pre-application conference summary memo
DESCRIPTION
Notes from the December 3 Pre-Application Conference on the Duniway Park proposalTRANSCRIPT
BDS – Conference Facilitator Summary Memo Pre-Application Conference
Date: December 23, 2015
To: Danielle Pruett, KPFF, [email protected] Jaime English, Portland Parks, [email protected]
From: Sheila Frugoli, Conference Facilitator [email protected], 503-823-7817
Case File: EA 15-189114
Location: Duniway Park – SW Sheridan and SW Barbur
Property ID: R128926, R128934, R128951, R327717, R327869
Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review and Design Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and additional parking. Two development options, with different access and parking configurations, were discussed at the conference.
This conference summary report identifies the participants at the conference, provides an initial response to the issues and requirements for the proposed project with separate response from key bureau representatives. This memo identifies current land use review fee information and provides related information that may be helpful as the project moves from concept to completion. Pre-Application Conferences are required for all major (Type III and IV procedure) land use reviews. The purpose of the conference is to inform the applicant of the substantive and procedural requirements of the Land Use Review, to identify the submittal requirements and documents this information for the applicant and all interested persons. The information provided at the conference and included in this summary is based on the information that was submitted prior to and at the meeting and reflects regulations in effect at the time of the conference. The meeting is intended to convey information. It is not a public hearing and no land use decision is rendered at the conference. Interested persons may attend the conference and obtain copies of all the written information that is submitted and prepared for it. You must submit your Land Use Review application within one year of the Conference. Conference Date: December 3, 2015
Expiration of Conference: December 2, 2016
«FolderNumber»
2
A. Comments from Bureau Representatives: The chart below identifies the staff who participated in the conference and/or who submitted written comments: Response attached Bureau Responsibilities Contact
Yes BDS Land Use Services Review of land use review
Mark Walhood, Land Use Planner 503-823-7806 Benjamin Nielsen, Design Planner 503-823-7812
Yes PBOT Public Streets Robert Haley 503-823-5171
Yes BES Public sewer and stormwater connections to the public right-of-way
Jocelyn Tunnard 503-823-5780
No BDS Site Development
On-site stormwater disposal, septic systems, private rights-of-way, geotechnical requirements, erosion control
Jason Butler-Brown 503-823-4936
Yes Water Bureau Connections to public water Mari Moore 503-823-7364
Yes Fire Bureau Access grades, fire hydrants, turnarounds
Joe Thornton 503-823-4280
Yes Urban Forestry Street trees Rick Faber 503-823-1691
Please refer to the memo from Mark Walhood and Benjamin Nielsen for the list of application submittal requirements for the required land use review(s). Also, the attached responses from the City bureaus identify additional requirements that are pertinent to the land use review or a later Building Permit submittal. If you have questions about comments included in this Pre-Application Summary Report, please contact the representative identified in the respective memo. Please note that staff comments are based on the information submitted at the time of application. If you have questions regarding the proposal beyond those covered in this summary report, or if your proposal changes in scope or configuration, a new Pre-Application Conference may be required or an additional Early Assistance application may be needed to provide responses to your follow-up questions.
B. Fees
Below is an estimate of land use fees that may apply to your proposal. Fees charged will be those in effect when the Land Use Review application is submitted. When more than one Land Use Review is requested, full fees are charged for each additional review. You may view the current Land Use Review fees online. Land Use Review Type Estimated Fee
Type III Design Review
.032 of project valuation +$ 4,131
+$ 945 + $2,632
(min. fee $5,250 /max fee $27,000) (combined service bureau fee) (for each Design Modification) (for each Adjustment Review)
«FolderNumber»
3
Type III Conditional Use Review
(Existing CU site)
$10,398
+ $2,632
(for each Adjustment Review, if needed)
During the building permit process, Permit Fees will be charged for review of your permits and Systems Development Charges (SDCs) may be assessed for new development. An online fee estimator is available on the BDS website at the following link: http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=59194.
C. Other Information
1. Electric Service Requirements. Information on electric service requirements for properties served by PGE can be found at the following link: http://www.portlandgeneral.com/business/builders_developers/electrical_service_requirements.aspx; and information on electric service requirements for properties served by Pacific Power can be found at the following links: https://www.pacificpower.net/content/dam/pacific_power/doc/Contractors_Suppliers/PP_Developer_and_New_Service_Checklist.pdf; and http://www.pacificpower.net/con/esr.html.
Please note that the service requirements included in these links may not cover all requirements associated with your project. Applicants should contact the PGE Service Coordinator at 503-736-5450 or the Pacific Power Business Center at 888-221-7070 to identify issues that are specific to your project and to coordinate electric service requirements.
2. PGE requires minimum clearances from electric wires, conductors and cables. Before building, please be aware of these clearances by calling PGE at 503-736-5450. For more information, go to the following link: PGE Minimum Clearance Requirements.
Attachments: Zoning Map Site Plans – 2 Options BDS Land Use Services Response PBOT Response BES Response Water Bureau Response Fire Bureau Response Urban Forestry Response Submitted Letter from Concerned Neighbors - Stephen Leflar, et.al Sign-in Sheet
BDS – Land Use Planner Response Pre-Application Conference
Date: December 21, 2015
To: Sheila Frugoli, Conference Facilitator 503-823-7817, [email protected]
From: (CU EN) Mark Walhood, 503-823-7806, [email protected]
(DZ) Benjamin Nielsen, 503-823-7812, [email protected]
File No.: EA 15-189114 PC
Location: Duniway Park
Tax Accounts: R128926, R128934, R128951, R327717, R327869
State ID Numbers: 1S1E09AA 00100, 1S1E09AA 02600, 1S1E09AA 03600, 1S1E09AA 02200, 1S1E10 00600
Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review, Design Review and possible Environmental Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and a new 30- or 33-space parking lot with access off SW Barbur Blvd or SW Sheridan, respectively. A secondary access with accessible parking and emergency access will be provided off SW Barbur in Option 1.
NOTE: Parks Bureau indicated at the conference that the new parking lot west of the current field, with a new driveway to SW Sheridan, was no longer proposed.
The information provided at the conference and included in this response is based on the information you provided prior to and at the conference and reflects regulations in effect at the time of the conference. This response provides information and guidance only. It is preliminary in nature and based on the information the applicant provided to BDS staff. It is neither a land use review nor a final decision regarding this project. References are to the Portland Zoning Code available online at www.portlandonline.com/zoningcode. A. Key Issues and Requirements
The following issues and requirements have been summarized for the applicant to pay special attention to as they may impact the proposed project.
1. Process/Concurrency. To address fundamental site planning and layout issues for the Design Review, we strongly encourage you to consider applying for a Design Advice Request, which would give the Design Commission and public an early opportunity to comment on the overall
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 2
project and approvability. Once you are ready to submit for the land use reviews, if the Conditional Use is still required, please submit the cases at approximately the same time, and the planners will work with you on the hearing schedule. The idea is to make sure that the Design Commission concerns can feed into the Hearings Officer deliberations, and probably involves a first Design Review hearing followed closely by the Hearings Officer hearing. You can facilitate this process running smoothly by signing a 120-day waiver in the first 21 days from submitting the case, which also allows for an evidentiary appeal in the event it goes to City Council on appeal. This is somewhat in contrast to what we described at the hearing, in that we will try and coordinate the hearings more closely together, instead of having the Hearings Officer decision done by the first Design Commission hearing. Apologies for any confusion – please contact Mark or Ben with any questions.
