Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2014-01-29 (05) eiirkp. E p ,r4,. I; Aiiii-g OREGG, LU 13-0046 BLOCK 137 — WIZER'S 140 A AVENUE LESLIE HAMILTON SENIOR PLANNER Exhibits F-14 thru F-18 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC . TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING / PLANNING 610 SW Alder Street,Suite 700,Portland,OR 97205 P 503.228.5230 P 503.273.81 69 MEMORANDUM Date: August 25,2013 Project It:13588 To: Pat Kessi Evergreen Group, LLC From: Mike Coleman Project: Block 137 Subject: Traffic Generated by Alternative Developments This memo summarizes and compares the vehicle trips forecast for various Block 137 redevelopment scenarios.The scenarios consider five combinations of residential, retail, restaurant, and general office.The scenarios are as follows: 1. Proposed Development (228 residential units, 17,700 s.f.of specialty retail and 9,300 s.f.of restaurant) 2. Existing Building at full utilization (56,400 s.f.of specialty retail and 16,300 s.f.of restaurant) 3. Low-Density retail with general office (63,400 s.f.of specialty retail,24,300 s.f.of restaurant and 40,000 s.f.of general office) 4. High-Density retail with general office (150,000 s.f.of specialty retail and 100,000 s.f.of office) 5. Maximum Allowed Mixed-Use configuration (150 residential units, 50,000 s.f.specialty retail,25,000 s.f.of restaurant and 40,000 s.f.of office) The following table summarizes the driveway traffic activity forecast for each of the five scenarios. Average Daily Total P.M. Peak Hour Driveway Traffic Driveway Traffic Development Alternatives (vehicles per day) (vehicles per hour) I1 Proposed Development 2,590 220 2 Existing Building at Full Utilization 3,270 280 3 r Low-Density Retail with General Office 4,300 385 14 High Density Retail with General Office 7,280 680 f5 Maximum Allowed Mixed-Use 4,825 380 FILENAME. H:•IPRO]FILE113588-LAKE 05W560 WIZER BLOCK 1371 REPORT1 BLOCK 137 ALTERNATIVE USE5111813.0OCX F-14 LU 13-0046 ( F' Block 137 Project#:13588 August 25,2013 Page 2 This exercise considers uses common and allowed in the East End District of downtown Lake Oswego and assumes adequate on-site parking is provided.The forecast calculations do account for the trip reduction efficiencies of"internal trips" between the assumed uses. It is likely that this exercise conservatively overestimates the number of trips generated by residential uses on Block 137.The number of residential trips was calculated using average apartment trip generation characteristics which include suburban uses and were not adjusted for reasonable and allowable reductions accounting for the following: • Block 137 is in a downtown core area within easy walking distance to basic services, leisure destinations and transit; • Trip rates tend to decrease as the number of building floors increase. It should also be noted, not only do retail and office redevelopment scenarios generate more trips than the proposed predominantly residential scenario, their trips tend to be concentrated during the late morning, afternoon and evening peak traffic hours. By comparison residential use trips tend to spread out over more hours of a day. The combination of greater numbers of trips and their narrower distribution over a day makes retail and office uses more impactful on the street system than residential uses. Summary The proposed development combination of residential, restaurant and retail uses(Scenario 1) is forecast to generate the fewest number of trips of all scenarios. Further,the diversification and balance of uses with the proposed development will have the least impact on the surrounding transportation system. This includes the scenario where the existing building is released and fully utilized (Scenario 2). Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Partlan f er14 LU 13-0046 BLOCK 137 Main Topics Summary January 22, 2014 Before the Development Review Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . Building Height 2. Fourth and Fifth Story 3. Quality of Design 4. Parking 5. Transportation Submitted by: Eugene Wizer Evergreen Group, LLC F-15 LU 13-0046 {00224652,11 BUILDING HEIGHT Block 137 is zoned EC. The EC zone allows a 60 foot tall building. Table 50.04.001-14. The Downtown Redevelopment Design District repeats this same allowance: "Building siting and massing shall create a village character by compliance with the following requirements:" e. Height Limit. No building shall be taller than 60 feet in height." (Emphasis added). The code is clear. If you comply with the height limit, you comply with village character for height. Block 137 is well within this height allowance. Block 137 ranges from 47 feet to 58 feet in height. At its lowest point, it is 13 feet below the height limit and at its peak it is 2 feet below the height limit. The peak height occurs in limited locations and is under the 60-foot height allowance at all locations. A few more helpful height comparisons: • Block 137's gabled roof eave comes down to 36 feet to 41 feet above the ground on First Street creating a perceived scale even below the code-compliant roof peak. The gabled roof eave on Second Street is only 24 feet to 44 feet above the sidewalk. • Based on a recent survey, the highest roofline at Lake View Village is 63.0 feet. This peak is above the Frog Pond store on State Street. One other peak measures 62.5 feet above Grapevine. While the EC zone allowed a 60 foot height at the time Lake View Village was approved, the Design District standards allowed only 51 feet. Not only did Lake View Village utilize the entire 51-foot height allowance in its design, it asked for and obtained a height exception to exceed the 51-foot height allowance at the mid-line of the gable. This exception resulted in two locations where the height of Lake View Village exceeds the current code allowance of 60 feet. • As a comparison, at all locations Block 137 is below the 60 foot height allowance. No height exceptions are required for Block 137. • Height surveys conducted recently show a maximum height of nearly 49 feet (48 feet, 7 inches) for Lake View Village along First Street. This is similar to Block 137. At its highest and lowest roofline, Block 137 is 54 feet and 51 feet respectively along First Street. Only the corner of First Street and A Avenue is 55 feet. There is at most only a 2-foot to 5-foot height difference between the highest roof peak of Lake View Village and the roofline of Block 137 along most of First Street. This minimal height difference is separated by an estimated 80-foot right of way. • The staff report for the 555 condos lists a height range of 44 feet to 53 feet for tiratiVvelopment. LU 13-0046 {00224083;2} THE FOURTH STORY The Code regulates the number of stories within the 60-foot allowed height limit. The code permits four (4) stories within the 60 foot height Limit if the fourth story is residential and contained within a gabled or hipped roof. Block 137 has four (4) stories and is within the 60-foot height limit. The fourth story is entirely residential and contained within a gabled or hipped roof. It is therefore allowed by code. The fourth story is not an exception to the code. It is allowed in a residential form. The fourth story is set back considerably from the third story, making it recede from the