Full Text
City of Woodburn Community Development Dept. Memorandum 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Phone (503) 982-5246 Fax (503) 982-5244 Date: March 30, 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 2nd / 1st revised submittal March 2 of civil engineering plans for Marion Pointe PUD Summary 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 few 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. The developer’s civil engineering plan (CEP) set is AKS Job Number 7564. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 D6: PUD3-h street trees: a. Size: To demonstrate conformance with WDO 3.06.03A.2 (size at maturity based on street functional class), revise the Sheet L101 plant schedule to indicate for each street tree species the size category at maturity. Look to Table 3.06B for category descriptions. Revise the species proposed along N. Boones Ferry Road to be large to conform with WDO 3.06.03A.2. b. Number: Based on min 1 per 30 ft of block frontage (1:30), Sheet L101 is missing 4 street trees total, which seem to be precluded by short block and proposed utilities: N. Boones Ferry Rd south of Owl Owl south side between BF Rd & Nightingale Owl north side between BF Rd & Nightingale Upon building permit application, staff will assess the fee in-lieu per Attachment 205, row PUD-3 of $950 per street tree unless the developer illustrates a plan revision between CEP re-submittal and building permit issuance. When the time comes, somewhere in writing – particularly if paying by check, putting in the memo field – “ANX 22-02 PUD-3h(3) street trees GL [PHONE REDACTED]”. Acknowledged: Fee in-lieu: Staff will charge $950 x 3 = $2,850 at the building permit stage. F. Wayfinding signage: Regarding Condition T-BP, Sheet L108 Detail 4 indicates that the developer opts for condition part to provide the signage (instead of part b. fee in-lieu). However, the detail and notes are too conceptual and defer too much. Revise to conform more with T-BPa, Note and referenced memo INT 22-0608, seeing memo p. 5, row “Signage” and column “Specifications” text about the Intertwine guidelines, and the p. 6 image. (The developer can see installed examples along the Mill Creek Greenway trail within Smith Creek Development between S. Settlemier Ave and Kirksey St.) Acknowledged: Fee in-lieu: Staff will charge $1,500 x 3 = $4,500 at the building permit stage. G. Bus stop shelter and bus stop bicycle parking: Regarding Conditions T-T1 & T-T2, direct staff as to whether the developer is opting to provide the improvements (and via what sheets) or intends to pay fees in-lieu. Acknowledged: Fee in-lieu: Staff will charge the 2023 bus shelter $13,610 and the bus stop bicycle parking $510.20 x 2 = $1,020.40 at the building permit stage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 H. Driveways: Regarding Attachment 202, Table 202B p. 4 row “Driveways”, Sheet C105 General Note 2 is too general to conform. Where the table refers to the WDO, refer to WDO Table 3.04A, rows “Paved Width of Driveway” and “Throat Length”. Revise to indicate that approach / apron / curb cut widths do not exceed the max (lots: 16 ft for two-car wide driveway; tracts: 10 ft per Attachment 202 Part C1). The lot driveway tables across Sheets C105 through C112 as well as the illustrated lot driveways all indicate that the maximum width is exceeded. Revise all lot driveways that are wider than 16 ft to 16 ft. J. Tract retaining walls: To conform with Attachment 202, Part C3, revise plan sheets indicating how tract retaining walls conform to 3.06.05C, at least Sheets C116, C119, C215-C218, L104-L106, & L109 (Tracts C, G, & In response to, “Section 3.06.05C is not found in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Please clarify this comment”, apologies. The correct section number is 3.06.06C. K2 [Golf cart path]: Part C4b, revise Sheets L104 and L106 to illustrate mostly groundcover per Part C4c and some lawn grass. Groundcover not illustrated. 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. Revise Sheet L104 to have Tract D 4 total trees, 2 each centered within where north and south street stub landscape strips would have been. O3c: Tract E: Relocate or add 2 trees to meet min 14 within 5-14 ft of ROW. Revise Sheets L101 & L104. Revise Sheet L104 from 11 to 14 trees within 5-15 ft of ROW. O4a: Tract D: Path D is missing. Revise at least Sheets C012, C015, C016, and C032 and revise L104 to illustrate and label. Revise Sheets C111 and L104 to extend so that loop east segment comes to be 1 ft from the closest point of the tract diagonal east boundary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 O4b: Tract E: Two paths are required in the south yard. Revie the proposed meandering cedar chip path as Path E2, move it north to the boundary of the gray hatched area representing eco-lawn ground cover, and add a note referring to Sheet L107 Detail 6. Provide also in this south yard a paved path min width 10 ft and label as Path E1. E1 may be a straight line and as close to Lot 37/57 as 8 ft. Revise Sheets C012, C015, C016, C032, and L104. Final decision document Attachment 203, Tables 203C & 203D relating to Tract E were premised on Path E1 being straight. Meandering is acceptable if the public easement that grants public access extends from the tract south boundary to include 1 ft beyond the north edge of Path E1. Delineate the conceptual edge of where the access would be granted. Revise Sheet L104 to label Paths E1 & E2. O4c: Tract G: Revise site plans including Sheet L106 to meet INT 22-0608 Part B3b, i.e. to set back the path from the tract south boundary “min width either 5 ft each or 8 ft on south, southwest, or west side of facility and 2 ft on remaining north, northeast, or east side”. Revise Sheet L106 also to label the path as Path G. The developer’s response was: “The property lines that were shown in the land use application provide 17.0’ of width between the face of the stormwater facility retaining wall and the Tract G/Lot 66 common property line. The Ped‐1 path (10.0’ concrete) was located in the center of this available width, providing 3.5’ of clearance between both edges of the concrete path. Please confirm if the City would like us to reduce the spacing on the south property line to 2.0’. Doing this would provide 5.0’ of spacing between the face of the stormwater facility retaining wall and the concrete path.” Revise to have 5 ft width along the south of Path G and 2 ft along the north. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 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. P2: Tree protection during construction (Attachment 204): Revise the Sheets C030- C033 tree protection construction fence details to conform with Attachment 204, Part B, pages 3 & 4, sections & f. Widen the tree protection fencing west side to follow the rounded edge of the root protection zone (RPZ) per Attachment 204 p. 3 Figure 60-1 or, if making use of the max 25% encroachment per that figure, delineate how. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 New Item R: Through Condition PUD-3b, WDO 3.01.03H.5 is applicable to Olympic Street: “Bridge sides: If the bridge sides are concrete, the surface shall be stamped or treated to resemble either cut stone or rough stone.” Please revise a sheet or sheets to indicate conformance. 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 2nd submittal / 1st 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): n/a