VAR2005-00029
~ 0 0 EXHIBIT
-L
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION
TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS
CITY OF TIOARD
ACCESS SPACING ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00029 Community~Developmei:t
S(raping,4 BetierCommunity
120 DAYS = 8/19/2005
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS SPACING ADJUSTMENT
CASE NO: Street Improvement Adjustment (VAR) VAR2005-00029
PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an adjustment to the access spacing
standards of Chapter 18.705. The specific section related to the
adjustment is 18.705.030H(2), which requires the minimum driveway
setback from the influence area of a collector to be a minimum of 150
feet.
APPLICANT: TM Rippey Consulting Engineers OWNER: Pacific NW Properties
Attn: Lans Stout 6600 SW 105th, Suite 175
7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 100 Beaverton, OR 97005
Tigard, OR 97223
DESIGNATION
ZONING: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district
is to provide a wide range of uses including major retail goods and
services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing.
LOCATION: SW Clinton Street between SW 67th and 68th Avenues; WCTM
1 S136DD, Tax Lot 3400 and 5300.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390 18.520,
18.620, and 18.810.
SECTION II. DECISION
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee
has APPROVED the above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is
based are noted in Section V of this decision.
VAR2005-00029-TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ADJUSTMENT PAGE 1 OF 4
. . • •
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site H~istor :
Staff conducted a search of City records and found four land-use cases associated with
the subject parcels. The first was a minor land partition which was approved in 1999 when
the Oregon Department of Transportation partitioned excess right-of-way into one parcel
containing 41,311 square feet. The second land-use case found was an approval for a
temporary use permit for a portable modular construction engineer office space to manage
the I-5 to Hwy 217/Kruse Way Interchange pro1 e~ct. The third land-use case was a site
development review to develop a two-sfory ofFice building of 24,000 square feet and
associated site improvements. The fourth land-use case is an approval for a finro phase
development. Phase 1- two story office building, a single story deck structure and a
screen wall. Phase 2- a second two story office building. The proposed adjustment to the
street spacing standard is a condition of approval for the latest land-use case (SDR2004-
00011). °
Vicinit Information:
e su ject site is ocated on the east end of SW Clinton Street. The site is bordered on
the north and west side with property zoned (MUE) Mixed Use Employment. Properties to
the east and south consist of Interstate-5 and the associated off-ramp.
Site Information and Pro osal Descri tion:
e app icant as requested an a 1ustment to the access spacing standards of Chapter
18.705. The specific section related to the adjustment is 18.705.030H (2), which requires
the minimum driveway setback from the influence area of a collector to be a minimum of 150
feet.
SECTION IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were received.
SECTION V. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRI.TERIA AND FINDINGS
VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS:
Section 18.370.020.C.5 states that an application for an access and egress adjustment
must meet the following criteria.
Street S acin Ad'ustment:
e irec or may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an
ad'ustment from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the
fo~owing criteria:
(1) It is not possible to share access;
The applicant has proposed two driveways on SW Clinton Street, one on the north side
and one on the south. The proposed spacing of the Clinton access points conflicts with
the access spacing standard that requires driveways to Pe located at least 150 feet from a
collector street intersection (SW Clinton Street and 68t Avenue). The proposed access
drives are approximately 140 feet from the intersection. It is not possible to share these
accesses due to their location on either side of SW Clinton Street. The southern access
drive provides access to the approved parking structure of the Tigard Triangle Commons
~treet SDR2004-00011). The northern access is the only access drive located on SW Clinton
that accesses proposed building #4 of the Tigard Triangle Commons. The
proposed access points have been reviewed by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and have
been included in a traffic study provided by the applicant. This standard has been
satisfied.
VAR2005-00029-TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ADJUSTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4
, . ~ •
(2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from
another street;
The proposed driveway on the south side of SW Clinton Street is located based upon
grades. If the driveway were moved to the east, the rising topography would require
raising the lower level of the parking structure, which in turn would raise the second deck
and ultimately the proposed office building that it serves. The north Clinton access to
proposed buifding #4 is Iso limited in topography at SW 67th Avenue. A second access is
F oposed on the SW 68... side of the subj'ect site (Building #4) which was approved under
he Site Development Review of the building (SDR2004-00011). Constructing both access
points has been reviewed and considered appropriate as mentioned in the traffic study
prepared by Lancaster Engineering in order to avoid unacceptable congestion onto SW
68 Avenue. Finally, these driveways need to align in a north-south direction to prevent
conflicting turning movements on SW Clinton Street. Therefore, this standard is satisfied.
(3) The access separation requirements cannot be met;
As stated previously, the driveway locations are determined by tand access
requirements. Therefore, the 150-foot spacing cannot be met on SCton Street.
(4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;
The locations of the pro posed driveways are based on topography and other Development
Code requirements relative to building location and parking lot dimensions. The proposed
locations provide the maximum spacing possible. Therefore, the requested adjustment is
the minimum needed to provide adequate access.
(5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe
access; and The approved access will meet sight distance, and stacking requirements.
(6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met.
Visual clearance will be assured by the provisions of Chapter 18.795. There are no
indications from the evidence submitfed that such visual clearance is not obtainable.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the adjustment criteria have been satisfied.
SECTION VI. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
No objections were received.
SECTION VI1. AGENCY COMMENTS
Qwest has reviewed the proposed and has no objection to it.
VAR2005-00029-TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ADJUSTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4
, . • •
SECTION VIII. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
oT~ti was posted at City Hall and mailed to:
X The applicant and owners
-X- Owner of record within the required distance
X- Affected government agencies
Final Decision:
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JUNE 9, 2005 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 24, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
Ag eal:
The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or
who are othennrise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section
18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of
the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together
with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the
date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedufe and forms are available
from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
97223.
Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision
shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the
parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised
in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subJ ect
to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate
body.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 5:00 P.M. ON JUNE 23, 2005.
Questions:
oT~yhave any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall,
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171.
,
June 9 2005
. -fdaWidw c ger DATE
Associate Plan er
June 9 2005
. ic ar ewers DATE
Planning Mana er
i:\cu rpln\mathew\VAR\var2005-00029decision.doc
VAR2005-00029-TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ADJUSTMENT PAGE 4 OF 4
. .
GEOGRIIPNIC INFORYATION SYSTEY
YICINITY Mm
ST s
VAR2005-00029
w
'
ST Q TIGARD TRIANGLE
w (OMMONS ACCESS
a < a ADJUSTMENT
~ N S.W. SOUTHVIEW
f~ y
x ~
ST FERN
! RD
= vi n
_ co
1~ ~V•
0) BULL SR Q ~ NRA .D
BFN~~' RD
DARTMOUT S.W. DOU 7'gara,4reaMap
CE ♦
N
SW DOUGLAS DR
0 100 200 300 400 Feel
w 1'= 312 feet
Q
ELMHURST gT City of Tigard
Infortnation on lhis map is fw general location ony anO
should be veriried with the Daveloprtrerh Services Division.
= 13125 SW Hall Blvd
F w Tigard, OR 97223
¢ (503)634d177
L (0 ~j Z. IISt(1JIWWN.CI.tiQ31d.Of.U4
Community Development Plot date: Apr 28, 2005; C:UnagicWIAGIC03.APR
• .K . .
,
,
, . ,
.
~
. ~ ; r':%,•L ~ fl
i
~
. .
~ . ' , r • .
i . • ~;'~.:'I:~'- i~ ~ r,,, , d , i , i' .r .
. , . .
~r
' f t i / / ` ~ ~ • i , . ~
.
. , . , . , , .
/
. ' •..:.,-....~i,~ , , .
. . ; . T7
r „ ~ ~ y r t+r i ~ ;v ,
i
as
. .
' _ ~i / . , , , . , _
szo % , •,o'' ; i t ; ~ '
~ , ' i ' " f ' Sz•~ I ~
,
....~0 p•,'"''..
~.c.:! i 6'
, ~
/
.
, : i•' f
. . - • _i._.. ~ i a..
J ',rr
. . _
. ,
,r' . .
. ~
~
, _
M.. , .a:.... .
,
_ .
, _
. .
~ ~ l
~ ! . .
f . . . / ~ .
.
. .
,
, .
7..~...
,
~ , , ,r,~....;-- ~ .
, ~ -
• ~ 7r~
~ . . - .
, . , i ~ . - • r~,,,i
~ i~L. ~ . . w~ ~ W' • -.,,.r"~
' / ,r~"~l ~ ~ . .i ~ i ~I,+•
.
,
.
:
- ; .
~
.
JS ; ::.a~-l.....-
. ...,y.
_ ,
. ; ; _
, . . r
~ . u
. j
~3 i~ .i.~,. %..w'll,,,.....~ / ~ `
.
. , ..l-......
;
. ' / -
• , i i ` ~ r
._.._-•--~'-c.,---,- s ~4 ~U i i . .
i ~
, . ~ ~ ' r" ~ ~ •
. ry ~ . .
. ,
i r. . / ' ~ .
. , ~
~
, •
i
~ ~ , , i , ` C ~ c / / \ ~ . S13 ~ ~ .
' i : / , i% r t _ . E'l
, ~ .
- ~ ~
~ ~
_ ..rl. . _ _7___... ,i,
~
, , e . I, /
• ' r -
; . t , _ ~q
. . , . ,
l ,
. , . _
/
'
N.,"~
f
..~-.......-a
.
:.i... , .~.:C._!_ ~ ~
,
, ~ , r~ J • _.~?l. ! I i t ~ r'" , i
~ % , 1 ! ~ I ~ _ / ' ~
/ , - ~ _ . ,
• r
.w.ti
/ ' . . .
:
, ~ " .
r ~
; -
-
i.
r
, ~ i • ;
. .
_ ~
m_._. ~
~
~
,
~j,r
.
0
. , i
;
.
.
4
~
eis . 0.0
/
6rv ~ T}~ f'~`~/fwyJ(.11~= ,
s
. .
SCALE: 1'=40
TM RIPPEY SITE PLAN FOR ACCE33 SPACINO ADJU8TMENT aY JEC DATE 411os
CONSULTING ENGINEERS T I G A R D T R I A N G L E C O M M O N S- cHK av L S DATE 411os
L
7650 SW Beveland, Suite 100
Tigard, Oregon 97223 Joa tvo 3118
Phone: (503) 443-3900
Fax:(503) 443-3700 sHeer 1 or 1
. 1 . 0 • EXHIBIT.L
TM Rippey Consulting Engineers VAR2005-00029
Attn: Lans Stout TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS
7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 100
Tigard, OR 97223 ADJUSTMENT
Pacific NW Properties
6600 SW 105th, Suite 175
Beaverton, OR 97005
PNWP LLC#2
PO Box 2206
Beaverton, OR 97075
i •
~ • •
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITYOFTIOARD
Community Development
Sfrapingy! BetterCommunity
I, Patttcia L. Luord, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SeniorAdminutrative SpeciaCut for
the City of ?"sgar , ZUaskington County, Oregon and that I served the following:
{Check Appropriate Box(s) Below}
❑x NOflCE OF DECISION FOR: VAR2005-000291TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS AUESS SPA[ING ADJUSTMENT
❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference)
~ City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked EXhlblt"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked EXhibit"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on lune 9, 2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on lune 9, 2005, postage prepaid.
^ - Lr~
(Person that Pr are otice)
,STA?E OT 04MGON )
County of ~WasT sngton ) ss
City of 2igard )
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , 2005.
~ OFi=1(:IAL aEAL 1
SUFEM.z,S
PJ '
~ (iTf...° PllBLIC-OREGON
COMMIS~ION iv0. 375152
~ MYCOMM;,;SION EXPIRES DEC.1, 2C-. ~
My Com ion Ewires: "0 7
• • EXHIBiT A
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION ~
TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS CITYOFTIGARD
ACCESS SPACING ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00029 Commui:ity(DeveCopment
SFiaping A Better Community
120 DAYS = 8119I2005
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: - TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS SPACING ADJUSTMENT
CASE NO: Street Improvement Adjustment (VAR) VAR2005-00029
PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an adjustment to the access spacing standards of
Chapter 18.705. The specific section related to the adjustment is 18.705.030H(2),
which requires the minimum driveway setback from the influence area of a
collector to be a minimum of 150 feet.
APPLICANT: TM` Rippey Consulting Engineers OWNER: Pacific NW Properties
Attn: Lans Stout 6600 SW 105th, Suite 175
7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 100 Beaverton, OR 97005
Tigard, OR 97223
DESIGNATION
ZONING: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to
provide a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services,
business/professional offices, civic uses and housing.
LOCATION: SW Clinton Street befinreen SW 67t" and 68th Avenues; WCTM 1 S136DD, Tax Lot
3400 and 5300.
APPLICABLE - -
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390 18.520, 18.620, and
18.810.
SECTION II. DECISION
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has
APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions
on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. -
All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or
copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25~) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the
time of the request.
SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
T~ofice mailed to:
X The applicant and owners
_7__ Owner of record within the required distance
~ Affected government agencies
Final Decision: .
THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JUNE 9, 2005 AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 24, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
. . • •
A eal:
e irector's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are
otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may
appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community
Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed
with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The
appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW
fiall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be
confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the
comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may
be submitfed by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that
may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body.
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JUNE 23, 2005.
Questions:
or fu-Tirter information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Mathew Scheide er at
03) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon or y emai to
gvIaIaTr new
ST
VAR1005-00019
EJ TIGARD TRIANGLE
ST
~ COMMONS ACfESS
a . ADJUSTMENT
~ g e.w.apmvtw
ST
a
~
W
m
~
e.w. a..,.r
DAR
N
Q ~
URST ciry onip~a
.,...+......w..
r `.o.......ws.o..
~
.a.-.+."
~ s\ • \ ~ i
\ ~ ~ . ;
k T- - ~
O ' 12~' J S V N7`' TiE.~ ~ •I;.
715
:L
c- `rl=~~.
h ~ ~ \ I\ ~ ° / ~ \ ` `
A 31 I - h -I!-
- - i ~ - ' _ - '
~v i . ~ ; i , ~ / I ~y' ~;Y1
. :I '?1~~;', 1 , n~r. ~
1S136DD-03100 • 1S136DD-06200 ~ EXHIBIT~
BAURER ELDON F ESTATE OF & GODDARD GALINA G& GREGORY
ROOT GORDON C 18395 WOOD THRUSH ST
1400 SW SCHAEFFER RD ' LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
WEST LINN, OR 97068
1 S136DD-01700 1 S136DD-04000
CARL H JOHNSON FAMILY L P II GOOLD PHILIP A& REBECCA J
BY JOHNSON CARL H 41 CHURCHILL DOWNS
8965 SW BURNHAM LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
TIGARD, OR 97223
136DD-01500 >1H 3900
H JO HNS N FAMILY L P II A& REBECCA J
BY JO S CARL H LL DOWNS
8965 NHAM WEG OR 97035
T RD, OR 9 23
1S136DD-02300 • 1S136DD-00200
CARPENTER RICHARD L GREEN JOSEPH W
POLLOCK DONALD E PO BOX 1
1834 SW 58TH AVE STE 202 DONALD, OR 97020
PORTLAND, OR 97221
1S136DD-01900 1S136DD-01300
COON JOHN CARL & GSP LLC
OLSEN MARY G TRUSTEE PMB 160
6940 SW BAYLOR ST 11575 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
2S101AA-01800 1 S136DD-00900
CORLISS JAMES L & CORA K GSP LLC &
PO BOX 23970 MALCOM & SHARON ESLINGER LLC
TIGARD, OR 97281 PMB 160
11575 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 136DD-0580 ' 1S136DD-03800
CO SS MES L& CORA K HAINES BUILDING LLC
PO 970 PO BOX 80959
T ARD, O 7281 PORTLAND, OR 97280
11 101AA-00100 1 S136DD-00500
CO ISS MES L& CORA K HARTUNG RICHARD &
PO 970 LESLIE TIMOTHY J
ARD, OR 7281 11580 SW 67TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S 136 D D-02500 1 S 136 D D-06100
DICKEY VELDA A HOGG HARRIET L
c/o POLLOCK DONALD E 6860 SW CLINTON
1834 SW 58TH #202 TIGARD, OR 97223
PORTLAND, OR 97221
1S136DD-00800 1S136DD-03301
FAMILY BAPTIST CHURCH HUG DUANE & SANDRA
11585 SW 67TH 1152 SW TROON
TIGARD, OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
• •
1S136DD-01000 1S136D D-04100
JOHNSEN BRADLEY S 8 LAURA C PNWP LLC#2
FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2206
BY BRADLEY S/LAURA C JOHNSEN TRS BEAVERTON, OR 97075 •
.
PO BOX 762
BEAVERTON, OR 97075
2S101AA-02000 1 136DD-03400
LANDMARK FORD INC PN LL
ATTN: JIM CORLISS PO 6
PO BOX 23970 AVERTO , OR 97075
TIGARD, OR 97281
1S1360D-01701 1 136DD-05300
LAW JOHN C PN LL
6945 SW BAYLOR ST PO 06
TIGARD, OR 97223 AVERTO , R 97075
1S136DD-01200 1S136DD-02100
MATHEWS SEAN A POLLOCK DONALD E/JULIA GAIL
11600 SW 69TH AVE 1834 SW 58TH #202
TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97221
1S136DD-00700 1S136DD-02200
MERCER ROSS L& VICKI L POLLOCK DONLAD E
BY HEALTH PHYSICS NORTHWEST 1834 SW 58TH #202
11535 SW 67TH PORTLAND, OR 97201
TIGARD, OR 97223
1S136DD-00801 1S136DD-01100
MERCER ROSS L& VICKI L RHEE PYUNG NAI & SOO NAM
11535 SW 67TH 11570 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
t S136DD-02700 1 S136DD-06800
MILLER LAVIDA E ROOT GORDON C 8
6870 SW BAYLOR ST ROOT WILMA L&
TIGARD, OR 97223 ROOT JACK B
1400 SW SCHAEFFER RD
WEST LINN, OR 97068
1 S136DD-02800 1 S136DD-02900
MOORE GLENN L AND SHARON L R T GORDON C
11710 SW 69TH AVE R00 ILMA
TIGARD, OR 97223 ROOT JA
1400 SC FFER RD
ST LINN, OR 68
1 S 136 D D-07500 1 S 136 D D-06500
PACIFIC NORTHWEST PROPERTIES LTD RO T GORDON
PARTNERSHIPS LIMITED PARTERSHIP ROOT ILM &
PO BOX 2206 ROOT J
BEAVERTON, OR 97075 140 SCH FER RD
ST LINN, OR 97068
1 136DD-07600 1S136DD-06300
PA FIC NO ~WEST PROPERTIES LTD RO T GORDON C.
PART IPS LIMITED PARTERSHIP ROOT ILM
PO ROOTJ B
dVERTON, R 97075 140 SC FFER RD
, ST LINN, OR 97068
, ~ •
1 S136DD-03000 1 S136DD-03290
R T GORDON STROJNY JUDY LORRAINE &
ROO ILM & BALDWIN DIANE LOUISE
ROOT J B 6846 SUNSET RIDGE CT
140 W SC FFER RD WEST HILLS, CA 91307
ST LINN, OR 97068
1S1361DD-06600 2S101AA-02900
R T GORDON 8 TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER
ROO IL & LTD PARTNERSHIP
ROOT B ATTN: GREG SPECHT
14 W SC EFFER RD 15400 MILLIKAN WAY
EST LINN, OR 97068 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
1 S136DD-06700 1 S136DD-00600
OT GORDON TIGARD WATER DISTRICT THE
RO T W I L M & 8777 SW BURNHAM ST
ROO K B TIGARD, OR 97223 '
140 W HAEFFER RD
, ST LINN, 97068
1 S 136D D-03001 1 S136 D D-02000
ROOT JACK B& WILMA L WAGAR PAUL B JR & KANEKO T TRS
11645 SW MILITARY LN 14845 NW RIDGETOP CT
PORTLAND, OR 97219 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
1 S136DD-07300
ROSENFELD KENNETH & MARILYN
11930 SW 70TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-06900
ROTH J T JR & THERESA A
12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-07001
ROTH JACOB T JR & THERESA A
12600 SW 72ND AVE #200
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-07601
SALARIE MARZIE
11905 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
i si ssDo-o2soo
SMITH DEAN W &
SMITH JO ANN MONDELLI TRS
17880 SARAH HILL LN
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
1S136DD-02400
STERNBERG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNER
8310 SW 10TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97219
• ' . ' • •
Nathan and Ann Murdock
PO Box 231265
Tigard, OR 97281
Sue Rorman
11250 SW 82nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Naomi Gallucci
11285 SW 78th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Michael Trigoboff
7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
David Chapman
9840 SW Landau Place
Tigard, OR 97223
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 46
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpln\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 30-Dec-04
I • •
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITYOFTIOARD
Community (Development
S(rapingfl BetterCommunity
I, Tahtcia L. Luord, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SeniorAdminutrative SpeciaCut for
the City of 2`igat ,Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following:
(Check Appropriata Box(s) Below}
0 NO11CE OF DECISION FOR: VAR2005-00029/TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ALLESS SPAfING ADJUSTMENT
~ AMENDED NOTICE (File No.Mame Reference)
Z City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhlbit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on lune 9, 2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on lune 9, 2005, postage prepaid.
/
~
(Person tha ed ' e)
,STA2E OT OGON )
County o ~GVas tngton ) ss
~ ~f igard ~
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , 2005.
F4 A- OFrI(:IAL SEAL 1
SUE lGSs
~ PILT;,.,~ PUBUC-OREGON
COMMISSION PvO. 375152
~ MY COMM;,;3ION EXPIRES nEC.1, 2C7
i
My Co ion Eymlres•
, • •
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL
IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY Of THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED
ON THE SITE.
In the Matter of the Proposed Land Use Applications for:
Land Use File Nos.: VAR2005-00029
Land Use File Name: TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS ADJUSTMENT
I, Mathew Scheideager, Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, do affirm that I posted notice of the
land use proposal affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s)
and/or tax lot(s) currently registered)
and did personally post notice of the proposed land use application(s) by means of weatherproof
posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached
and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of 2005.
~
Sign u o n W P rformed Posting
h:VogiMpattyMasters\affidavit of posting for applicant to post public hearing.doc
TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS AC CESS ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00029
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval for an Adjustment to the access spacing
standards of Chapter 18.705. The specific section related to the Adjustment is
18.705.030.H (2), which requires the minimum driveway setback from the influence
area of a collector to be a minimum of 150 feet. Thisapproval will allow the location of
two driveways on SW Clinton Street east of SW 68 t Avenue; one on the north side
approximately 125 feet east of SW 68t" and one on the south side approximately 11
feet east of SW 68t". LOCATION: SW Clinton Street between SW 67t" and 68tn
Avenues; WCTM 1 S136DD, Tax Lots 3400 and 5300. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use
Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land
within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by
Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide
range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices,
civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density
of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIE
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.3909 18.520, 18.629
and 18.810.
Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staif contact: Mathew
Scheideqqer, Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by
calling 503-639-4171. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by
or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHO~ER, VENDOR OR SELLER: EXHIBIT
THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
HOTICE OF PENDIHG LAND USE APPLICATION ACCESS SPACING ADJUSTMENT CITYOFTIOARD
Community ~DeveCopment
Sha ingABetterCommunity
DATE OF NOTICE: April 28, 2005
FILE NUMBER: ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00029
FILE NAME: TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS SPACING ADJUSTMENT
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval for an Adjustment to the access spacing standards of
Chapter 18.705. The specific section related to the Adjustment is 18.705.030.H (2),
which requires the minimum driveway setback from the influence area of a collector to
be a minimum of 150 feet.