street. THE FIFTH STORY On a portion of the west-facing facade along Second Street, Block 137 includes a fifth story, all within the 60-foot height limit and containing residential use only in a gabled roof form. This exterior fifth story is limited to the south half of the block and is needed to: • Continue a dropping roof edge along the Second Street facade; • Respond to the drop and rise in topography; • Retain residential only uses on this block rather than ground floor retail. The code encourages retail use on the ground floor along Second Street. Because this frontage is directly across the street from townhomes, residential uses are retained here to offer more compatibility with the existing neighborhood. If the proposal included retail use, that ground floor would accommodate 18-20 foot floor to ceiling heights. That would change the number of stories from five (5) to four (4) but would not reduce the overall height of the proiect. The height would remain the same, code-compliant and under 60 feet. • The fifth story in this limited location includes only five (5) units and complies with the height limit at its high point of 58 feet. The eave line along Second Street comes down to 24 feet to 44 feet above the sidewalk, further reducing the perceived height. • The fifth floor is set back even further than the fourth floor. The fourth floor along Second Street is setback 5 feet from the face of the building. The fifth floor is setback 5 feet again from the fourth floor for a total setback of 10 feet from the face of the building. From the pedestrian view along the site frontage, the fifth floor, and much of the fourth floor will recede from view. • The only other location where Block 137 includes five (5) stories is along interior courtyard and all of those facades are also below 60 feet in height. • The Staff Report finds that the limited nature of the fifth floor, together with its substantial set back, dormer architecture and compliance with the height limit warrant approval of this exception. F-15 LU 13-0046 (00224083;2) QUALITY OF DESIGN Section 50.05.004.5 establishes the Lake Oswego Style: "New buildings shall use the siting and massing characteristics of the Lake Oswego Style such as complex massing and asymmetrical composition." The code then provides a particular definition of Lake Oswego Style: "A building design that borrows from the City's historic architectural traditions including the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic styles. Buildings which use complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials exemplify this style...Adherence to the Lake Oswego Style is not intended to require historical replication. Modern design interpreting quoting or utilizing the above noted stylistic forms are also encompassed within this definition." (Emphasis added). The Lake Oswego Style does not require replication of existing architecture and it encourages modern interpretations of the noted styles. The project architects went to great lengths to study the Lake Oswego design environment, to create three (3) separate identities in the three (3) proposed buildings utilizing the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and Oregon Rustic styles. The City staff has evaluated every inch of the design and after incorporating recommended changes, the City staff has approved the design as a quality development consistent with the Lake Oswego Style. The design of this project has been altered significantly by City and public input. For example: • What was once a single building, covering the entire block has become three distinct buildings each reflecting one of the three distinct Lake Oswego Styles. • The three buildings create an impression of three separate blocks tied together by highly refined pedestrian ways; bringing life into the core of the development and making the block transparent, traversable and timeless. • The main east-west pedestrian way ranges from 27 feet to 37 feet wide and is improved with rich Landscaping, pedestrian amenities and provides an important connection mid-block between First and Second Streets. • The number of units has decreased from two hundred forty (240) units to two hundred twenty-eight (228) units and the size of the units has increased. World class architects are bringing the highest quality design and materials to this development. These materials go well beyond the requirements of the code and ensure the long lasting, well rooted building will survive for the next century and age with dignity in this special location. This high Level of design will attract best in class retailers and restaurants, in turn attracting shoppers and diners that are at the essence of village character. The design includes a Lake view conservatory, a spa and fitness center, a chef's kitchen, fireplaces and water feature, putting green, grilling areas, wine storage, library, pet grooming studio, concierge and potential guest suites. It is intended to provide the best in residential services to match the high quality design. F-15 LU 13-0046 {00224083;2} PARKING Residential: The code requires 316 residential spaces on Block 137 before applying the downtown adjustment factors. After applying those factors, the parking requirement is 237 spaces. The project is providing 322 residential spaces. • This is 85 spaces, or 35.9%, more than the number required by code. Retail: The code requires 136 retail spaces. By code these retail spaces can be provided in the garage and on-street along the project frontage. The project provides 135 spaces in the garage and 32 spaces on-street for a total of 167 spaces. ■ These 167 spaces exceed the code requirement by 31 spaces. ■ The 135 retail spaces will be available to any public visitor to the area, whether that visitor is shopping at the new 28,000 square feet of retail within the project, shopping at Lake View Village or visiting any other destination downtown. • Parking will be available for the Farmer's Market, the Summer Concert Series and tike events. • Because the site accommodates its parking needs in a well designed structured garage, the project will not lead to any offsite parking impacts. With an adequate parking supply traffic congestion can be reduced by eliminating the need to circle the block repeatedly looking for a convenient parking space. Once parked, users can travel by foot instead of car, further reducing congestion. • Today there are three surface parking lots on the site. The proposal will provide nearly three times as much parking all out of sight. • The parking garage also anticipates providing several electric charging stations and a Zipcar car-sharing program. F-15 LU 13-0046 {00224083;2} TRANSPORTATION A comprehensive traffic report was scoped by the City and submitted by the project. • Block 137 will attract and generate a total of 90 more p.m. peak hour trips than typically observed under current conditions. • All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable Levels of service during the weekday p.m. peak hour when the site is redeveloped and occupied in 2016. The City's standard is LOS E. The study intersections will continue to operate at LOS A-C. • The layout of the neighborhood street network limits traffic impacts on the Evergreen Neighborhood. Block traffic traveling to and from the