The URL can be used to link to this page

Hearings Officer Packet - 05/13/20000 1 0 a CITY OF TIGARD Community (Devekpment Shaping A Better Community C TY OF T GARD HEAR NGS OFF CER MONDAY- MAY 13,2002-7:00 PM AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF MOOS SALON HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 ITEM ON APPEAL: The appellants have requested review of the City's approval for a Type II Home Occupation Permit to allow an in-home salon based on several particular issues as enumerated in their letter of appeal received April 9, 2002. These issues are summarized as follows: The Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations; The proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone; The proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations; The impact study was inadequate; and Condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONE: R-7 (PD): Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. 2.2 OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2002-00002 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to expand the facility by 5,000 square feet for administrative offices and classrooms, and expand the main sanctuary by 580 square feet for a total expansion of 5,580 square feet. LOCATION: 12256 SW 135th Avenue; WCTM 2S104AB, Tax Lot 04700. ZONE: Low Density Residential and High Density Residential within the comprehensive plan, and R-4.5 and R-25 in the zoning code. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 2 OF 2 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA • CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER MAY 13, 2002 - 7:00 PM TOWN HALL TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223 • &e* Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item must sign-in on the appropriate sign-in sheets. PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call (503) 639-4171, Ext. 320 (voice) or (503) 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ➢ Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and ➢ Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. OVER FOR HEARING AGENDA ITEM(S) CITY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER PAGE 1 OF 2 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 9 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS rrp, P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall '1vd. ' ❑ Duplicate Affidavit e'igard,Oregon 97223 Accounts payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) S' Vn+-hv gn)7r1rar being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT i ga rd -Tun la t i_ n T?-me s a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public FT-:-anr/T-TOP 9002-0001 0 Xon s S a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE Successive and Legal Notice TT 10045 consecutive in the following issues: OFFICIALSEAL t April 2 5, 2 0 0 2 SUZETTE 1. CURRAN i NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ( COMMISSION NO, 329400 i MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2003 j Subscribed and sworn ttobere me this 2 9th (3,1V of f Apr i 1, 2 0 0 2 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Y r/03 AFFIDAVIT 3 CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING ITEM The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday May 13, 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence suf- ficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are avail- able for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Morgan Tracy) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT (HOP) 2002-00010 b APPEAL OF MOOS SALON 4 ITEM ON APPEAL: On March 26, 2002, the Director issued a decision to approve, subject to conditions, a request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six (6) clients per day. The applicant has proposed that the hours of operation will be between 9AM to 5PM, Tuesday through Saturday. On April 9, 2002, an appeal was filed alleging the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations, that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone, that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations, that the impact study was inadequate, and that condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. LOCATION: 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S 104CD, Tax Lot 4300. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. f`••JJ~~ ~ y:~ ~~r~-~~ Yti1M ITY MA► HOP2002-00010` MOOS SALON 40 ` 2, TT 10045 - Publish April 25, 2002. ~ TIGARD ~ PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE: PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY I'T'EM MUST PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM a , ~ I Page Of A DATE OF HEARING: 5-//3 /Odt CASE NUMBER(S): I y v p ;100,-1 - o O l y OWNER/APPLICANT: II moos sa xph fiwiopot. l u LOCATION: / 3 7 913 SW &h cA v 1'ew 77-rrwc e-, CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal) (Print Nam{Mdddres`s/Ziip & Affiliation) (Print Name/Address/Zip & Affiliation) l / I D(,C 1 Name: R aim 1~~ Name: ( Address., J k1 Ad Qit• Address: 10 Ci State: 04k Ziv!V~7" Citv: /-'WState: Zin: Name: ! Name: S J- --PC 4v-~"~ Address/ Q J~V A I kdress: /-6 ~?9 7 Cry V V ~ Citv: jtate: xzin: Citv: ~e 044 State: 40 k Zip: 17dP-2"3 t ~4 j / Name: Name: J- Address: Address: /.2 7V O S • W. R I C)e g~~ Citv: State: Zin: Citv: T- 0 t'r rLT--n, State: D ZiD: 177 Name: Name: 9r'c-'1'- 19U O'c", Add Add J ( I Isk i / s l ) 3 14 ress: . ress: { I Citv: State: Zin: Citv:-1-N State: V Zia: Z J Name: t Name: Address: Address: lf) 4r ccda k P4-- Citv: State: Zio: City: s 1i/~ State: /)(2 ZiD:r~ TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE: PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST PRINT TI]EIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM Page of A DATE OF HEARING: O /~3/ CASE NUMBER(S): OWNER/APPLICANT: II ~~Y L~ S -~a LOCATION: llejwiu,J PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal) (Print Name/AddressMp & Affiliation) (Print Nome/Address/Zip & Affiliation) Name: Name: 10i eA(4FL t-' Address: Address: Citv: State: Zip: r City: State: 64- Zip: Z Ly Name: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zip: Citv: State: Zip: Name: Name: S I U 5 t> /'719' ✓--ra / s ow - j , Address: Address: /,3 4 -11 J 6e) /o) ~i 45- ( F Citv: State: Zip: City: elktol State: t " l~t Zip: 19"7 1- N N ame: ame: Address: Address: City: State: Zip: City: State: Ola- Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zip: City: State: Zip: 9 • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Sopaul Moos for a ) FINAL O R D E,$ home occupation permit for an in-home hair salon ) in the R-7 zone at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace ) HOP 2002-00010 in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Moos) A. SUMMARY 1. On January 23, 2002, Sopaul Moos (the "applicant") filed an application for approval of a home occupation permit for a hair salon in the home occupied by herself, her husband and their four children at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace (the "Property"). The applicant will be the sole operator and employee of the home occupation. The primary activities of the home occupation include shampooing, cutting, coloring and treating hair. The home occupation will operate not more than Tuesday through Saturday from 9 AM to 5 PM. The applicant will serve not more than six clients per day. The home occupation will be conducted primarily in what is labeled on the building plans as a den and in an adjoining bathroom, which together (including an area of hallway between them) contain roughly 286 square feet. To reach this area, clients will walk through a side door into the garage, through a rear door to out of the garage and along an elevated deck on the rear elevation of the 7800-square foot home to reach an exterior door to the den. Other than the parking and movement of clients, no signs or other outward appearances of a business use are proposed. Clients will park in the 41-foot wide concrete driveway between the garage and SW Benchview Terrace. Some changes to the house may be required to accommodate the home occupation, such as installation of one or more wider doors and/or ramps over door jambs along the route to the den and a shampooing sink in the bathroom. See Exhibit E.1 2. City staff found the application was complete on February 12, 2002. The City mailed written notice of the application to owners of property consistent with Tigard Community Development Code (the "CDC") 18.390.040.C. The City received 28 letters and numerous telephone calls in response to the notice (Exhibit Q. All of the responses opposed the application. Nevertheless on March 26, 2002, the planning manager approved the home occupation permit subject to six conditions of approval, based on the findings and conclusion in a written decision (Exhibit A), and sent notice of that decision consistent with CDC 18.390.040.E. 3. On April 9, 2002, Candace White and Donnajo ("Dee-J") Putzier (the "appellants") filed an appeal of the planning manager's decision consistent with CDC 18.390.040.G.1 and 2. The appellants raised five issues in the written appeal. 4. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the appeal. At the public hearing, the applicant, her husband and City staff recommended the hearings officer affirm the planning manager's decision. Ten persons testified orally against the application. Some of these and other witnesses also testified in writing against the application. The hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and took the matter under advisement. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: 1 When the application was filed, the applicant proposed to conduct the home occupation principally in an area on the lower floor of the house with access from a side door. Because that area exceeded the maximum area permitted for a home occupation, the applicant modified the application in mid-March to identify the den and adjoining bathroom on the main floor as the principal location of the home occupation. 9 • a. Whether the applicant complied with applicable requirements for posting a notice of the hearing on the Property (CDC 18.390.050.C.1.d and C.2); b. Whether the proposed use is permitted in the R-7 zone as a home occupation (CDC 18.130.020.C.4.b and 18.742.040.A.9 and Table 18.510.1); c. Whether modifications to the application after it was deemed complete are significant changes that require a new application to be filed (CDC 18.390.080.D.4); d. Whether the application contains a sufficient impact study (CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e); e. Whether the purpose of the home occupation chapter (CDC 18.742.010) is relevant to the application, and, if so, how; f. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not cause odors detectable beyond the property line, considering the Environmental Performance Standards of Chapter 18.725 (CDC 18.742.040.A.3); g. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will be conducted entirely within the dwelling and will not exceed the maximum area limits for a home occupation, and how that area is calculated in this case (CDC 18.742.040.A.4); h. Whether the home occupation will result in the storage of toxic or flammable materials in amounts that exceed limitations imposed by provisions of the relevant codes or that, in the judgment of the Fire Marshal, pose a dangerous risk (CDC 18.742.040.A.4 and 7); i. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not require more on- or off-street parking other than that normally required for a residence and will not monopolize on-street parking on SW Benchview Terrace (CDC 18.742.040.A.8 and 18.742.050.A.2.c); j. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not cause excessive traffic (CDC 18.742.050.A.2.c) or violate visual clearance standards where the driveway intersects Benchview Terrace (CDC 18.795); k. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will not be detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents (CDC 18.385.020.B.3 and 18.742.060.B.3); 1. Whether the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and regulations of the Oregon Board of Cosmetology are relevant to the application, and if so, whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will comply with the relevant provisions of those regulations; and in. Whether additional or modified conditions of approval are warranted to ensure the proposed use is operated consistent with the representations of the applicant and the relevant approval standards (CDC 18.385.020.C and 18.742.060.C). 5. In this final order, the hearings officer approves the home occupation permit based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 2 0 • B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on May 13, 2002. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The hearings officer disclosed that he visited the site before the hearing and invited witnesses to question and rebut his observations. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Morgan Tracy summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated April 24, 2002 (the "Staff Report") and the planning manager's decision of March 26, 2002. He responded to the grounds for appeal. 3. The applicant and her husband, Steven Moos, testified in favor of the application. Mrs. Moos summarized her proposed use. She testified she had not done anything,to determine what would have to be done to comply with the ADA. She testified she had telephoned the Oregon Board of Cosmetology and had been told her revised plan would comply with the Board's rules. She testified that the chemicals she commonly uses include bleach and dye. If the use is approved, she proposed to make whatever improvements are required to comply with the ADA and Building Code. She has not prepared any preliminary plans for improvements. Steven Moos testified the house is ADA-compliant based on his experience building an office; the doors and jambs are okay. The bathroom has a ventilated shower and can be improved with a shampoo sink. The chemicals used in the business are and will be stored in quantities typical of a household. 4. Ten persons testified against the proposed use: Candace and Richard White, Dee-J and Rick Putzier, B.J. Hall, Elizabeth and Dennis Peddicord, Greg Aube, Claudia Rosa, and James DeLoretto 2 Most of the witnesses expressed similar concerns, generally without specific reference to the CDC, including the following: a. The applicant posted the notice sign on the Property so that it could not be seen readily unless a person entered onto the Property for that purpose. A photograph of the sign was introduced into the record to support that testimony. b. The proposed use is not or should not be permitted in a single family residential zone, because it is a commercial use, more specifically a personal service use, under Table 18.510.1. c. The applicant kept changing the application during the review process. The changes were substantial and prevented neighbors from participating effectively in the review of the application. d. The application did not include an adequate impact study. e. The application is not consistent with the purposes of the home occupation chapter. In particular, the applicant could sustain the business in leased commercial quarters, based on testimony that she has done so in the past as a commercial hairdresser. Nothing about the nature of the business makes this impractical. Also, due to 2 Other persons signed the witness list but declined the opportunity to testify when called for that purpose. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 3 0 • traffic impact, the loss of privacy in side and rear yards of neighboring homes and the proximity of the applicant's home and the adjoining homes, the proposed use would be detrimental or disruptive to neighboring properties. Lastly the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed use will comply with approval criteria and standards, including standards under the Building Code and regulations of the Board of Cosmetology, that ensure it will be conducted lawfully, particularly given the applicant's allegedly inconsistent statements (e.g., that clients will enter through the front door of the home despite a rule to the contrary by the Board of Cosmetology). f. The applicant will store and use chemicals that are unsafe and pose a fire danger that is heightened by the presence of an adjoining greenspace. g. The proposed home occupation includes all areas where clients of the business will tread, including the back deck. The back deck is outdoors; therefore the use will not be conducted entirely inside the dwelling. Moreover clients will travel through the garage, all of which should count toward the proposed home occupation, because it is an undivided space. Similarly all of the undivided main floor should count toward the proposed use, because clients will have to walk through the adjoining hallway to move between the den and bathroom. If all of the undivided interior space through which clients will have to walk to use the home occupation is counted, the home occupation will occupy substantially more than the maximum 528 square feet allowed by CDC 18.742.040.A.4. If the common area of the house is used as a write-off for tax purposes, it should count toward the home occupation. h. Based on past experience with residential use of the Property, there will be more on-street parking for the home occupation, if for no other reason than that the cars for the home occupation will occupy driveway space that has been occupied by the vehicles owned by the applicant and the applicant's nanny, leading them to be parked on the street. i. Due to the steep slope of Benchview Terrace, a retaining wall that extends to the sidewalk in front of the Property, traffic backing out, the relatively high speed of traffic on Benchview Terrace, and the severe glare for westbound drivers on Benchview Terrace caused by the afternoon sun , any additional traffic for a home occupation will be excessive. If the use is allowed, the intersection of the driveway and Benchview Terrace should be required to comply with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. j. The proposal does not comply with the ADA and rules of the Board of Cosmetology, and the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that it will comply, given the lack of specificity in the application and allegedly inconsistent statements by the applicant. The doors leading to the garage, deck, den and bathroom are not equipped with handicap-accessible handles and are too narrow to comply with the ADA. The applicant did not show that the bathroom has adequate clearances for handicapped persons. k. Opponents expressed a lack of trust that the applicant will operate the home occupation as represented and approved, based on perceived inconsistencies in the application, complaints about past behavior by the applicant and her family unrelated to the home occupation, and concerns about growth of the home occupation over time. Also, if approved, the use could serve six clients, but that does not address how many other people may accompany those six clients, and those other people may further reduce privacy and may increase the disruption posed by the use. 1. If the home occupation is allowed, it should be subject to very clear and objective standards that are readily enforceable. Opponents objected to having to monitor HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 4 • • the use to ensure compliance over time and disputed the efficacy of City enforcement. One witness also argued that, because the City has approved every home occupation permit it has reviewed, City staff do not responsibly apply the approval standards. 5. In response to public testimony, Mr. Tracy conceded the CDC does not clearly address people who accompany clients or define precisely who is a "client." He suggested the hearings officer do so if the use is approved. Also he testified that the visual clearance standards apply to the intersection of a driveway and street. For a driveway wider than 24 feet, as in this case, the standards prohibit an obstruction more than three feet high within 30 feet of the outer edge of driveway in each direction. See CDC Figure 18.795.1. 6. Mr. Moos responded for the applicant. He argued that the opponents are "nit- picking" the application, and that the proposed use is insignificant. He declined the hearings officer's suggestions that either the matter be suspended pending an attempt to mediate the dispute between the Mooses and their neighbors or the record be held open to allow the applicant to supplement the evidence in support of the application. He waived the applicant's right to hold open the record for a final written argument. 7. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record and announced that he would take the matter under advisement. C. DISCUSSION 1. CDC 18.390.040.G authorizes the hearings officer to hear appeals of administrative decisions. Pursuant to ORS 227.175(D) and (E), an appeal of an administrative decisions must be reviewed as a de novo matter. The hearings officer is required to conduct an independent review of the record. He is not bound by the prior administrative decision and does not defer to that decision in any way. New evidence may be introduced in an appeal, and new issues may be raised, whether or not they are raised in the written appeal. In an appeal the applicant continues to bear the burden of proof. 