This approval will allow the location of finro driveways on SW Clinton Street east of SW
68th Avenue; one on the north side approximately 125 feet east of SW 68th and one on
the south side approximately 115 feet east of SW 68t'.
ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a
majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment
district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning
district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services,
business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family
housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620 and 18.810.
LOCATION: SW Clinton Street befinreen SW 67th and.68t' Avenues; WCTM 1S136DD, Tax Lots 3400
and 5300.
YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (1day period to
submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS A~
5:00 PM ON MAY 12. 2005! All comments should be directed to Mathew Scheideqqer, Associate Planner in
the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach
the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171, or by email to MattsCa-D_ci.tiqard.or.us.
ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE
SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT.
COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A
DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 26, 2005. IF YOU PROVIDE
COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL
CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
, e • •
. Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria
believed to be applicable to this proposal;
. Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to
provide a response;
. Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the
relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue.
Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude
subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings
directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence.
AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR
WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT
APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR
SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION.
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS:
. The application is accepted by the City
. Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing .
a 14-day written comment period.
. The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies.
. City Staff issues a written decision.
. Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the
site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent
property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the
site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement
entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled
to such notice.
INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW:
The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision
are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community
Development Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current
rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff
indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments."
naKM naP
ST
VAR2005-00029
ST ¢ TIGARD TRIANGLE
W COMMONS AC[ESS
` ADJUSTMENT
~ p aw. sqmNiex
C .ON ST ~ a
i
~
~
n..,. W.
DARTM LEy_g
N.
w n..
¢ ~ .
HURST Ciqof7i&.a
r~.m.~..
~
, , ' • •
BAURER ELDON F ESTATE OF & GODDARD GALINA G& GREGORY EXHIBITI.,
ROOT GORDON C 18395 WOOD THRUSH ST
1400 SW SCHAEFFER RO LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
WEST LINN, OR 97068
1 S136DD-01700 1 S136DD-04000
CARL H JOHNSON FAMILY L P II GOOLD PHILIP A& REBECCA J
BY JOHNSON CARL H 41 CHURCHILL DOWNS
8965 SW BURNHAM LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
TIGARD, OR 97223
l.k236DD-01500 >1H 3900
CA H JO HN N FAMILY L P II A& REBECCA J
BJO S CARL H LL DOWNS
8965 NHAM WEG OR 97035
T RD, OR 9 23
1 S 136 D D-02300 1 S 136DD-00200
CARPENTER RICHARD L GREEN JOSEPH W
POLLOCK DONALD E PO BOX 1
1834 SW 58TH AVE STE 202 DONALD, OR 97020
PORTLAND, OR 97221
1 S 136 D D-01900 1 S 136 DD-01300
COON JOHN CARL & GSP LLC
OLSEN MARY G TRUSTEE PMB 160
6940 SW BAYLOR ST 11575 SW PACIFIC HWY •
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
2S101AA-01800 1S136DD-00900
CORLISS JAMES L& CORA K GSP LLC &
PO BOX 23970 MALCOM & SHARON ESLINGER LLC
TIGARD, OR 97281 PMB 160
11575 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 136DD-0580 1 S136DD-03800
CO S MES L & CORA K HAINES BUILDING LLC
PO 970 PO BOX 80959
T ARD, 0 7281 PORTLAND, OR 97280
101A<OR 1 S136DD-00500
CO IS L& CORA K HARTUNG RICHARD &
PO LESLIE TIMOTHY J
AR, 7281 11580 SW 67THAVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S 136 D D-02500 1 S 136 D D-06100
DICKEY VELDA A HOGG HARRIET L
c/o POLLOCK DONALD E 6860 SW CLINTON
1834 SW 58TH #202 TIGARD, OR 97223
PORTLAND, OR 97221
1 S136DD-00800 1 S136DD-03301
FAMILY BAPTIST CHURCH HUG DUANE & SANDRA
11585 SW 67TH 1152 SW TROON
TIGARD, OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
• •
1 S 136DD-01000 1 S136DD-04100
JOHNSEN BRADLEY S & LAURA C PNWP LLC#2
FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2206
BY BRADLEY S/LAURA C JOHNSEN TRS BEAVERTON, OR 97075 •
PO BOX 762
BEAVERTON, OR 97075
2S101AA-02000 1 136DD-03400
LANDMARK FORD INC PN LL
ATTN: JIM CORLISS PO 6
PO BOX 23970 AVERTO , OR 97075 •
TIGARD, OR 97281
1 S136DD-01701 1 136DD-05300
LAW JOHN C PN LL
6945 SW BAYLOR ST PO 06
TIGARD, OR 97223 AVERTO , R 97075
1S136DD-01200 1S136DD-02100
MATHEWS SEAN A POLLOCK DONALD E/JULIA GAIL
11600 SW 69TH AVE 1834 SW 58TH #202
TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97221
1 S136DD-00700 1 S136DD-02200
MERCER ROSS L& VICKI L POLLOCK DONLAD E
BY HEALTH PHYSICS NORTHWEST 1834 SW 58TH #202
11535 SW 67TH PORTLAND, OR 97201
TIGARD, OR 97223
1S1361DD-00801 1S136DD-01100
MERCER ROSS L& VICKI L RHEE PYUNG NAI & SOO NAM
11535 SW 67TH 11570 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
1S136DD-02700 1S136DD-06800
MILLER LAVIDA E ROOT GORDON C&
6870 SW BAYLOR ST ROOT WILMA L&
TIGARD, OR 97223 ROOT JACK B
1400 SW SCHAEFFER RD
WEST LINN, OR 97068
1S136DD-02800 1S136DD-02900
MOORE GLENN L AND SHARON L R T GORDON C
11710 SW 69TH AVE R00 ILMA
TIGARD, OR 97223 ROOT JA
1400 SC FFER RD
ST LINN, OR 68
1 S 136 DD-07500 1 S 136 D D-O6500
PACIFIC NORTHWEST PROPERTIES LTD RO T GORDON
PARTNERSHIPS LIMITED PARTERSHIP ROOT ILM &
PO BOX 2206 ROOT J
BEAVERTON, OR 97075 140 SCH FER RD
ST LINN, OR 97068
1 136DD-07600 1 S136DD-06300
PA FIC NO WEST PROPERTIES LTD RO T GORDON C
PART IPS LIMITED PARTERSHIP ROO ILMA
PO 2 6 ROOTJ B
AVERTON, R 97075 140 SC FFER RD
ST LINN, 0 R 97068
• • ~ •
1 S136DD-03000 1 S136DD-03290
R T GORDON STROJNY JUDY LORRAINE &
ROO ILM & BALDWIN DIANE LOUISE
ROOT J B 6846 SUNSET RIDGE CT
140 W SC FFER RD WEST HILLS, CA 91307
W ST LINN, OR 97068
1 S 136 D D-06600 • 2S 101 AA-02900
R T GORDON & TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER
R00 IL & LTD PARTNERSHIP
ROOT B ATTN: GREG SPECHT
14 W SC EFFER RD 15400 MILLIKAN WAY
EST LINN, OR 97068 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
1S136DD-06700 1S136DD-00600
OT GORDON TIGARD WATER DISTRICT THE
RO T W I L M 8 8777 SW BURNHAM ST
ROO K B TIGARD, OR 97223 `
140 W HAEFFER RD
ST LINN, 97068
1S136DD-03001 1S136DD-02000
ROOT JACK B& WILMA L WAGAR PAUL B JR & KANEKO T TRS
11645 SW MILITARY LN 14845 NW RIDGETOP CT
PORTLAND, OR 97219 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
1 S136DD-07300
ROSENFELD KENNETH & MARILYN TM Rippey Consulting Engineers
11930 SW 70TH AVE Attn: Lans Stout
TIGARD, OR 97223 7650 SW Beveland Street, Sui't2 100
Tigard, OR 97223
1S136DD-06900
ROTH J T JR & THERESA A P8Cif1C NW Properties
12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 6600 Sw 105th, Suite 175
TIGARD, OR 97223 Beaverton, OR 97005
1 S136DD-07001
ROTH JACOB T JR & THERESA A
12600 SW 72ND AVE #200
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-07601
SALARIE MARZIE
11905 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-02600
SMITH DEAN W &
SMITH JO ANN MONDELLI TRS
17880 SARAH HILL LN
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
1S136DD-02400
STERNBERG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNER
8310 SW 10TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97219
, ~ •
Nathan and Ann Murdock
PO Box 231265
Tigard, OR 97281
Sue Rorman
11250 SW 82nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Michael Trigoboff
7072 SW Barbara Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
David Chapman
9840 SW Landau Place
Tigard, OR 97223
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 46
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpln\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 30-Dec-04
• •
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITYOFTIOARD
Community (Development
Sfwping p BetterCommunity
I, Tatricia L. Guord, being frst duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a SeniorAdministracive SpeciaCut for
the City of 7'War ,'Wasfiington County, Oregon and that I served the following:
{Chedc Appmpriate Box(s) Below}
❑X NOTICE OF PENDIN6 LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: VAR2005-00029/TIGARD TRIANGLE LOMMONS AL(ESS ADJUSTMENT
Ei AMENDED NOTICE (File No.Mame Reference)
Z City of Tigard Planning Director
A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked EKhi6it"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to
each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked EXhlblt"B", and by reference made a part
hereof, on Aplll 28, 2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on Apfll 28, 2005, postage prepaid.
944~07__ (Person t repare Notic
,57,A?E OT 0UGON )
County o `WasT rngton ) ss.
City of sgard ) I C)
Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of , 2005.
OFFICIAL SEAL
suE Ross
NpTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
_ MYCOMMiSS~IC;NIEXPRES DEC.1~ 2007
,
My Com ion EmIres: I a~~ `~U 7
CITY . •
ST GEOCRAPHIC INFORYATION SYSTEY
S.W.
~RF~ Nd1'fFl~
(500')
W
ST
~m w ~
a < Q fOR: L1nS StOUt
~
~
S.w.so~~, Sr RE: I S I 36DD; 3400/5300
> ~
ST ' 3
~ Property owner infonnation
srm 0 is valid for 3 months from
ua~urmi =
~ the date printed on this map.
~ mu o0
~
:
F-- uooe e
sarn+c ~
~ twoi
m~
ruurs
~~t711e S.W. DOUGLAS ST.
DARTMOUT 0:=
3W ppUCLAS OR
~W11t
ffiNW2iY1 lfI~IWlIp
W
Q •
u„~,„„ N
LMHURST ST o 100 zoo aoo aoo 500 Feet
1'= 340 feet
= w
~
w N N
Q City of Tigard
~ Intomwtion on Nis map is for general location ony and
I afioutd be veMeA wit; SBSW HaII g~M Services Oivision.
~
Q• ST TigaW, OR 97223
(503) 6394171
__rK httpJlwww.ci.tigard.or.us
- Piot date: Apr 12, 2005; C:VnagicWIAGIC03.APR
Community Development
' ' ' • •
1S136DD-03100 1S136DD-06200
BAURER ELDON F ESTATE OF & GODDARD GALINA G& GREGORY
ROOT GORDON C 18395 WOOD THRUSH ST
1400 SW SCHAEFFER RD LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
WEST LINN, OR 97068
1S136DD-01700 1S136DD-04000
CARL H JOHNSON FAMILY L P II GOOLD PHILIP A& REBECCA J
BY JOHNSON CARL H 41 CHURCHILL DOWNS
8965 SW BURNHAM LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
TIGARD, OR 97223
136DD-01500 >1H -03900
C A H JOHNS N FAMILY L P II P A& REBECCA J
BY JS CARL H LL DOWNS
8965 NHAM SWEG OR 97035
T RD, OR 9 23
1S136DD-02300 1S136DD-00200
CARPENTER RICHARD L GREEN JOSEPH W
POLLOCK DONALD E PO BOX 1
1834 SW 58TH AVE STE 202 DONALD, OR 97020
PORTLAND, OR 97221
1 S 136DD-01900 1 S 136 D D-01300
COON JOHN CARL & GSP LLC
OLSEN MARY G TRUSTEE PMB 160
6940 SW BAYLOR ST 11575 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
2S101AA-01800 1S136DD-00900
CORLISS JAMES L& CORA K GSP LLC &
PO BOX 23970 MALCOM & SHARON ESLINGER LLC
TIGARD, OR 97281 PMB 160
11575 SW PACIFIC HWY
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 136DD-0580 1S136DD-03800
S MESL& CORA K HAINES BUILDING LLC
T970 PO BOX 80959
D, O 7281 PORTLAND, OR 97280
101 AA-00100 1 S 136 D D-00500
CO ISS MES L& CORA K HARTUNG RICHARD 8
&AR50R~72811 LESLIE TIMOTHY J
11580 SW 67TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-02500 1 S136DD-06100
DICKEY VELDA A HOGG HARRIET L
c/o POLLOCK DONALD E 6860 SW CLINTON
1834 SW 58TH #202 TIGARD, OR 97223
PORTLAND, OR 97221
1 S136DD-00800 1 S136DD-03301
FAMILY BAPTIST CHURCH HUG DUANE & SANDRA
11585 SW 67TH 1152 SW TROON
TIGARD, OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
' ' ' • •
1S136DD-01000 1S136DD-04100
JOHNSEN BRADLEY S& LAURA C • PNWP LLC#2
FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2206
BY BRADLEY S/LAURA C JOHNSEN TRS BEAVERTON, OR 97075 .
PO BOX 762
BEAVERTON, OR 97075
2S101AA-02000 1 136DD-03400
LANDMARK FORD INC PN LL
ATTN: JIM CORLISS PO B 6
PO BOX 23970 AVERTO , OR 97075
TIGARD, OR 97281
1 S136DD-01701 1 136DD•05300
LAW JOHN C PN LL
6945 SW BAYLOR ST PO 06
TIGARD, OR 97223 AVERTO , R 97075
1 S136DD-01200 1 S136DD-02100
MATHEWS SEAN A POLLOCK DONALD E/JULIA GAIL
11600 SW 69TH AVE 1834 SW 58TH #202
TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97221
1 S 136DD-00700 1 S136DD-02200
MERCER ROSS L& VICKI L POLLOCK DONLAD E
BY HEALTH PHYSICS NORTHWEST 1834 SW 58TH #202
11535 SW 67TH PORTLAND, OR 97201
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S 136DD-00801 1 S136DD-01100
MERCER ROSS L& VICKI L RHEE PYUNG NAI & S00 NAM
11535 SW 67TH 11570 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-02700 1 S136DD-06800
MILLER LAVIDA E ROOT GORDON C 8
6870 SW BAYLOR ST ROOT WILMA L&
TIGARD, OR 97223 ROOT JACK B
1400 SW SCHAEFFER RD
WEST LINN, OR 97068
1 S 136DD-02800 1 S 136DD-02900
MOORE GLENN L AND SHARON L R T GORDON C
11710 SW 69TH AVE ROO ILMA
TIGARD, OR 97223 ROOT JA
1400 SC FFER RD
ST LINN, OR 68
1 S136DD-07500 1 S136DD-06500
DON
PACIFIC NORTHWEST PROPERTIES LTD >ROOTJ
PARTNERSHIPS LIMITED PARTERSHIP M &
PO BOX 2206 BEAVERTON, OR 97075 C
H FER RD
, OR 97068
1 136DD-07600 1 136DD-06300
PA FIC NO WEST PROPERTIES LTD RO T GORDON C
PART IPS LIMITED PARTERSHIP ROO T-qlLM .
PO 2 6 ROOT J B
AVERTON, R 97075 140 SC FFER RD
ST LINN, OR 97068
' ' ' • •
1S136DD-03000 1S136DD-03290
R T GORDON STROJNY JUDY LORRAINE &
ROO ILM & BALDWIN DIANE LOUISE
ROOT J B 6846 SUNSET RIDGE CT
140 W SC FFER RD WEST HILLS, CA 91307
\NfST LINN, OR 97068
1S136DD-06600 2S101AA-02900
R T GORDON & TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER
ROO IL 8 LTD PARTNERSHIP
ROOT B ATTN: GREG SPECHT
14 W SC EFFER RD 15400 MILLIKAN WAY
EST LINN, OR 97068 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
1S136DD-06700 1S136DD-00600
OT GORDON TIGARD WATER DISTRICT THE
RO T WILM & 8777 SW BURNHAM ST
R00 K B TIGARD, OR 97223 `140 W HAEFFER RD
ST LINN, 97068
1 S136DD-03001 1 S136DD-02000
ROOT JACK B& WILMA L WAGAR PAUL B JR & KANEKO T TRS
11645 SW MILITARY LN 14845 NW RIDGETOP CT
PORTLAND, OR 97219 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
1 S136DD-07300
ROSENFELD KENNETH & MARILYN
11930 SW 70TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1S136DD-06900
ROTH J T JR & THERESA A
12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S 136DD-07001
ROTH JACOB T JR & THERESA A
12600 SW 72ND AVE #200
TIGARD, OR 97223
1S136DD-07601
SALARIE MARZIE
11905 SW 69TH AVE
TIGARD, OR 97223
1 S136DD-02600
SMITH DEAN W &
SMITH JO ANN MONDELLI TRS
17880 SARAH HILL LN
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
1 S136DD-02400
STERNBERG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNER
8310 SW 10TH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97219
' ' ' • •
Nathan and Ann Murdock
PO Box 231265
Tigard, OR 97281
Sue Rorman
11250 SW 82nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Naomi Gallucci
11285 SW 78th Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Michael Trigoboff
7072 SW Barbara Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Brad Spring
7555 SW Spruce Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Alexander Craghead
12205 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223-6210
David Chapman
9840 SW Landau Place
Tigard, OR 97223
John Frewing
7110 SW Lola Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
CPO 46
16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242
Tigard, OR 97224
CPO 4M
Pat Whiting
8122 SW Spruce
Tigard, OR 97223
CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpln\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 30-Dec-04
04l08/2005 10:28 503-443-3700 TM RIPPEY PAGE 01
'64/08/2605 69:59 563624360 TIGARA BUILDTNG r. PAGE 01/03
• Post-it°° Fax Note 7671 Dafe ~yAS►
, . To From
CITY OF TIGARD Go.cept' Co.
COM~IUN~TY EVELOP~9ENT DEPARTMENT Phone # Pno~e #
F!A NING D VKI4N Fex F~ # 10 TIOARD
13i2S SW NAtL BOULfVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 91223 ` s~.0 &-ftr Cvmmudty
PHOM S034N-4171 FAX; 503•596-1960 (Athl: PatrylPfanning)
U
Properiy owner infarmation is valid for 3 months from #he date of your request
INDICATE ALL PROJECT _MP &_TA L07 NUM6ERS (i.e,1S134AB, Tax Lot 001 b0) OR THE
ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW:
I S/ - 3'(v 170 ~77,-*Ioc c.a•i`s 3 i9-n/b S3oo
Lmi s Gizv►vT/~ s~,c~ Gc.cnlmN
PLEpSEg &AP,G E 490'RH ApNU TOF LABELS WI~.L 8E PROV1dED AT T~{t5 TI ~FOR
OLpiNG O aE~ ~INCi. After submittin our land c~ applicatio to the~~xy, and
the pra ect p anner has reviewed yaur application for completerc~ss, you v~~~e notified~y means of an
mco ~obtaln your 2 fnal sets of labels.
The 2 fnaf sets of I Is need to be placed on envelopes with frst class letfier-rate pastaqe on the
envelo es _ ~n th ostage stamps (no metere~d enuelo and n return add~ess) and
resub Ci for t~e pu o5e of providmg notice to pro e~y awner~ o~ me pro p,ea land use
+on and the de~ision. The ~sets af enve opes r ust be k~p~ separate. The person lias5ted below wil(
b cal~ed to pick up and pay for the labels when t ey are ready.
NAME OF CONTACT PERSO PHQhfE; -3`d0
FAX:_
This raquest rnay be mai[ed, faxed or hand delivered to the ity o Tigard. Please allaw a
2'day minlmum for pracessing requcs#s. Upon cflmpl~etron af your request, the cDntact person will ~e
calledfo pickR p thtiir reqgkst that wifl be placed m Will CaiP by #heir lasfi narne, at the Community
Deve opment ecep on DeThe cost of processing your request must be paid af.the time of pick up, as exact cost can nat be
preAetermined.
PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURAGY, ONLY 4RIGINAL MAII,ING I.ABLS PROVIDED
BYTHE CITY VS, RE-TYPED MAIIING LABELS INILL BE AGCEPT D.
Cost DeMotoa;
$11 to generete the meiling fist, plus $2 per sheet for printing the Ilst ont label5 (20 addresses per sheet).
Then mul ' I the cost to fint one W of IabeLs b the number of sets Uested.
~XAMPLF coST FaR THis REQUEsT
4 sneets ot labels x$2/ehaet = 8 0 x 2 se~ = $16A0 ~ sh22t(s) o` IebelA x 921sheet =&,~-x.2- eus = ~~a_
2 sheets of lebels x$2lsheet for inlarested parUes x 2 sets- $ 4.00 sheet(s) of labels x 32Ish22t for i terestAd per~es =$~xL,~s =~%bZ~
GENERATElIS7 = ~„QQ GENERAi'E LJ3T =
TOTAI = $311,00 ~~X TOTAL =
4/ I:i/"LUUS
13125 SW Hall Blvd. 9:04:19AM Tigard, Oregon 97223 '
(503) 639-4171 Receipt 27200500000000001629
Date: 04/13/2005
Liae Items:
Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid
MISC Miscellaneous Fees & Charges - 25.0000 @$1.0000 100-0000-451000 25.00
Line Item Total: $25.00
Payments:
Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No.Approval No. How Received Amount Paid ~
Cash MILDREN DESIGN GROUP KJP In Person 25.00
Payment Total: $25.00
~
cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1
1 S136DD-05300
PNWP LLC#2
PO BOX 2206
BEAVERTON, OR 97075
1 S136DD-03400
PNWP LLC#2
PO BOX 2206
BEAVERTON, OR 97075
• r ~ •
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITYOFTIOARD
Community ~Development
ShapingA Better Community
DATE: April 28, 2005
T0: PER AiTACHED
FROM: CItY of Tigard Planning Diuision
STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger, Associate Planner [x24311 Phone: 150316394111/ Fax: [50316841291
VARIANCE (VAR) 2005-00029
➢ TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS ADjUSTMENT Q
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval for an Adjustment to the access spacing standards of
Chapter 18.705. The specific section related to the Adjustment is 18.705.030.H (2), which requires the
minimum driveway setback from the influence area of a collector to be a minimum Rf 150 feet. This
approval will allow the location of two driveways on SW Clinton Street east of SW 68t Avenue; one on
the north side approximately 125 feet east of SW 68th and one on the suth side approximately 115
feet east of SW 68th. LOCATION: SW Clinton Street befinreen SW 67t and 68th Avenues; WCTM
1 S136DD, Tax Lots 3400 and 5300. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district
is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use
employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district
permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices,
civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre,
equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development
Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620 and 18.810.