north, south and east can be expected to continue relying almost exclusively on First and Second Streets and A and B Avenues, not Evergreen Neighborhood streets. • Observed weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Second Street and Evergreen Road indicate that Evergreen Road is not a particularly popular path to or from Block 137 site and Lake View Village. Of the only 33 eastbound vehicles approaching from the west half turned left onto Second Street and half continued east toward First Street. Only eighteen vehicles were observed approaching the intersection from the east. • By comparison, a total of 70 eastbound weekday p.m. peak hour vehicles were observed using turning from A Avenue onto First Street and Second Street. Eighty-five vehicles were observed turning left from First Street and Second Street to travel west on A Avenue. • Block 137 will replace nine existing driveways with two driveways. The closures of existing driveways will create additional on-street parking or truck loading zone opportunities. • The gated driveway on Second Street will serve residents and their guests, not the general public. • The driveway on First Street will be accessible by the general public. The First Street driveway is not expected to impede the traffic flow on First Street or Evergreen Road, or access to the existing Lake View Village driveway. Most turns at the First Street driveway will be right-turns in and left- turns out. Right-turns in can be made without delay or conflict except when yielding to a pedestrian. Left-turns exiting the First Street driveway will yield to all traffic including traffic exiting the Lake View Village driveway. • The mixed use nature of the project will further reduce City-wide trips by providing a central, one- stop Location for residents and guests to patronize many different uses including existing and new retail uses, office uses, residences and public spaces. F-15 LU 13-0046 {00224083;2} �coLA ti ilitil MEMORANDUM aREGo TO: Development Review Commission Don Richards, Chair and Members CC: Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner FROM: Evan P. Boone Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: 13-0046/ Evergreen Group, LLC LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i: Fourth Floor Criteria—"may" DATE: January 27, 2014 This development permit application is for three buildings that contain fourth and fifth floors. Staff has found that the fifth floor is the subject of a request for an exception, but the fourth floor is permitted if it complies with one of the four criteria of LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i: "Number of Stories: New buildings shall be at least two stories tall, and new and remodeled building shall be no greater than three stories tall, except: i. A fourth story may be permitted subject[to]the following: (1) The fourth story is residential and is contained within a gabled or hipped roof; (2) The site is sloping and the structure has three or fewer stories on the uphill side; (3) The fourth story is significantly stepped back from the building plane created by the lower stories;or (4) Fourth story design elements are used to break up the mass of a building, create visual interest and variety, hide mechanical equipment, define an entry or define a particular building's function. Examples of such design elements include dormers, towers, turrets, clerestories, and similar features. The provision of a fourth floor is not an exception to the design standards;a fourth floor is allowed provided one of the conditions above is met. (The"may" is not discretionary; if one of the subsections(1)-(4) is met,then a fourth floor is permitted. See former LOC 50.65.025(4) and Ord. 2579,Whereas statement#3 and Sections 26 and 28.) As shown in the elevations(Exhibit E9), all three buildings are four stories, with a limited number of residential units contained in a fifth story. The applicant is requesting an exception to the limit on the number of stories;the criteria of approval for this exception are addressed in F-16 LU 13-0046 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 LOC 50.08.005, below. The fourth and fifth stories meet the conditions identified above as follows: ****" Staff Report, LU 13-0046, pg. 9 Commissioner Needham asked staff for additional information regarding the interpretation regarding "may" in LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i. Attached is my October 11, 2013 informal interpretation (pursuant to LOC 50.01.005.1.b) finding that: (1) Prior to adoption of the Code Reorganization, this section was stated in "shall", not "may". (2) During the Code Reorganization process, there was a scrivener's change from "shall" to "may" but this was not noted as a change to the staff reviewers, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. Accordingly, it would qualify as a Code Reorganization Variance per Section 26, Ord. 2579. (3) Notwithstanding the ability to obtain a Code Reorganization Variance, a fourth floor should nevertheless be approved if a fourth floor development application shows that one of the four criteria are met because of the statutory and code requirements that a decision be based upon the standards and criteria contained within the Community Development Code and the total absence of any standard upon which discretion could be exercised under "may" to deny a fourth floor, if the subsection is read literally and in isolation, without context and its legislative history. See ORS 227.173; LOC 50.07.003.4.g.i and ii1. i g. Decision of the Hearing Body i. At the conclusion of deliberations,the hearing body shall make a preliminary oral decision to approve, approve with conditions pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.5,or deny an application based upon the applicable standards and criteria and the evidence and testimony in the record. The preliminary oral decision is not a final decision.At any time prior to the adoption of the final order pursuant to subsection 4.g.ii of this section,the hearing body may modify or change its decision or choose to reopen the hearing. ii. The hearing body shall adopt a final written order either immediately after making its preliminary oral decision or at a public meeting within a reasonable time after making the preliminary oral decision.The final written order shall consist of a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant,states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based upon the criteria,standards and facts set forth.The order shall also contain or incorporate by reference any conditions of approval deemed necessary or appropriate by the hearing body.A proposed order may be prepared by the City Manager or may be prepared by the prevailing party subject to review and approval of the City Manager.The hearing body shall amend the proposed order if it finds that the proposed order does not accurately articulate the hearing body's decision. Except as provided in subsection 4.g.iii of this section,the written order is the final decision on the application and the date of the order for purposes of appeal is the date on which it is adopted by the hearing body. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Boone, Evan From: Boone, Evan Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04 AM To: Williams, Brant; Hamilton, Leslie Subject: RE: The Fourth Story Brant and Leslie: First, it is noted that my reply is an "informal interpretation" under LOC 50.01.005.1.b: Any person may request the planning staff or the City Attorney for an informal interpretation. Such a request may either be oral or in writing, and is not subject to notice, appeal or a fee. Such an interpretation is not a final land use decision, however,and is not binding on City staff or City appellate authorities as it applies to future land use applications on the subject property or in general. Second, in review of the legislative history of the current code version, it has previously been noted that the use of "may" in this subsection was an inadvertent error in the code reorganization process—it was supposed to be "shall": "[8-19-13 E-note] There is a substantive difference between pre-code reorg and code-reorg, based on "may" v. "shall". According to Jessica,there was no intent to change the text. Old 50.65.025.4.a and b: 4. Number of Stories. New buildings shall be at least two stories tall, and new and remodeled building shall be no greater than three stories tall, except: a. A fourth story shall be allowed if: i. The fourth story is residential and is contained within a gabled or hipped roof; ii. The site is sloping and the structure has three or fewer stories on the uphill side; iii. The fourth story is significantly stepped back from the building plane created by the lower stories; or iv. Fourth story design elements are used break up the mass of a building, create visual interest and variety, hide mechanical equipment, define an entry or define a particular building's function. Examples of such design elements include dormers,towers,turrets, clerestories, and similar features. b. One story construction shall only be allowed if: i. It is limited to a small portion of a taller structure, such as an entry area, canopy over an outdoor restaurant, building ends or wings which relate to open space or as a step down to an adjacent one story viable existing structure; or ii. When a minimum height of 20 feet is maintained at the right-of-way or street side building edge. Jessica: In checking the track changes versions of the code reorg, "may" is used in those sections instead of shall, but neither show any track changes, so it was assumed to be existing code language at that time. I quickly checked and it doesn't appear that "shall"was changed to "may" by Ord. 2525 or other subsequent ordinances, 1 so this could be an inadvertent error from the code reorg. We did not intentionally mean to change "shall"to "may". This should be restored to old formatting in a CDC Update." When the CDC in its present format by a Code Reorganization, an administrative "Code Reorganization Variance" was included: Code Reorganization Variance Ordinance 2579, Section 26 provides for a Code Reorganization Variance and shall expire for all applications filed after April 19, 2015. Section 26. Code Reorganization Variance. The City Manager may, upon application, grant a Code Reorganization Variance to any substantive provision of Chapter 50 if the applicant demonstrates that a use, setback, exception, adjustment, or other development right is not permitted under the newly adopted Articles of Chapter 50, but would have been permitted under the provisions of Chapters 50, 57, 58, and Article 45.15 repealed by this Ordinance, unless the use, setback, exception, adjustment, or other development right was amended or modified after the effective date of this Ordinance. The procedure for application, notice, hearing, decision, and appeal of the Code Reorganization Variance shall be the same as a Minor Variance, except that no Pre-application Conference shall be required. Thus, if one were to conclude that the use of"may" is discretionary, in that whether a fourth floor is approved is not subject to any criteria or standards, an administrative variance to correct the code text is permissible. Setting aside the availability of a Code Reorganization Variance for the moment,what would be the interpretation of "may" as used in LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i. LOC 50.05.004.5 [DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN DISTRICT; BUILDING SITING AND MASSING]: d. Number of Stories New buildings shall be at least two stories tall, and new and remodeled building shall be no greater than three stories tall, except: i. Fourth Story A fourth story may be permitted subject[to] the following: (1)The fourth story is residential and is contained within a gabled or hipped roof; (2)The site is sloping and the structure has three or fewer stories on the uphill side; (3)The fourth story is significantly stepped back from the building plane created by the lower stories; or (4) Fourth story design elements are used to break up the mass of a building, create visual interest and variety, hide mechanical equipment, define an entry or define a particular building's function. Examples of such design elements include dormers, towers, turrets, clerestories, and similar features. ii. Single Story Single story construction may be permitted subject to the following: (1) It is limited to a small portion of a taller structure, such as an entry area, canopy over an outdoor restaurant, building ends or wings which relate to open space or as a step down to an adjacent one story viable existing structure; or (2)When a minimum height of 20 ft. is maintained at the right-of-way or street side building edge. "May" is expressly defined as discretionary, per LOC 50.10.003.1.a. 50.10.003 DEFINITIONS 1. INTERPRETATION 2 a. For the purposes of this Code certain terms and words are defined as follows:the words "used for" include "designed for" and vice-versa; words used in the present tense include the future,the singular tense includes the plural and vice-versa;the word "shall" is always mandatory; the word "may" is discretionary;the masculine gender includes the feminine gender, except as otherwise provided. To interpret code provisions,the methodology described in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 165-73, 206 P3d 1042 (2009), and Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bureau of Labor& Indus., 317 Or 606, 610-11, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) is applied: examination of text and context; due consideration of any relevant legislative history; and if the Council's intent remains unclear after examining text, context, and legislative history, resort to general maxims of statutory construction is made(fn),to aid in resolving the remaining uncertainty. Sarathy v. Washington County, 64 Or LUBA 279 (2011). Fn: Courts may not insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted. ORS 174.010 Words of common usage should be given their ordinary meaning. The context of a statute includes all provisions within the questioned statute and other related statutes.Southern Pac. Trans Co v Dept of Revenue, 316 Or 495 (1993). The specific statutory intent should control over a general inconsistent intent. If possible, the construction of a statute's intent should give effect to all statutory provisions. ORS 174.010. Text So looking at strictly at "may", one might conclude that there is discretion to approve a fourth story even if the