2. Conditional Use Review & Plan Check Issues: A random summary of the issues and pointers
for your application as raised at the conference itself follows in bullet form. Please contact Mark Walhood directly if you have any questions. a) Be sure to include the Environmental Zoning overlay zone lines on all site plans and any
enlarged subarea or detail plans. b) The development standards of the OS base zone (33.100) apply to the project, except
as superceded by the development standards of Chapter 33.279, Recreational Fields for Organized Sports.
c) The Tree Code applies to this site, which will require a tree inventory and preservation/planting plan as necessary. All trees over 6” in size should be shown on a tree inventory plan or other plan with species and size indicated for our analysis against Title 11 (Trees) and Urban Forestry comments.
d) The Conditional Use Review (CU) triggers for this project are contained in Chapter 33.279, Recreational Fields for Organized Sports, versus the usual location in the Conditional Use Chapter (33.815). To avoid the CU altogether you’d need to expand exterior improvements (widened track, new shotput area, all paving, etc.) to less than 1,500 square feet, add no new lighting fixtures/poles, add or remove no more than one parking space, and keep the amount of spectator seating to no more than 210 lineal feet. Adding more than two new parking spaces or any new lighting fixtures/poles triggers a Type III CU. Please see 33.279.030-035 for more information.
e) The Parking and Loading regulations of Chapter 33.266 apply. Minimum and maximum vehicle and bicycle parking ratios/amounts are determined through the Conditional Use process in concert with staff from Portland Transportation. Note that development standards for parking areas (33.266.130.D-G) require curbing along the outer edges to protect landscaping, stormwater management, and paint striping to show all stall and aisle dimensions are met (concept site plans showed unstriped vehicle area with undefined stalls & aisles). Interior landscaping is required at a rate of 45 square feet per stall. A landscape plan is required showing all plants with their size, location, and both scientific and common names. We encourage native plants as much as possible as the CU criteria address protecting and enhancing the environmental resource & habitat values of the site.
f) The CU approval criteria are found at 33.815.100.A-D. Area Plans and Adopted Plans mentioned in criteria A and D include the following: The Southwest Community Plan, the Marquam Hill Plan, the Southwest Hills Resource Protection Plan (Resource Site #113), and the Terwilliger Parkway Corridor Plan. These plans can be viewed at http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/31611 (www.portlandoregon.gov/bps →
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 3
Planning Tab → Document Library). Note that only those portions of the plans adopted by Ordinance into the Comprehensive Plan are included in our consideration, per the definition of ‘desired character’ and the language in the criteria itself.
g) In preparing your application, pay special attention to the Character and Impacts criterion (A), as well as the Livability (B) and Area Plans (D) criteria. These are the core of the broad, discretionary criteria being used to evaluate the CU proposal, and the applicant has the burden of proof to show they are satisfied. We encourage you to pursue the option, consistent with your stated intent at the conference itself, to avoid the new parking area on the open grassy area west of the current field, as this better preserves the open and natural character of the park and adjacent Terwilliger Parkway.
h) Site Definition: The City of Portland ownership extends much further to the south of the Park, capturing the entire Terwilliger corridor. Per the definition of site, you can exclude vacant or unimproved areas of an ownership for your site. Please carefully consider providing a hard physical boundary to the site area under consideration in your application, keeping to the boundaries of Duniway Park itself as much as possible. This will simplify the analysis and Tree Code review, focusing on the actual area of change on-the-ground.
i) Land Use History: There are no pertinent conditions of approval from past land use cases that impact your proposal. A pre-1981 condition of approval required landscaping between the parking lot and Barbur, but this old condition no longer applies due to age. Current code will require new and/or upgraded perimeter landscaping between any vehicle areas and an abutting street.
3. Design Review Issues: a) A Type III design review is required since the proposal is visible from the Terwilliger
Parkway (from multiple points) and is not a single-dwelling development. b) The applicable approval criteria for the design review are the Terwilliger Parkway
Design Guidelines. c) The proposed relocation of parking on the west side of the park has a greater negative
impact on the park and the Terwilliger Parkway with respect to the Terwilliger Parkway Design Guidelines. Location of parking in this area will require the removal of more trees and pushes development closer to the parkway—development instead should be located as distant from the parkway as is feasible to protect the existing landscaping and the landscape character desired by the guidelines (Guidelines A – Height and Setback, B – Landscaping, and C – Style, Scale, Siting, Materials and Color). The proposed relocation of parking to the west side of the park also impacts several existing trails on the west side of the park which provide uninterrupted pedestrian access through the park and to the Terwilliger Parkway (Guideline G – Pedestrian Access). Additionally, the proposal to locate parking on the western side of the park results in a larger area of total development and paving, which impacts seasonal views from the major viewpoint along Terwilliger Boulevard above the park, as identified in Map 1 (D – Views and Special Natural Features). Though perhaps of slightly lesser importance since vehicle access isn’t proposed directly off of SW Terwilliger Boulevard, staff is nonetheless concerned that locating parking on the west side of Duniway Park may result in increased traffic on Terwilliger Boulevard due to the difficult access conditions created by the tangle of one-way streets between SW Barbur Blvd/SW 4th Ave and SW Broadway and between SW Sheridan St and I-405 (Guideline F – Vehicle Access).
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 4
d) Pedestrian connectivity should be provided from east to west across the parking to link the track, SW Barbur Boulevard, and transit routes thereon to the Terwilliger Parkway, trail, and SW Terwilliger Boulevard (Guideline G – Pedestrian Access).
e) Considerable care will be needed in the design resolution of proposed landscaping, lighting, and screening of parking for Options 1 and 2. Proposed materials, styling, colors, and finishes on the built elements—including, but not limited to, the bleachers, sports field lighting, walkways, parking lots, and driveways—need to be in keeping with the character of the Terwilliger Parkway (Guideline C – Style, Scale, Siting, Materials and Color).
f) No signs are currently indicated, though signs greater than 32 square feet in size are required to be approved through design review. Please note, as well, that the Terwilliger Parkway Design Guidelines state that “permanent private signs should not be visible from Terwilliger Boulevard or Trail, except in commercial areas” (Guideline E – Signs).
g) Please indicate all property lines on your site plan. h) Please indicate all zone boundaries on your site plan.
4. Environmental Zoning/EN Review. A Type II environmental review (EN) may be required if the
portion of the proposal within the “c” Environmental Conservation overlay zone does not or cannot meet the development standards in zoning code Section 33.430.140. We strongly encourage you to avoid alterations that cannot meet the environmental development standards, including any trail connections up the hillside, limiting the expansion and grading/retaining walls necessary for the track widening and shotput area, etc. Please review chapter 33.430 for more information on the specifics of the Environmental Zoning regulations, which were not covered in extensive detail at the conference.
B. Land Use Reviews Required
The following table identifies land use reviews required for your project. Please refer to the identified code citations for additional information. Information and handouts on land use reviews are available on our website. For information on review procedures and timelines, see the Summary of Procedure Types.