Attached are the Site Plan and Vicinity Map for your review. From information supplied by various departments and
agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MAY 12, 2005:You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to
return your comments. If vou are unable to respond bv the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above
with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the
Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
_ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
_ Written comments provided below:
Name 8 Phone # of Person(s) Commenting:
(DY OF TIGARD REQUEST FORODMMENTS
NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
FILE NOS.: FILE NAME:
ITIlEN INYOLVEMENT TEAMS
14DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES OF AREA: ❑Central East ❑South ❑West
CITY OFFICES
LONG RANGE PLANNING/Barbara Shields, Planning Mgr. COMMUNITY DVLPMNT. DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs. POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf, Crime Prevention 0(flcer
BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella, Building Official ENGINEERING DEPT.IKim McMillan, Dvlpmnt. Review Engineer _ PUBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine, Urban Forester
CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder 4 PUBIIC WORKSIBrian Rager, Engineering Manager
✓ PLANNER - POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGI
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
TUAL. HILLS PARK & REC. DIST.*3( TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE 8 RESCUE _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CLEANWATER SERVICES •
Planning Manager Fire Marshall AdminisVative Office Lee Walker/SWM Program
15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fre District PO Box 745 155 N. First Avenue
Beaverton, OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton, OR 97075 Hillsboro, OR 97124
LOCAL AND STATE IURISDIC?IONS
CITY OF BEAVERTON ~ CITY OF TUALATIN ~ OR. DEPT. OF FISH 8 WILDLIFE OR. DIV. OF STATE LANDS
Planning Manager Planning Manager 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Melinda Wood (WLuN Form R.auima)
Steven Sparks, oe, svcs. n+arogw 18880 SW Martinaai Avenue Salem, OR 97303 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100
PO Box 4755 Tualatin, OR 97062 Salem, OR 97301-1279
Beaverton, OR 97076
_ OR. PUB. UTILITIES COMM.
METRO - LAND USE 8 PLANNING OR. DEPT. OF GEO. & MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE
_ CITY OF DURHAM +If 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 5 Salem, OR 97310-1380
City Manager Porttand. OR 97232-2736 Portland, OR 97232
PO Box 23483 Bob Knight, DataResouroeCerRar(2CA) US ARMY CORPS. OF ENG.
Durham, OR 97281-3483 Paulette Allen, GiowthManapemerdCooNinator OR. DEPT. OF LAND CONSERV.& DVLP Kathryn Harris (r.n.ony)
_ Mel Huie, GreenspecesCoordinetor(CPA20A) Larry French (comP. aim a„eaments oroy) Routing CENWP-OP-G
CITY OF KING CITY #F Jennifer Budhabhatti, Reqional Plamrer(Wetlands) 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 PO Box 2946
City Manager _ C.D. Manager, GrowihManepemerrtServices Salem, OR 97301-2540 Portland, OR 97208-2946
15300 SW 116th Avenue
King City, OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY ~
OR. DEPT. OF ENERGY (Powedirres in nrea) _ OR. DEPT OF AVIATION (ronoPae Towao) Dept. of Land Use 8 Transp.
Bonneville Power Administration Tom Highland, Plennirg 155 N. First Avenue
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO +IF Routing TTRC - Attn: Renae FeRera 3040 25th Street, SE Suite 350, MS 13
Planning Director PO Box 3621 Salem, OR 97310 Hillsboro. OR 97124
PO Box 369 Portland, OR 97208-3621 Steve Conway (co,omi nups.)
Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Gregg Leion (cPn)
OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY (DEQ) ODOT, REGION 1~ _ Brent Curtis (can)
CITY OF PORTLAND (NOtify for Wetlards end Potential Envimnmentel ImpeGS) Q~ Marah Danielson, DevelopmeM ReviewCoordinator poria Mateja (zcn) Ms ,a
Planning Bureau Director Regional Administrator Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section (vacatang) _ Sr.Cartographer (cpAac,,) MS,.
1900 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 4100 2020 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _ Jim Nims, surveyorizcAims ,s
Portland, OR 97201 Portland, OR 97201-4987 Portland, OR 97209-4037
WA.CO.CONSOL. COMM.AGNCY ODOT, REGION 1- DISTRICT 2A ODOT, RAIL DIVISION STATE HISTORIC
Dave Austin (wcccn) .w..) Sam Hunaidi, ns~iwamc oistrict Menagw (NOlify tf ODOT RIR-Flwy. Crossing is Ony Access to Land) PRESERVATION OFFICE
PO Box 6375 5440 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 350 Dave Lanning, sr. cmssirig serety speaerst (Notlly il PropaRy Nas HD OvaAay)
Beaverton, OR 97007-0375 Portland, OR 97221-2414 555-13'h Street, NE, Suite 3 1115 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, OR 97301-4179 Salem, OR 97301-1012
UflLITY PROYIDERS AND SPECIAL A6ENCIES
PORTLAND WESTERN RIR, BURLINGTON NORTHERNISANTA FE R/R, OREGON ELECTRIC R/R (Burlington Nortnem/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor)
Robert I. Melbo, President & General Manager
110 W. 10th Avenue
Albany, OR 97321
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS. CO. R/R METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS COMCAST CABLE CORP. TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT.
Clifford C. Cabe, Construction Engineer Debra Palmer (a,nexations oniy) Randy Bice i5..M~f.~-C-i (If Projeet is Within Y. Milo ol o Tmnsit Routo)
5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin, Project Planner
Portland, OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Beaverton, OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street
Beaverton, OR 97006-4886 Portland, OR 97232
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY VERIZON QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
Ken Gutierrez, Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer, Engineering Coord. David Bryant, Engineering Florence Mott, Eng. ROW Mgr.
9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue OR 030533/PO Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd, Rm 110
Wilsonville, OR 97070 Portland, OR 97209-3991 Beaverton, OR 97075-1100 Portland, OR 97219
TIGARDITUALATIN SCHOOL DIST. #23J BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST. #48 COMCAST CABLE CORP. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC.
Marsha Buqer, Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist, Demographics Alex Silantiev (s..M.,ra.A-C.-t) Diana Carpenter (A„°e.aHwM aCOW)
6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 9605 SW Nimbus Avenue, Bldg. 12 10831 SW Cascade Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223-8039 Beaverton, OR 97006-5152 Beaverton, OR 97008 Tigard, OR 97223-4203
+It INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500' OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANYIALL
CITT PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:\patty\masters\Request For Comments Nolification Lisl.doc (UPDATED: 3-Feb-05)
fAlso uodate: i:\curoln\setuo\labelslannexation utilities and franchises.doc when uodatina this documentl
CITY OF TIGARD
Community ~DeveCopment
S(w 'n A Better Communi
[iE:: LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 11
120 DAYS = 811912005
FILE NO.: ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2005-00029
FILE TITLE: TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS ACCESS ADJUSTMENT
APPLICANT: TM Rippey Consulting Engineers OWNER: Pacific NW Properties
Attn: Lans Stout 6600 SW 105th, Suite 175
7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 100 Beaverton, OR 97005
Tigard, OR 97223
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval for an Adjustment to the access spacing standards of
Chapter 18.705. The specific section related to the Adjustment is 18.705.030:H (2),
which requires the minimum driveway setback from the influence area of a collector to
be a minimum of 150 feet.
This approval will allow the location of two driveways on SW Clinton Street east of SW
68th Avenue; one on the north side approximately 125 feet east of SW 68th and one on
the south side approximately 115 feet east of SW 68tn
LOCATION: SW Clinton Street between SW 67th and 68th Avenues; WCTM 1S136DD, Tax Lots
3400 and 5300.
ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a
majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district
bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district
permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services,
business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family
housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620 and 18.810.
DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: p TYPE I Z TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV
DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: APRIL 28, 2005 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: MAY 12, 2005
❑ HEARINGS OFFICER [MONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:00 PM
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION [MONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:00 PM
❑CITY COUNCIL [TUESJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:30PM
Z STAFF DECISION [TENTAflVD DATE OF DECISION: MAY 26, 2005
COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION
Z VICINITY MAP ❑ LANDSCAPING PLAN ❑ ARBORIST REPORT
Z SITE PLAN ❑ ARCHITECTURAL PLAN Z IMPACT STUDY
Z NARRATIVE ❑ GEOTECH REPORT ❑ OTHER:
STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheideqqer, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171 Ext. 2437
April 25, ZooS C11Y OF TIGARD
OREGON
TM Rippey Consulting Engineers Attn: Lans Stout .
7650 SW Beveland, Suite 100
Tigard, OR 97223 .
RE: Notice of Complete Application Submittal
(Tiqard Trianqle Commons Adiustment NAR2005-00029)
Dear Mr. Stout: The City has received the additional information necessary to begin the
review of your Adjustment application. Staff has, therefore, 'deemed your
application submittal as complete as of 4/21/05 and will begin the review
process. The estimated time for rendering a decision from the date an
application is deemed complete is four-six weeks.
If you have any questions about the information contained in this letter,
please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171, x2437.
Sincerely,
a Scheidegger
Associate Planner
i:\curplnVnathewWAR\VAR2005-00029.complete.d oc
c: VAR2005-00029 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ,
~
1
04/08/2665 09:59 503624311 TIGARD BUILDING-PT PAGE 02/03
PRE-APP. HF1Q BY:
GITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISIDN
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189
503.639.41711501'684.7297 ,
CITY OF TIGARD
oREcoN LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION File # other Case # SJ~2 -
Date J 5 BY Receipt #~Qv3-r S .C.ity [;3Urb 0, Date Complete~
TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR '
to adiustment/,Variance (I or II], ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (111) Comprehensive Pfan Amendment (IV) ❑ Ptanned Qevelapment (Ili) ❑ Zone Change Annexation (IV)
❑ Conditional Use (III) ~ Sensitive Lands Fieview (i, II or ill) ❑ Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV)
❑ Historic Overlay (II or lll) Site Development Review (Il)
❑ Home Occupation (Il) ❑ Subdivision ({I or III) ress i avai a e
sW G(, 1-1C71>V ST . Ig67l.G~iI1~ a~
1 S/ - 3&00 'TC, 3qoo t 6-300
,gPp,2v)c • ~f - S A~ • n~c u E
?`M lZc~=
2o5-D ..s tA.) Z 2-3
5Z>3/44-3 3 4? 0-0 t57V 3/44-3 --3 7C~0
L,4,,ls sTa,~T .
ac is i more an one
l~ ~tc, Nw /°lLoVlk-li77 t 5 .
('p6pp 5 LA) lOST'~` SL41,7r, !ZS $C-~e jLT0 N OK> 7JO$
60434, Ze, -3 SD o ST>3/ 6 7f ° VZ! l
"When the owner and the applicant are diffecent people, the applicant must be ~ purchaser of record or a lessee in
possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of ihe owner. The ners 'must slgn thfs application in the
s ace rovided on the baok of this form or submit a written authc5rization with this a lication.
ease e spea ic
L4 A4 evl'r rC, S
,
APPLiCA710NS WlLl. NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOU7' ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMI7TAL FzL.EMENTS AS
DESCRISED 1N 7'HE "BASIC SUBMITTAL. REQUIREMENTS" 1NFORMA710N SHEET.
P,4/08/2065 11:42 503-443- 66 TM RIPPEY PAGE 93
04/08/2805 09;59 593681 TIGARD 8llILDXNREpT PAGE 93/03
TIJE APPLICANT S~iAlL CERTIFY THAT:
* If the applicatian is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in aocordance with the
terms and-subject to all the r,onditians and lirnitations ofthe appraval. -
+ All the above statements and the statements in the plot pfan, attachments, and exhibits
transmitted herewith, are true; and the appiicants so acknowledge that any Permit issued, based
on this application, map be r+evoked if it Ps found that any such s#atements are.false.
* The appiicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria,
and undersf.ands the requirements for approving or deRying tihe applica#ion(s).
SiGNATURES aF E"OWNER OF THE SUS.IECT PROpERTY ARE REQUIRED. '4 - 6 Q,
Owner's 9ignature Date
Owner's Signa#ure Date Owner's Slgnature Date
t?wnees Signature Daxe
t3vimer's 9;gnature - Date .
ApplicantlAgent/Representative's Signature Date
Applicant/AgenVRQpcesentative's Sig»ature Date
,
64/08/2005 69:59 5036243~ TIGARD BUILDINGtT PAGE 03/03
.
THE ,APPL{CANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ lf the applicatian is granted, the applicant shafl exercise the rights granted in accordance with the
terms and -subject to all the conditions and limitations of fihe approval. -
♦ All the above statemenfis and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits
transmitted herewith, are true; and the appficants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based
on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are.false.
♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the poficies and criteria,
and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s).
SIGNATURES OF EACFi OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUfRED.
Qwner's Signature Date
qwner's Signature Date
Owner's Signature Date
Qwner's Signafiure Date
Owner's Signature Date .
(yi ?/r - 44-11(lo
s' ApplicanUAgent/Representative's Signature Date
ApplicanUAgent/Representative's Signature Date
64/08/2605 12:58 5036710 PACIFIC NW PROP PAGE 03
•94/0812605 11:42 503-44*00 TM RIPPEY • PAGE 03
B4/08/2005 99,59 5636243681 TZGARD BUZLAYNG DEPT PAGE 03/09
THE p+PPl.1CANT SHALL_CEFtT_lFY TFlAT:
+ If the appiicatian is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights grantesl (n accordanas with the
tat•rns Wnd-subject tb all the wnditions and lirnitaWns of the apprcval. .
+ fill the above statements and the statements in fihe piat plgin, attachmen4s, anri exhibits
transmltted herewith, ars tnre; and the applicants so acknawledge thafi any perrnit issued, based
on this applicetien, map be revoked if it ia faund that any suoh statemenSs are, foilse.
♦ The applfeart has read the enfire conients of the applicativn, including the policles and cftria,
and understands the reqUlremants fpr apamving or dertying fir►e applica#ian(s),
siGNATuRES aF EAGH owrdER OF THE SUB.IF:CT PRoPERTY ARE RIEQu1RED. . '
`-4 - U~ `Ca5
Clwner°s 9ignature - - - Date
C1wmer's Signature Date .
Own,oes Slgnature , pate
Owner°s Signature Date
Aumors S;pature - Date .
AApllcareelAgentJRepresenta4ive's Signature p 0
AppiicallUAgeClttRepTesentsttive's Sigrfatur'c oate ,
CITY OF TIGARD 4i12i2005
13125 SW Hall Blvd. ~ 1:09:20PM ,
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Receipt 27200500000000001591
Date: 04/11/2005
Line Items:
Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid
VAR2005-00029 [LANDUS] Special Adjust 100-0000-438000 493.00
VAR2005-00029 [LRPF] LR Planning Surcharge 100-0000-438050 73.00
Line Item Total: $566.00
Payments:
Method Payer User ID Acct./Check No.Approval No. How Received Amount Paid •
CreditCard GENE MILDRED BUS EXP KJP 011852 In Person 566.00
Payment Total: $566.00
~
cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1
' " ' • •
. City of Tigard Adjustment Narrative
April 11, 2005
Page 2
Description of Proposal:
This is a proposal for an adjustment to the access and egress standards of Chapter 18.705, as
allowed by Chapter 18.370.020C(5). The specific section related to the adjustment is
18.705.030H(2), which requires that driveways located on a side street must be separated from
an intersecting collector by at least 150 feet. This application will allow the location of two
driveways on SW Clinton Street east of SW 68th Avenue; one on the north side approximately
125 feet east of SW 68`h and one on the south side approximately 115 feet east of SW 68`n
The proposed driveways are indicated by plans approved under City File SDR 2004-00011, and
referenced in condition of approval #17.
Adjustment Criteria:
Section 18.370.020C(5) provides for Adjustments to access and egress standards based on
certain criteria contained in subsection (b). Since this project cannot meet the access spacing
standard for the SW Clinton Street frontage, an Adjustment is proposed.
Each of the approval criteria is addressed as follows:
"(1) It is not possible to share access;"
Comment: Each driveway is the only driveway pro~osed on the two Clinton
Street frontages between SW 68`" Avenue and SW 67t Avenue. Also, all of the
effected property is under the same ownership. Consequently, the driveways are
effectively "shared" as required by this criterion.
"(2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from
another street;"
Comment: On the south side of SW Clinton Street, the driveway is located based
upon grades and access to the proposed parking structure. If the driveway were
moved to the east, the rising topography would require raising the lower level of
the parking structure, which in turn would raise the second deck and ultimately
the proposed office building that it serves. This is not feasible due to topography
in the vicinity of SW 67`h Avenue. Similarly, on the north side of SW Clinton
Street, the driveway location is limited by the topography both at SW 67`h
Avenue, and along SW 68th. Finally, these driveways need to align in a north-
south direction to prevent conflicting turning movements on SW Clinton Street.
This criterion is met.
, , • •
, City of Tigard Adjustment Narrative
April 11, 2005
Page 3
"(3) The access separation requirements cannot be met;"
Comment: As noted above, the driveway locations are determined by topography
and access requirements. The 150-foot spacing cannot be met on this street for
the reasons described above. This criterion is met.
"(4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;"
Comment: The locations proposed are based on topography and other
Development Code requirements relative to building location and parking lot
dimensions. These locations provide the maximum spacing as required by this
criterion.
"(5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe
access, and;"
Comment: The Traffic Report accompanying the application for City File SDR
2004-00011 certifies that the access points meet safety standards.
"(6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met."
Comment: The Traffic Report also certifies that vision clearance standards will
be met.
Impact Studv:
Section 18.390.040B(2)(e) requires that Type II Applications include an Impact Study. The only
element of public infrastructure that could be impacted by this Adjustment is the transportation
system. A traffic analysis submitted and approved in City File SDR 2004-00011 addresses
impacts of the entire project, which includes the proposed driveways. The applicant concurs
with the recommendations in this study, and the resulting conditions of approval. No additional
impact mitigation is required.
• •
7650 S W Beveland Street
TM RIPPEY Su;te 100
Tigard, Oregon 97223
~ L CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Phone: (503) 443-3900
Fax: (503) 443-3700
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Date: Thursday, June 02, 2005 Project Number: 3118
To: City of Tigard
R LS C Fr-- J V - E DD
Attention: Matt Scheidegger ,~UN ~ 206
Project: Tigard Triangle Commons
Enclosed: ❑Plans ❑Shop Drawings
❑Calculations ❑Specifications
❑Details ❑Copy of Letter
0Other:
Number of Copies: Descriptions
1 Revised Adjustment Narrative dated 6/2/05
1 Traffic Study dated October 2004
1 Supplemental Traffic Report dated January 2005
1 Notice of Decision SDR 2004-00011
❑For Your Use ❑For Your Review
❑For Your Approval ZAs Requested
Remarks:
Copy to:
Signed: Lans Stout
❑Mailed
ZDelivered
❑To Be Picked Up
. • •
CITY OF TIGARD
ADJUSTMENT NARRATIVE
APRIL 11, 2005
REVISED JUNE 29 2005
. • •
City of Tigard Adjustment Narrative
June 2, 2005
Page 2
Description of Proposal:
This is a proposal for an adjustment to the access and egress standards of Chapter 18.705, as
allowed by Chapter 18.370.020C(5). The specific section related to the adjustment is
18.705.030H(2), which requires that driveways located on a side street must be separated from
an intersecting collector by at least 150 feet. This application will allow the location of two
driveways on SW Clinton Street east of SW 68`h Avenue; one on the north side approximately
125 feet east of SW 68`h and one on the south side approximately 115 feet east of SW 68ch
The proposed driveways are indicated by plans approved under City File SDR 2004-00011, and
referenced in condition of approval #17.
The narrative dated April 11, 2005 and submitted with the City application package has been
revised to address issues raised by City Planning staff as follows.
Adjustment Criteria:
Section 18.370.020C(5) provides for Adjustments to access and egress standards based on
certain criteria contained in subsection (b). Since this project cannot meet the access spacing
standard for the SW Clinton Street frontage, an Adjustment is proposed.
Each of the approval criteria is addressed as follows:
"(1) It is not possible to share access;"
Comment: The definition of "access" in Code section 18.120 states "The place
by which... vehicles enter or leave property...". "Sharing access" as used in this
criteria is intended to require two adjacent properties to use one access point if by
doing so the access spacing standard is met where it otherwise would not. The
existence of more than one access point to a single property is not related to
"shared access" unless one may be used by an additional property. In the subject
case, each driveway is the only driveway proposed on the two Clinton Street
frontages between SW 68`" Avenue and SW 67`h Avenue. Also, all of the effected
property is under the same ownership. Consequently, the "sharing" of driveways
is not applicable to this application.
"(2) There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from
another street;"
Comment: On the south side of SW Clinton Street, the driveway is located based
upon grades and access to the proposed parking structure. If the driveway were
• •
, City of Tigard Adjustment Narrative
' June 2, 2005
Page 3
moved to the east, the rising topography would require raising the lower level of
the parking structure, which in turn would raise the second deck and ultimately
the proposed office building that it serves. This is not feasible due to topography
in the vicinity of SW 67`h Avenue. Similarly, on the north side of SW Clinton
Street, the driveway location is limited by the topography both at SW 67`n
Avenue, and along SW 68`". Finally, these driveways need to align in a north-
south direction to prevent conflicting turning movements on SW Clinton Street.
Topography also makes it impossible to provide access from SW 67`" to the
property north of SW Clinton due to the rising grade from south to north and from
west to east. However, since there are 95 parking spaces required for the building
in this part of the site, two access points to the parking are needed to avoid
unacceptable congestion onto SW 68th from the driveway approved under City
File SDR 2004-00011. It should be noted that the 95 spaces are required to meet
the Code minimum ratio for this building, and the 100 spaces is the Code
threshold for requiring two separate access points.
The acceptability of this access plan is documented in the Notice of Decision for
SDR 2004-00011, and in the traffic study prepared by Lancaster Engineering for
this project. Both of these documents are attached as exhibits to this application.
This criterion is met.
"(3) The access separation requirements cannot be met;"
Comment: As noted above, the driveway locations are determined by topography
and access requirements. The 150-foot spacing cannot be met on this street for
the reasons described above. This criterion is met.
"(4) The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;"
Comment: The locations proposed are based on topography and other
Development Code requirements relative to building location and parking lot
dimensions. These locations provide the maximum spacing as required by this
criterion.
"(5) The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe
access, and;"
Comment: The Traffic Report accompanying the application for City File SDR
2004-00011 certifies that the access points meet safety standards.
' • •
City of Tigard Adjustment Narrative
' June 2, 2005
Page 4
"(6) The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met."
Comment: The Traffic Report also certifies that vision clearance standards will
be met.
Impact Studv:
Section 18.390.040B(2)(e) requires that Type II Applications include an Impact Study. The only
element of public infrastructure that could be impacted by this Adjustment is the transportation
system. A traffic analysis submitted and approved in City File SDR 2004-00011 addresses
impacts of the entire project, which includes the proposed driveways. The applicant concurs
with the recommendations in this study, and the resulting conditions of approval. No additional
impact mitigation is required.
Attachments:
Traffic Study dated October 2004
Supplementary Traffic Report dated January 7, 2005
Notice of Decision City File SDR 2004-00011
` ' ~i ' . ~ ~ .'l.' . ; .
. ~•I~ 'f:"..
~
. ~ ~ r%
- • ,~1'~
l
~
.'I.
~
~ • ~
tJ
1
11l
~!V. ~ ~ ~ . , ~.i'.'•. i ~\i:. .
r
~ .t.y
t~
^i.
. .
1l`
.I . : •/V'~~
. ''f . .
. .t
~ ' ~t . ' .')1. ~1~• ~ .
. - •,1 ' , . .
~'.r ! ~
Jt;
'~J ♦P .
f!
,1.
.1"..•. '
~ . . . `I• ..A:~' .
.S• i' ~
t
~ ' , l o..•
'~.I'. , • ' ' . ' • - ' • .y. ~ • ^ r; r c,' ' t: ' .