criteria is met. But we can also look at context,to determine if that interpretation of"may" is what the Council intended when it adopted this subsection. Context Buildings shall be either 2 or 3 stories, except a permit for a single story or a fourth story building "may" be issued if one of the listed criteria is met. In context,the "may" may be used as a means of stating an exception to the "shall" requirement for 2-3 story buildings. Legislative History/Maxim of Statutory Construction In the realm of land use, part of the legislative history is the overall statutory and case law that has evolved,to which the Planning Commission and City Council must comply when they are adopting land use regulations. A maxim of statutory construction is that the interpretation should be consistent with the purpose of a statute or statutory scheme, or the statute or scheme's underlying policy, as the legislative body would not have intended the code to produce absurd results. OSB, Interpreting Oregon Law(2009 edition)(Chapter 4,Step Three Analysis: General Maxims of Statutory Construction, §4.7-4.18). The purpose of land use regulations is to provide the criteria under which a development proposal is judged. Indeed in reviewing a development application,the decision maker is limited to the standards and criteria that are found in the applicable land use applications existing at the time of submission of the application: ORS 227.173 Basis for decision on permit application or expedited land division;statement of reasons for approval or denial. (1)Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. (2)When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS 197.307 to provide only clear and objective standards,the standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance. (3)Approval or denial of a permit application or expedited land division shall be based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts 3 relied upon in rendering the decision and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. (4)Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceeding. The use of"may" should be interpreted, if at all possible, in a manner that would comply with state law. And no doubt the Council intended at the time of adoption that its code provisions be interpreted in a manner that complies with state law, rather than an interpretation that would result in non-compliance. What other criteria and standards in the Code would be applied to determine whether or not a fourth floor should be approved? I am not aware of any additional applicable criteria or standards on the specific question of whether a fourth story should be approved. Conclusion: It appears clear that a Code Administrative Variance could be issued to restore "may"to "shall", in terms of constraining the consideration of any additional basis—or discretion—in determining whether or not a fourth floor should be approved. However, based upon the context, legislative history, and maxims of statutory construction discussed above, "may", as used in LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i. should be interpreted as illustrating the instances in which the number of floors of a building is approvable when they are not either two or three floors, rather than interpreting "may" to permit a completely discretionary—or arbitrary—decision whether or not to allow the number of floors to be other than 2-3. Accordingly, I interpret LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i as setting forth the criteria upon which a fourth floor must be approved, if met. Thanks, Evan Boone Deputy City Attorney 503-635-0225v From: Williams, Brant Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:51 PM To: Boone, Evan Cc: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: FW: The Fourth Story Evan-See below. Can DRC say"no"to a fourth story even if the fourth story meets one or more criteria? From: Hamilton, Leslie Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:40 PM To: Williams, Brant Subject: RE: The Fourth Story I think there is a difference between "may" and "shall", with "may" being discretionary. Might be a good question for Evan. ,kL -id, LESLIE HAMILTON, AICP Senior Planner 503.675.3731 I lhamilton@ci.oswego.or.us iu 380 A Avenue I PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 RFGu.:' Stay Connected I Facebook I Twitter I e-updates 4 From: Williams, Brant Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:21 PM To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: The Fourth Story I see the Code says that the fourth story "may" be permitted subject to one or more the criteria. Does the "may" mean that the City/DRC could say no to the fourth story even though it meets one or more of the criteria? 5 p - ' V MEMORANDUM w Q REGof TO: Development Review Commission FROM: Erica Rooney, P.E., Asst. City Engineer Amand Owing, P.E., Traffic Engineer Todd Knepper, P.E., Engineering Program Supervisor SUBJECT: LU 13-0046— Block 137 Proposal; 140 A Avenue Response to Inquiries DATE: January 27, 2014 During the Commission's January 22 hearing on LU 13-0046, a number of traffic and engineering issues were raised by the DRC members or by public testimony. Although the applicant's traffic engineer, Kittelson and Associates, Inc., should respond to the specific technical details in a separate memorandum to be provided for the record, staff wishes to comment on a few major points to ensure clarification. Below is a summary of the issues and the Engineering Division's position. Special Events Permitting and Traffic Management All special events are regulated by LOC 20.06.500, and must receive permit approval by the City Manager. Each event permit application is closely reviewed by multiple departments within the City, including Police, Fire, and Engineering, and the applicant must abide by conditions of approval imposed by the departments. This includes traffic control requirements during the events. In the case of the Farmer's Market or any other sizeable event held at Millennium Park, City staff reviews the requests and imposes conditions and makes recommendations for how to properly manage traffic flow for the event. Engineering believes it is the responsibility of the event organizer to address the traffic impacts from its event, not to condition a private development to manage or control traffic or congestion caused by the special event's traffic upon adjacent businesses and residences. Evergreen Road Impacts There will be more traffic on Evergreen Avenue (a local street), as shown in the applicant's traffic analysis. During the peak hour, the traffic is anticipated to increase by 14 more vehicles, or roughly three percent. This equates to approximately 140 average daily trips. Goal 12 of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that traffic volumes less than 1,200 vehicles per day are F-17 LU 13-0046 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 3 acceptable on roads classified as a local street. Evergreen Road is forecast to stay within that vehicle count even with the proposed development. Traffic Impacts on the Adjacent Major Street System The traffic analysis provided by the applicant shows that traffic impacts will not exceed the Comprehensive Plan Goal 12 requirement that the level of service (LOS) on major streets