Review Procedure Land Use Review Approval Criteria
Type III Conditional Use (CU) 33.815.100
Type III Design Review (DZ)
33.825.055 Terwilliger Parkway Design Guidelines https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/187200
Type II Modifications (M) – required for site-related development M, 33.825.040
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 5
Review Procedure Land Use Review Approval Criteria
(these would be a component of the Type III design review)
standards not met (examples of site-related standards are: setbacks, height, location of bike parking, size of loading spaces) Adjustments (AD) – required for use-related development standards not met (examples of use-related standards are: number of loading spaces, number of parking spaces, FAR)
AD, 33.805.040
Type II (this would run with the Type III CU, if necessary. EN planner would likely be involved in EN is required)
(Possible) Environmental Review (EN) 33.430.250
C. Development Standards Base Zone Development Standards
Proposed development must meet development standards of the Open Space base zone. Existing development may not go further out of conformance with standards. Refer to Zoning Code Chapter 33.100 for standards applicable in this zone.
Overlay Zone Standards
This site is also located in the Design and Environmental Conservation overlay zones. Refer to Zoning Code Chapter 33.420 for regulations applicable in the Design overlay zone. Refer to Zoning Code Chapter 33.430 for regulations applicable in the Environmental
Conservation overlay zone. Recreational Fields for Organized Sports
Proposed development must comply with the requirements of Zoning Code Chapter 33.279, Recreational Fields for Organized Sports.
Parking and Loading Proposed development must comply with the requirements of Zoning Code Chapter 33.266, Parking and Loading.
Landscaping and Screening Development must comply with landscaping and screening requirements in the following Zoning Code chapters: Chapter 33.100, Open Space Zone; Chapter 33.248, Landscaping and Screening; and Additional landscaping standards specific to parking and loading areas for uses other than houses and duplexes are identified in Zoning Code Section 33.266.130.G.
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 6
Nonconforming Upgrades
Whenever a property owner or tenant makes interior or exterior improvements to a site totaling more than $153,450, up to 10% of the project cost must be spent toward bringing the site into conformance with identified zoning code standards. Refer to Zoning Code Chapter 33.258.070.D.2 for details.
New Tree Regulations
The new Portland City Tree Code (Title 11) and related amendments to the Zoning Code (Title 33) went into effect January 1, 2015. A summary of the tree regulations, and the adopted Tree Code, can be viewed at the following link: http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=61467.
D. Previous Land Use Reviews. Below are the relevant land use case reviews that the City of Portland has on record for the subject site. No narrative on these past applications or their conditions of approval is necessary with your application, as existing and proposed development on the site plans can verify existing and proposed site conditions. The conditions of approval prior to 1981 noted below no longer apply, but are included for information only:
1. LU 65-002451 CU (Ref. # CU 61-65) – Conditional Use Review approval for a maintenance
addition. 2. LU 65-002582 CU & LU 65-002583 CU (Ref. # CU 065-55) – Conditional Use Review approval for a
master plan for Duniway Park. 3. LU 65-004516 DZ (Ref. # DZ 21-65) – Design Review approval for a jogging track with condition of
approval that screening be provided between the parking lot and Terwilliger Blvd and along SW Barbur Blvd and SW Sheridan.
4. LU 75-000954 CU (Ref. # CU 016-75) – Conditional Use Review approval for a horseshoe court and lights at Duniway Park.
5. LU 86-001376 & LU 86-001377 CU (Ref. # CU 028-86) – Conditional Use Review approval for six lighting fixtures at Duniway Park for pedestrians and joggers.
6. LU 90-022755 (Ref. # PC 4528) – No information available online. 7. LU 96-013009 DZM (Ref. # LUR 96-00122 DZM) – Design Review approval for landscape
treatments including a new landscaped planter, signage, and paved entry at the intersection of Terwilliger and Sheridan.
8. PR 12-121678 – Approval for cobblestone deployment by the Landmarks Commission, City Ordinance No. 139670.
9. IQ 12-123286 – Terwilliger Boulevard Restoration Project. Request by Parks to limb and/or remove trees within the Terwilliger Parkway to restore views in anticipation of the Terwilliger Blvd Centennial Celebration planned for July 2012.
10. SG 12-138508 – Sign permit for new 18 SF non-illuminated sign on rock wall. E. Neighborhood Notification
When you apply for a Type III Land Use Review, all property owners within 400 feet, and all neighborhood associations and recognized organizations within 1,000 feet of your site will receive notification of your proposal.
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 7
The site is located within the neighborhood association of South Portland NA., contact Jim Gardner at 503-227-2096.
The site is located within 400/1,000 feet of Homestead Neighborhood Association, contact Anton Vetterlein at 503-866-1667 & Southwest Hills Residential League, contact Nancy Seton at 503-224-3840.
The site is located within the district neighborhood coalition of Southwest Neighborhoods Inc., contact Leonard Gard at 503-823-4592.
The site is located within the business association of South Portland Business Association, contact Kevin Countryman at 503-750-2984.
Contact information for neighborhood associations, neighborhood district coalitions, and business associations is available at www.portlandonline.com/oni/search/.
F. Submittal Requirements for Land Use
This list identifies the materials you must submit for your application to be considered complete. For additional details, see Zoning Code Section 33.730.060. FOR CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW (Including possible Environmental Review +/or Adjustments)
Item to submit Details 1. Application Form Complete application form 2. Fee Land Use Review fees
3. Requirements for written
narrative, maps, plans, etc. General Submittal Requirements (Zoning Code Chapter 33.730.060) Note that five copies of the written narrative addressing the applicable approval criteria will be required. For plans and drawings, please include at least four large/scalable drawing sets, and at least one set legibly reduced to no more than 8.5” x 11” that works in black & white. Specific plans necessary for the CU include, but are not limited to:
• Existing Conditions Site Plan • Proposed Site Plan • Landscape Plan (an existing tree plan with
size/species, and any trees to be removed) • Utility Plan • Building Elevations • Detail and/or cut sheets for proposed lighting
fixtures, signage, other above-grade structure, etc.
Please note that for Environmental Review there are extensive supplemental application requirements listed in the code at 33.430.240.
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 8
Item to submit Details
4. Optional: Request for an Evidentiary Hearing and Waiver of Right to a Decision within 120 Days
Allows new facts and evidence (an “evidentiary hearing”) to be presented if your project is appealed to City Council. You must submit the request form within 21 days of submitting your land use review application.
FOR DESIGN REVIEW (Including Modifications & Adjustments) General Information – Design Review
Item to submit # of copies (8½ x 11)
Details
5. Application Form 1 Complete application form. 6. Fee Land Use Review fees 7. Optional: Request for an
Evidentiary Hearing and Waiver of Right to a Decision within 120 Days
1 Allows new facts and evidence (an “evidentiary hearing”) if your project is ultimately appealed. You must submit this form within 21 days of submitting your land use review application.
8. Requirements for written narrative, maps, plans, etc.
1 General Submittal Requirements (Zoning Code Chapter 33.730.060)
Written Narrative
Item to submit # of copies (8 ½ x 11)
Details
9. Written Statement 2 Provide a written statement that describes the project and includes the following items: A complete list of all land use reviews requested; A complete description of the proposal including
existing and proposed use(s) and/or change(s) to the site or building(s);
Additional information needed to understand the proposal.
Written response to issues raised at prior Pre-Application and/or Design Advice
Zoning Code analysis 10. LEED Narrative 2 Describe sustainable features, green technology, etc. 11. Design Review Narrative 2 Address, in written form, the approval criteria in Section
33.825.055 and 33.825.065 and the applicable design guidelines (noted above).