~ , • . ' ~ ' . Pi.' .
y •
.
l~•
. . ~ ~y
~'.S.
,
' . ' ' . . . _ •'.~:1 ~~~Y'~~;
..1'. . ~ ' .l'
i ( ~ . ~ - . ' ,3 . ~ , ~ • ,
. ~ ~f r~. ,I..(•
. i.
r , . , •
~•1' ,
!
:w .
~
. . ~ . . . . •
. , . . . . , , .
. ~ . . " 'I.~.~
•
f
.
. ~
.LE`,CO~M MONS
A~NG
D TR'I
T.IGAR
. . . . . . .
.
.
-
. ,
11
. . . n~;; . . ,
~ . . . . . ' . . J
~ < ' . .
. . ' ,,1 . 'lr ' ~ . • ~
~ - - .DY~~
.~~STU
PACT-
'TRAFFIC~IM
. .
- • ' . . r . . ~ . .
. . . . . 1~ .t'.
r
. •.t ~ .
, -
. , ;r.` ~:e._•. - . .
. ':r "
• j~.
- . 1f! . .
' ' ' . '
REGON:~~~~~
~ .
~:TIGARD..~O
. - . ; _ , .
, - . . . .
' ' ' - - . . " . ~~1 ~ ' '~1'~ , ~ ' •l•1
, .l~ _ , , . ~ ~ . . i. 4
, . y~,~ . ' . . ~C'':,,,,::.:
~ ~J , . . f. . . ; . . ~ ' ~ ~ . • _ . • ' 1~•. { .
1,. ~ 1 - . , . ' . . ' . . ' . . • l ~ ( . .
j~ .t ~ " • . , . . . . ' .
, ,j~ . . . . .
. . ' ' .
• ' . . F . ~ , . . , , : . . . ) ' . 't ' ~ - •
. r 4 . - • ~4. . , ' . . ' - . . ~ ~ , ' • ' ,
~ . . ~ ' ~ . . . , , . •
::l r , . . ' ' . . . . ~ . . . . . •l: . •t . . . . . .
r ~ r . ~ , . ' . ; . . ~ ' ' . . ' ' • . , . '
' . ~ . . ~ _ 1. i, ' . . - . . , , . ~ . ~ . ' . . . , . ' , . • ' •
. • . ~~I . . . ' . . . . . . ~ ~ " ' ~ " . ~ • .
. . ~ M . :ti. . • • . ' ~ ~ ' • . . . ' , . , . i . . ~ . .
I` _ . . • - ~ ~ ' . ' r . ~ , . • ~
. . . . . ' ' ..1• '
~ ~ _ • , . ~ . ~ . . ' . . . . . ~
. i . j.i v ; r . ~ . . • • . ~ . ` , ' ~ ~ . . . - . . . . ' • . .
. .
~ . ' , . . . . , . . . . . ~ . . ' . . • , ' ~ , I , ' • • ' , ' . ` '
, . . . . . _ ' 1 ~ ' ' " . ~ ~ • . . ' . . . . . . . ~ • - . ~ , .
~ . , _ . ~ ~ . ' 1 . . _ ~ • • . ' • ~ . ` ' i. . . .
. . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ PREPAREDBY, , ~ . . ~ ~ . . . . , .
LANCASTER-ENGINEERING,~ ~ ~ ~ , , . . . .
, ,
; .
.
- . . ~ ;
_ , . - : . . . ~ . , . . .
J.. ' ti. ' . . ' . . , • ~ ~ . . ~ . , . . . . . '
OCTOBER~2004 . . ~ , . , . . : . . . " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ . ~ . , ~ , ~ . ~
, . . ~ , , . _ . . ~ - ~ . . • ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ . . ~ .
~ - , ~ . ~ ~ : . ~ . - - ~ . ~ • ~ ~ . . .
. . ~ . . . . ~ , . , - . . . ;
~ , . . . ~ ~ . . . . ~ . . . . ; . . . , . ~ .
, . •i ~ . . , . ~ . ~~F . ~ ~ .
. . . ' . , ^ . . . ' . . . . , . , . , ~ .
~ y ~ •
!
? .
1
1
a
engineering
~
~
7
' TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS
~ Traffic Impact Study.
~
Tigard, Oregon
4
,
~~5~ ~GINFc~sio~v
O PROFFs
OREGON
G~YS,z°Z
DCPIRES:
Y
~
~ Prepared By
TODD E. MOBLEY, P.E.
~ GEOFFREY A. JUDD, E.I.T.
m
~
„ .
October, 2004
4
L
5
, Union Station, Suite 206 ■ 800 NW 6th Avenue ■ Portland, OR 97209 ■ Phone 503.248.0313 ■ Fax 503.248.9251
; . • •
~
~
:s
~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
R}
•I
~ Executive Summary 3
,
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
x Location Description 5
~ Trip Generation 11
~
Trip Distribution 13
' Operational Analysis 17
Appendix 29
~
~ •
~
r.
~
~
~
~
F'?
s~
e
-2-
~ .
, •
.2 .
~
~
~
~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
~
~ l. A 4.5-acre parcel is proposed for development into two off'ice buildings in the Tigard Tri-
angle in the City of Tigard, Oregon. The site is located east of SW 68t' Avenue, north of
SW Dartmouth Street, west of Interstate 5(I-5), and south of SW Baylor Street. A total of
` 84,621 square feet of office space is proposed for development in two phases on the site.
Access to the site will be via SW Clinton Street and SW 67' Avenue.
~ 2. The site is expected to generate approximately 125 net new trips during the morning peak
hour and 120 net new trips during the evening peak hour. The estimated daily traffic vol-
umes generated by the site is 884 net new trips.
.
~j
3. The intersection of SW Atlanta Street at SW 68" Avenue currently only meets the peak
hour wanant. The intersections of SW Dartmouth Street at SW 68' Avenue and SW Dart-
~ mouth Street at SW 72" Avenue currently meet both of the warrants evaluated. In the fu-
~
ture, these three intersections will meet both of the warrants.
~ 4. All of the, study intersections currently operate acceptably during the morning and evening
peak hours. Tn the year 2007, the intersections continue to operate acceptably with or with-
~ out Phase 1 of the proposed development. In the year 2008 with Phase 2 in place, these in-
}
tersections continue to meet the City of Tigard's standards.
r+7
~
r.
3
~ -3-
~ . • •
~
~.1
R
~
INTRODUCTION
~
~
r
, A 4.5-acre parcel has been proposed for development into two office buildings in the
Tigard Triangle with access along SW 67`hAvenue, SW 68" Avenue, and SW Clinton Street in
+ Tigard, Oregon. The site proposes a combined total of 84,621 square feet of off'ice space to be
~ completed in two phases.
The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed development on
~ the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative measures. The analysis will
include level of service calculations and an evaluation of traffic signal warrants.
Detailed information on level of service, traffic counts, trip generation calculations, and
- level of service calculations is included in the appendix to this report.
<3
~
~ ►
~
;
a
~
~
r
b ~
~
k
f
-4-
~ . • •
3
~
e
~
iJ
w
:e
~
LOCATION DESCRIPTION
a
4
.
A 4.5-acre parcel along SW 680' Avenue has been proposed for development into office
~ space in Tigard, Oregon. The site is located east of SW 68'hAvenue, north of SW Dartmouth
J Street, west of Interstate 5(I-5), and south of SW Baylor Street. A total of 84,621 square feet
of office space is proposed for development on the site. Access to the site will be via SW 67'
~ Avenue and SW Clinton Street.
a The City of Tigard requires a study of the intersections of SW Atlanta Street at SW 68'
~ Avenue, SW Baylor Street at SW 68' Avenue, SW Clinton Street at SW 68' Avenue, SW
Dartmouth Street at SW 68' Avenue, and SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72' Avenue. A vicinity
? map showing the existing lane configurations at the study intersections is shown on page eight.
SW 68' Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified as a Ma-
~
- jor Collector Street. It is generally a two-lane road near the site with a posted speed of 40 mph.
~ There are curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the road north of SW Atlanta Street. To the
south of SW Atlanta Street, there are curbs and sidewalks only where recent development has
~ occurred. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the road to the north of SW Atlanta
Street.
~
~ SW 72nd Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified as a
Major Collector Street. It is generally a two-lane road near the site with a posted speed of 30
°T mph. There are curbs and sidewalks on the west side of the road north of SW Dartmouth
; Street. To the south of SW Dartmouth Street, there are no curbs and sidewalks.
x SW Atlanta Street is under the jurisdiction of City of Tigard and is classified as a Local
it Street. It is generally a four-lane facility east of S W 68`hAvenue and a two-lane facility west of
SW 68' Avenue. There is no posted speed along SW Atlanta Street. There are curbs or side-
~ walks west of SW 68`hAvenue. There are no curbs or sidewalks east of SW 68" Avenue.
SW Baylor Street is under the jurisdiction of City of Tigard and is classified as a Local
~ Street. It is generally a two-lane facility in the vicinity of the study area with no posted speed.
There are no curbs, sidewalks, or bike lanes in the site vicinity. There is no centerline striping
along the roadway. There is a drainage ditch on the north side of the roadway.
~ .
SW Clinton Street is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified as a
~ Local Street. It is generally a two-lane facility in the vicinity of the study azea with no posted
~
~
-5-
~
~ . ~ •
~
speed. There are no curbs, sidewalks, or bike lanes in the site vicinity. There is no centerline
~ striping along the roadway. There is a drainage ditch on the both sides of the roadway east of
SW 68" Avenue and only on the south side west of SW 68~' Avenue.
~ SW Dartmouth Street is under the jurisdiction of City of Tigard and is classified as a
t Major Collector Street. It is generally a three-lane facility in the vicinity of the study area with
a posted speed of 35 mph. There are no curbs, sidewalks, or shoulders in the vicinity except
~ where recent development has occurred.
:J
The intersection of SW Atlanta Street at SW 68~' Avenue is a four-legged intersection
that is controlled by STOP signs on all four approaches. The northbound SW 68~' Avenue ap-
~a proach has a shared through/left-turn lane and a separate free right-turn lane. The 'southbound
SW 68`hAvenue approach is a single shared lane. The westbound SW Atlanta Street approach
~ has a shared through/left-tum lane and a separate right-tum lane. The eastbound SW Atlanta
Street approach has separate left-, through, and right-turn lanes.
:y The intersection of SW Baylor Street at SW 68" Avenue is a three-legged intersection
~ that is controlled by a STOP sign on the SW Baylor Street approach. All of the approaches are
a single shared lanes.
~ The intersection of SW Clinton Street at SW 68" Avenue is a four-legged intersection
~ that is controlled by STOP signs on the SW Clinton Street approaches. The SW Clinton Street
~ approaches are single shared lanes while the SW 68" Avenue approaches have a separate left-
turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane.
a
>
~ The intersection of SW Dartmouth Street at SW 68' Avenue is a four-legged intersec-
tion that is controlled by STOP signs on all four approaches. The northbound SW 68' Avenue
approach has separate left-, through, and right-turn lanes. The southbound SW 68' Avenue
~ approach has an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The eastbound
SW Dartmouth Street approach has separate left-, through, and right-turn lanes. The west-
'bound SW Dartmouth Street approach has a shared through/left-turn lane and a separate right-
turn lane.
~
}
~ The intersection of SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue is a four-legged intersec-
tion that is controlled by STOP signs on four approaches. The northbound SW 72nd Avenue
~ approach has an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The southbound
SW 72' Avenue approach has separate left-, through, and right-turn lanes. The eastbound SW
Dartmouth Street approach has separate left-, through, and right-turn lanes. The westbound
~ SW Dartmouth Street approach has an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn
~ lane. ~
~
~
-6-
~ . • ~
~ •
~
~
Tri-Met route 78 - Beaverton/Lake Oswego provides transit services near the proposed
~ development. Route 78 travels from the Beaverton Transit Center to the Lake Oswego Transit
~ Center along SW 68' Avenue near the site. Route 78 travels with headways of approximately
30 minutes throughout the day.
~
Manual turning movement counts were made at the study intersections during Septem-
:
ber 2003 from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The peak hours typically occur from
~i 7:25 to 8:25 a.m. and from 4:55 to 5:55 p.m. The volumes for the morning and evening peak
hours are shown in the traffic flow diagrams on pages nine and ten.
~
~
~
~
.
~
:s
A
F
b
~
~
x
~
R
z
-7-
~ .
~ LEGEND ~
SW ATLANTA ST
Site Boundory
•
~ • Study Area Intersection
STOP Sign ~ Q
t
BAYLOR ST F c~o
3
ti
~
i I
1 L_.~
SW CLINTON ST
~
~ I SITE
~ ~ •
l ~
~ SW DARTMOUTH STREET
~
.•W
421- Q ~
" dda ~ ^
-@>
to
=4> cn
. ~ z
_ F -
.q
~
f~
9 ~
~ No Scale
a
VICINITY MAP
a Existing Intersection Configurations
' & Traffic Control Devices
Triangle NEW.dwg
-8-
a
i
~ 125
y~ 56 + SW ATLANTA ST __I]
338
6 ~ Fl T 0
S 14 > io Q
1-~
t
~ BAYLOR ST ~ ~
3
~
' ~4
' J.y .~2
f> L ;
~
SW CLINTON ST m
i
~ SITE ~
i ~
l ~
~ ~ • '
~ SW DARTMOUTH STREEf
61
~ rkzl ~ 24 rn~ ~56 f-0 00
.C ~22 Q y.C' co
~ 4-f <-1T1> N 1--T <-ITf->
153 ~ *opOi ^ ~ -4 cv^►~
.
55
E- 152 U) <J,~ y ~ 206 ~
~
~<56 ~ W
~ ~ c a c" Z
~
~
~
~ No Scale IF
~
TRAFFtC VOLUMES
~ Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
Triangle NEW.dwg
-9-
~
,
~ .
F817
42
0 ~ y ~ • • SW ATLANTA ST
252
14~ F1Tf>
79 0~ ~
t
~ BAYLOR ST . ~
3
~
~15
r ~~L> c4
~ IL
, T 14
to N 1
SW CUNTON ST °
• r
I SITE
~ .
~ SW DARTMOUTH STREEf
•
~ >
: Q
2
~ F- 1 ~
' NN~ :38
y.c 87 Q ~ J. y.c' ~
~
40-1' in c ~ ~
144 rn^ a~~cv
139 cv~ 3 ~ ~
.
~
~ r~j,~ F- 161
~ -76 Li
¢
~
191~ FITf ~
48 ~ ; ~N N N Z
194 ~ w
r
~
~ No Scale
~
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ Existing Conditions
~
~
PM Peak Hour
Triangle NEW.dwg
, -10-
~
~
TRIP GENERATION
j?
~
t
z To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed office develop-
'F ment, trip rates from the manual TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition, published by the In-
stitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The trip rates used were for land-use
:a code 710, General Office Building. The trip generation rates aze based on the size of the build-
~ ing. The proposed development will be constructed in two phases.
~ Because an office development is typically an origin or destination for trips, no reduc-
tion was taken for pass-by trips. However, a five-percent transit reduction was taken for the
proposed development. This transit reduction was made since there is an existing transit route
and associated transit stops along SW 68' Avenue neaz the proposed development. Addition-
ally, a large portion of the morning and evening peak hour traffic neaz the site is commuter
traffic and likely to use the transit facilities.
- The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 125 net
new trips generated by the proposed development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 113
~ will be entering and 12 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, there are a total
of 120 net new trips expected, with 19 entering and 101 exiting the site. A total of 884 net new
, weekday trips are expected, with half entering and half exiting.
~
~
A summary of the trip generation calculations for the residential development is shown
in the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this
_ report.
;
9
~a
~
J
t
i
-11-
a
~ ~ •
TRIP GENERATION SiTMMARY
~a
Tigard Triangle Commons
Entering Exiting Total
' Trins Trins TI1DS
Phase 1(49, 716 sq.ft. Office Building)
AM Peak Hour 68 9 77
Transit Reducton (%5) 2 2 4
:2, Net AM Peak Hour 66 7 73
~ PM Peak Hour 13 61 74
Transit Reducton (%S) 2 2 4
~
lA' Net PM Peak Hour Il 59 70
Weekday 274 274 548
Transit Reducton (%5) 14 14 28
Net Weekday 260 260 520
Phase 2(34, 905 sq. ft. Of ice Building)
y AM Peak Hour 48 6 54
Transit Reducton (%5) 1 1 2
~ Net AM Peak Hour 47 5 52
~ PM Peak Hour 9 43 52
Transit Reducton (%S) 1 1 2
~ Net PM Peak Hour 8 42 50
~
Weekday 192 192 384
Transit Reducton (%S) 10 10 20
Net Weekday 182 182 364
-•R Total (84,621 sq. ft. Office Building)
Net AM Peak fIour 113 12 125
Net PM Peak Hour 19 101 120
Net Weekday 442 442 884
~
~
4
61
-12-
~
.
~ • •
~1 •
.
'u •
9
~
A
;J
'Ft
:tU
~ TRIP DISTRIBUTION
,i
,
To determine the directional distribution of the site trips from the proposed develop-
~ ment, distributions used in recent traffic impact studies for nearby offices were used. Existing '
traffic volumes in the study area and likely routes to and from Interstate 5, Highway 217, and
Highway 99W were also considered. The majority of peak-hour traffic generated by office de-
4
velopments is generally commuter traffic.
Given the proxunity of the Haines Street interchange on Interstate 5, it is expected that
a significant amount of site traffic will use this facility. A considerable percentage was as-
signed to the Highway 217/72'd Avenue interchange to the south, and lesser percentages were
~ assumed to be to and from Highway 99W to the west and north via Dartmouth Street, 72nd
Avenue, and 68`hAvenue.
The traffic flow diagram on page 14 shows the distribution of the site trips from the
proposed development. The traffic flow diagrams on pages 15 and 16 show the assignment of
~ the site trips of the full build out of the proposed development to the roadway network during
.p,
the morning and evening peak hours. Figures showing the trip assignment of each phase of de-
velopment during the morning and evening peak hours are included in the appendix to this re-
port.
'A
3
~
3t
n
M
B
-13-
~
~t SW ATLAN7A ST
7
Q
L
- ti
to
3
tn
~pnOR ST
_
- i
1 ~
1 I
O 1
S'TE:
1 ~
1 ~
SW CLINTON ST
RTMQUV STREET ~
4LO90 Sw pA
z
~
a
::t C
N
h
:W
r ~
♦
~
O~
~
~
~
i
~
~ R~BVtioN
~ No Scale TR~p pIST centO9es
,I~CE t~ound per 7rian4l8
bou~d ~ au
Peak H°urs
~ ~n ~ & pM
A
t4
~
~
• SW pTLANTp ST
`C Q •
22
'ki,~
~
O ~ QNN ~
0~ .
N
~YLpR S7
.~2 r--- ~
y~ s 2 ►
,
SITE
.
SW CLINTON ST k
"
•
EEr~ *
SW DAR7MOUTH S~
~ s
r
cc
^t- 2 p
5 ~ 1 QN y(_6
OON ~2 o 'El
c
~ h
0 -T ~oo,^~ Q u')
1 12--) w
0~ Q
~
'C 22 ~
,
kn_" ~0 z
~o
41
r
0--
0
6
.J
$
~
~
~
' Na 5cale ~~-~E 1RIP`
~
Trian9le NE
~ Site P
AM PeQk
~ Hour
~ _l~_
4C 0 SW ATIANTA ST
~p •
~4 4
~ z
Q '::1,
• 3
~
qR ST
'C17
26 y ~
SI7E
.
i ~
SW CLINTON ST
•
SW DARTMaUTH STREET-.
~ '~-13 c°
'C 10 ~ an y ~ 45
j ~ ~ ~
o a o~4
~
o~
'Ti o~j, ~
~
. 'C 4 W
t~~y 'vo Z
~ a ~ oM4
3
~
~ No S~o~~ SrSE ~R~pS
an4le NE
~ Site Trips 7ri
peo1, H°ur
~ -16-
~
~ . • •
8
~
•i
~
~J
~
~ OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
q
.a
~
Background Traffic
Since traffic counts at the study intersections represent existing conditions, a back-
~ ground growth rate of three percent per year for four years was added to the counts at the in-
tersections to approximate background traffic conditions. This growth rate is typically used for
~ short-term growth within the METRO region. The growth rate accounts for developments that
~ are not in the immediate vicinity of the site, but still may add through traffic on the streets near
the site. The site will be developed in two phases. Phase 1 will be completed by the year 2007,
~ while Phase 2 will be completed by the year 2008.
~
Several developments have been identified near the site that will contribute to the traffic
' volumes at the study intersections. A list of the in-process developments is provided in the ap-
pendix to this report. Traff'ic flow diagrams showing the in-process traffic volumes during the
morning and evening peak hours are given in the appendix to this report.
~ The Year 2007 background traffic volumes comPrise the Year 2003 existing traffic vol-
~ umes with the,.growth rate applied and the traffic volumes from the in-process developments
added. Traffic flow diagrams showing the year 2007 background traffic volumes during the
' morning and evening peak hours are given on pages 18 and 19. Traffic flow diagrams showing
the year 2007 background traffic with Phase 1 site trips added are given on pages 20 and 21.
Traffic flow diagrams showing the year 2008 background traffic with Phase 2 site trips added
are given on pages 22 and 23.
~
~
~
~i
~
~
L
• -1/-
~ ~ 140
rnt~~r ~ 63 SW ATLANTA ST
F,J ~ y ~ 379 ~
'J 7~ FITI>
~ 16
~
BAYLOR ST to
~ •
3
N
~ C ~ 4
r
;-2
i i
7
i i
T 0
j SW CLINTON ST ptc) ~
i
~ ~ SITE
i ,
SW DARTMOUTH STREET-"
~
27 ~
rn
ao~OOO E- 3 j ov- : 0 ~
E-~ J• y. C 14 2 ~ 0 ~4 .C' c o
~
<Tr~ N
137-~ aocv~r ^ 1~ El T f>
^ N
63 2 -1 N°►~
~ •
`O'o ~ 62
~ ^ro ~ ° E- 176 ~
E~~y -23~ ~
64~ ~T~ ~
59 N ~
~
~
~
No Scale
R
~
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ 2007 Background Traffic
e AM Peak Hour Triangle NEW.dwg
~ -18-
0
t
~
Y
968 .
<-j ~ y 294 • SW ATLANTA ST
.516
El T f> >
10
t
~ BAYLOR ST . to
3
~
34
~o
J.y .c30
r
, IL
F>
l
. i toto
SW CLINTON ST ~ ~ I
i
~ SITE
~ i .
i
l ,
~ • , _ _ .