operate at LOS "E" or better during the peak hour. The proposed project will, of course, add vehicles to the major street system than existing, and it may add minimally to some of the queue lengths at various intersections; however, Engineer finds that the project's traffic impact will not cause the intersections to exceed the required LOS 'E' operating level. In fact, all intersections in the immediate area of the development will operate at LOS 'C' or better. It is important to note that A Avenue is purposefully designed to have short left-turn pockets at the intersections. To provide for the full p.m. peak queue lengths under current conditions ( no further development) would actually require complete elimination of the median areas along A Avenue, compromising the character of the streetscape. Even then it may not be sufficient at certain times or major events because the street segments are only about 260 feet long. The short left turn pockets design on A Avenue was a deliberate decision by the City to preserve as much median and landscaped areas as possible, preserving community aesthetics. This "balance" between streetscape design, aesthetics, and vehicular operations is clearly outlined in the Goal 12 policies. The traffic impact study provides details in the queuing summary worksheet, toward the end of the document. At the A Avenue/State Street intersection, the proposed project in LU 13-0046 is projected to add five feet -- less than one vehicle --to the existing queues on A Avenue, for a two percent increase. On State Street, the queues will extend an additional 15 feet, less than one car length. All other queue lengths either match existing queues or will not exceed available storage. Traffic Impacts to the Intersection of County Club/C Avenue/Iron Mountain—"6 Corners" This intersection is unique under any traffic engineering standard. In fact, trying to calculate the Level of Service of this stop-controlled intersection requires modifying traditional industry standard methodologies in the Highway Capacity Manual. The applicant's traffic impact analysis indicates this intersection currently operates at LOS 'F'. Per the City's recent Transportation System Plan analysis, this intersection falls below the critical crash rate. Thus, although drivers may experience delays along Country Club during the peak hour, the intersection is operating safely. This intersection has a long history of studies for potential solutions. Many years ago the City hired consultants to analyze different options ranging from roundabouts to signals. Each solution requires extensive changes to the operational flow of the intersection, including entrance point closures, stormwater redirection, and property acquisition. The City's current Capital Improvement Plan identifies a potential project, but it is unfunded within the next five years. F-17 LU 13-0046 Page 3 of 3 The largest complaint for this intersection is the eastbound p.m. peak queue length and time. Any improvements to the intersection may improve that, but all eastbound traffic is then stopped again at the intersection of 10th/A Avenue. This stop controlled intersection on the edge of the downtown core actually "meters" the traffic for A Avenue. Improvements to both "6 Corners" and the 10th/A Avenues intersection would allow more traffic to reach the downtown core sooner, and would cause increased queues at the first eastbound signals at 8th and at 4th along the A Avenue corridor. As noted, the proposed project will add approximately 50 vehicles to this p.m. peak eastbound movement, or 25 vehicles per lane. Overall, this is a six percent increase to entering volume. Staff believes that improving the flow at "6 Corners" at this time will only increase the congestion in the downtown core of A Avenue during the peak hour. Leaving it in the current state at least meters the flow. Until such time as the City can analyze the operations of the full A Avenue corridor from State Street and "6 Corners" in conjunction with flows on State Street, any new traffic will increase the congestion at "6 Corners" but only marginally within the A Avenue corridor. Relative Impact of the Proposal It is important to note the difference between residential development traffic impacts versus commercial/retail traffic impacts and the difference in their characteristics. The August 25th memo provided at the DRC meeting (Exhibit F-14), shows the detail of alternative land uses. Any new development will cause an increase in traffic, but the current proposal results in the lowest peak hour, and daily traffic, volume. Engineering finds that the current street system and intersections are shown to be able to accommodate the p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the project in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan. F-17 LU 13-0046 G E ODESIGM' N October 25, 2013 - W&K Development 3330 NW Yeon, #210 Portland, OR 97210 c/o Mr. Dirk Otis Macadam Forbes 1800 SW 1"Avenue, Suite 650 Portland, OR 97204 Attention: Mr. Patrick Kessi Geotechnical Engineering Services Maximum Flow Rate Analysis for the Subfloor Drainage System Block 137 140 A Street Lake Oswego, Oregon GeoDesign Project: EvergreenG-1-01 INTRODUCTION This letter provides the calculated extreme flow rate of the permanent subfloor drainage system for the proposed development located on Block 137 at 140 A Street in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The proposed building will have two floors of below-grade parking that will extend several feet below the expected extreme high groundwater level. Current plans are to collect the groundwater from a subfloor drainage system and discharge this water to the storm sewer to maintain dry conditions in the basement structure. We understand that the calculated flow rate provided in this letter will be used by the mechanical/electrical consultant to design a permanent dewatering system for the proposed basement structure and by the City of Lake Oswego to evaluate if the public storm sewer has the capacity to receive the expected extreme flow rate. Design recommendations for the subfloor drainage system are presented the Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services;Block 137; Wizer Block;Lake Oswego, Oregon, dated August 1, 2013 by GeoDesign. F-18 LU 13-0046 15575 SW Sequoia Pkwy,Suite 100 I Portland,OR 97224 1503.968.8787 www.geodesigninc.com DESIGN FLOW RATE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The finish floor elevation of the lowest basement level is at elevation 92.5 feet. Assuming that the perforated drainpipes are installed 2 feet below finish floor elevation, the permanent subfloor drainage system will maintain the groundwater table at elevation 90.5 feet in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building. A vibrating wire piezometer located at the northeast corner of the property indicated the groundwater table was at elevation 96.1 feet on July 11 and 13, 2013. Based on our experience, we assume that the groundwater table could rise to elevation 99.0 feet during extreme high groundwater conditions. This extreme groundwater level is expected to occur only rarely during the life of the building. Using the radial well flow method of analysis (equivalent well) and assumed hydraulic parameters for the soil conditions