12. Design Modifications Narrative
2 Address, in written form, the approval criteria in Section 33.825.040.
13. Previous Conditions of Approval
2 Address, in writing, conditions of approval from previous land use reviews on the site and discuss the current
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 9
Item to submit # of copies (8 ½ x 11)
Details
status of compliance.
Materials and Photos
Item to submit # of copies (8 ½ x 11)
Details
14. Manufacturer’s Cutsheets 2 Show proposed exterior building skin, windows, doors, light fixtures, rooftop equipment, exterior vents, etc.
15. Site Photos 2 Provide photos of site, immediate context and neighborhood.
Plans and Elevations
Item to submit # of copies (1/2 size, scalable)
# of copies (11 x 17)
# of copies (8 ½ x 11)
Details
Site Utility Feasibility Plan
2 2 1 Show proposed and existing sewer service connections, water service connections, septic drainfields, stormwater disposal methods, PGE/PPL electrical vault locations, etc.
16. Vicinity Plan 2 2 1 Submit plan that shows buildings, streets and open space in a 3-block context.
17. Site Plan 2 2 1 Submit plan that shows adjacent street frontages, relationship of existing curb-cuts and building entrances, base points for height and FAR measurements.
18. Tree Plan 2 2 1 Show all existing trees on the site that are 6” or larger in diameter.
19. Landscape Plan 2 2 1 Provide details, including plant species. 20. Floor Plan
Diagrams 2 2 1 Show floor areas and FAR calculations at
each floor. 21. Floor Plans and
Roof Plan 2 2 1
22. Building Elevations
2 2 1
23. Enlarged Elevations
2 2 1 At the street level, windows, balconies, garage/loading doors, railings, vents, parapets and rooftop mechanical enclosures, etc.
24. Building Sections 2 2 1 Showing building height and base point height, showing key areas of the building, etc.
25. Enlarged Typical Sections and
2 2 1 Show walls, windows, balconies, railings, canopies, garage/loading doors, exterior
BDS Pre-Application Conference Response EA 15-189114 PC - Duniway Park Page 10
Item to submit # of copies (1/2 size, scalable)
# of copies (11 x 17)
# of copies (8 ½ x 11)
Details
Details vents, rooftop mechanical enclosure, material joints, etc.
26.
Perspectives 2 2 1 Show context, distinct sightlines.
27. Colored Renderings
2 2 1 Include nighttime renderings.
28. Sign Plans 2 2 1 Provide elevations, details, sections and mounting details.
You may submit your application in the Development Services Center, 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, First Floor, from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm, Tuesday, Wednesday and 8 am to 12 pm on Thursday.
1
PBOT – Development Review Pre-Application Conference Response
Date: December 3, 2015 To: Sheila Frugoli, Conference Facilitator
503-823-7817, [email protected]] From: Robert Haley, PBOT Development Review
503-823-5171, [email protected] Case File: EA 15-189114 Location:
R#: R128926, R128934, R128951, R327717, R327869 Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review and
possible Design Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and a new 46-space parking lot with access off SW Sheridan. A secondary access with accessible parking and emergency access will be provided off SW Barbur.
Portland Bureau of Transportation/Development Review (PBOT) staff has reviewed the pre-application conference materials to identify potential issues and requirements.
A. KEY ISSUES AND REQUIREMENTS Following is a brief summary of issues and requirements that may impact your proposed project or are submittal requirements that will require time to prepare prior to land use application.
• A traffic and parking demand study prepared by an Oregon licensed traffic engineer shall be required. A site distance analyses for any proposed driveways on SW Barbur must be included. The on-street parking survey must document not only how many spaces are available during various days and times, but must also include who is using the on-street parking. A neighbor at the pre-app conference noted that downtown commuter’s maybe parking on SW Terwilliger.
• Dedications and frontage improvements identified below shall be conditions of building permit approval.
• In order to determine the potential traffic impacts, a detailed schedule of all events, both planned and anticipated casual use must be provided. A separate Transportation Demand Management plan (TDM) must be provided that identifies all the measures that will be implemented to discourage single-occupant vehicle trips to the site.
• The traffic study must also provide an analyses comparing access from the site from either SW Sheridan or SW Barbur. Current PBOT policy to take vehicle access from the lower traffic classification roadway. For this site, that would be the western section of the SW Sheridan frontage.
EA 15-189114
2
• The applicant has the opportunity to propose an alternative frontage improvement solution. The applicant may enter into the City’s adopted Public Works Alternative Review process. Additional information on this process can be found at the following link: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/article/481371.
B. STREET CLASSIFICATION AND CONFIGURATION At this location, SW Barbur Blvd is classified as a Major City Traffic Street, Transit Access Street, City Bikeway, City Walkway, Major Truck Street, and a Major Emergency Response Street in the City’s Transportation System Plan.
According to City database sources, the street is improved with 60-ft of paving in a 100-ft right-of-way (r.o.w.). The site’s frontage is improved with a 0-5-15 sidewalk configuration. For a site located in the OS zone district along a City Walkway (classification) street, the Pedestrian Design Guide recommends a 12-ft pedestrian corridor (0.5-ft curb/4-ft wide furnishing zone/6-ft wide sidewalk/1.5-ft wide frontage zone).
1. To accommodate the anticipated street improvements, no dedication of property for right- of-way purposes will be required.
At this location, SW Sheridan Street has different classifications on the western segment and eastern segment defined by the “T” intersection with SW 5th Ave. The western segment is classified as a City Bikeway, City Walkway, Major Emergency Response Street, and a Local Service Street for all other modes. The eastern segment is classified as a Major City Traffic Street, Transit Access Street, City Bikeway, City Walkway, Truck Access Street, and a Major Emergency Response Street in the City’s Transportation System Plan.
According to City database sources, the western segment is improved with 35-ft of paving in a 60- ft right-of-way (r.o.w.). The site’s frontage is improved with a 4-6-2.8 sidewalk configuration. For a site located in the OS zone district along a City Walkway (classification) street, the Pedestrian Design Guide recommends a 12-ft pedestrian corridor (0.5-ft curb/4-ft wide furnishing zone/6-ft wide sidewalk/1.5-ft wide frontage zone).
2. To accommodate the anticipated street improvements, no dedication of property for right- of-way purposes will be required.
According to City database sources, the western segment of SW Sheridan Street improved with 48-ft of paving in a 60- ft right-of-way (r.o.w.). The site’s frontage is improved with a curb at the property line sidewalk configuration. For a site located in the OS zone district along a City Walkway (classification) street, the Pedestrian Design Guide recommends a 12-ft pedestrian corridor (0.5-ft curb/4-ft wide furnishing zone/6-ft wide sidewalk/1.5-ft wide frontage zone).
3. To accommodate the anticipated street improvements, a 12-ft dedication of property for right- of-way purposes will be required.
At this location, SW Terwilliger Blvd is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, Transit Access Street, City Bikeway, City Walkway, Truck Access Street, and a Major Emergency Response Street in the City’s Transportation System Plan.