~ SW DARTMOUTH STREEf.-'~
~ Q
~
NN~ E"'ZS7 j .-~►7 ~ ~4 ~
~
~ 0 J~y .c>>s ~~.y .c46
47~ ~TI> N F1T1~
-168 ~ ~ m ^ 1 ~ °bv' cv
160 ~ r7 r~ 3~ c~o ~
~ ►
r2u) ~ 137
E- 187 ~
-88 ~
~
22:-t ~TI> ~
225~ cv _
=r
~
~
~
No Scale
~
~ TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ 2008 Background + Site Trips
PM Peak Hour Triangle NEW.dwg
; -23-
~
. •
r~Jf~L f- 63
-392 • . • SW ATLANTA ST
T I~
3 16
t
~ t
BAYLOR ST ~
•
r >
3
~
5
~ V"o ~
'
~ - ~
~ ~3
i iL
T I
I ~
F>
SW CLINTON ST
i
I SITE ~
~ ~ .
t ~
~ • '
~ SW DARTMOUTH STREEf
~ •
~ j
~ co t- 28 0 t-2 .c
" ao--aO 64 o~co ~ 0 ro
E-J,~ y~ 143 Q E-j ~ y~ 5 co
~T~
~ :-1, Tr~ N
63 2 04
~ •
N(o t- 75
•`s rnN0 ~ 176 U)
Ej y ~ 23 1 ¢
87~ <_ITI>
64 co o co w
J 59 -1, rnN Z
~ •
~
No Scale
~
~ TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ 2007 Background + Site Trips
AM Peak Hour
Triangle NEYV.dwg
_ -20-
~
~ •
~ N ~ 943
284 ~ ~ • SW ATLANTA ST
16
85
10 ~ -U) Q
w
~
~ BAYLOR ST • to
3
N
~27
's ~t 00
y
.C2o
~ I
L
~ SW CLINTON ST (D~
i
SITE ~ •
t , ~ i
~ SW DARTMOUTH STREET..•'
•
>
' ^ Q
76 r04 ~276 W ._~N W
.cio8 Q t-j~•y .C26
a
a 4:-4, EITI> ~Tf~
16rn~co
15~~`~ 3 ~ co
~
•
^N-
0p 182 to
~ ~ y ~ 86 Q
~
- 218~ ~TI> ~
218
7, n N Z
J ~
~
No Scole
~
r,
$ TRAFFIC VOLUMES
I' 2007 Background + Site Trips
x
. PM Peak Hour Triangle NEW.dwg
-21-
,
9
y .
4144
1 1 SW ATLANTA ST
E~ y •
-~W
~ 1s'> Q
II
~ t
w
~ B,4YLOR ST `D
~ • 3
~
~ (000 ~ 6
' ~4 r----
i I
L _
MN ~ I
;j SW CLINTON ST
I SITE
~J • -
~ . SW DARTMOUTH STREEF>
29 3 t
` ao^rn j7 W O-*N f-0 m
.~148 ~ <
J,,y .~7 ~
j-i, F1Tf> C`v <'1Tf
15m^~ ^ 1-~ `4NCNo
6•- 2~ cv
S~ 86 u)
rnf- 176
~ 23~ Q
106~ ~T~ ~
66 ~ °'cv ~
~
a
~
~ No Scale
r•.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ 2008 Background + Site Trips
w
~ AM Peak Hour Triongle NEW.dwg
. -22-
~ ~ . •
~ ' .
:1 .
Traffic Signal Warrants
~
All of the study intersections were analyzed for traffic signal warrants under all scenar-
ios. Two of the traffic signal warrants from the 2000 Manual on Uniform Control Devices
~ (MUTCD), published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, were evaluated at the intersections under the year 2003 existing, year 2007 background,
year 2007 background plus Phase 1 site trips, and year 2008 background plus Phase 2 site trips
~ conditions. The warrants evaluated were conditions A and B of the Minunum Vehicular Uol-
ume Warrant (Wazrant 1) and the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3) during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis are shown in the following table.
~
~
z~
~ •
'
~a
~
~
~
-24-
~ ~ ~ •
~
71 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRA.NT EVALUATIONS
~
Warrant 1 Warrant 3
~ Cond A or B AM or PM
' SW Atlanta Street/SW 68th Avenue
2003 Existing Conditions No Yes
2007 Back round Conditions Yes Yes
;
y2007 Background + Site Tri s Conditions Yes Yes
2008 Background + Site Tri s Conditions Yes Yes
~
SW Baylor SYreet/SW 68th Avenue
2003 Existing Conditions No No
2007 Background Conditions No No
2007 Background + Site Tri s Conditions No No
A 2008 Background + Site Tri s Conditions No No
SW Clinton Street/SW 68th Avenue
2003 Existin Conditions No No
_ 2007 Background Conditions No No
2007 Background + Site Trips Conditions No No
~ 2008 Background + Site Tri s Conditions No No
~ •
SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Avenue
2003 Existing Conditions Yes Yes
~ 2007 Background Conditions Yes Yes
2007 Background + Site Tri s Conditions Yes Yes
2008 Background + Site Tri s Conditions Yes Yes
~ SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue
2003 Existing Conditions Yes Yes
2007 Background Conditions Yes Yes
2007 Background + Site Tri s Conditions Yes Yes
~ 200$ Background + Site Tri s Conditions Yes Yes
~
' As shown in the table above, none of the traffic signal warrants are met at either the
SW Baylor Street/SW 68`h Street or the SW Clinton Street/SW 68' Avenue intersections under
any of'the scenarios.
r
~
~
-25-
~
- ~ .
~ .
a
~
.
~
~ At the intersection of SW Atlanta Street at SW 68`hAvenue only the peak hour warrant
~ is currently satisfied. During all future yeaz scenarios, both warrants are satisfied.
~
At the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68`hAvenue, both warrants are cur-
~ rently met, and this intersection will continue to meet these two warrants during all future year
. scenarios.
At the intersection of SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72" Avenue, both warrants are cur-
- rently met, and this intersection will continue to meet these two warrants during all future year
scenarios. 3
Recommended treatment of the study intersections is explained in detail in the Capacity
Analysis section of this report. The analysis worksheets containing the signal warrants are in-
~ cluded in the appendix to this report.
~
~ Capacity Analysis
~ To determine the level of service at the study intersections, a capacity analysis was
" conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to
3 level F, which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The analysis was made for the
~ year 2003 existing, yeaz 2007 background, year 2007 background plus Phase 1 site trips, and
~ year 2008 background plus Phase 2 site trips conditions during the morning and evening peak
hours.
R
~ The study intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection analysis
methods in the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACI7'Y MANUAL (HCM2000), published by the Transpor-
tation Research Board. The study intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard
- and therefore must operate at level of service E or better.
All of the study intersections currently operate acceptably during the morning and eve-
✓ ning peak hours. In the year 2007, the study intersections will continue to operate acceptably
~ with or without Phase 1 of the proposed development. In the year 2008, all of the study inter-
~ sections operate at level of service E or better during the morning and evening peak hours with
development of Phase 2 of the site.
~
~ No mitigations are recommended at any of the study intersections at this time.
T The results of.the capacity analysis, along with the Levels of Service (LOS) and delay
~ are slwwn in the following table. Tables showing the relationships between delay and level of
service are included in the appendix to this report.
e
-26-
~
:a
, •
~ • ~
~
~
w~ .
. .
LEVEL OF SERVICE SiJMMARY
a
` Tigard Triangle Commons
--AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
~ LOS Delav LOS Delav
SW Atlanta St/SW 68th Ave
2003 Existing B13 B 12
2007 Background C 15 B 13
2007 Background + Site Trips C 16 B 14
~ 2008 Background + Site Trips C 18 B 14
A
SW Baylor St/SW 68th Ave
1 2003 Existing B 11 B 14
4
~ 2007 Background B 11 C 16
2007 Background + Site Trips B 12 C 21
2008 Background + Site Trips B 12 C 25
~
SW Clinton St/SW 68th Ave
~
~ 2003 Existing B 12 C 20
'007 Background B 13 C 24
2007 Background + Site Trips B 15 D 34
~ 2008 Background + Site Trips C 16 E 48
SW Danmouth St/SW 68th Ave
2003 Existing C 17 C 18
~ 2007 Background C 24 C 23
2007 Background + Site Trips C 24 C 25
2008 Background + Site Trips D 28 D 28
SW Dartmouth St/SW 72nd Ave
~ 2003 Existing B 10 C 22
2007 Background B 11 D 31
~ 2007 Background + Site Trips B 11 D 33
~ 2008 Background + Site Trips B 12 E 38
~ LOS = Level of Service
Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds
~
-27-
~
.
~ • ~
~
~ .
~ Conclusions and Recommendations
~
The proposed site can be developed with relatively minor impacts to the surrounding
areas. All of the study intersections will meet the City of Tigard level of service standards.
The intersections of SW Dartmouth Street at SW 68`hAvenue and SW Dartmouth Street
,
at SW 72nd Avenue currently meet both of the traffic signal warrants evaluated, and the geome-
i try of these intersections is favorable for the installation of a traffic signal. Currently both in-
tersections operate acceptably as all-way stop controlled intersections. It is recommended that
signals be installed at these locations when the operations of these intersections degrade to a
~ level of service below the City of Tigard standards.
The City of Tigard has been tracking trips through the intersections of SW Dartmouth
~ Street at SW 68" Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72nd Avenue and collecting money
for the eventual signalization of these two intersections. Since both intersections currently op-
erate acceptably according to the City of Tigard operational standards, it is recommended that
the proposed development pay its proportional share for the future signalization of these two
intersections, as a number of nearby developments have already done. Further, since these two
intersections are planned to be signalized, this proportional share should be credifable towards
~ the money that the proposed development is required to pay for the Transportation Impact
~
Fees.
24
~ The intersection of SW Atlanta Street at SW 68" Avenue currently only meets the peak
hour warrants_ and is expected to meet both warrants examined by 2007 with or without the
~ proposed development in place. However, the level of service is expected to be favorable, and
~ it is recommended that a signal not be installed at this location until the operation of this inter-
section degrades to a level of service below the City of Tigard standards.
- It should be understood that the all-way stop controlled intersections in the study area
are relatively large, most with separate tum lanes. Unlike typical two-way stop controlled in-
tersections, these all-way stops can accommodate traffic volumes that cause signal warrants to
` be satisfied, but will still operate at favorable levels of service. Signal warrants are not an ab-
~ solute indicator of the need for signalization, and it is recommended that all of these intersec-
~ tions stay in their current configuration until level of service degrades to a point below City
standards.
~
~
~
~
~
~
-28-
~
~
.
~ •
943
~ ~ y ~282 • ~ SW ATLANTA ST
16
~ 85-
10 ~
~
~
w
BAYLOR ST c^a
•
3
~ r°•~ ~ 17
~rco
.Ly .G4 r
~ IL
r> ,
I
sw cuNrorv sr
~ ~
~
` I sirE
t ~
•
SW DARTMOUTH STRELT'
•
Q
yV rlcc-s4Q E-Z~O
~ 9 8 Q t-4 y.~' ~
46-T FITI> N EITf~
162 ryn~ ^ 1-~ rn N
156~ Mr7 3~ ~
.
~
~ ouorn 'C 130
182 `O
EJ L> ~ 86 w
~
, 214<-tTr> ~
218
° 54
~
~
~
No Scale
~
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ 2007 Background Traffic
PM Peak Hour Triangfe NEW.dwg
-19-
~ , • 6 •
~
engineering
January 7, 2005
Lans Stout
TM Rippey Consulting Engineers 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Tigard Triangle Commons - Supplementary Traffic Report
Dear Lans,
This letter is written to address access spacing and sight distance requirements for the
subject application and is intended to accompany the revised application documents, which I un-
derstand were recently submitted to the City of Tigard.
Access Spacing c4c Safety
As explained in the revised application narrative, 68Ih Avenue is classified by the City as
a Collector and the 200-foot access spacing standard cannot be satisfied for a variety of reasons.
Section 18.370.020.C.5 allows for adjustments to these standards, and the narrative addresses
subsection b, items (1) through (4). Items (5) and (6) aze addressed in this letter. Item (5) speaks
to providing safe access and item (6) requires that the visual clearance requirements of Chapter
18.795 be met. Sight distance and visual cleazance areas are discussed in the following Sight
Distance section.
The proposed access is approximately 225 feet north of the intersection of 68`h Avenue
and Clinton Street. Based on the traffic volumes and operation of this intersection as examined
in the Traffic Impact Study, this separation will be sufficient to ensure that the driveway is out-
side the influence of any queuing or turning movements from that intersection. Additionally, the
two driveways on the west side of 680' Avenue within 200 feet are low in volume and aze not ex-
pected to affect the operation of the proposed access. In fact, the closer of the two driveways is
not currently in use.
Sight Distance
Sight distance at the proposed private access to 68th Avenue was measured to ensure ade-
quate intersection sight distance will be available. Sight distance requirements were taken from
the intersection sight distance standards contained in the 2001 edition of A Policy on Geometric
Union Station, Suite 206 ■ 800 NW 6th Avenue ■ Portland, OR 97209 ■ Phone 503.248.0313 ■ Fax 503.248.9251
~ • •
~ •
Lans Stout
January 7, 2005 Page 2 of 2
Design of Highways and Streets, published by AASHTO. Intersection sight distance require-
ments are based on the travel speeds of oncoming vehicles. The posted speed on 68t' Avenue is
40 mph, requiring 445 feet of sight distance in both directions.
Line of sight looking south on 68th Avenue is unrestricted and the required sight distance
is clearly available. Looking north from the access location, the line of sight is restricted by ver-
tical and horizontal curves on 68`h Avenue and the sight distance was measured to be approxi-
mately 440 feet. However, southbound vehicles become visible immediately after leaving the
all-way stop controlled intersection of 68th Avenue and Atlanta Street. Since all traffic must stop
at this intersection, vehicle travel speeds exiting the intersection are clearly less than the 40 mph
speed zone. As such, the measured 440 feet of sight distance from the proposed site driveway is
adequate to maintain acceptable operation. All other site driveways to local streets such as Clinton Street and 67`h Avenue should be
constructed to maintain the vision clearance areas identified in Chapter 18.795 of the Develop-
ment Code.
If you have any questions regazding this information or if we can be of any further assis-
tance, please don't hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
.1 14(lrW
Todd E. Moble , PE
Senior Transportation Engineer
cc: Dan Vasquez, Mildren Design Group
~Q,EO PROFFS
e cG'Nk,s/O~r
OREGON
~O
' /,I06
EXPiRES:
z ;'•rw 'i.':' ' , Q • •
. .
: .'..:..:t. L. .
. ' . . . . . . 4:. ' . . . .
. _ . : ' .
. , .
` - : . NOTICE O:F TYPE. II DECISION;.
: . . . : . : . , : . _ : ; . .
. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 200.4-00011
. cmr oF noaRD,,• -
_ • TIGARD: TRIANGLE COMMONS . ;Community meve~op~s .
>Sfea :ABetterCoiiimuni
120 DAYS = 6/4/2005
SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
FILE NAME: TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS
CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2004-00011
Development Adjustment (VAR) VAR2004-00094
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approvai for a three
phase development. Phase 1 consists of three (3) buiidings: a 49,716
square foot finro-story office building; a 26,400 square foot single-story
parking deck structure; and a 220 foot long screen wall. Phase 2 consists
of a 34:905 square foot, two-story office building: The applicant is also
requesting an Adjustment to the acces spacmg standard from the
minimum of 200 feet to 135 feet on SW 68 Avenue. Phase 3 is only for a
development concept with the expectation that a future Site Development
Review application will be made when development plans are prepared.
OWNER: Pacific NW PrRperties APPLICANT: Mildren Design Group, P.C.
6600 SW 105t , Suite 175 Attn: Dan Vasquez
Beaverton, OR 97005. 7650 SW Beveland Street, #120
Tigard, OR 97223
LOCATION:
PHASE 1& 2: Clinton Street at SW 67t' Avenue and SW 68th Avenue; WCTM 1 S136DD,
Tax Lots 3400/4100/5300. LOCATON
PHASE 3: Dartmouth Street at SW 69t' Avenue; WCTM 1S136DD, Tax Lots
750017600. ZONE: MUE. Mixed Use Em lo ment. The MUE zoning district is designed to
. app y o a majonty o t e and within the Tigard Tnangle, a regional
mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99),
Highway 217 and I-5: This zoning district permits a wide range of uses
including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices,
civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing .at a
maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A
wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation
facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utiiifies and
transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally.
APPLICABLE Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390,
REVIEW 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.715, 18.720, 1$.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765,
CRITERIA: 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810.
SECTION fl. DECISION
1
Sij::'1`:;;;.:.~~ :.v~C~ti: .S. a.e ".3ti' .A=••.:. . : h as
he,Ci ~of~Tiard.Communi-Develo~ment:D'irector~s.desi nee
:-given.that t,..iy. g. ty p ,
NQtic,~~~i^.~e.r.ebY ~
',p~R~ROVED the above cequest< subject to certain~.`conditions: of approyal:.~.The~..,fndings;.and.
y . . e}.. . ' t.,:.
~onclusions;on~.wfiich:_the decision is based are noted in.Se~tion~Vl.. NOTICE OF TYPE il flEC1SION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 1 OF 41
• • 4 ,~1ir-_,:~iii
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.
. . r:
,
THE LLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED ;
PRIOR TO:THE.ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS:::.:.~::
' u mi o e anning ivision a ew c ei egger, 639-4171, ex . or review
! and approval:
' 1. Submit a revised site plan that indicates the height of the trash enclosure meets the
! requirements of Section 18.745.050(E)(4). ~ u
~ 2. The applicant may not place signs within the side yards of proposed building three and
~ four.
i ~
! . 3. The Tree Removal Code requires tree mitigation to be calculated based on the number
of trees removed greater than 12-inches in diameter. Mitigation is then based on a
percentage of the number of inches of those trees to be removed. Therefore, the
applicant must revise the tree removal/mitigation plan to be based on the number of trees
. removed greater than 12-inches.
4. Provide a plan of each building along with an explanation of how the building fagade
criteria of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards are met. No permits can be issued
unless said standards are met.
5. Provide documentation that a deed restriction has been recorded for the subject parcel
of phase three limiting the development to residential at an R-25 density only.
6. Submit exact percentages of ground floor windows for buildings two through four.
These must comply with the Triangle Standards.
7. Submit information ensuring that plain concrete block will not be used as an exterior
finish material.
8. Provide a plan showing the street entrance canopy of proposed building four to be within
, the property lines.
9. Provide a plan showing proposed building #2 (parking garage) with one access drive
. that is a minimum of 50 feet in width with 40 feet of pavement.
10. Provide and implement a plan that shows the proposed surFace parking lots to have one
parking lot tree located in a three-foot-wide landscaped island on the basis of one tree for
every seven parking stalls. ' 11. Prior to commencing site work, the applicant shall submit cash or other security for the
equivalent value of mitigation required (number of caliper inches times $125 per caliper
inch). -
12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction
to the effect that any existing tree greater.than 12" diameter may be. removed only if the
tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be
removed or will be considered invafid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision
should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree.
13. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawings that
, include the approved Tree Removal, . Protection and Landscape Plan. The "Tree
' Protection Steps° identified in Teragan & Associates Letter of November 19, 2004. shall
be reiterated in the construction documents. The plans-shall also include a construction
sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading,
and paving. Only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removaf plan are
authorized for removal by this decision.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 2 OF 41
. • •
14. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by
the proJ ect arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access
by the city Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to
verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the
plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for
immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil
citations can be processed.
Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review
and approval:
15. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement PFI) permit is required
for this project to cover street improvements and any other wor in the public right-of-
way. Eight (8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to
the Engineermg Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings
required by the Building Division and should only include sTi ~eefs relevant to public
improvements. Public Facilfty Improvement (PIch pe~rnit plans shall conform to City of
T ard Public Im rovement C~esign Standards, are available at City Hall and the
Ci~y's web page www.ci.tigard.or.us).
16. The PFI permitplan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone
ee",
number of the individual or corporate entrty w o wi I be designated as the "Permitt
and who will proyide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,
specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state
within which the entityis incorporated and provide the name of the corporate ctontact person. Failure to provide accurate infoRnation to the Engineering Department w'ill delay
processing of project documents.
17. Prior to issuance of the Site Permit, the applicant must provide revised plans showing the
driveways % Clinton Street moved outside the influence area of a Collector (150 feet
from the 68 Avenue ROW) or apply for and receive approval of an adjustment to
18.705.030. H.2.
18. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval
by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the
public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking sha(1 be
provided on-srte. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to Qark on the
adJ oining residential and commercial public streets. Construction vehicles mclude the
vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site
improvements or buildings proposed this application, and shall include the vehicles of
all suppliers and employees associatby ed with the project.
19. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to
Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will
be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assig n suite numbers and the
address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to
issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering).
20. Additional riece t-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of 68th Avenue
- to increase right-of-way to 35 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to
the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms.
Instructions are available from the Engineering Department.
21. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Dartmouth
Street to increase the right-of-way to 36 feet from the centerline. The applicant shall also
provide 11 feet of reserve ROW for future street improvements. The description shall be
tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City
forms. Instructions are availabfe from the Engineering Department.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 3 OF 41
• ~ v' - .
~
22. Additional nht-of-way shall be dedicat~d to the Public along the frontage of Clinton
Street, 67th venue, 69th Avenue and 70 Avenue to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet
from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline.
The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the
Engineering Department.
23. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of
the Public Facility Improvement permi~which indicate that they will construct a half-street
improvement along the frontage of 68 Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site
shall include:
A. City standard pavement section for a 3-lane collector street from curb to centerline
equal to 22 feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge
of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, includin~g any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surFace
and/or subsurFace runofF;
E. 13 foot concrete sidewalk with tree wells or 8.5 foot sidewalk with a 4 foot planter
strip;
F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
G. street striping;
H. streetlight layoutby applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
1. underground utilities;
J. street signs (if ap licable);
K. driveway apron (i~applicable); and
L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 68th Avenue in
a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
24. The applicant shall submit construction plans tothe Engineerin~ Department as a part of
the Pu61ic Facility Improvement permit, indicating that they will construct the following
frontage improvements along SW Dartmouth as a part of this project: A. 6-foot concrete sidewalk with 7 foot planter strip; •
B. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; ,
C. streetlight tayout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; and
D. driveway apron (if applicable).
25. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of
the Public Facility Improvement permit,. which indicate th~ they will construct full-street
improvements along the frontages of Clmton Street and 67 Avenue. The improvements
adjacent to this site shall include:
A. City standard pavement section for a local street from curb to curb equal to 36
feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge
of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface
and/or subsurFace runofF;
E. . 12 foot concrete sidewalk with tree wells or 7.5 foot sidewalk with a 4 foot planter
strip;
F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
G. street striping;
H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;.
1. underground utilities;
J. street signs (if applicable);
K. driveway apron. (ff applicable); and
L. adjustr~ents in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Clinton Street
and 67 Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 4 OF 41
' • •
26. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of
the Public Facility Improvement permit t~vhich in~icate that they will construct a half-street
improvement along the frontages of 6~ and 70 Avenues. The improvements adjacent
to this site shall include:
A. City standard pavement section for a local street from curb to centerline equal to
18 feet and in no case shall the total paved width, including existing pavement, be
less than 24 feet;
B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge
of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage;
C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed;
D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface
and/or subsurface runofF;
E. 12 foot concrete sidewalk with tree wells or 7.5 foot sidewalk with a 4 foot planter
strip;
F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements;
G. street striping;
H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer;
1. underground utilities;
J. street signs (if applicable)-
K. driveway apron (ifi applicable); and
L: adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 69lh and 70tn
Avenues in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
27. Profiles of SW Clinton Street, 67t', 68th, 69t' and 70th Avenues shall be required,
extending 300 feet either side of the subject sites showing the existing grades and
proposed future grades.
28. Prior to issuance of the Site Permit, the applicant shall pa $3,705.OO~o the City for the
' striping of the bike lane along the frontages of Dartmouth S~reet and 68 Avenue.
29. The applicant shall provide connection of proposed buildings to the public sanitary
sewerage system. A connection permit is required to connect to the existing public
sanitary sewer system.
30. The applicant shall extend public sewer lines along the frontages of 69th and 70th
Avenues with the Phase I improvements.
31. The applicant shall extend public storm sewer lines along the frontages of 69th and 7&
Avenues with the Phase I improvements.
32. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the
proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement
permit.
, 33. The applicant shall extend public water along all frontages, including 69th and 70th
Avenues, as required by NWD. .
34. Prior to issuance of the Site Permit, the applicant's design engineer shall submit~ documentation for review by the City (Kim McMillan), of the downstream capacity of any
" existing storm ?'acility impacted by the proposed development. The design engineer must
perform an analysis of the drainage system downstream of the development fo a point in
the drainage system where the proposed development site constitutes 10 percent or less
of the totaftributary drainage volume, but in no event less than 1/4 mile. 35. The applicant shall provide an on-site water uality facility as required by Clean Water
, Services Design and Construction Standards ?adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-
7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim
McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a
proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for
review and approval.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 5 OF 41
~.TV. T._.--....~~.~.__.-...--..-~....--.-5 _r..~- rc.r_._. t- •__...___._.--..F.._. ...-°A.~_s„4•-:R: . ..r...... :T3T.i~
• ,r '
.
36. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Pubiic Facility Improvement (PFI)
" permit drawings. The plan shali conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment
Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition."
37. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C Generai Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant
to ORS 468.740 and the Fe era ean ater ct.
. : .
THE FOLLOWING CONDIT{ONS SHALL. BE SATIS:FIED
PRIOR TO A.FINAL BUtLDING INSPECTION: -
u mi o e ngineermg epa men im c i an, , ex .26 or review
and approvai:
38. Prior to a finai building inspection for Phase I, the applicant shall complete the required
public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-
year maintenance assurance for said improvements. These required improvements
include street improve ents and utility e~tensions along the frontages of Dartmouth
Street, Clinton Street, 67~, 68~', 69th and 70 Avenues.
39. Prior to final building inspection for Phase I, the applicant shall provide the City with as-
built drawings of the public improvements as faltows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the
as-buitts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-
built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS nefinrork. The applicant's engineer shall .
provide the City w'ith an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch
basins, water vafves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development,
and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91).
40. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 68th and 69'n
Avenues underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of
underg rounding. The fee shafl be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to
the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee optionis chosen, the amount will be $18,550.00 and it shall be paid prior to fnal building inspection.
41.. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards,
the applicant shall employ the design engineer -responsible for the design and V~~r
specifcations of the private water quality faci{ity to perform construction and visuaf
observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications.
These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at comp(etion of the '
construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the.Ciiy
of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water qualifi,r facility is
in compliance with the design and specifcations. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building
Division.
42. Prior to final buildigg inspection, the applicant shall pay funds to the Cfir for the future
' signafization ofi 7Z" Avenue/Dartmouth Street in the amount of $30,600.00.
43. Prior to final builSN inspection, the ap licant shall pay funds to the City for the future '§k'
, signalization of 68 venue/Dartmouth treet in the amount ofi $42,105.00. ~°'~i:~
44. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant's engineer shall provide finaf sight distance ;~•3°~~~~~
certification for all improved intersections and driveways.
Submit to the Planning Division (Mathew Scheidegger, 639-4171, ext. 2437) for review
•:~~;:~s~„ :
and approval:
F '~"F;:::~~K
45. Revise the site plan to show bicycle parking areas within 50 feet of the primary entrances to the proposed buildings.
;.u
°S+ .~:y,••'6'~c+"
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 6 OFI X
• •
46. P' finaW ing insp ectio the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has )
submitte City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial,
tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the(
construction activities and progress. These reports should include any chan es that
occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection~encing.
If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall 'ustify why the fencing
was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the ~rees did not adversely
impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not
submitted or received 6y the City Forester at the scheduled mtervals, and if it appears
the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is not being followed by the contractor, the City
can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and
the Project Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate the free protection fencinq,
determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if
any-part of the Tree Protection Plan has.been violated.
- . THIS APPROVAL_SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN:. (.18):~:
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF~THIS DECI$ION,
SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site Histo :
a con ucted a search of City records and found three land-use cases associated with the
subject parcels. The first was a minor land partition which was approved in 1999 when the
Oregon Department of Transportation partitioned excess right-of-way into one parcel
containing 41,311 square feet. The second land-use case found was an approval for a
temporary use permit for a portable modular construction engineer office space to manage the
I-5 to Hwy 217/Kruse Way Interchange project. The third land-use case was a site
development review to develop a two-story office building of 24,000 square feet and associated
site improvements. No other land-use cases were found to be on file with the City.
Vicinity Information:
The subject site is Tocated on the east end of SW Clinton Avenue. The site is bordered on the
north and west side with property zoned (MUE) Mixed Use Employment. Properties to the east
and south consist of Interstate-5 and the associated off-ramp.
Site Information and Pro osal Descrition:
e app ican is reques ing ite eve opment Review approval for a three phase development. Phase 1 consists of three (3) buildings: a 49,716 square foot, two-story office building; a
26,400 square foot single-story parking deck structure; and a 220 foot long screen wall. Phase
2 consists of a 34,905 square foot, two-story office building: The applicant is also requesting
an AdJ'vstment to the access spacing standard from the minimum of 200 feet to 135 feet on
SW 68 Avenue. Phase 3 is for a development concept with the expectation that a future Site
Development Review application will be made when development plans are prepared.
SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET
No letters were received from nearby property owners. .
, NOTICE'OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 7 OF 41
~ • i
SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections:
A. Zoning Districts
18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts
B. Applicable Development Code Standards
18.370 Variances and Adjustments
18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards
18.705 Access Egress and Circulation
18.725 Environmental PerFormance Standards
18.745 Landscaping,~a~nd Screening
18.755 Mixed Solid~lllaste and Recyclabfe Storage
18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements
18.780 Signs
18.790 Tree Removal
18.795 Visual Clearance
C. Specific SDR Approval Criteria
18.360
D. Street and Utiiity Improvement Standards
18.810
E. Decision Makin Procedures
18.390 Impact~tudy
SECTION Vt. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS
A. ZONIING DISTRICTS
Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020
Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts.
The site is located in the MUE: Mixed-Use Employment zoning district. The proposed use,
general ofrice space, is outright permitted in the zone.
Develo ment Standards:
ec ion . . . tates that Development standards in commercial zoning
districts are contained in Table 18.520:2 below:
TABLE 18.520.2
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
: .
. . ~ ~ ,MUE . .
Minimum Lot Size None
- Detached unit
- Boardin , lod in , roomin house
Minimum Lot Width 50 ft
Minimum Setbacks
- Front yard o' mlrv 10, max
- Side facing street on corner & through lots -
- Side yard 0120 ft [1]
- Side or rear yard abutting more restrtctive -
zoning district 0120 ft [1] -
- Rear yard -
- Distance between front of garage & property
line abuttin a ublic or rivate street.
Maximum Hei ht 45 ft
Maximum Site Covera e 2 85%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.4
Minimum Landsca e Re uirement 15%
[1] no setbadc shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone.
[21 includes all buildings and impervious area
NOTICE OF TYPE ll DEClS10N SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 8 OF 41
•
. .
Setbacks for each building are shown to be in compliance with the above standards on sheet
A1.2 of the submitted plans. The tal{est of the four proposed buildings is shown to be 38 feet,
which is within the maximum building hei ht of the MUE zone. Maximum site coverage is
calculated at 72% and landscaping at 28%.Tloor Area Ratio is discussed below.
Speciallimitations:
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for atl commercial and industrial use types and
mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including
transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement;
The proposed office floor area to be developed in phases I and II, is calculated as follows:
Site Area Phase I=104,292 sq. ft.
Phase ll = 68,465 sq. ft.
Phase III = 39.669 s. ft.
Tota = 12,426 sq. ft. Total site area (212,426 sq. ft.).x .40 = 84,970 sq, ft. floor area.
The proposed office floor area is 84,621 sq. ft., which is within the maximum allowed. The applicant has decided to transfer the floor area from the subject parcel of phase III to phase
I and phase II. Therefore, the subject parcel of phase IIl can only be constructed as multi-family
units at an R-25 density as govemed by table 18.520.1 footnote 21. The applicant has indicated
that phase 111 residential portion of this project) has been presented in conceptual form. In any
case, the app icant must provide documentation that a deed restriction has been recorded for
the subject parcel of phase three limiting the development to residential at an R-25 density only.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have not
. been satisfied. However, if the applicant complies with the condition befow, this
section will be met.
CONDITiON: Provide documentation that a deed restriction has been recorded for the subject
parcel of phase three limiting the development to residential at an R-25 density
only.
B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS
VARfANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS (18.370~
Aajus en o access an egress s n ar s(18.702nves :
In all zonin districts where access and egress cannot be readily designed to
conform to ~ode standards within a particurar parcel, access with an adjoining property
shall be considered. If access in conjunction with another parcel cannot reasonably be
achieved, the Director may grant an adjustment to the access requirements of Chapter
18.705 through a Type II procedure, as governed in Section 18.390.030, using approval
criteria contained in Subsection 2b betow. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an ad'ustment
from the access requirements contained in Chapter 18.705, based on the' ~ollowing
criteria:
ple Street Plan", contained in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards,
The "Tigard Triar
designates SW 68 Avenue as a"Minor Arterial". This designation preceded adoption of new
street standards for a11 of Tigard. However, the City Engineer'ing staff has indicated that "minor
arterials" are considered "maj or collectors" fror~ the standpoint of access spacing. The Tigard
Transportation System Plan designates SW 68 Avenue as a Major Collector.
Sectior~ 18.705.030 H(3) requires a minimum access spacing on Collectors of 200 feet. Since
SW 68 Avenue is considered a Major Collector, this spacing standard applies.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR200400011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 9 OF 41
. .
~ • .
The proposed access point onto SW 68th Avenue is located approximately 225 feet north of the
intersection of SW 68t Av~nue and SW Clinton Street. There is an unused curb drop located
on the west side of SW 68 Avenue approximately 65 felh north of the proposed driveway, and
a commercial driveway also on the west side of SW 68 Avenue, located approximatefy 135
feet north of the proposed driveway.
Section 18.370.020 C(5) provides for Adjustments to access and egress standards based on
criteria contaired in subsection (b). Since this project cannot meet the access spacing standard
for the SW 68t Avenue frontage, an Adjustment is proposed as part of this application. .
It is not possible to share access; . Southwest 68t' Avenue slopes to the* north, while the new building (Building four) must be
placed at the southerly extent of the site in order to meet building onentation standards of the
Code. In order to meet grade criteria in the parking area, the new driveway must be located as
far south as possible, which moves it away from the north property line. These physical and
code related conditions preclude a shared access on the north property line, but bx locating the
driveway as far south as possible the spacing relative to the existmg driveway is increased as
much as possible.
There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another
street; .
As noted above, moving the access point to the north creates unacceptable grade issues in the
parking lot due to the required location of the building, and would also reduce the access spacing further~ The site does have an access on to SW Clinton Street, but it is not possible to
access SW 67 Avenue due to grades. Limiting this parking area to the single-access on SW
Clinton Street would result in emergency access problems, and would direct an ~nnecessary
amount of traffic onto SW Clinton and into the intersection of SW Clinton and SW 68 Avenue.
The access separation requirements cannot be met;
Since the site has only about 360 feet of frontage on SW 68th Avenue, locating the access point
at 200 feet north of the SW Clinton Street intersection would still not meet the access spacing
standard relative to the existing driveways to the north. Therefore, the access spacing standard
cannot be met under any alternative location.
The request is the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access;
As noted aboye, the only alternate access from a local street is via SW Clinton ~treet which
does not provide adequate access alone. Consequently, access onto SW 68 Avenue is
necessary, and the location shown is the most viable based on grades and the required building
location.
The approval access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and
The Traffic Report accompanying this document certifies that the access points meet safety
standards.
The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.795 will be met.
The Traffic Report also certifies that vision clearance standards will be met.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Variance and Adjustment criteria have been met.
TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (18.620):
~esign s n ar s or pu6Tic s ree improvements and for new development and
renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design
standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangfe,
including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient
pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a
high quality image for #he area.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 10 OF 41
i
• ~
All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the
area. In addition to meeting the desi n standards described below and other
development standards required by ~he Development and Building Codes,
developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public
facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding
future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard
Triangle. ~
The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard
Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the
Devefopment Code, standards in this section shall govern.
Street Connectivity:
All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be
met Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter
18.134 where topography,. barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental
constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and
connections.
Design Option:
a. Local street spacing shalt provide public street connections at intervals of no
more than 660 feet;
b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be
provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet Performance Option:
. a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street
intersections per mile; b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or
greater facility is no more than finrice the straight-line distance;
c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local orioin to a
collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line
distance. The proposal meets the Design Option because the existing street system within the project
site meets the basic local street spacing standard, and will be retained within the development.
Southwest Baylor Street, and SW Clinton Street are spaced approximately 460 feet apart.
Similarly, the basic street system with its pedestrian facilities meets the 300-foot maximum
interval for pedestrian connection. Therefore, the "Design Option: standard of the section is
met.
Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1)
acre or.larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these
standards for the overall parcel can be met Variance to these standards may be
. granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010C2 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is
satisfied.
The subject site is greater than an acre and the applicant has proposed to do a phased
development. The plans submitted with the application show the breakdown of each building
within its phase. Phase I and II are the detailed plans which 'are to be constructed.
Phase III is a conceptual phase to show how the subject parcel of Phase III can be
accomplished in the future. Phase III has been reviewed and conditioned in the body of this
decision. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Building Placement On Major And Minor Arterials And The Street:
Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and
Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on
Major and Minor Arterial Streets.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 11 OF 41
~ • • ,
Southwest 67th Avenue and SW ~Clinton Street are local streets, so this standard does not
apply to these frontages. SW 68t Avenue is a minor arterial, so the standard is applicable.
For Phase I, Building Three provides a wall structure and colonnade alongthe entire frontage
meeting this standard. The wall structure increases in height with the existing street grade,
varying from 14 feet six inches up to 16 feet three inches. Consequently, the wall structure
requires a building permit, and therefore, by definition is a building. The solid wall portion
extends a distance of 119 feet eight inches, which is approximately 59% of the street frontage
(200 feet , meeting this design requirement. For Phase II, the sife design provides an office
building (uilding Four) at the frontage of the site north of SV, Clinton for a distance of 190 feet,
with a parking area afong tqp northerty 115 feet of SW 68 Avenue. The subject parcel of Building Four fronts SW 68 Parkway for a distance of 350 feet.. Therefore, the building
occupies approximately 54 percent of the frontage. This criterion is satisfied. Building Setback:
The minimum buildin setback from public street ri hts-of-way or dedicated
wetfands/buffers and other environmental features, shall9be 0 feet; the maximum
building setback shall be 10 feet ~
This section requires a maximum building set back of 10 feet. from dedicated rights-of-way.
The building placemen~as shown on th~ accompanying site plan meets this criterion for the
site frontage on SW 67 Avenue, SW 68 Avenue, and 5W Cfinton Street as shown below:
Building #1: (0) feet
Building #2: 10) feet
Building #3: 0) feet
Building #4: 0) feet
Therefore, this standard is satisfied.
Front Yard Setback Design:
Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be
provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more
than one (1) street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets.
Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced
areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches
and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the
minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. This standard reG uires a landscaped and/or pedestrian area befinre~n a structure and the public
street. The site design iprovides for this at the frontages on SW 67 Avenue, SW 68th Avenue,
and Clinton Street, wth a combination of landscaping and walkways befinreen buildings.
Therefore, this standard is satisfied.
Walkway Connection To Building Entrances:
A walkway connection is required between the building's entrance and the public street
or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6)
feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building
entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas
shall contribute to the minimum _landscaping requirement per Section '18.620.070.
Each of theFoposed buildings has a six-foot wide minimum walkway that connects direetly to
either SW.6 Avenue or SW Clinton Street. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied.
Parking Location And Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located
to the side or rear of newl constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is
limited to 50% of the street ~rontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed
to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five
fee# or the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yatd abuts a public
street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 12 OF 41
+
• ~
Proposed Building One's placement is at the corner of SW Clinton and SW 67~' Avenue. The
proposed parking is to the north and southwest of the proposed building which is conidered to
the side and rear of proposed building one. In the case of Building Four. at SW 68u, Avenue
and SW Clinton Street, this standard is met by locating the building at the corner intersection
with parking to the north and east (side and rear of the building). Each parking area has been
shown to 6e screened by a landscaped buffer equal to the L-1 landscaping requirement.
Therefore this standard is met.
Building Design Standards:
All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following desiyn standards.
Variance to these standards ma be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010
(Criteria for Granting a Variance~is satisfied.
Ground Floor Windows:
All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public
streets shall include a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area with
windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be
measured from three ~3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width
of the street-facing e evation. The ground floor -window requirement shall be met
within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up
to 50 percent of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining
elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a buifding corner.
According to the standard above, a building elevation must have at a minimum of 50 percent of
the ground floor wall area as windows. This standard applies only to buildings two through
four. Proposed building #1 does not have area for windows within 0-10 feet. The portion of
building #1 that is within 0-10 feet houses stairs to the main entrance. The applicant has
addressed this criterion for buildings two through four by saying that they meet the 50%
requirement. In order for staff to consider the above criterion satisfied, the applicant is required
to give exact percentages of ground floor windows for buildings finro through four.
Building Facades:
Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at
least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building
off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by
a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the
building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet
withouf a pedestrian connection between or through the building: According tothis standard, a buildings fagade cannot extend for a distance greater than 50 feet
without providing a break in materials, a separation or a projection. Accordin to the plans,
proposed buildmgs one through four seem to extend for a distance greater than ~0 feet without
a break in matenals. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a plan of each building
along with an explanation of how the building facade criteria of the Tigard Triangle Design
Standards are met.
- Weather Protection: Weather protection for pedestrians such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be
provided at building entrances. Weather. protecfion is encouraged along building
frontages abutting a public sidewalk. or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and
along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway.
Awnings and canopies shall not be backlit
Proposed buildings one and four are shown to have weather protection treatments at the
entries to each building. Each building has two separate entrances, one from the public right-
of-way and one from the associated parking areas. However, the canop covering the street
entrance of building four appears to be extending into fihe public 'righ~ of-way. Proposed
building two is a parking garage and proposed building three is a screening wall with no inter'ior
to enter. Therefore the applicant is required to provide a plan showing the street entrance
canopy of proposed 6uilding four to be wifhin the property lines.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 13 OF 41
~ •
Building Materials:
Piain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal plywood, sheet pressboard or
vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be
plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for
more than 2 feet
According to the plans submitted, the proposed buildings are to be built with a combination of
brick, concrete block, painted concrefe tilt panels andpainted cast-in-place concrete walls.
The pedestrian bridge is constructed of tube steel and ties into the metal storefront system of
Building One. fiowever, plain concrete block cannot be used as an exterior finish.
Therefore, the applicant is required to submit information ensuring that plain concrete block
will not be used as an exterior finish material.
Roofs and Roof Lines:
Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an
extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the
building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are
not permitted.
The proposed design for the buildings indicates a commercial style flat roof with parapets. The
metal bridge connecting Building One and Two incorporates a metal canopy that covers the
bridge, access stairs from the ground level, and a portion of the bicycle parking. This standard
has been satisfied.
Roof-Mounted Equipment:
All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets.
Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on
a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels
are exempt from this standard.
The applicant has indicated that roof-mounted equipment will not be visible from the street.
Elevation drawings have been submitted and no roof-mounted equipment are indicated.
Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Signs:
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code, the
following standards shall be met:
Zoning District Regulations:
Non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of
the C-P zone (18.780.130.D):
Sign Area Limits:
The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No
area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle.
Height Limits: '
The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet Wall signs
shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height
increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle.
Sign Location:
Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required
L-1 landscape areas. According to the landscape requirements, all side yards abutting streets shall be landscaped
to an L-1 stdard. The applicant has proposed signs at the corners of SW Clinton Street
and SW 68... Parkway, which are considered side yards for the proposed buildings.
Therefore, the applicant may not place signs within the side yards of proposed building three
and four.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 14 OF 41
, •
Entry Portals:
Entry portals shall be required at the primary access points into the Tigard Triangle.
1. Location.- Entry portals shall be located at the intersections of 99W and Dartmouth;
. 99W and 72nd; I-5 and Dartmouth; Hwy. 217 and 72nd; and at the Hwy. 217 Overcrossing
and Dartmouth.
2. Design- The overall desiyn of entry portals shall relate in scale and detail to both the
automobile and the pedestrian. A triangle motif shall be incorporated into the design of
entry portals.
The sub1'ect site is located at the intersection of SW Dartmouth and Interstate-5. Based on the
standard above, the applicant is required to provide an entry portal that relates in scale and
detail to both the automobile and the pedestnan. The applicant has incorporated a triangular
motif into the design of the colonnade by providing a pyramidal light fxture element on top ~f
three columns at the Southwest corner af phase I. The height and locations along SW 68
Avenue and the Haines Street off-ramp provide an entry portal motif for both automobiles and
pedestrians. Therefore, this standard has been satisfed.
Landscaping and Screeninq:
Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard
. Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of
the landscaping or screeniny are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These
standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as
all height limitations are met
L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local
collectors . and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and
Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on ma or and minor
arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking ~ot and a major
or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 3/Z-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on
center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90
percent opacity within one (1) ear. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder
of landscape area within two 2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper
shall be eligible for full mitigation credit
Landscaping is addressed later in this decision under 18.745 Landscaping and Screening.
L-2 (General Landscaping):
For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local
collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and
Screening, shall apply . Trees shall be provided at a minimum 2'/z-inch caliper, at a
maximum spacing. of 28 feet Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the
required landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in
excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit
Landscaping is addressed later in this decision under 18.745 Landscaping and Screening.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tigard Triangle Design standards have not not
been fully met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the
standards will be met.
CONDITIONS:
• Submit exact percentages of ground floor windows for buildings two through
four. • Submit information ensuring that plain concrete block will not be used as an
exterior finish material.
• Provide a plan showing the street entrance canopy -of proposed building four
to be within the property lines.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 15 OF 41
• ~
• Provide a plan of each building along with an explanation of how the building
fagade criteria of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards are met.
• The applicant may not place signs within the side yards of proposed building
three and four.
ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS
The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal
be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development
Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705,
18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. The proposal's
consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections.
Access, EQress and Circulation (18.705):
Walkways:
18.705.030(Ilkways requires that on-site pedestrian walkways comply with the following
standards: shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground
floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial
uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall
provide convenient connections between buildings in mulf-building commercial,
institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be
constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments;
On site pedestrian walkways are present between the proposed building entrances of Building
#1, #2 and #4. Proposed building #3 does not have an interior to enter, therefore, no walkway
is proposed. The walkways of the other proposed buildings provide access and egress to the
buildings as well as to the associated parking areas. This standard is met.
Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such
crossings shall. be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways
shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a
minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal
separation; except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for
distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or
contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in
width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches,
bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards;
No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking areas. This standard
is therefore met.
Required walkwaXs shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete,
asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as
needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only
if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways.
The plan depicts concrete sidewalks, which meets the standard.
Access Manaqement (Section 18.705.030.H)
ecfio-n 1U. . s es a an access report shall be submitted with all new
development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by
meeting adeguate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by
ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO.
The applicant's engineer, Lancaster Engineerinq, submitted a Traffic Impact Study, dated
Oetober 2004. Lancaster provided~preliminary sight distance certifcation for driveways and
intersections related to the project. The applicant's engineer shall provide final sightdistance
certifcation for all driveways and intersections upon complefion of the public street
improvements.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 16 OF 41
, • •
Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that drivewaxs shall not be permitted to be placed in the
influence area of coliector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections
is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The
minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150
feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the
proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as
determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the
applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street
frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent
parcel. If shared.access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far
from the intersection as possible.