encountered in the drilled explorations completed for our geotechnical investigation of the site we calculate that the maximum flow rate during extreme groundwater conditions is approximately 20 gallons per minute (gpm). Given the uncertainty associated with the analytical methods used to predict groundwater flow rates we recommend applying a factor of safety of 2.5 to the calculated flow rate for use in design. Therefore, we recommend using a maximum flow rate of 50 gpm for design of the sump, pumps, and piping for the permanent dewatering system. We recommend that flow rates from the construction dewatering system be measured during construction of the basement to ground-truth our analysis. Based on the observed flow rates from the construction dewatering system, we might recommend increasing or decreasing the flow rate used for design of the permanent dewatering system. ♦ ♦ ♦ If you have questions regarding our analysis or require additional information, please call. Sincerely, tsk ' PF2p��s GeoDesign, Inc. a 13701PE OREGON x'41 16.19$ 5 Scott V. Mills, P.E, G.E OOrr v. Mti\~ Principal Engineer r -, 'EXPIRES: 12/31/14 cc: Mr. Bruce Haunreiter, P.E., Harper Houf Peterson Righellis (via email only) SVM:kt One copy submitted Document ID: EvergreenG-1-01-10251 3-geol.docx ©2013 GeoDesign, Inc. All rights reserved. C EO DESIGN= 2 EvergreenG-1-01:102513 } ~ Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment Data Catchment ID:I C I Project Name: Block 137, Wizer Date: 10/24/13 Project Address: 140 A Avenue Permit Number: 0 Lake Oswego, Oregon Run Time 10/24/2013 10:41:23 AM Designer: Bruce Haunreiter Company: Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. Drainage Catchment Information Catchment ID - i 1 C 1 I4 Catchment Area Impervious Area I 3,100 SF . Impervious Area I 0.07 ac Impervious Area Curve Number, CNimp I 98 Time of Concentration, Tc, minutes I 5 min. . Site Soils & Infiltration Testing Data Infiltration Testing Procedure: 1 Open Pit Falling Head Native Soil Field Tested Infiltration Rate (Itest): I 2 in/hr ',, C) 1 Bottom of Facility Meets Required Separation From High Groundwater Per BES SWMM Section 1.4: Yes 1 % tt Correction Factor Component CFtest(ranges from 1 to 3) I 21 * t1Plik.S. r Design Infiltration Rates Ids9n for Native (Itest/CFtest): I 1.00 in/hr IjirP Iji 1 Ids9n for Imported Growing Medium: I 2.00 in/hr _` 4 rte_ ''- Execute SBUH � 11� / , Calculations SBUH Results Peak Rate Volume (cfs) (cf) —PR 0.013 162 0.0800 - —2-yr 0.044 561 0.0700 -- i —5-Yr 0.053 689 0.0600 —10-yr Y 0.063 818 0.0500 -- _!1 —25-yr 0.073 947 0.0400 0.0300 - 3 ' 0.0200 - k . 0.0100 -- ,A-_, : ,:._..1.___:„,__ 0.0000 - Ill,l1111iiiiililllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllll1N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.0100 -- r • N CO CO (0 N- CO 0C) co N M r r r r Time (min.) Printed: 10/24/2013 10:41 AM Facility Design Data • Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment ID:1 C 1 -` .':f Run Time 10/24/2013 10:41:23 AN.' Project Name: Block 137,Wizer Catchment ID: C Date: 10/24/2013 Instructions: 1.Identify which Stormwater Hierarchy Category the facility. 2.Select Facility Type. 3.Identify facility shape of surface facility to more accurately estimate surface volume,except for Swales and sloped planters that use the PAC Sloped Facility Worksheet to enter data. 4.Select type of facility configuration. 5.Complete data entry for all highlighted cells. Catchment facility will meet Hierarchy Category: 3 Goal Summary: 5 .111A Off-site flow to drainageway,ricer,or storm-only pipe PASS sysienr. ,rte Facility Type= Planter(Flat) I i Facility Shape: Rectangle/Square Facility Configuration: D PLANTER— yASIN/ Facility Bottom Stora Area Facility—, —Storage Depth 1 Bottom Area ��� —GM Depth 1 --- . - - Waterproof 11 GROWING MEDIUM Liner I [ ROCK I' - r Overflow Rock Depth Storage g p I Calculation Guide Max.Rock Stor. DATA FOR ABOVE GRADE STORAGE COMPONENT BELOW GRADE STORAGE Bottom Area Facility Bottom Area= 180 sf 180 SF Bottom Width= 6.0 ft Facility Side Slope= 0 to 1 Storage Depth 1= 6 in Growing Medium Depth= 18 in Freeboard Depth= N/A in Surface Capacity at Depth 1= 90 cf Rock Storage Capacity= cf GM Design Infiltration Rate= 2.00 in/hr Native Design Infiltration Rate= in/hr Infiltration Capacity= 0.008 cfs Infiltration Capacity= cfs Overflow RESULTS Volume Pollution Reduction I PASS I 0 CF 5% Surf.Cap.Used Run PAC Output File Current data has been exported: 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr PLANTER C.xls10/24/2013 10:41:34 AM Peak cfs 0.011 I 0.049 10.063 I 0.073 IFACILITY FACTS Total Facility Area Including Freeboard= 180 SF Sizing Ratio(Total Facility Area/Catchment Area)= 0.058 Printed:10/24/2013 10:41 AM } ~ Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment Data Catchment ID:I B I Project Name: Block 137, Wizer Date: 10/24/13 Project Address: 140 A Avenue Permit Number: 0 Lake Oswego, Oregon Run Time 10/24/2013 10:39:36 AM Designer: Bruce Haunreiter Company: Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. Drainage Catchment Information Catchment ID - i 1 B 1 14 Catchment Area Impervious Area 1 2,400 SF _ 40 „.. .____ Impervious Area 1 0.06 ac Impervious Area Curve Number, CNimp I 98 Time of Concentration, Tc, minutes 1 5 min. . Site Soils & Infiltration Testing Data Infiltration Testing Procedure: 1 Open Pit Falling Head Native Soil Field Tested Infiltration Rate (Itest): I 2 in/hr ',, C) 1 Bottom of Facility Meets Required Separation From High Groundwater Per BES SWMM Section 1.4: Yes 1 % tt Correction Factor Component CFtest(ranges from 1 to 3) I 21 * tIPIlk.S. r Design Infiltration Rates Ids9n for Native (Itest/CFtest): I 1.00 in/hr IjirP Iji 1 Ids9n for Imported Growing Medium: I 2.00 in/hr _ if ,` 4 r_,_ -'- Execute SBUH �A. / Calculations SBUH Results Peak Rate Volume (cfs) (cf) —PR 0.01 0.0700 2-yr 0.034 0.0600 —5-Yr 0.041 534 0.0500 - 10-yr 0.049 633 0.0400 - —25-yr 0.056 733 0.0300 -- v - 0 0.0200 - LI 0.0100 ^ ~ ` 0.0000 - IIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiillililililNlilililililililililillll111A (> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cNi 0.0100 N co ((0 (N co 0 COC (0 CO N M Time (min.) Printed: 10/24/2013 10:40 AM Facility Design Data • Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment ID:1 B 1 Run Time 10/24/2013 10:39:36 AM Project Name: Block 137,Wizer Catchment ID: B Date: 10/24/2013 Instructions: 1.Identify which Stormwater Hierarchy Category the facility. 2.Select Facility Type. 3.Identify facility shape of surface facility to more accurately estimate surface volume,except for Swales and sloped planters that use the PAC Sloped Facility Worksheet to enter data. 4.Select type of facility configuration. 5.Complete data entry for all highlighted cells. Catchment facility will meet Hierarchy Category: 3 Goal Summary: 5 .111A Off-site flow to drainageway,ricer,or storm-only pipe PASS sysienr. 