According to City database sources, the street is improved with varying pavement widths (approx 34-ft) in a 60-ft right-of-way (r.o.w.). The site’s frontage is improved with
EA 15-189114
3
a 0-8-1 sidewalk configuration. For a site located in the OS zone district along a City Walkway (classification) street, the Pedestrian Design Guide recommends a 12-ft pedestrian corridor (0.5-ft curb/4-ft wide furnishing zone/6-ft wide sidewalk/1.5-ft wide frontage zone).
4. To accommodate the anticipated street improvements, a 3-4-ft dedication of property for right- of-way purposes will be required.
The applicant will be required to provide a current survey in order to determine the final amount of dedications needed along the site frontages.
It appears that portions of the existing parking lot drive aisles along SW Barbur Blvd are located within the right-of-way in the 15-ft behind the existing sidewalk. With the exception of driveway approaches, on-site parking and maneuvering areas must be located on the site.
C. APPROVAL CRITERIA The applicant shall submit a written narrative adequately addressing the applicable zoning code approval criteria listed below for the required reviews:
Topic Code and Comments Code Citation & Link
Conditional Use Review– Uses in the Open Space Zone
Public services.
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the street designations of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity, level of service, and other performance measures; access to arterials; connectivity; transit availability; on-street parking impacts; access restrictions; neighborhood impacts; impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation; safety for all modes; and adequate transportation demand management strategies;
33.815.100.B
Adjustments A. Granting the Adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified.
Loading, Driveway locations, Parking Access Restricted Street, Parking Spaces
33.805.040.A
EA 15-189114
4
D. TRANSPORTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS The following information must be addressed by the applicant in order to receive building permit approval from PBOT
Topic Code and Comments Code Citation & Link
Encroach-ments in the Public Right-of-Way
Any proposed encroachments (balconies, decks and door swings) in the public right-of-way are subject to the requirements of the International Building Code (IBC). Per the IBC, doors may not swing into the public right-of-way. All encroachments will require a permit issued by PBOT at time of building permit. Additional information on the City’s Encroachment Permit process can be found at the following link: www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/59332. Further, please see the attached document at the end of this response that includes general information on other relevant Encroachment Permit considerations.
International Building Code
E. GENERAL COMMENTS
TIS Language:
A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is also required to demonstrate that the applicable criterion is met. An analysis of the nearby transportation network is needed to determine whether the system is operating safely and at an acceptable capacity level, currently and in the future.
Please note that many intersections in the City have limited capacity and may not be able to accommodate area growth plus the proposed land use, especially in the future without significant modifications to the intersection. Under some circumstances, lack of adequate capacity (level-of-service) at an intersection can result in denial of a land use proposal. Intersections of arterials are most likely to have capacity constraints but other intersections may also. Your traffic engineer should investigate this issue well in advance of application for the land use review.
The TIS must be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. TIS’s are complex and almost always require multiple engineering reviews to ensure that all issues are fully addressed in a technically acceptable manner. The applicant’s traffic engineer should contact PBOT to discuss the scope of work for the TIS prior to applying for the land use review. The resulting TIS must be submitted with the land use application, but to ensure it is complete, the traffic engineer should submit a draft at least one month in advance to allow for review and revisions. TIS’s first provided to the City at the time of formal application for the land use are rarely complete and often delay the land use review or result in a recommendation of denial due to insufficient information.
EA 15-189114
5
F. PERMIT INFORMATION At the time of permit review (following the land use review) you should be aware of the following:
1. System Development Charges (SDCs) may be assessed for this development. The applicant can receive an estimate of the SDC amount prior to submission of building permits by contacting Rich Eisenhauer at (503) 823-6108.
2. Curb cuts and driveway construction must meet the requirements in Title 17. The Title 17 driveway requirements will be enforced during the review of building permits.
3. The r.o.w. improvements will need to be designed by an Oregon licensed civil engineer and constructed under a Public Works Permit, which is separate from the Building Permit that will be necessary for construction of the proposed attached homes. The applicant is therefore encouraged to contact Public Works at [email protected] or at (503) 823-1987 to familiarize himself with the process and initiate the appropriate meetings/process. Additional information on the City's Public Works Permitting process can be found at the following link: http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=53147.
4. Plans, fees, a contract (called the application for permit) and a performance guarantee for the estimated value of the improvement must be submitted prior to (Final Plat approval). The performance guarantee may be in the form of a surety bond, irrevocable letter of credit, set-aside account, or cash deposit. Applicant should contact Mark Fischer at (503) 823-7072 for appropriate forms and additional information.
5. The applicant has the opportunity to propose an alternative frontage improvement solution. The applicant may enter into the City’s adopted Public Works Alternative Review process. Additional information on this process can be found at the following link: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/article/481371.
G. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE This list identifies PBOT submittal requirements. Please see the Conference Summary Memo for all of the materials you must submit for your application to be considered complete.
1. Written narrative adequately addressing all transportation related approval criteria.
2. Preliminary plans showing necessary dedication(s) and right-of-way improvements.
3. Transportation Impact Study
4. Transportation Demand Management Plan
All submittal requirements should be submitted with the application.
Pre-Application Conference Response Date: December 22, 2015
To: Sheila Frugoli, Conference Facilitator 503-823-7817, [email protected]
From: Jocelyn Tunnard, BES Systems Development 503-823-5780, [email protected] Lisa Moscinski, BES Watershed Services
Case File: EA 15-189114 Location: SW SHERIDAN ST, DUNIWAY PARK
R#: R128926, R128934, R128951, R327717, R327869 Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review and possible
Design Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and a new 46-space parking lot with access off SW Sheridan. A secondary access with accessible parking and emergency access will be provided off SW Barbur.
The Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) has reviewed the Pre-Application Conference materials to identify potential issues and requirements and provide the following comments. Some references to Portland City Code (PCC) are included below; the applicant may also refer to the Auditor’s Office Online Charter and Code page.
A. KEY ISSUES AND REQUIREMENTS
Following is a brief summary of issues and requirements that may impact your proposed project or are submittal requirements that will require time to prepare prior to submittal of the application.
1. The applicant must submit a utility plan and stormwater report, including the results of infiltration testing, with the land use application.
B. SANITARY SERVICE
1. Existing Sanitary Infrastructure: According to best available GIS data, the following public sewer infrastructure is located in the vicinity of the project site:
a. There is an 8-inch concrete combined sewer in SW Barbur Blvd, next to the curbline (BES project #1360, 0716 and 2543).
b. There is a 12-inch sanitary-only sewer of unspecified material that appears to originate near the northwest corner of the building at 2815 SW Barbur Blvd and flows northwest to a manhole on Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) property (manhole #ABY452).
c. There is a 60-inch concrete combined sewer running west to east through Duniway Park that is located approximately 90 feet north of the property line (BES project #2543).
d. A 10-foot wide private easement is located on the southeast corner of this site. This easement was granted by the City in 1975 (Ordinance #140979) to the building’s owner to construct and maintain a private sanitary service connection from the building to the 60-inch public combined sewer.
2
2. Combined Sewer: The combined sewer system currently surcharges under certain conditions. BES will allow sanitary connections, but stormwater discharges will be restricted according to the Stormwater Management Manual’s Infiltration and Discharge Hierarchy, as well as flow and volume control standards. See the Stormwater Management section, below, for more information.
3. Connection Requirements: Connection to public sewers must meet the standards of the City of Portland's Sewer and Drainage Facilities Design Manual. New laterals required to serve the project must be constructed to the public main at the developer’s expense during site development.
C. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
1. Existing Stormwater Infrastructure: According to best available GIS data, the following public stormwater infrastructure is located in the vicinity of the project site:
a. There is a 12-inch concrete storm-only pipe at the northwest corner of the building at 2815 SW Barbur Blvd that appears to terminate at manhole #ABY452 and discharge into the public combined sewer. It appears this pipe is not owned or maintained by BES.
b. There is a the drainage system for the Duniway Park field and 6-inch storm-only pipe owned and maintained by PP&R that is adjacent to the northern property line of 2815 SW Barbur Blvd and appears to be associated with the drainage system for the field. This pipe crosses the private utility easement noted above under Section B.
2. General Stormwater Management Requirements: Development and redevelopment sites that include any of the triggers listed in PCC 17.38.040 are subject to the policies and standards of PCC 17.38.035 and Portland’s Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM). Projects must comply with the current adopted version of the SWMM as of the permit application date. A fundamental evaluation factor in the SWMM is the Stormwater Infiltration and Discharge Hierarchy (Section 1.3.1) which sets the framework that will be used to determine when a project’s stormwater runoff must be infiltrated onsite and when offsite discharge will be permitted, and the parameters that must be met for either scenario. Pollution reduction and flow control requirements must be met using vegetated facilities to the maximum extent feasible, though roof runoff is exempt when it drains directly to a UIC.
3. Onsite Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from this project must comply with all applicable standards of the SWMM and be conveyed to a discharge point along a route of service approved by the BES Director or the Director’s designee. With the land use application, the applicant must submit a Presumptive or Performance Approach stormwater report and a preliminary utility plan showing stormwater management facilities sized according to SWMM standards. The report must follow the outline included in Appendix D.4 of the SWMM and be stamped by an Oregon registered engineer. Required elements of the report include:
a. Results of infiltration test(s) on the subject site performed by a professional engineer (PE), certified engineering geologist (CEG), or registered geologist (RG) in accordance with Appendix F.2. Infiltration tests must be conducted as close as possible to proposed infiltration facilities, and tests must be performed at the depth of the proposed facilities. Indicate on a plan the approximate location of the test(s).
b. Calculations prepared by an engineer using the Presumptive Approach Calculator (PAC), which is found in Appendix C of the SWMM. If using other software under the Performance Approach, the principles of Section 2.2.3 must be followed.
c. If BES approves offsite discharge to the combined sewer, PCC 17.38 and the SWMM require stormwater discharge to be controlled so that the post-development 25-year peak flow rate is limited to the pre-development 10-year peak flow rate. The applicant must show through the Presumptive or Performance Approach stormwater report how
3
flow and volume control standards that apply to the proposed discharge point will be met.
d. Note that infiltration facilities must be set back 5 feet from property lines and 10 feet from structures, as measured to the low point of vegetated facilities or the middle of UICs. Other required minimum setback distances that should be taken into account are summarized in Exhibit 2-1 of the SWMM. BES will enforce these setbacks unless an alternative is approved through the BDS plumbing code appeal process.
4. City of Portland Green Building Policy: The City of Portland has implemented a Green Building Policy that applies to City-owned facilities. Included in the policy is a requirement for an ecoroof that covers at least 70% of roof area for new buildings (see the Green Building Implementation Guide 2010 for more details). It is the responsibility of the applying Bureau to comply with the policy, as appropriate. Though not BES’s to enforce, staff encourages the applicant to do due diligence toward meeting the policy.
5. TMDL Requirements: The project site is located in the Marquam-Woods subwatershed of the Willamette River Watershed, where Oregon DEQ Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality requirements apply. The SWMM requires that applicants use pollution reduction facilities that are capable of reducing TMDL pollutants. Vegetated facilities sized according to the Simplified or Presumptive Approaches meet these requirements.
D. DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING (PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS)
Contact Bret Winkler (503-823-6170, [email protected]) with questions.
1. Information on the City’s public works permit (PWP) process is available at www.portlandoregon.gov/publicworks. Information about submittal requirements and review timelines is available through the website.
2. Public sanitary sewers are available to serve this property, and a public sewer extension is not required. When sewer is available and a main extension is not required, the lateral connection may be reviewed and permitted through the building permit. BES Development Review (503-823-7761) reviews private lateral connections to the public sewer.
3. A public storm sewer is not available to serve this property and/or public street improvements, and a public sewer extension is not required.
4. Public street improvements are required by PBOT. If these improvements develop or redevelop more than 500 square feet (sf) of impervious area under the criteria described in the SWMM, then BES will require public vegetated stormwater facilities. Additionally, utility trenches that disturb greater than 500sf of impervious area and extend past the centerline of the road will require conformance with SWMM requirements.
5. Development projects are evaluated using the criteria described in Section 1.3 of the SWMM for runoff from impervious area in the right-of-way, including the Stormwater Infiltration and Discharge Hierarchy (Section 1.3.1). Vegetative stormwater facilities in the right-of-way must be sized using the Presumptive Sizing Approach, which requires site-specific infiltration testing in or near the right-of-way at the approximate depth of the proposed public facility. For more information, see Section 2.2.2 Presumptive Approach and Appendix F.2 Infiltration Testing for the Presumptive Approach infiltration testing criteria.
6. The applicant should consider whether it is feasible to use street trees in the right-of-way as an impervious area reduction technique; see the Tree Credits section on page 2-45 of the SWMM.
7. The plans must meet relevant manuals and submittal requirements including the City’s Sewer and Drainage Facilities Design Manual (SDFDM), SWMM, and public works permitting plan submittal requirements and drafting standards. See the PWP website for technical resources and for plan preparation information.
4
8. If a stormwater facility is being proposed within the right-of-way and there is soil and/or groundwater contamination in the area, BES will require the applicant to demonstrate that contaminants are not further mobilized or exacerbated by the centralized stormwater infiltration area (PCC 17.38, Section 4.11).
9. The City’s Hazardous Substances Code (PCC 17.24.067) requires the excavation and removal of disturbed contaminated soils from right-of-way access areas and utility corridors. The soils must be replaced with clean fill at a minimum depth of 5 feet. A demarcation/contaminant barrier is also required when it has been determined the soils are contaminated at depth. Erosion control measures for contaminated soils (Section 4.11) must also be met. Soil stockpiles must be covered and contained with a barrier on all four sides, with an impervious layer underneath the stockpile to inhibit contaminants from leaching back into the soil.
E. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE
1. Full land use plan set, including preliminary utility plan.
2. A Presumptive or Performance approach stormwater report as described in this memo.
F. PERMIT INFORMATION
At the time of permit review the applicant should be aware of the following:
1. Connection Fees: Sewage system connection fees and system development charges are assessed at the time of building plan review and change every fiscal year on July 1st. For additional information on these fees, navigate here or call the BES Development Review Team at 503-823-7761.
2. Connection Requirements: Connection to public sewers must meet the standards of the City of Portland's Sewer and Drainage Facilities Design Manual.
Water Bureau Early Assistance Appointment Response
Date: December 2, 2015
From: Mari Moore, 503-823-7364, [email protected]
Case File: EA 15-189114
Location: Duniway Park
Property ID: R128926, R128934, R128951, R327717, R327869
Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review and possible Design Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and a new 46-space parking lot with access off SW Sheridan. A secondary access with accessible parking and emergency access will be provided off SW Barbur.