2. In a nutshell, the issue in this case is whether the applicant has sustained the burden of proof by providing sufficient substantial evidence showing that the proposed home occupation does or will comply with the applicable approval criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code .3 Because some of the approval criteria are ambiguous, their meaning is at issue. There are related procedural issues. Also witnesses dispute whether certain CDC provisions are applicable standards for the application. 3. The City must base its decision on "substantial evidence," which is evidence on which a reasonably prudent person would rely in the conduct of a serious matter. It is motes than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidence. If, based on such evidence, a proposed use can comply with applicable approval standards using conditions of approval, the City must approve the use subject to those conditions .4 3 ORS 227.173(l) provides as follows: Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. 4 ORS 197.522 provides as follows in relevant part: HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 5 • • 4. The planning manager identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The planning manager concluded the applicable approval standards are in CDC 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. The planning manager's decision and the Staff Report responded to the issues raised by neighbors, at least the issues relevant to the application. The hearings officer largely concurs in the identification of applicable criteria in the manager's decision and the Staff Report and in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is, substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards and criteria for a home occupation, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will require the use to be operated as represented consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the use consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the manager's decision and the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise expressly provided herein. In the remaining findings, the hearings officer addresses the issues that were disputed by the witnesses for and against the home occupation. 5. Before the City can hold a hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision, the CDC requires the applicant to post a notice on the property that is the subject of the application in question .5 The applicant did so and filed an affidavit certifying that she did so. A photograph in the record shows the notice. Therefore there is substantial evidence in the record that the requisite posted notice was provided. a. Neighbors argued the notice was ineffective, because it could not be seen from the sidewalk. The hearings officer acknowledges the photograph shows the substance of the posted notice was not visible from the angle from which the picture was taken. However the hearings officer also notes many neighbors attended the hearing, and they were prepared, reflecting notice as a whole was effective. The hearings officer also notes the neighbors said they could read the notice if they stepped onto the applicant's property to do so. During the hearings officer's site visit, he was able to read the notice sign from the sidewalk; it was not turned away as shown in the picture. b. The hearings officer construes CDC 18.390.050.C. 1.d to require the face of a posted notice sign to be visible, because such a notice serves no purpose if the public cannot see it. But the hearings officer also finds the CDC does not require the sign to be posted in any particular manner or location. It does not violate the CDC if a person must enter onto private property to read the posted notice if that can be done. In this case it could be. Although a better job could have been done to ensure the posted notice was more readily visible, the hearings officer finds that the applicant fulfilled the plain meaning of CDC 18.309.050.C.1.d by posting the sign where it was visible to the public and by filing an affidavit to this effect. The neighbors failed to show their rights were substantially prejudiced by the manner in which the notice was posted. A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made consistent through the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval. (emphasis added) 5 CDC 18.390.050.C.1.d provides as follows: At least ten business days prior to the hearing, notice of the hearing shall be posted on the site by the applicant, pursuant to Subsection 2 below. An affidavit of posting concerning such notice shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted and made part of the administrative record. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 6 6. Neighbors argued the proposed use is not permitted as a home occupation, because it is listed as a commercial use, in particular, a personal service use. See CDC 18.130.020.C.4.b. Although the proposed use is listed as a personal service use, the hearings officer finds that nothing in the CDC precludes its approval as a home occupation if it otherwise complies with applicable standards for a home occupation. a. CDC Table 18.510.1 lists "home occupation" as a permitted use in all residential zones, subject to CDC 18.742. However the CDC does not expressly allow or prohibit a hair salon (or any other specific use with the exceptions noted below) as a home occupation. To that extent, the CDC is ambiguous about whether a hair salon is permitted as a home occupation. The