1ve" ,rte Facility Type= Planter(Flat) I i Facility Shape: Rectangle/Square Facility Configuration: D PLANTER— yASIN/ Facility Bottom Stora Area Facility—, —Storage Depth 1 Bottom Area ��� —GM Depth 1 --- . - - Waterproof 11 GROWING MEDIUM Liner I [ ROCK I' - r Overflow Rock Depth Storage g p I Calculation Guide Max.Rock Stor. DATA FOR ABOVE GRADE STORAGE COMPONENT BELOW GRADE STORAGE Bottom Area Facility Bottom Area= 150 sf 150 SF Bottom Width= 6.0 ft Facility Side Slope= 0 to 1 Storage Depth 1= 6 in Growing Medium Depth= 18 in Freeboard Depth= N/A in Surface Capacity at Depth 1= 75 cf Rock Storage Capacity= cf GM Design Infiltration Rate= 2.00 in/hr Native Design Infiltration Rate= in/hr Infiltration Capacity= 0.007 cfs Infiltration Capacity= cfs Overflow RESULTS Volume Pollution Reduction I PASS I 0 CF 4% Surf.Cap.Used Run PAC Output File Current data has been exported: 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr PLANTER B.x1s10/24/2013 10:40:09 AM Peak cfs 0.007 I 0.038 10.049 I 0.056 (FACILITY FACTS Total Facility Area Including Freeboard= 150 SF Sizing Ratio(Total Facility Area/Catchment Area)= 0.063 Printed:10/24/2013 10:40 AM } ~ Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment Data Catchment ID:I A I Project Name: Block 137, Wizer Date: 09/04/13 Project Address: 140 A Avenue Permit Number: 0 Lake Oswego, Oregon Run Time 10/24/2013 10:36:15 AM Designer: Bruce Haunreiter Company: Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. Drainage Catchment Information I Catchment ID - i 1 A I ►4 Catchment Area Impervious Area I 3,700 SF _ 40 „.. .____ Impervious Area I 0.08 ac Impervious Area Curve Number, CNimp I 98 Time of Concentration, Tc, minutes I 5 min. . Site Soils & Infiltration Testing Data I Infiltration Testing Procedure: I Open Pit Falling Head Native Soil Field Tested Infiltration Rate (Itest): I 2 in/hr ',, C) 1 Bottom of Facility Meets Required Separation From High Groundwater Per BES SWMM Section 1.4: Yes 1 % tt Correction Factor Component CFtest(ranges from 1 to 3) I 21 * tIPIlk.S. r Design Infiltration Rates Ids9n for Native (Itest/CFtest): I 1.00 in/hr I Arr ill Ids9n for Imported Growing Medium: I 2.00 in/hr _` �� ,' Execute SBUH k., t Calculations SBUH Results Peak Rate Volume (cfs) (cf) —PR 0.015 193 0.1000 - 2-yr 0.052 669 0.0900 —5-Yr 0.064 823 0.0800 - 0.0700 - —10-yr 0.075 976 0.0600 i -25-yr 0.087 1130 t70.0500 -- 0.0400 - _0 0.0300 - 0.0200 - 0.0100 -- JV : ,—.. 0.0000 ihrill1111iillillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll,iilililililillililililililililililillililil1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0100 N M m N- CO rn CO N M Time (min.) Printed: 10/24/2013 10:36 AM Facility Design Data • Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment ID:1 A 1 Run Time 10/24/2013 10:36:15 AM Project Name: Block 137,Wizer Catchment ID: A Date: 9/4/2013 Instructions: 1.Identify which Stormwater Hierarchy Category the facility. 2.Select Facility Type. 3.Identify facility shape of surface facility to more accurately estimate surface volume,except for Swales and sloped planters that use the PAC Sloped Facility Worksheet to enter data. 4.Select type of facility configuration. 5.Complete data entry for all highlighted cells. Catchment facility will meet Hierarchy Category: 3 Goal Summary: 5 .111A Off-site flow to drainageway,ricer,or storm-only pipe PASS sysienr. 1ve" ,rte Facility Type= Planter(Flat) I i Facility Shape: Rectangle/Square Facility Configuration: D PLANTERB S yASIN/ Facility Bottom Stora Area Facility —Storage Depth 1 Bottom Area\ —GM Depth --- . - - Waterproof 1 GROWING MEDIUM g Liner I [ ROCK I' - r Overflow LRock Depth Storage g p I Calculation Guide Max.Rock Stor. DATA FOR ABOVE GRADE STORAGE COMPONENT BELOW GRADE STORAGE Bottom Area Facility Bottom Area= 240 sf 240 SF Bottom Width= 6.0 ft Facility Side Slope= 0 to 1 Storage Depth 1= 6 in Growing Medium Depth= 18 in Freeboard Depth= N/A in Surface Capacity at Depth 1= 120 cf Rock Storage Capacity= cf GM Design Infiltration Rate= 2.00 in/hr Native Design Infiltration Rate= in/hr Infiltration Capacity= 0.011 cfs Infiltration Capacity= cfs Overflow RESULTS Volume Pollution Reduction I PASS I 0 CF 4% Surf.Cap.Used Run PAC Output File Current data has been exported: 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr PLANTER A.x1s10/24/2013 10:36:31 AM Peak cfs 0.011 I 0.033 10.075 I 0.087 (FACILITY FACTS Total Facility Area Including Freeboard= 240 SF Sizing Ratio(Total Facility Area/Catchment Area)= 0.065 Printed:10/24/2013 10:38 AM } ~ Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment Data Catchment ID:I 2nd Project Name: Block 137, Wizer Date: 10/24/13 Project Address: 140 A Avenue Permit Number: 0 Lake Oswego, Oregon Run Time 10/24/2013 12:50:51 PM Designer: Bruce Haunreiter Company: Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. Drainage Catchment Information Catchment ID - i 1 2nd I /� Catchment Area Impervious Area 1 24,000 SF . Impervious Area 1 0.55 ac Impervious Area Curve Number, CNimp I 98 Time of Concentration, Tc, minutes 1 5 min. . Site Soils & Infiltration Testing Data Infiltration Testing Procedure: 1 Open Pit Falling Head Native Soil Field Tested Infiltration Rate (Itest): I 2 in/hr Bottom of Facility Meets Required Separation From High Groundwater Per BES SWMM Section 1.4: Yes 1 % tt Correction Factor Component CFtest(ranges from 1 to 3) I 21 * tIPIlk.S. 7 Design Infiltration Rates Ids9n for Native (Itest/CFtest): I 1.00 in/hr IJIFF II Ids9n for Imported Growing Medium: I 2.00 in/hr _` 4 :2-,,,,, ''- Execute SBUH 11� t , Calculations SBUH Results Peak Rate Volume (cfs) (cf) —PR 0.099 1254 0.7000 - 2-yr 0.339 4343 0.6000 -- —5-Yr 0.414 5337 0.5000 - —10-yr 0.488 6334 0.4000 —25-yr 0.563 7331 0.3000 - v - 0 0.2000 - Li 0.1000 ^ ~.) •—•-•-=----._,- 0.0000 0.0000 - .. VIII 11111 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CN 0.1000 N CO CO 0 coo r` ccoo co O N M Time (min.) Printed: 10/24/2013 12:52 PM Facility Design Data Presumptive Approach Calculator ver. 1.2 Catchment ID:1 2nd Run Time 10/24/2013 12:50:51 PM Project Name: Block 137,Wizer Catchment ID: 2nd Date: 10/24/2013 Instructions: 1.Identify which Stormwater Hierarchy Category the facility. 2.Select Facility Type. 3.Identify facility shape of surface facility to more accurately estimate surface volume,except for Swales and sloped planters that use the PAC Sloped Facility Worksheet to enter data. 4.Select type of facility configuration. 5.Complete data entry for all highlighted cells. Catchment facility will meet Hierarchy Category: 3 Goal Summary: 5 .111A Of£site flow to drainsgeway,ricer,or storm-only glias PASS I NIA. sysienr. ,rte Facility Type= Planter(Flat) Facility Shape: Rectangle/Square Facility Configuration: D i PLANTER— yASIN/ Facility Bottom Stora Area Facility—, —Storage Depth 1 Bottom Area ��� —GM Depth 1 --- . - - Waterproof .1 GROWING MEDIUM Liner I [ ROCK I' - r Overflow �'• � LRock Depth Storage g p I Calculation Guide Max.Rock Stor. DATA FOR ABOVE GRADE STORAGE COMPONENT BELOW GRADE STORAGE Bottom Area Facility Bottom Area= 375 sf 375 SF Bottom Width= 6.0 ft Facility Side Slope= 0 to 1 Storage Depth 1= 9 in Growing Medium Depth= 18 in Freeboard Depth= N/A in Surface Capacity at Depth 1= 281 cf Rock Storage Capacity= cf GM Design Infiltration Rate= 2.00 in/hr Native Design Infiltration Rate= in/hr Infiltration Capacity= 0.017 cfs Infiltration Capacity= cfs Overflow RESULTS Volume Pollution Reduction I PASS I 0 CF 88% Surf.Cap.Used Output File 2-yr 10- 5-yr yr 25-yr Peak cfs I 0.339 I 0.414 10.488 I 0.563 IFACILITY FACTS Total Facility Area Including Freeboard= 375 SF Sizing Ratio(Total Facility Area/Catchment Area)= 0.016 Printed:10/24/2013 12:53 PM