The Water Bureau has reviewed the pre-application conference materials to identify potential issues and requirements.
A. WATER AVAILABILITY 1. Adequate water is available to this site from the 8” main in SW Barbur Blvd and SW
Sheridan Street. The static water pressure is estimated as 44 – 56 psi.
2. The site currently served by 3 – 2” water services.
B. OTHER CATEGORY
1. Per Title 21 water lines may not cross property lines. All tax lots must be consolidated into one tax account through the Multnomah County Tax Assessor’s Office. See “Water Code Requirements” below for more information.
2. To obtain fire flow information fill out a “Fire Flow Request Form” found at our website, http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.cfm?c=55128& or by calling 503-823-1408.
C. WATER CODE REQUIREMENTS
Topic Code and Comments Code Citation & Link
Title 21 City Water Code Title 21 Water
Lot Consolidation
Prior to purchasing new services the project lots must be consolidated into one tax lot. Tax account consolidation is a simple process and can be done at Multnomah County Records
21.12.070 Separate Service.
«FolderNumber»
2
Topic Code and Comments Code Citation & Link
Management Division. For more information, please call 503-988-3326 or visit the below website http://web.multco.us/node/2667/#consolidations
D. PERMIT INFORMATION At the time of permit review (following the land use review) you should be aware of the following:
1. All new domestic service taps will be assessed a System Development Charge (SDC). Fee is based on meter size. Meters will be sized during the building permit process. Sizing is based on total fixture unit count for the structure, there will be no reduction in meter size based on grey water usage or the installation of low-flow fixtures. Fire lines are excluded from the SDC fee. SDC credit will be given for services that are permanently removed. SDC credit is applied towards services within the same lot and is not transferrable.
1
Fire Bureau Pre-Application Conference Response
Date: December 9, 2015
To: Sheila Frugoli, Conference Facilitator
503-823-7817, [email protected]
From: Joe Thornton, 503-823-4280
Case File: EA 15-189114
Location:
Property ID: R128926, R128934, R128951, R327717, R327869
Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review and possible Design Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and a new 46-space parking lot with access off SW Sheridan. A secondary access with accessible parking and emergency access will be provided off SW Barbur.
The Fire Bureau has reviewed the pre-application conference materials to identify potential issues and requirements.
A. KEY ISSUES AND REQUIREMENTS Following is a brief summary of issues and requirements that may impact your proposed project or are submittal requirements that will require time to prepare prior to submittal of the application.
Fire department access and water supply are primary concerns. I do believe Fire would have any issues for either options. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PORTLAND, OREGON
CITY OF Charlie Hales, Mayor, City of Portland
Steve Novick, Commissioner Nate Takara, Fire Marshal
Prevention Division 1300 SE Gideon Street
Portland, OR 97202 (503) 823-3700
Fax (503) 823-3969
City Nature – Urban Forestry 1900 SW 4th Ave. Suite 5000
Portland, OR 97201 Tel: (503) 823-8733
Email: [email protected]
1 | P a g e
Urban Forestry Early Assistance Response Date: December 2, 2015 From: Rick Faber
503-823-1691, [email protected] Case File: EA 15-189114 Location: SW SHERIDAN ST, DUNIWAY PARK Proposal: Pre-Application Conference to discuss a Type III Conditional Use Review and possible Design Review for proposed improvements to Duniway Park which include the replacement of the field surface with synthetic turf, adding new bleachers, walkways and a new 46-space parking lot with access off SW Sheridan. A secondary access with accessible parking and emergency access will be provided off SW Barbur. Portland Parks, Urban Forestry staff has reviewed the Early Assistance materials to identify potential issues and requirements in accordance with Title 11, Trees. This response identifies potential issues and/or impacts on existing street and heritage trees, and trees on city-owned or managed sites, if applicable. Trees on private property are subject to development standards from the Bureau of Development Services. See planner requirements for private property trees.
A. KEY ISSUES AND REQUIREMENTS
1. Tree Plan (11.50.060) A tree plan must be submitted with each phase of review including land use reviews, building permit applications and public works permits. A tree plan was not submitted with the EA application additional tree information is required. The plan must include the following information for street trees and trees on city owned property:
• The size and location of street trees adjacent to the subject property, and trees on site. • Trees proposed to be preserved including tree protection specifications in accordance with
11.60.030. • Tree(s) proposed for removal. • Tree planting plan (tree species and location(s)).
2. Proposed Street Tree Removal and Required Mitigation (11.50.040) Based on the proposed development it appears that trees may be impacted. Development proposals shall be configured to avoid trees. Each tree approved for removal must be replanted in accordance with Administrative Rule PRK – 2.04. Street tree planting standards must also be met in accordance
2 | P a g e
with 11.50.060 C. A fee in lieu of planting may be approved if adequate planting space is not available. The fee in lieu will be $450.00 for each tree not planted.
3. Tree Protection Specifications (11.60.030) Tree protection is required in accordance with Title 11 Trees, Protection Methods (11.60.030). Tree protection shall be shown on the tree plan and include the distance from the trunk of the tree to the fence. A standard root protection zone is established as follows; a minimum of 1 foot radius (measured horizontally away from the face of the tree trunk) for each inch of tree diameter. Protection fencing shall be a minimum 6-foot high metal chain link construction fence, secured with 8-foot metal posts shall be established at the edge of the root protection zone and permissible encroachment area.
4. Street Tree Planting (11.50.060C) Due to the existing condition of the right-of-way, street trees may not be required unless PBOT requires frontage improvements.
5. City Managed Sites (11.50.040C2.a)
For development on City owned or managed sites, new public streets, or improvements to existing streets, applicants are required to consult with the City Forester at the preliminary project design phase if City or Street Tree removal is likely to occur to complete the project. The purpose of this consultation is to identify potential impacts and opportunities to retain existing trees, as well as any measures required to protect trees on site, on adjacent sites, or in the street. In order to meet this requirement you must go through a review with Urban Forestry. A Preliminary Project Design Form must be submitted early in the design process (prior to 30% plan completion). The form is attached to this response for your convenience and can be found at www.portlandoregon.gov/trees. Any proposed change in width in a public street right-of-way or any other proposed street improvement, including the development of new public streets, shall include areas for tree and landscape planting where practical. Utility connections and specifications for planting such areas shall be integrated into the site plan. Specific locations and species will be determined by the Responsible Engineer and City Forester.
B. OTHER REQUIREMENTS Species Requirements (11.60.020 D)
• When planting between 8 and 24 trees no more than 40 percent can be of one species. • When planting more than 24 trees no more than 24 percent can be of the same species. • Trees listed in the “Nuisance Plants list” are prohibited for proposed planting or required replacement. • Any street trees planted in environmental, greenway, scenic corridors, or Pleasant Valley Natural Resource
overlay zones shall be native species unless the City Forester (US) makes an exception due to planting constraints.
3 | P a g e
• Street trees shall be selected from an approved planting list, contact Urban Forestry for planting alternate or unlisted species.