The applicant states that this project is in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.705.
Ths is not the case as there are finro proposed driveways on Clinton Street within 150 feet of
68 Avenue. The applicant shall move the driveways or apply for an adjustment to this
standard. The adjustment must be granted prior to construction.
Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets
along a collector shall be 200 feet The minimum spacin of driveways and streets
along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing o~ local streets along a local
street shall be 125 feet .
The applcant has applied for an adjustment to this standard for the proposed driveway located
along 68 Avenue. While the driveway is more than 200 feet north of Clinton Street, it is only
ab~ut 185 feet south of Baylor Street. There are finro existing driveways on the west side of
68 Avenue ~hat are within 200 feet of the proposed driveway. There is no location on the
property's 68 Avenue frontage that can meet this standard. The applicant's narrative points
out thaf there is a proposed access onto Clinton from this site, but that two access points would
better serve the development and provide secondary emergency access. The applicant also
argues that because of topography and building placement, the driveway has been located in
the best location with the minimum adjustment required to provide adequate access.
Staff agrees with the applicant's placement of the driveway location on 68th, therefore the
adjustment should be granted. - Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use:
Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and
industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for
developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of
pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and
shall be located to within 50 feet of fhe primary ground floor entrances; additional
requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review.
Proposed building #1 has a parking area to the north of the building that has a total of
19 parking stalls. The plans submitted show a 30-foot wide access drive into the parking area.
Proposed building #2 is a finro story parking garagehas a total of 151 parking stalls and a 26-
foot access drive. According to the standard, a parking area with 100+ parking stalls must have
one access drive of 50 feet with 40 feet of pavement or two access drives 30 feet in width with
24 feet of pavement. Proposed building #4 has a parking area with 94 parking stalls. The
applicant has shown two access drives entering the parking area that are 26 and 28 feet in
width.
Based on the analysis above, the applicant is required to provide a plan showing proposed
building #2 (parking garage) with one access drive that is a minimum of 50 feet in,.Width with 40
feet of pavement.
FINDING:' Based on the analysis above, the access egress and circulation requirements
have not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the
access standards will be met.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 17 OF 41
• • '
CONDITION: Provide a plan showing proposed building #2 (parking garage) with one access
drive that is a minimum of 50 feet in width with 40 feet of pavement.
Environmental PerFormance Standards (18.725):
These standards require that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations
be applied to development within the CitX of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 (Performance
Standards) regulates: noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors.
Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through
754T10 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply.
Visible Emissions. Within the commercial. zoning districts and the industrial park (IP)
zoning is ic , ere shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or
other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the
emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line.
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-0i5 and
340-28-070) apply.
Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is
permi e in any given zoning district which is discernible without instruments at the
property line of the use concerned.
Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be
reCa iry detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is
prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. .
Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high
~p era ure processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line
shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated
air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not
. apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of
construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title.
Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds
s a e main ine in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects
or rodents or create a health hazard.
The project is considered commercial office, which is permitted within the MUE zone. There
is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to
meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be
addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer.
Compliance with state, federal, and local environmental regulations are the continuing
obligation of the property owner, and will abide by the applicable standards.
FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met.
Landscapinq and Screeninq (18.745):
Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development pro ects fronting on a public street or a
private drive more than 100 feet in length shall e required to plant street trees in
accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C requires that street trees be
spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at
maturity (small, medium or large).
The applicant has provided a plan (sheet L1.1) of the proposed development showing street
trees planted 24 feet on center fronting on all abuttingpublic streets. The proposed street trees
to be used are Redspire Pear, which is from the Tigard Street Tree List. Therefore, this
standard has been satisfied.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 18 OF 41
1 C
• •
Buffering and Screening:
Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer is required between abutting uses that are of a
different type when the uses are separated by a street No buffer is required between a
proposed office use and existing office use. Buffering and/or screening are required for
dissimilar uses.
All properties surrounding the subject property are zoned MUE. Therefore, no buffering is
required. This criterion does not apply. •
Screening:
Special Provisions:
Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped
Parking areas shall include special desi~n features which effectively screen the parking
ot areas from view. Planting materials o be installed should achieve a relative balance
between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in
landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of
one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The
minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the
landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or
curb.
The parking areas associated with the proposed project. are all shown to be screened with
landscaping that is in conformance with the L-1 landscapmg standard. The applicant has not
showing the proposed parking areas associate with proposed building one and building four to
. be constructed with one parking lot tree for every seven spaces. Therefore, the applicant is
required to provide and implement a plan that shows the proposed parking lots to have one
parking lot tree located in a three=foot-wide landscaped island on the basis of one tree for every
seven parking stalls. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area
and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise
be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or
any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or
masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be
contained within the screened area;
The plans submitted show two trash enclosures within building one and four's parking areas.
The enclosures are shown to be constructed of CMU mason walls. However, the applicant
has not indicated that the screening will be fve to eight ~eet in height. Therefore, the
applicant must provide information that addresses the wall height of the trash enclosure.
Screening Of Refuse Containers.
Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection
area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial
area, or any public facility such as a school or park shalf be screened or enclosed from
view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse
shall be contained within the screened area.
As mentioned above, the applicant's plans show trash enclosures to be screened with CMU
walls and gates. The applicant has been conditioned above to provide -information regarding
the height of ttie proposed screening. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not
been fully met. If the applicant complies wfth the conditions listed below, the
• standards will be met.
CONDITIONS:
• Provide and implement a plan that shows the proposed parking lots to have
one parking lot tree located in a three foot wide fandscaped island on the basis of one tree for every seven parking stalls.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 19 OF 41
. . .
. •
• Submit a revised site plan that indicates the hei ht of the trash enclosure
meets the requirements of Section 18.745.050(E)(. Mixed Solid Waste and Recvclables Storaqe (18.755):
Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate
space for on-site storaqe and efficient collection of mixed. solid waste and source
separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers.
The ppplicant must choose one _(1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate
com ~iance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or
Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The a.pplicant will have to submit evidence or a
f lan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen,
he apQlicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the, franchise hauler regarding
the facili t y locatio n a n d c o m p a t i b i l i t y.
The applicant has submitted written sign off from the waste hauler (Pride Disposal). Therefore,
this standard has been satisfied.
Location Standards.
To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclables shall be co-
located with the storaqe area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage
areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code r.equirements; Storage area
space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can
combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within
interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a
required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior
storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance
security: for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the
proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the
use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately
screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; TF~e storaQe
area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will
not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets
adjacent to the site.
The refuse container is accessed from the proposed parking lots of building one and four and is
visible in order to enhance security for users. The proposed refuse container will not occupy
any required parking stalls and screening has been conditioned to conform to Tigard standards
previously in fhis decision. ~
Design Standards.
The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with
current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code
standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered
area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge
at least six feet in height Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall
be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be
capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers
shall be clearly fabeled to indicate the type of materials accepted.
The applicant has submitted a detail of the trash enclosure that shows the trash enclosure to
be screened with CMU walls and is 10 feet deep, by 20 feet wide, with full-swing gates that ar
equipped with lock backs to secure the gates open at the time of service. Therefore, this
standard has been satisfied.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage
criteria have been satisfied.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 20 OF 41
. • •
Off-Street ParkinN and Loading (18.765 :
Location of vehicle parking:
Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and sin le-family
attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. ~ff-street
parking lots for uses not listed above shall be tocated not further than 200 feet from
the buildiny or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the
building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which
require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the
required first 40 spaces up.to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40
Farkin~ spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the
ollowsng order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessib{e spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3)
Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces.
Proposed building one is 49,716 square feet, which requires a minimum of 134 parking stalls.
The pians submit~ed show a parking area to north containing 19 stalls and a two story parking
P arage to the southwest containing 151 stalls for a total of 170 stalls. The parking garage's
urthest point away from building one is 180 feet.
Proposed building four is 34,905 square feet, which requires a minimum of 94 parking stalls.
The plans submit~ed show a parking area to the northeast containing 94 parking stalfs. The
parking lot at its furthest point away from the proposed building is 180 feet. Therefore, this
standard has been satisfied.
Joint Parking_
Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcets of land' may agree to utilize jointly the
same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay,
sub'ect to the followsng: j The size of the joint parking facififiy shafl be at teast as large
as e number of vehicle arking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section
18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory egal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form
of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3) If a joint use arrangement is
subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter
appty to each separately.
Joint parking is not proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Parking in Mixed-Use Pro ects:
tn mixed-use projects, t~e re uired minimum vehicle parking shall be determined
using the following formula. 1 Primary use, i.e. that with the largest proportion, of
total floor area within the development, at 100~/0 of the minimum vehicle parking
. required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second
largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle
parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subseyuent use or uses, at 80°l0
of the vehicle parking required for that use s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum
parking allowance shall be 150% of the tota~ minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3.
above.
This proposal is not considered a mixed-use project as it will contain solely office space;
therefore this. standard is not applicable.
Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: ~ Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces. shall provide an
additiona{ 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of
3 uests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally focated or
istributed throughout the development Required bicycle parking facilities shall also
. be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development
This project does not invofve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
Preferential Long-Term CarpoolNanpool Parking:
Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide
preferentiaf long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 21 OF 41
. . '
regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shali be
reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be
closer to the main entrances of the building than any other emp(oyeeor student parking
except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool
spaces shall be full-sized Per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly
designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM
Monday through Friday.
The proposed development provides a total of 262 off-street parking stalls that are considered
long-term, which requires a minimum of 13 long-term carpool/vanpool parking stalls. The
applicant has proposed to provide a total of 14 carpool/vanpool parking stalls. Nine of the
14 stalls are to be constructed with phase one which includes the proposed parking structure.
The first nine will be distributed between the first and second floor of the parking garage. The
additional fve stalls will be constructed with phase two, which includes proposed building four's
parking area. This criterion has been satisfied.
Disabled-Accessible Parking:
All =ng areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for
dispersons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal
standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these
regulations. .
The applicant is providing 264 parking spaces, therefore, seven (7) van accessible (9 feet wide
with an 8-foot aisle) ADA handicap spaces are required. The applicant's plans show four at the
west entrance to proposed building one, and three at the east entrance of building four.
Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. .
Access Drives:
With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the
street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to
facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular
, traffic on the site• the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the
requirements of dhapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be
clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other
barriers or markers on frontage not occu p.ied by service drives; access drives shall have
a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance;
access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding
single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.~,
groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no
acklng movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-ofanray will
be required.
The access drive has been addressed previously in this decision. Therefore, this standard
has been satisfied.
Pedestrian Access:
Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade
separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will
prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and
which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges.
The proposed parking structure allows parking on a top deck, which is to be constructed with
walls around its perimeter. The walkway from the parking structure to proposed building one
will also be constructed with safety walls on both sides of the bridge. Therefore, this standard
has been satisfied.
NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 22 OF 41
' ~r
. , +
• •
Parking Lot Striping: .
.Except for sinale-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the
off-street parking reyuirements as .contained in this Chapter shall have all parking
spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked
and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.
The plans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked with striping. Therefore,
this standard has been satisfied.
Wheel Stops:
Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior
landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches
high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of
the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does
not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet
landscaping or sidewalk requirements.
As shown on the submitted site plan, parking spaces allow for wheel stops three feet from the
front of the parking stall. Parking spaces, excluding those along the walkways to building
entrances, have three-foot wheel stops that include low-Iying landscap e materials. Parking
spaces along the walkways to the building entrances have three-foot wheel stops over
concrete. The remaining portion of the walkway is four feet wide. The wheel stop areas are
not included in landscapmg or sidewalk requirements. This standard has been satisfied.
Space and Aisle Dimensions: Secfion 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parkin in Figures
18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8~ feet x 18.5
feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a com pact space"; aisles
accommodating two directiono raffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24
feet in width. No more than 50 /o of the required spaces may be compact spaces.
The applicant's plans indicate that the standard parking spaces will be 8.5 feet by 18.5 feet*
and 7.5 feet by 16.5 feet for compact spaces. The access aisle will be 26 feet wide. The
applicant proposes that less than half of the proposed parking spaces will be compact.
Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Bicycle Parking Location and Access:
Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within
50 feet of primary entrances fo structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located
within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking
shall be visibfe from on-site buildings and/or the street When the bicycle parking area
is not -visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking
area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an
outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist
to use stairs to gam access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter
requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building.
The site plan shows areas for bicycle racks. According to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard
Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces
per 1 000 square feet. Based on the proposed square footages, building one is req uired to
provide 24 bicycle parking stalls. Proposed building four is required to provide 17 bicycle
parking stalls. The -applicant has shown 18 bicycle parking stalls for building four and 26 stalls for buifding one. However, the parking areas for both buildings are located further than 50 feet
away from the pnmary entrances to the buildings. Therefore, the applicant must revise the site
Elan to show bicycle parking areas within 50 feet of the primary entrances to the proposed
uildings.
Bic cle Parkin Design Re uirements:
Section 18.76~050.C. The followingdesign, requirements apply to the installation of
bicycle racks: The racks required for required bic cle parking spaces shall ensure
that bicycles may be securely locked to them withou~undue inconvenience. Provision
of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required;
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 23 OF 41
4
• • , .
bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure;
bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2'/Z feet by six feet long, and, when covered
with a vertical clearance of seven feet An access aisle of at least five feet wide shali
be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each
required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another 'bicycle•
required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where requireJ
motor vehicfe parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking
are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking
must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities
shall. be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or
similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained.
The applicant has provided a detail of the bike rack to be used, which is consistent with design
standard.above. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements:
The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table
18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking
spaces.
Minimum bicycle parking requirements have been addressed and conditioned above under
Bicycle Parking Location and Access. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Minimum Off-Street Parking:
Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required
in Table 18.765.2.
Minimum off-street parking has been addressed above under, Location of Vehicle Parking.
Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Off-Street Loading Spaces:
Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered
which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and
maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one
loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A
minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more.
Proposed building one is in. excess of 40,000 square feet and has been proposed with two
loading spaces in the northem parking area. Proposed building four is less than 40,000 square
feet (34,905 sq. ft.) and has been proposed with one loading space in the northern portion of
the adjacent parking area. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have
not been fully satisfed; however, if the applicant complies with the conditions
listed below, the standards will be met.
CONDITIONS:
• Revise the site plan to show bicycle parking areas within 50 feet of the
primary entrances to the proposed buildings.
Siqns (18:780): . Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the
MUE Zoning District.
No signs have been formally proposed or addressed by the applicant. Signs are reviewed
through a separate permit process administered by the Development Services Technicians.
FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit
process, this standard has been satisfied.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 24 OF 41
,
, • ~
Tree Removal 18.790 :
bection 18.790.0requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of
trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review
application. The tree plan shall include identificafion of all existing trees, identifcation of
a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which
trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be
used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction.
The applicant has provided an arborist rep ort addressing the trees Iocated on the property. The
arborist's report notes that a number of the ash trees on the site are in rapid decline. The
applicant has requested that a condition of approval be imposed requiring a revised tree report
and mitigation plan prior to the issuance of a building permit to address the condition of trees at
' that time, and mitigation based on the actual conditions.
Staff has taken the applicant's request into consideration. However, the City must ensure that
existing trees are protected while infrastructure is completed. Trees that have become dead
. dying or diseased may be removed at a later date with the project arborist's approval. If
addifional tr2es are preserved through the site improvements and construction of buildings, and
are propeSe, protected through these stages by the same measures afforded to other rotected
trees on the amount of the mitigation may be correspondingly reduced. There~ore, tree
protection and mitigation must be finalized prior to site work. Tfie applicant's tree mitigation
calculation is based on inches.
The Tree Removal Code requires tree mitigation to be calculated based on the number of trees.
Mitigation is then based on a percentage of the number of inches of those trees to be removed.
Therefore, the applicant must revise the tree mitigation plan to be based on the number of trees
greater than 12-mches.
FINDING: Because the applicant has not provideda tree mitigation plan, this standard has
not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the
standards will be met.
CONDITION: The Tree Removal Code requires tree mitigation to be calculated based on the
number of trees removed greater than 12-inches in diameter. Mitigation is then
based on a percentage of the number of inches 'of those trees to be removed.
Therefore, the applicant must revise the tree removaUmitigation plan to be based
on the number of trees removed greater than 12-inches. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): ap er 79qires a a c ear vision area shall be maintained on the comers of all
property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a
private driveway. A clear vision area shalf contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence,
wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height
The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually
clear between three ~3~and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this
area provided that a ranches below eight (8) feef are removed). A visual clearance
area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-
of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with
a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be
maintained. No special topographic constraints or physical obstructions exist to interfere with
vision clearance. Therefore, tf~is section has been satisfied. .
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 25 OF 41
. ,
~ • ' .
C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS
Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site.Development
Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously
listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the
following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore,
found to be inapplicable as approval standards:
18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group
Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use) ; 18.360.090.7 (Shared
Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and
18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). .
The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be
addressed in this section:
18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13
rking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14
RPaovision for the Disabled).
Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment:
Buitdings shalt be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage
where Possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining
buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fre-fghting; and oriented witFi
consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible.
Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removat.
The building islocated on the site in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards.
The site is not in an area identified as prone to sliding. Soil stability will be ensured at time of
building permits through required geostudies. Ade quate light and air circulation is ensured by
the proposed separation between buildings. The Building Division will require adequate fire
protection per the Uniform Building Code.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied.
Crime Prevention and Safety:
A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by
the occupants;
B. Interior iaundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be
observed by others;
C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic;
D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented
towards areas vulnerable to crime; and
E. Light fixtures shatl be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular
traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and
abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that {ight patterns
overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to ilfuminate a person.
The proposed design specificaily avoids the. creation of isolated areas in parking.areas and
adjacenf the buildings. Lighting is provided to facilitate views into and from the site. The area
between building one and two has been designed to be as open as possible, providing sight
lines into and from the car and bicycle parking areas. Therefore, this standard has been
satisfied.
NOTICE OF LYRE 11 DECISIQN SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 26 OF 41
♦
. • •
Public Transit:
Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development
proposal is adjacent to an existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for
transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and
the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and
Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the
shelters.
The site has frontage on SW 68th and 69th Avenue, which is not on a Tri-rnet transit route,
therefore, this standard does not apply.
FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Site Development Review Standard have been
satisfied.
Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810):
Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and
private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable
standards are addressed below:
Streets:
Improvements:
Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent
shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards.
Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a
portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the
TDC.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street
and Accessway Standards, requires a 3-lane Collector street to have a minimum 70 foot
right-of-way width and 44-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include
on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm
drainage, and street trees. .
This site lies adjacent to SW 68th Avenue, which is classified as a 3-lane collector on the City of
Tigard Transportation Plan Map. The applicant should dedicate the additional ROW to provide
35 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans reflect this ROW dedication.
SW 68"' Avenue is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this
development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements, including a 13-foot
sidewalk with street tree wells or 4-foot planter and 8.5-foot sidewalk. The applicant has shown
the half-street improvements on the submitted plans. These improvements shall be complete
prior to final buildmg inspection for Phase I.
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street
and'Accessway Standards, requires a 5-lane Collector street to have a minimum 72 foot
right-of-way width, an 11 foot reserve right-of-way width and 44-foot paved section.
Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways,
underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees.. This site lies ad-J'acent to SW Dartmouth Street, which is classifed as a 5=1ane Collector on -the
City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. The applicant should dedicate ROW to provide 36
feet from centerline and provide an 11-foot reserve ROW along the Dartmouth frontage. The
City of Tigard's Transportation Systems Plan indicates that reserve ROW shall be collected
along Dartmouth Street in lieu of full ROW dedication.
SW Dartmouth Street is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this
development, the applicant shoufd construct a 7-foot planter, 6-foot sidewalk accessible ramps
and plant -street trees: These improvements shall be complete prior to final 6uilding inspection
for Phase t.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 27 OF 41
• ~ 1..
Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street
and Accessway Standar.ds, requires a local street to have a minimum 60 foot right-of-
way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-
street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm
drainage, and street trees.
This site lies adjacent to SW Clinton Street, 67th Avenue, 69th Avenue and 70th Avenues, which
are classified as local streets on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. The applicant
should dedicate ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline afong each of these street frontages.
The applicant's plans indicate they are providing the required ROW dedication.
SW Clinton Street and 67th Avenue are currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the
impact from this development, the applicant should construct full street improvements,
including 12-foot sidewalks with street tree wells or 4-foot planter with 7.5-foot sidewalks.
These improvements shall be complete prior to final building inspection for Phase I.
. SW 69th Avenue is currently partially improved. In order to mitigate the impact from this
development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements, including 12-foot
sidewalks with street tree wells or 4-foot planter with 7.5-foot sidewalks. These improvements
shall be complete prior to final building inspection for Phase I.
SW 70th Avenue is currently unimproved. In order to mitigate the impact from this
development, the applicant should construct half-street improvements, includin a minimum of
24 feet of pavement from the east curb line and 12-foot sidewalks with street ~ree wells or 4-
foot planter with 7.5-foot sidewalks. These improvements shall be complete prior to final
building inspection for Phase I.
The applicant's plans indicate they will construct these street improvements.
Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.810.030.F states that a future
street plan shall be filed which shows the pattem of existing and proposed future streets
from tne boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it
is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of ad'oining land,
streets shatl be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be deve~oped and a
barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street These street stubs to adjoining
properties are not considered to be cul-de-sacs since they are intended to continue as
through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. A barricade shall be
constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed
until authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street
construction cost Temporary hammerhead turnouts or temp orary cul-de-sac bulbs shall
.be constructed for stub streefs in excess of 150 feet in IengtFi.
There are no future streets or extensions required in this area.
Street Alignment and Connections:
Section 18.810.030.H.1 states that full street connections with spacing of no more than
530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as
topography, railroads, freeways, pre-existing devefopments, fease provisions,
easements covenants or other restrictions existing prior to May 1, 1995 which
preclude sireet connections. A full street connection may also be exempted due to a
regulated water feature if regulations would not permit construction.
Section 18.810.030.H.2 states that all local, nei ghborhood routes and *collector' streets
which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through
circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constrainfs,
existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A
street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or
reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. Land is considered
topographically constrained if the slope is greater than 15% for a distance of 250 feet
or more. In the.case of environmental or to o raphical constraints, the mere resence
of a constraint is not sufficient to show that a sfreet connection is not poss~le. The
applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SOR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 28 OF 41
~ . . .
, • •
All street alignments and connections exist and are not proposed to be modified.
Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten
ercent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that
Pocal or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for
distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as
determined by the City Engineer.
There are no proposed street grades that exceed 12%, thereby meeting this criterion.
Access to Arterials and Major Collectors: Section 18.810.030.Q states that where a
development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial or ma or
collector street, the development design shall provide adequate protection ~or
residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if
separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design
shall include any of the following:
. A parallel access street along the arterial or maJ or collector;
. Lots of suitable depth abutting the arteriaf or major collector to provide
adequate buffering with frontage along another street;
. Screen planting af the rear or side property line to be contained in a non-access
reservation along the arterial or major collector; or
• Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this subsection;
. If a lot has access to two streets with different classifications, primary access
should be from the lower classification street.
The pro osed development has all primary access points locate~ on the lower classifcation
streets ~ocal streets). There is a secondary access located on 68 Avenue. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks
shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use
contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and
safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography.
Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.6.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets
shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except
• Where street location is prectuded by natural topography, wetlands or other
bodies of water or, pre-existing development or;
• For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors
or railroads. • For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent
access.
The block formed by Clinton, 67t', Baylor and 68th is approximately 1,300 feet in length.
Therefore, this standard has been satisfied.
Section 18.810.040.6.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public
easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible.
Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by
environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns; or strict
adherence to other sfandards in the code.
The subject parcel bounded by SW 67th and 68th Avenue is approximately 330 feet in len th. A
sidewalk is proposed along SW Clinton Street in order to accommodate pedestrian ~raffic.
Therefore this standard is satisfied.
Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City
design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential
streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 29 OF 41
J.
• • The applicant has indicated construction of sidewalks along all street frontages. More
specifcally, the sidewalks must meet the Tigard Triangle standards as follows:
68th Avenue shall have 13 foot sidewalks (or 4 foot planter with 8.5 foot sidewalk).
Dartmouth Street shall have 6 foot sidewalks and 7 foot planter strip.
Clinton Street, 67h, 69h and 70th Avenues shall have 12 sidewalks (or 4 foot planter and 7.5
foot sidewalk).
Sanitary Sewers:
Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve
each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance
with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and
Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and incfuding
any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive
plan.
Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include
consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the
Comprehensive Plan. '
There are existing sewer lines in Clinton Street, 67t~h and 68th Avenues. The applicant shall
provide laterals to each building.
The applicant shall extend public sewer in 69th and 70th Avenues to the north property lines. .
All public utility improvements shall be complete prior to final building inspection for Phase I.
.Storm Drainage:
General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate
provisions for storm water and flood water runoff.
Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or
other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its
entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development The City
Engineer shall approve the necessa size of the facility, based on the provisions of
Design and Construction Standards~or Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as
adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or
amendments).
The applicant's engineer has submitted a drainage report for the proposed development.
There is a developed property upstream of this project, but it is expected that runoff is collected
before impacting this site. Any runoff entering the site will be collected via the private storm
sewer system. Therefore, there are no significant upstream drainage areas contributing to this
site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is
anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the
development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall
withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for -
improvement of the- potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage
of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and
' Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by
Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments).
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 30 OF 41
.
• •
In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted
the Fanno Creek Watershed Mana ement Plan. Section V of that plan includes a
recommendation that local govemmen~s institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious
area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year
event. The City wilt require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious
surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to
Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be
permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's engineer has provided a drainage report for the development. The plans and
calculations provide for on-site detention. Additional calculations may be required with the PFI
submittal based on actual field conditions downstream of the development. Detention must be
provided on Phase I and be constructed and accepted prior to fnal building inspection.
Thg applicanYs plans show the public storm improvements in Clinton Street, 67th Avenue and
68th Avenu~ TF~e applicant shall also extend public storm sewer lines along the frontages of
69 and 70 Avenues vanth the Phase I improvements.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways:
Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed
bikeways identifed on the City's adopted pedestrian/bilceway plan shall include
provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of
easements or right-of-way.
Dartmouth Street and 68t' Avenue are designated bicycle facilities.
Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for
planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other
developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to
include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements.
While it may not be reasonable to stripe the frontages at this time, it is reasonable to collect a
fee-in-lieu of providing the striping.
The amount of the striping would be as follows: • 790 feet of 8-inch white stripe, at $2.50/If 11,975.00
• 20 Mono-directional reflective markers @$4.00%a 80.00
. • 6 Bike lane legends @$175/ea • 1,050.00 • 6 Directional mini-arrows (a-)- $100/ea $ 600.00
, •
Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways
within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way
bikeways separated from the road is eight feet
The bike lanes on Dartmouth Street and 68t' Avenue shall be 5 feet wide. Utilities: - Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for
electric, 6ommunication lighfing and cable television services and related facilities shall
be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted
connection boxes and meter cabmets which may be placed above ground, temporary
utili service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operafng at
50,0~0 volts or above, and: , • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to
provide the under round services;
• The City reserves~he right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities;
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 'i1GARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 31 OF 41
• • . .
• All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in
streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets;
and
• Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street
improvements when service connections are made.
Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a
devefoper shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is
proposed to take place on a street where existing utilifes which are not underground will
serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical
difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in
conjunction with the development The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis.
The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for
which under-g rounding wouldresuft in the placement of additional poles, rather than the
removal of a6ove-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is
served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public
right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding.
There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW 69th and 68th Avenues. If the
fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the
overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 530 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be
$18,550.00.
ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTSTANDARDS:
Traffic Stud v Findinqs:
anL rngineering prepared a Traffic Impact Study, dated October 2004, for this project.
Lancaster analyzed three key intersections:
• SW 68t' Avenue/Dartmouth Street
• SW 68t' Avenue/Atlanta Street
• SW 72"d Avenue/Dartmouth Street
Currently, the intersection of 68t'kvenue/A~lanta Street only meets the peak hour warrant. The
intersecfions of Dartmouth at 68 and 72" Avenues meet both warrants for signalization. As
development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces
additional tr'ips to this intersection funds have been collected from the developers that will
contribute to the future signal instaliation.
The first~proJ ect to contribute funds to the intersections was Babies R Us. A simple formula
wa o established~ased upon the impact from that development. That project had an impact of
1.1 /o at SW 72 Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the
City Council required ~he developer to pay funds in the amoun# of $20,000.00. At the
intersection of SW 68 Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the impact from that project was
estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,000.00.
Using the same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects. in the
Triangle, and can be calculated for this pro ect. In order to provide the most fair companson to
the Babies R Us project, it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entering volumes
(TEV) estimated as part of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-
out of the triangle area, including the Tri-County site af 72"d/Dartmouth.
s the
Lancaster's report shows that this project will generate 43 PM peak hour triofl,555
intersection of 72"d Avenue/Dartmouth Street. With a total entering volume (TEvehicles, the project impact is 0.67%. Therefore, based on simple proportions, e project
contribution to this intersection is $30,600.00. Likewise, the Lan~aster report shows that the project will enerate 84 PM peak hour trips at the
intersection of 68 Avenue/Dartmouth Street. With a T~ of 2,660 vehicles, the impact from
this development is 0.38%. Therefore, based on the same proportion used in the Babies R Us
development,. the project contribution to this intersection is $42,105.00.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 32 OF 41 ,
l
• •
Funds for both intersections must be paid to the City prior to a final building inspection.
Lancaster concludes that all of the study intersections currently operate acceptably during the
morning and evening peak hours. In the year 2007, the intersections continue to operate
acceptably with or wifhout Phase 1 of the proposed development. In the year 2008 with Phase
2 in place, these intersections continue to meet the City of Tigard's standards.
Public Water S stem:
is area is serve y ualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). The applicant will have to extend
public water lines along all frontages not currently served. The applicant will need to submit
their plans to TVWD for review and apppval pri~ to construction. The public lines shall be
extended along all frontages, including 69 and 70 Avenues, with the Phase I development.
Storm Water Quali :
TH-e-CWi as agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations
established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards
(adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site
water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the
phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly
created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted
indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained
through the year.
Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility
that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards, In addition, the'applicant shall submit a
maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
construction. .
The applicanYs engineerhas submitted a drainage report for Phase 1 of this development.
The north basin runoff will be treated in a Stormwater Management vault.. The south basin runoff will be treated in a swale at the bottom of the detention pond. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the
applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the
private water quality facility to perform construcfion and visual observation of the water quality
facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at
signifcant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final
building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor)
with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and
specifications.
The proposed unit from Stormwater Management is acceptable, provided the property owner
agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the
unit. Prior to a fnal building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered
into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that
demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. .
Gradin and, Erosion Control:
CWS esign an ons c on Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the
amount of sediment and othee pollutants reaching ttte public storm and surface water
system resulting from development, construction; grading; excavating, clearing, and
any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is
required to submit an erosion control plan foc City review and approval prior to issuance
of City permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb
one or more acre of land. Since this site is over one acre, the developer willbe required
to obtain an NPDES permit from the Citx prior to construction. This permit will be issued
along with the site and/or building permit.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS • PAGE 33 OF 41
, .
• • .
The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the PFI permit application. The
applicant shall also submit their NPDES 1200-C application to the City for review.
Site Permit Re uired:
e app ican is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site
private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. This permit
shall be obtained prior to approval of the final plat.
Address Assi nments:
e ity, o igar is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard
and withm the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee m the amount of $50.00 per
address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building
permits. ~
For multi-tenant buildings, one address number is assig ned to the building and then all tenant
spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsi6le for assigning the main address and
suite numbers. This information is needed so that buiidmg permits for tenant improvements
can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information
provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the
site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned.
The addressing fee w'ili then be calculated based upon the number of suites that must be
addressed. {n multi-level structures, ground fevel suites shall have numbers preceded by a"1
second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a"2", etc.
E. IMPACT STUDY (18.39011
ec on 18.360.090 s es, e Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the
following criteria when approving, approving with condifions or denying an
application:"
Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify
the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility
sxstem and type of limpact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet
City standard, and to minimize the impact of tfie devefopment on the pubtic at large,
public facilities systems, and affected private property users.
In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real
propertx interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for
public nght-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real properiy
dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the devefopment
Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the
public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which
support the conclusion thaf the interest in real property {o be transferred is roughly
proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the pubtic.
The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public
systems. The Wasf~ington County Traffic Impact Fee (TfF) is a mitigation measure that is
_ required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr.
David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolufion 95-61, T1F's are expected to
recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact.of new development on the Collector and Arterial
Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF s.of-approximately $342,589 based
on the use proposed.
Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street
improvements citywide: a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is
$1,070,590($342,589 divided by.32). The difference befinreen the TIF paid, and the full impact,
is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this
Eroject on the transportation system is $728,001. The cost of the improvements is expected &o
e $44~ 759 (incfudes the right-of-way, dedication and improvements of Dartmouth St., 67 ,
68~', 69 ~ Avenue and SW Clinton Street). The value of these improvements is less than the
value of the unmitigated impacts, the exactions are proportionate.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 34 OF 41
.
r • •
SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered
comments, which can be located in the land-use file.
The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections.
The City of Tigard Building Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to
it.
The City of Tigard's City Forester has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following
comments:
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
18.745.030.C Installation Re uirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as
0 ows: ~
All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures.
The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading
standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any
other future revisions); and landscaping shall be instal(ed in accordance with the
provisions of this title.
The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual.
These guidelines follow those set forth by the Intemational Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree
planting guidelines as well as the st~ndards set forth in the American Institute of Architects'
Architectural Graphic Standards, 10 edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there
are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturitv.
. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and moaifications.
In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following
.guidelines be followed:
No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
No rnore than 10% of any one species be planted onsite.
18.745.030.E Protection of Existin Landsca in . Existing vegetation on a site'shall
e pro ec e as muc as possi e:
The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to
remain during the construction process; and the plants to be saved shall be noted on
the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing
which can be pla.ced around the individual trees).
See comments under "Tree Removal". . 18.745.030.G Conditions of A roval of Existin Ve etation. The review procedures
an s n ar s or require an scaping an screening s all be specified in the
conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less
than that required for conventional development.
See recommended conditions of approval at the end of this memorandum.
18.745.040 Street Trees
ro ec ion o existin ve etation. All development pro1 ects fronting on a public
street priva e s ree or a =be e riveway more than 100 fee{ in length approved after the ac~option of this title required to plant street trees in accordance with the
standards in Section 18.745.040.C.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 35 OF 41
~ •
The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual.
These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree
planting guidelines as well as the st~ndards set forth in the American Institute of Architects'
Architectural Graphic Standards, 10 edition. 1n the Architectural Graphic Standards there
are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturitv.
Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications.
In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following
guidelines be followed: .
No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite.
No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite.
No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite.
2. TREE REMOVAL
18.790.030, Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree lan re uired. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees
repare y a ce iie arborist shall be rovided for any lot, parcel or combination of
Pots or parcels for which a developmen~ appfication for a subdrvision, partition, site
development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is
preferred over removal wherever possible.
B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following:
1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees
including trees designated as significant by the city;
2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal
over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement
guidelines of Section ~t8.790.Ofi0D, in accordance with the following
standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development
code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25°/a of existing trees over 12 inches in
caliper re uires a mitigation program in accordance with Section
18.790.060 of no net loss of trees;
b. Retention of from 25°/a to .50°/a of existing trees over 12 inches in
caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be
mitigated m accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
c. Retention of from 50°!o to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in
caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be
mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D;
d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in
caliper requires no mitigation.
3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed;
4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used
by the applicant to protect trees dur'ing and after construction:
As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan that was conducted by Mark Bourgeois. The
plan contains all four of the required components of a tree plan, and, is therefore, acceptable.
lt is not clear what the status of tree #255 is in terms of DBH, preservation or removal.
Below are my suggestions for the applicant to folfow for tree protection guidelines:
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 36 OF 41
, , ~ •
All tree protection devices shall be:
• Visible.
• Constructed of 11 Gauge steel chain-link fencing supported on at least 2" O.D. stee;
posts. Each post shall 6e no less than four feet high from the top of grade. Each pos;
shall be driven into the ground to a depth of no less than two and a half feet belo~n!
grade. Each post shall be spaced no further apart than four feet.
• Between each post, securely attached to the chain-link fencing, shall be a si ~
indicating that the area behind the fencing is protected and no construction activi~y,
including material storage, may occur behind the fencing.
• Inspected and approved in the field by the project arborist and City Forester prior to
clearing, grading, or the beqinning of construction.
• Remain m place and mamtained until all construction is completed and a final
inspection is conducted.
To determine the size of the tree protection zone (TPZ) the project arborist should follow the
guidelines listed below:
For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diamefer at
breast height (DBH), or 4'/z feet above the ground, allow 12 inches of space from the trunk of
the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 15' of tree protection zone
around the entire canopy of the tree.
For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the drip line of the trees on
the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand
follow the trunk diameter method or the drip line method, whichever is greater.
Calculate and follow the Optimal Tree Protection Zone calculation as shown in °Trees and
Development: A Technical Guide to Preservafion of Trees During Land Development" by
Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark.
The proJ'ect arborist may propose an altemate method for the establishment of the TPZ,
provided the effort is coordinated with the City Forester.
If it is necessary to enter the tree protection zone at any time with equi ment (trucks,
bulldozers, etc.) the project arborist and City Forester must be notifed be~ore any entry
occurs. Before entermg the TPZ, the project arborist and City Forester shall determine the
method by which entry can occur, along with any additional tree protection measures.
Prior to issuance of buildin permits, the ProJ'ect Arborist shall submit a fnal certifcation
indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees
on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to commencing site work, the a plicant shall submit a cash or other secuiliper
for the equivalent value of mifigation required number of caliper inches times $125 per inch).
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the appIicanUowner shall record a deed restriction to
the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be rem:oved only. if the tree
dies or, is hazardous according to a certified arborist: The de'ed restriction may be removed
or will be consid.ered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either
die or be removed as a hazardous tree.
3. Prior to commencin~g any site work, the applicant shall submit construction drawin s that
include the approved Tree Removal, Protection and Landscape Plan. The "Tree Pro~ection
Steps" identified in Teragan & Associates Letter of November 19, 2004 shall be reiterated in
the construction documents. The plans shall also include a construction sequence including
installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. Only those
trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this
decision. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 37 OF 41
.
• ` . ~
4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the
project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the
City Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that
the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan: or
maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate
suspension of work on the si~e until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be
processed.
5. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has
submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every finro weeks, from initial tree
protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through site work, as he monitors the construction
activities and progress. These reports should include any changes that occurred to the TPZ
as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was
reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify
that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term
health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City
Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan is
not being followed by the contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection
can be done by the City Forester and the Pro1'ect Arborist. This inspection will be to evaluate
the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during
construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated.
SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
Verizon has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments:
. Please have owner or rep contact David Bryant @ 503-641-9101 for scheduling Verizon
telephone service.
Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed the proposal and offered the following
comments:
The site s adjacent to the referenced state hi hway. ODOT has permitting authority for ttie
state highway and an interest in ensuring tha~ the proposed land use is compatible with its
safe and efficient operation.
In 1998, the intersection of 68th and Dartmouth was placed on the ODOT signal approval list.
Although the si~nal is on the current list, the approval is typically good for only fve years. In
the future the City may need to re-evaluate the signal warrents.
The pro posed development does not add a signifcant number of trips to the 68th/Dartmouth
intersection. Due to the fact that this intersection has four-way stop control, the intersection
operates acceptable. For these reasons, ODOT is recommending that the applicant
contribute their proportionate share to the future signal at the intersection.
An ODOT Drainage Permit is required. for connection to state highway drainage facilities.
Connection will only be considered if the site's drainage naturally enters ODOT right-of=way.
See permit contact above. A drainage~ study prepared by an Oregon Registered Professional
Engineer,is usually required. by ODOT if: 1. Total peak runoff entering the highway right-of-way is greater than 1.77 cubic feet per
second;or
2. The improvements create an increase of the impervious surface area greaer than 10,758
square feet.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 38 OF 41
.
TriMet has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments:
TriMet has a line 78 bus stop adjacent to this development (68th far side of the I-5 ramp. Loc.
ID 7849). The stop is currently underutilized with no daily boardin.g's and one daily
deboarding. The stop location as shown on the plans is placed appropriately and does not
a pear to conflict with future street trees, poles or other street furnishin s. Tf~e 12-foot wide
spdewalk meets TriMet's accessibility needs. Should street striping plans become available, I
would be interested in seeing them as they could influence bus operations and stop
placement. Please have my contact information noted on construction plans so TriMet can
coordinate any temporary stop moves or closures caused by the construction process, and to
verify the final stop.
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following
comments: -
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS:
ccess roa s s a e wi in 150 ee o a po ions o e e erior wa o e irs s ory o e
building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved
turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as
measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet.
DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length
s a e provi e wi an approved.turnaround.
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
PROTECTION: en ui ings are comp e e y pro ec e wi an approve au oma ic ire
spnn c er sys em, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by
the fire code official.
. ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS - COMMERCIAL: Where buildings exceed 30 feet in
eig or ree s ories in eig s a ave a eas ree separate means of fire apparatus
access. Buildings or facilities havmg a gross area of more than 62,000 square. feet shall be
provided with atleast two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings up to 124,000
square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have a smgle access.
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities
excee ing 30 ee in eig a ove e owest level of fre department vehicle access shall be
provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fre .
department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the
aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immedi ate vicinity of any building or portion, of building
more than 30 feet in height. At least one of the required -access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and
shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. .
REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart
equa o no ess than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of
the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line befinreen accesses.
, FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. ROAD WIDTH . AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire
appara u$.:access roa s s a ave an uno s ruc e width o no ess an ee feet for
up to two-dwelling units and acces'sory buildings); arid an'unobstFucted`vertical clearance of
not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide,
"NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as
needed. Where fire apparatus, roadwa s are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet
wide, "NO PARKING° signs shall be insTalled on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds
as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not
restricted.
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is oca e on a ire appara us access roa , e minimum roa width s all be 26 feet.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 39 OF 41
•
SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-
wea er su ace at is easi y istinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of
supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 75,000 pounds live load
(g ross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer
that the design will be capable of supporting such loading.
TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less
an 28 ee an eet respectively, measured from the same center point.
PAINTED CURBS: Where req uired, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted
re an mar e O PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a
stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red
background.
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the
ui ing s a no excee ~,000 ga ons per minu e or the available GPM in the water
delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A
worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office.
FIRE HYDRANTS - COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS: Where a portion of the building is more
an 400 ee rom a y ran on a ire appara us access road, as measured in an approved
route around the extenor of the buildin , on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided.
This distance may be increased to 6~0 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an
approved automatic sprinkler system.
F1RE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of,
ire y ran s avai a e o a ui ing s a no e ess than that listed in Appendix C, Table C
105.1.
Considerations for lacin fire h drants ma be as follows:
• xis ing y ran s in e area may e use o mee e required number of hydrants as
approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet. away from the nearest point of a subject
buildin that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of
h~ ydran~s.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by railroad tracks shall not
contribute to the required number of hydrants unless approvedby the fire code official.
• Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways
shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets
only as approved by the fire code official.
• Hydrants fhat are accessible only by a bridge shall be acceptable to contribute to the
required number of hydrants only if approved by the fire code official.
FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not
more an 15 ee rom an approve ite appara us access roadway.
REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the
ins a a ion o re ec ive mar ers. e markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent
and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In
case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors
accordingly
FIRE HYDRANT/FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION:' A fire hydrant shall be located within
100 ee o a ire epa men connec ion ire ydrants and FDC's shall be located on
the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. FDCs shall normally be remote except
when approved by the fire code official.
ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved
ire appara us access roa ways an fire ig ing wa er supp ies s a e installed and
operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the
site.
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 40 OF 41
•
. ~ • KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact
e ire arshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and
placement.
SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice:
Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to:
X The applicant and owners
-R- Owner of record within the required distance
T_- Affected government agencies
Final Decision:
':THISDECISIONIS .F.INAL:ON_APRIL 1;:2005'AND,BECOMES'`~:~::.;'~`::::''«
t .
,
t,:•"'. , ?t>; , - _ : . , . . . . . . : . . . . .
CTIVE; ON.-APRIL~:16;2005 UNLESS:AN:APPEAL~IS:,FILED;::~~:~`:~,~;`~,~`~ .r. . EFFE. A~p eal:
The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Typell Administrative
Appeal or Type III Procedure), is fnal for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any
party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in
accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which
provides that a written appeal together with the req uired fee shall be filed with the Director within
ten (10~ business days of the date the . notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee
schedu e and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall
be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties
during the comment period. Additional evidence conceming issues properly raised in the Notice
of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional
rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body.
.1'HE DEADLINE FOR FIUNG AN APPEAL IS AT.5:00 PM ON.APRIL=~15;2Q05:,:;~;~:..
Questions:
yoT~have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall,
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. . ,
Ic A ril 1 2005 '
PREPAREP . a ew i egger DATE
Planner
A ril 1 2005
APPROVED . ic ar H. ewers o
Planning Manager .
1:\curpln4nathewlSDR\sd2004-00011 (tigard Triangle Commons)lsdf2004-00011 decision.doc
NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2004-00011 TIGARD TRIANGLE COMMONS PAGE 41 OF 41
~ .
~ CITY . .
r
~ OEOORAPNIC INFORMATION SY8TEM
7 YIQNITY MAP
s-r S.W.
SDR2004-000 I I
; VAR2004-00094
Q
_ ST - - - - - - - -
- W TIGARD TRIANGLE
¢ a COMMONS
~ 2 s.w. sourHView
~ T
ST
R~ X Y
S " N
OC)
= Co
~ 7
~s
TiperdArnMap DARTMOUT S.W. DOUGLAS
♦
N
' SW DOUOLA3 DR
0100 200 300 400 Feet
7'- 374 feet •
w
,
Q
City of Tigard
LMHURST ST
tnfarmetlon on lhis mep L+ for gerrerelloeaUon ordy end
should be veAfied wtth Ne Development SeMcea DMsion.
13125 SW HaI181vd
Tlperd, OR 87223 (503) 839-4171
co a hNp•JNvww.d.tipard.or.us
Community Development Plot date: Feb 3, 2005; C:Unagic\MAGIC03.APR