Full Text
City of Woodburn Community Development Dept. Memorandum 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Phone (503) 982-5246 Fax (503) 982-5244 Date: April 26, 2023 To: Dago Garcia, P.E., City Engineer Cc: Roy Reyes, Project Engineer Chris Kerr, AICP, Community Development Director John Raugust, PE, AKS Engineering & Forestry From: Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner Subject: Planning Division review comments on 3rd / 2nd revised submittal April 12 of civil engineering plans for Macadam at Tukwila PUD (f.k.a. Marion Pointe) Summary On behalf of the Planning Division, I reviewed a revised copy of the civil engineering plan set submitted April 12 and compared it with the review memo of March 30 and for conformance with the Annexation ANX 22-02 land use final decision conditions of approval (AKS Job Number 7564). Planning Division requests revisions and re-submittal by the applicant and affirms that the Public Works Department is not to approve civil engineering plans until Planning outstanding items are resolved. Revision Items The applicant needs to address the four remaining items below. Referenced land use conditions of approval are found in the Annexation ANX 22-02 final decision document via the City project webpage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Following the last Planning Division CEP review memo March 30, the four remaining items needing resolution are italicized below. Red X’s draw attention to staff commentary. (Blue circle and green check mark icons confirm select items as now met or no longer relevant.) J. Tract retaining walls: … [WDO 3.06.06C] Revisions mostly addressed the item and missed one wall location: the Tract H retaining wall. Revise Sheet L105 to copy general construction note 4 found on each of revised Sheets C217 & C218. See also Item O5 below. K2 [Golf cart path]: … mostly groundcover … some lawn grass. The developer’s response letter stated, “lawn groundcover has been specified around the golf cart paths.” Sheet L106 does have a call-out note for lawn; but, there’s no illustration of or reference to groundcover. The requirement comes from final decision Attachment 202, Part C.4b & c: The resulting buffer area shall be planted with mostly groundcover and some lawn grass.” c. Groundcover shall each be min number equal to average spacing of 1 plant per 3 ft of buffer length.” [staff emphasi] To be clear, groundcover is low plantings too small to be shrubbery, for example, kinnikinnick. Revise per above. O3b: Tract D: Add 2, “1 each centered within where north and south street stub landscape strips would have been” (had Tract D become a street stub). Revise Sheets L101 & L104. Staff drops this item. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 O3c: Tract E: Relocate or add 2 trees to meet min 14 within 5-14 ft of ROW. Revise … L104. Sheet L104 remains unchanged for this item. Attached is a marked copy of Sheet L104 with green circles indicating what trees that staff counted as the 11 that both the March revision and the present April proposal illustrate within a band 5-14 from ROW. Within this band, either relocate 2 trees from outside the band or add 2 trees to the band to meet the requirement. O4a: Tract D: Path D is missing. Revise at least Sheets C012, C015, C016, and C032 and revise L104 to illustrate and label. Staff drops this item. O4b: Tract E: Two paths … [E1 & E2] Staff acknowledges that Sheet C011 delineates and notes an intended 42-ft wide public access easement (PAE) along the Tract E south boundary, and a Sheet L104 unlabeled dashed line represents the intended PAE north boundary. Continues next page ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 O5: Part D: Staff observes simply that if the proposed retaining wall that straddles N. Boones Ferry Road ROW and Tract H shifts during civil engineering plans (as seen through Sheets C103 and L105), to maintain within the bus shelter public easement that Table 203D requires for Tract D enough room and reasonable grade to fit a bus shelter pad, specifically a rectangle 12 x 7 ft per INT 22-0609. The Sheet L105 delineated and noted area isn’t minimum 12 ft wide parallel to the road and 7 ft deep between sidewalk and retaining wall. Revise to expand and re- delineate the rectangular minimum area. Sheet L105 remains unchanged for this item. The photo below of marked Sheet L105 illustrates the scaled blue-outlined rectangle aligned with sidewalk without encroaching on the sidewalk curve to the northeast. It illustrates that the NE segment of the proposed retaining wall can’t fit a pad 7 ft deep from sidewalk and 12 ft wide along sidewalk and indicates how to shift the walls segment east. Preferred ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 R: Through Condition PUD-3b, WDO 3.01.03H.5 … Olympic Street: “Bridge sides: If the bridge sides are concrete, the surface shall be stamped or treated … … Staff acknowledges that the April 11 developer response letter stated, “Culvert crossing is an earthen embankment, no concrete sides will be used.” Fee payment: Along with re-submittal through Public Works, through the Planning Division pay the civil engineering subsequent review fee of $346 per the ANX 22-02 final decision: Next Steps Planning Division requests revisions and re-submittal by the applicant and affirms that the Public Works Department Engineering Division is not to approve civil engineering plans until Planning outstanding items are resolved. When you receive a 4th submittal / 3rd revised submittal from the applicant, please notify me and provide PDF and print copies of the materials and specify a desired due date for Planning review comments. Feel free to contact me at (503) 980-2485 or <[EMAIL REDACTED]>. Attachment(s): ◼ Sheet L104 marked ---PAGE BREAK---