hearings officer relies on context, legislative intent and rules of statutory construction to resolve the ambiguity. b. CDC 18.742.040.A.9 lists uses prohibited as a home occupation .6 Based on the absence of any other provisions of the CDC addressing the issue, and relying on rules of statutory construction, the hearings officer construes the CDC to allow any use as a home occupation other than the uses listed in CDC 18.742.040.A.9, provided the use complies with the other applicable approval standards for a home occupation. If the City Council had intended to prohibit personal services as a home occupation, it would have said so in CDC 18.742.040.A.9. Because it did not do so, the hearings officer finds that use is not prohibited as a home occupation notwithstanding it is listed as a commercial use. c. If the interpretation urged by the neighbors was adopted, no commercial use could be permitted as a home occupation, which is inconsistent with the context of CDC 18.742 and the legislative intent expressed in the purpose statement for the home occupation chapter. That intent is to "[p]ermit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small-scale business ventures..." d. The hearings officer acknowledges the purpose statement cited in part immediately above continues as follows: " ...which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters, or because the nature of the activity would make it impractical to expand to a full-scale enterprise." i. Because virtually any business could be conducted in leased commercial space and could be expanded, it is difficult to discern the City Council's intent in this provision. ii. The hearings officer finds the portion of the purpose statement quoted in "d" above does not reflect a legislative intent that a home occupation is allowed only if it cannot be conducted in leased space or cannot be expanded. Rather the quoted language is reflected in the approval criteria for a home occupation, which contain standards that limit the intensity of a home occupation (e.g., to six clients per day). Council must have acted with the understanding that a use that complies with CDC 18.742.040, et seq., is not intensive enough to be sustained in leased commercial quarters and cannot be expanded excessively. 6 CDC 18.742.040.A.9 provides: The following uses are not allowed as home occupations: a. Auto-body repair and painting; b. On-going mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely-enclosed building; c. Junk and salvage operations; d. Storage and/or sale of fireworks. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 7 • • iii. If Council wanted an applicant for a home occupation to show a proposed use could not be sustained in commercial quarters and could not be expanded to a "full-scale" enterprise, both of which are vague and inherently problematic as approval standards, it would have expressly required an applicant for a home occupation to show that. Because Council did not do so, the hearings officer finds whether a home occupation could be conducted in leased quarters and could be expanded to a full-scale enterprise is not relevant to whether a proposed home occupation is permitted as such? 7. The neighbors argued the applicant should have been required to file a new application, because she made substantial changes to the application after it was complete. a. The hearings officer acknowledges the applicant changed the application after it was deemed complete by moving the home occupation from the lower floor to the main floor of the house and by changing the means of access to the proposed hair salon rooms. However the hearings officer concludes these changes are not substantial. b. The term "substantial" is not defined in the CDC. However the term "substantial improvement" is defined (CDC 18.120.030.A.135) as "any repair, reconstruction or improvement, the cost of which exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure." This reflects a legislative intent that the term "substantial" means more than incidental; that a substantial change is one that significantly changes impacts of a use. c. The changes in this case did not significantly change the use; the use is the same. Although it changed where the use is to be conducted, the use will be conducted in the same structure as proposed in the original application. Access to the proposed use changed, but that change results in a less intrusive use; instead of having clients walk all the way down the sidewalk on the west side of the house, the applicant now proposes that clients enter through the garage doors or a side door near the front of the garage. Based on the foregoing interpretation and a brief review of cases where this issue has arisen,8 the hearings officer finds the changes in this case are not substantial. 8. The neighbors argued that the application did not contain an adequate impact study, because there is no traffic impact analysis .9 The planning manager found an impact study was not warranted, because all public systems necessary for the proposed use exist, and the impact of the proposed home occupation on those systems is negligible. 7 The hearings officer notes that some jurisdictions require just such an inquiry. For instance, the City of Gresham expressly requires an applicant for a home occupation to show that the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the home occupation section. Tigard could require the same, but it does not do so. 8 See, e.g., Pekarek vs. Wallowa County, 33 Or LUBA 225,1997; and Ash Creek Neigh. Ass'n vs. City of Portland, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 92-057, September 15, 1992). 