PRK-2.04 - Replanting Requirements for Tree Removal on Private Property, City-Owned and Managed Sites and Public Rights-of-Way
Development Projects
Title 11 creates a systematic approach to address trees during City capital improvement and public works projects. On City owned or managed sites and when improvements are proposed to the right-of-way, applicants are required to consult with the City Forester at the preliminary project design phase if trees are proposed for removal. Per Section 11.50.040, the purpose of this consultation is to identify potential impacts and opportunities to retain existing trees, as well as any measures required to protect trees on site, on adjacent sites or in the street. Per Section 11.50.070 Tree Plan Requirements, applicants must show trees greater than or equal to 6 inches in diameter within either a 15 foot or 25 foot buffer beyond the development impact area (depending on the project type). When this buffer area extends onto private property the surveyed location and size of trees is not required. However, applicants shall include tree size and location estimates for City Forester review. Applicants are not required to install tree protection measures on private property unless the trees are located within the development impact area. The City Forester will respond in a timely manner to these requests. This rule standardizes tree replacement requirements when trees cannot be preserved on City owned or managed sites and right-of-way improvements.
For projects on sites where City and Street trees will be impacted, the City Forester will apply tree replacement requirements for trees 6 inches in diameter and greater that are healthy trees and not dangerous or a nuisance species. For street improvement projects where the existing street is partially or completely unimproved, the replacement requirements are reduced to acknowledge constraints of designing within restricted rights-of-way widths, that these areas may include large numbers of trees, the relative lack of available planting spaces after a street improvement is completed, and the potential cost of mitigation on top of the public improvement cost. In these cases, replacement is only required for trees 12 inches in diameter and larger.
City Owned or Managed Sites
Any required replanting specified below shall occur on the site, in the street planting strip, or in the same watershed either by planting in a location approved by the City Forester or via payment into the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund. Trees shall be replanted in accordance with 11.60.020, Tree Planting Specifications.
• No tree replacement is required for trees removed that are less than 6 inches in diameter or for trees identified by the City Forester as dead, dying or dangerous.
• The following table provides the maximum tree replacement requirement based on the size of the tree removed. The City Forester shall take into account the overall value of the tree removed when determining the number of trees to be planted.
4 | P a g e
• Payment in lieu of planting. Applicants may choose to pay a fee in lieu of planting replacement trees. The fee in lieu of planting is based on the cost of planting and establishing a 1.5 inch caliper tree in accordance with the adopted Tree Code fee schedule Fee in Lieu of Planting per Inch rate.
Right-of-way Improvements
Any required replanting specified by development type below shall occur on the site, in the street planting strip, or in the same watershed either by planting in a location approved by the City Forester or via payment into the Tree Planting and Preservation Fund.
Residential and Commercial Building Permits
For development projects taking place on a site that include Street Tree removal for right-of-way improvements such as a new driveway or improvements to an existing sidewalk or planting strip, applicants shall replant a maximum of two trees for every healthy, non-nuisance species tree allowed to be removed that is 6” DBH and larger. Applicants shall also meet the Street Tree Planting Requirements in accordance with Section 11.50.060 C.1., in addition to this requirement.
Half and Full Street Improvements
For development projects taking place in the street, including street improvements requested under a capital improvement project or when a public works permit includes improvements to a partially or fully unimproved street, applicants shall replant a maximum of two trees for every healthy, non-nuisance species tree allowed to be removed that is 12 inches in diameter or larger. Trees planted to meet Street Tree Planting Standards will be credited toward meeting this requirement.
Tree Replacement for Development on City Owned or Managed Sites Size of tree to be removed(inches in diameter)
No. of trees to be planted
6 and up to 12
up to 2
More than 12 and up to 20
up to 3
More than 20 and up to 25
up to 5
More than 25
up to 6
Re: Pre-Application Conference, Duniway Park Proposal. File # EA 15-189114. December 2015
Neighborhood Concerns:
1. Proposed plans and events to occur there are too ambitious for a park with severe land,
access and parking constraints. The South Portland Neighborhood Association is
acknowledged as being park deficient. The intensive use of this park for regional
activities will actually reduce usable parkland for neighbors.2. Park land and green space will be lost to proposed paving for vehicle parking and its
connecting driveway. Portland is recognized for progressive transportation alternatives,and with buses, light rail, trolleys, aerial tram, bikes and excellent trails nearby, thepaving over of public green space should be discouraged. The progressive newneighbor's development proposal for this borrowed amenity should reflect these
interests. lnstead, will our city be known for letting developers build apartmentswithout parking and at the same time, pave green park land?
3. Does the installation of synthetic turf offer an ecological or economic advantage forPortland Public Parks? The City that builds storm swales for paved streets shouldn'tpave over grass for more parking.
4. Proposed parking will require a driveway almost as long as the parking area itself. Thispaved area will equal almost a third of the playing field itself. lt will also divide an
otherwise integrated trail system now serving Duniway Park, Terwilliger Parkway and
Terwilliger Plaza.
5. The driveway entrance and exit will impact a small street that encounters heavycommuter traffic from OHSU and OR26.
6. What is the corporate interest and purpose for these public park improvements by theapplicants who occupy the adjoining property? The Park is situated so that theirproperty overlooks it and seems to be jointly managed. At the bottom of the proposal
called Concept Plan- Option 5, there are two "signatures": 1: Cal Ripken Senior YouthDevelopment Park, and 2: Kpff FIELDS. How is the park bureau related to them? Does
this create a new relationship between Parks and corporate interests? This concernsprings from our loss of seven blocks of parkland to development. Please note that wehave lost 3 blocks of Terwilliger Playground ( this became the Red Cross, Wy'east,Corbett Crescent and l-5), a 1 block Liberty Park (where William Johnson's cabin stood)and 3 blocks of school playgrounds: Terwilliger (in Carp Flats), Holman (on Corbett) and
Failing School. The direct involvement of private companies and corporations tends tocompromise- and even usurp- the public commons and green space. This problem is
especially dangerous when private interests adjoin or share interests in public park real
estate.
7. Certainly, there are other options that would serve developers and corporations, andstill maintain the current integrity of the Park Bureau, the park and its users. These
other options need to be presented at pre-application conferences.
Sioned:
Stephen LeflarMary Real
Carol Swanson
Bill Kessler
Mike Roach
Kim Osgood
Art WrightJeffrey D SherSidonie Caron.Gordon Caron
Ha ns PerenboomMiles Tu rnerMary Ellen MarmadukeSybilla A. Cook
Nona P. Lewis
Michael KlinglesmithKelly KlinglesmithDarl KleinbachAnne McFall
3404 SW 1't Avenue3404 SW 1't Avenue3334 SW 1" Avenue3334 SW 1't Avenue0123 SW Curry Street0123 SW Curry Street4115 SW Hillsdale6203 SW Virginia [email protected]/7O1-722r3405 SW Naito Parkway130 SW Whitaker Street3501 SW River Parkway3550 SW Bond Avenue3425 SW 1st Ave.
3311 SW 1't Avenue3311 SW 1't Avenue105 SW Curry Street33 L5 SW Kelly Avenue
Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239
Portland, OR 97201Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239Portland, OR 97239
Additional comments:
"Way too much going on for the size of the space!"
"The parking area would certainly eat into the available green space and change the way torun/bike/crawl up to Terwilliger from the track."
"No need for soccer stands where they block other activities."
'Typical thinking involves parking for cars only! Plan an area for bicycle parking with racks
where cyclist can lock their bike. Finally, professional soccer games are always played on realgrass, not astro-turf."