arrt rr rf aA'!87 March 13, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Chris Kerr, AICP, Community Development Director Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Call-Up Briefing: Planning Commission Approval of a Consolidated Land Use Package of a Design Review and Variance Applications for Mid-Valley Community Church Gymnasium at 591 Gatch St (DR 2017-01 & VARs 2017-01 & 08-11). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends no action and briefs the Council on this item pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired and, by majority vote, initiate a review of this decision. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2017 and unanimously approved the consolidated application package (Type III) with the conditions recommended by staff, excepting that it struck proposed Condition V-MBH-2 regarding preservation of Trees 13 & 37. No parties testified in opposition to the proposal. The site is within the church campus, generally located north of Young Street, east of Mill Creek, south of E. Lincoln Street, and west of Gatch Street. The main entrance to the campus is near the T-intersection of Blaine Street at Gatch. The three tax lots containing the scope of work are approximately 8.03 acres and zoned Residential Single Family (RS). The scope of work is to develop undeveloped land within and to the rear of the campus into an 11 ,300 square foot gymnasium with related improvements. Images follow on the next two pages. Staff approved related administrative applications Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District permit RCWOD 2017-01 (Type 1) and Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements ("Street Exception") EXCP 2017-01 (Type 11). Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x_ Finance_x- 227 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates no direct financial impact to the City by the decision. 228 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 3 x �J VI'B� III y I', t 2017 aerial view with the scope of work(excluding creek corridor plantings) roughly outlined in amber. Gatch Street is at right and Young Street at bottom left. d4 ,w i 1, 77 , III. ...... Excerpt of`North Elevation"fagade from plan Sheet A2.0. The main wall plane excluding canopy and vestibules is almost 100 feet(ft) wide and faces surface parking. Excerpt of`East Elevation"fagade from plan Sheet A2.0. This main wall plane excluding canopy is about-1-1 4 ft wide and contains the main entrance. 229 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 4 a 1...1 a 1 � r c �a�bw k � 8�x "'✓V p M � � r,'/ � i P d iAl � �• �` u� ��i,,.�l+...,�� e � ,� �� -`�' ' / �� a, 17 �� y` �, �� 11 I 6uNP�i 6 9 K'J r � I r� Excerpt of Site and Landscape Plan(Sheet Al.l) 230 �'I'1 r I Iii♦ r} Y 9M& Its BU March 13, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Chris Kerr, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission Approval of a Consolidated Land Use Package of a Conditional Use and Other Applications for Success High School at 1785 N. Front St (CU 2017-01, DR 2017-02, VAR 2017- 02, PLA 2017-05, & RCWOD 2017-02) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends no action and briefs the Council on this item pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section x.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired and, by majority vote, initiate a review of this decision. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2017 and unanimously approved the application package (Type III) with the conditions recommended by staff. No parties testified in opposition to the proposal. The new 11 ,700 square foot school is proposed in the southwest corner of the Woodburn High School property. The property is zoned Public/Semi-Public (P/SP), which allows high schools with Conditional Use approval. The Design Review application was to review the proposed site plan. Due to proximity to Goose Creek, an administrative RCWOD permit (Type II) was necessary. The applicant requested a Variance from the requirement to have all parking areas on the lot interconnected. Images follow on the next two pages. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff anticipates no direct financial impact to the City by the decision. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator_x_ City Attorney_x_ Finance—x- 231 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 2 « L Color Rendering of Entryway r "w w r r n yRT f XNYyY M1 � rN r q W5 f I a�anxs w rr ti � r Proposed Site Plan 232 Honorable Mayor and City Council October 9, 2017 Page 3 a1 (8,.5) .25, s 13.5 _ M1'tiWl 6"I IAbKKtlMSl3"" Y 1 C � I J �� @IPt � �... I South Elevation along OR Highway 214 WPI ` West Elevation with Entryway 233