9 CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e provides that a Type II application shall: Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system, and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirements, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 8 • 0 a. The hearings officer finds that the submission and adequacy of an impact study are not approval criteria, per se. That is, CDC 18.390.040.13 contains requirements for the contents of an application. Generally those requirements should be fulfilled so that there is adequate substantial evidence in the record based on which the City can make the requisite findings for approval. However an applicant can decide not to submit information required by the CDC. See ORS 227.178(2). The issue in deciding whether to approve an application on its merits is not whether the application is complete, but is whether the record contains adequate substantial evidence based on which the necessary findings for approval can be made. Often, if an application does not contain everything the local code requires it to contain, the necessary findings cannot be made or supported. However the failure of an application to include all required contents does not mean the application fails to comply with any applicable approval standard, per se. b. Therefore the hearings officer finds that it is not directly relevant to any applicable approval standard whether the application in this case does or does not include an impact study as required by CDC 18.390.040.B.2.e. 9. The neighbors argued that the proposed use does not comply with the purpose statement of CDC 18.742, because the use could be conducted in leased quarters and could be expanded. The hearings officer addressed this issue above to some extent. In response to this argument, the hearings officer finds that the purpose statement of CDC 18.742 is not an applicable approval standard for the application. The purpose statement may be relevant in construing ambiguous provisions in CDC 18.742.020, et seq., because it is part of the context of those provisions and reflects the legislative intent of City Council in adopting this section of the code. The hearings officer will refer to the purpose statement when it is relevant to construction of ambiguous provisions of the code. 10. Neighbors argued the proposed use will cause odors detectable beyond the property line. The applicant responded that the proposed use will not cause such odors, because of its low intensity and its use of chemicals of a kind and in amounts common to a household. The applicant's husband testified that there is a ventilated shower stall in the bathroom where chemicals associated with the hair salon would be used. A fan will convey odors up and away from surrounding homes. a. The hearings officer notes this issue is relevant under CDC 18.742.040.A.3 and 18.725.030.D.10 b. The hearings officer also notes the record does not contain objective evidence about the impact of the amount of chemicals likely to be used in the home occupation or an analysis of like uses elsewhere from which the hearings officer could draw conclusions about the impact on this site. However neither does the record contain 10 CDC 18.742.040.A.3 provides: There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Home occupations shall observe the provisions of Chapter 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; CDC 18.725.030.D provides: Odors. The emission of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable ay any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors in prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. (emphasis in original) HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 9 substantial evidence that it is reasonably likely the amount and nature of chemicals to be used in the home occupation will result in odors that are detectable to a person of reasonable sensitivity at the property line. c. The hearings officer is familiar generally with the potential impact of odors from a hair salon simply as a pedestrian walking past the entries of commercial hair salons in downtown Portland. When the door to such establishments is open, often the smell of chemicals is noticeable and can be relatively overwhelming to a person who is not commonly exposed to such chemicals. The hearings officer's experience is admittedly incidental and non-expert, but, in the absence of better evidence, it leads the hearings officer to conclude that such an impact is possible in this case. Because the property line is only five feet from the space where the hair salon will operate, fumes associated with the use of chemicals in that business could be discharged through a window or fan into the atmosphere in a manner that results in odors that can be detected at the property line. The hearings officer does not conclude such impacts will occur; but they are possible. d. Due to the relatively low intensity of the proposed use, and the correspondingly low volume of chemicals applied in the home occupation, the hearings officer concludes that odors detectable at the property line are not reasonably likely. However, in the absence of additional evidence to that effect, the hearings officer finds that a condition of approval is warranted to address this issue. The planning manager should promptly investigate any complaints from neighbors that odors emanate from the Property. If the planning manager concludes odors detectable at the property line originate on the Property, the planning manager should issue an order suspending the use of chemicals in the home occupation until the applicant demonstrates that such odors will not occur in the future. Suspension should be subject to appeal to the hearings officer, but should be effective when received by the applicant; provided the planning manager shall serve notice of suspension by certified mail or by delivery of such notice to the applicant in person. 11. The neighbors argued that the proposed use will not be conducted entirely within the dwelling, because clients of the use will walk out-of-doors on an elevated deck from the garage to the den where the principal work of the salon will occur, contrary to CDC 18.742.040.A.4.11 The planning manager construed CDC 18.742.040.A.4 to apply only to the area where the home occupation actually is conducted rather than to the route between the parking area and primary activity area for the home occupation. 12 The hearings officer finds the term "operated" is vague. Therefore the hearings officer must construe it. In so doing, the hearings officer relies on the context of the provision. a. The purpose statement of a section provides context for ambiguous provisions within a given section. In this case, the purpose for the home occupation chapter includes a statement that the chapter is intended to ensure that a home occupation is conducted "in a manner that is not detrimental or disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents." b. A use cannot operate unless people can get to it. To that extent the route between the parking for a use and the primary operations of a use are part of those 11 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The home occupation shall be operated entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory structure... 12 At page 3 of the Staff Report, the planning manager states "[tjhe business activity is limited those areas of the house where the business is actually conducted, and not the route to those area." HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 10 operations. If use of a route from the parking area to the area where the business is conducted results in detrimental impacts or disruption to neighbors, the hearings officer finds that is relevant to whether the operation of the home occupation complies with CDC 18.742.040.A.4. c. In this case the route will take people out-of-doors after they have entered the garage. Although hair will not be cut outdoors, it is the passage of people (i.e., strangers who are not guests of the residents of the dwelling but are clients of the business), that neighbors argue cause disruption. That is, they reduce the privacy of the adjoining decks and yards of the neighbors' homes by exposing those neighboring features to the view of business clients. The hearings officer finds this is disruptive and detrimental to the privacy of neighbors' homes. d. The disruption caused by business clients using the deck could be remedied by installing a barrier that prevents views from the deck to the neighbors east and west of the site. Such a barrier may have to extend around the rear of the deck as well as its sides to achieve visual isolation. If such a barrier is installed, clients' use of the deck would not be detrimental to the privacy of the neighbors. Such a barrier could be required as a condition of approval. If such a condition is imposed, the home occupation will not violate that portion of CDC 18.742.040.A.4 that requires the use to be conducted entirely within the dwelling. e. For what it is worth, if business clients entered the dwelling through the front door, that would not be detrimental or disruptive to neighbors' reasonable expectations of privacy. That is, neighbors have no right to privacy in front yards that are readily visible to passersby. If business clients entered the business through the front door of the dwelling or through a door that adjoins the front of a dwelling (such as the side door to the garage in this case), that would not be a disruptive or detrimental impact of the operation of the use. However in this case, the rules of the Board of Cosmetology require a separate entry to the hair salon (OAR 817-020-0011(2)(d)), and that forces business clients to use the rear deck to access the home business, because there is no other means of access that complies with the rule unless the Board of Cosmetology issues a written statement allowing an exception to the general rule in this instance, and the applicant provides a copy of that written statement to the City for verification. 12. Neighbors argued that the proposed use will exceed the maximum area allowed for a home occupation if that area is calculated to include any undivided space through which business clients must pass, (i.e., the garage, the deck and the main floor area through which clients must pass to go between the den and the bathroom).13 The planning manager applied the maximum square footage standard only to the area where the home occupation actually is conducted, (i.e., the den, the bathroom and a small area of hallway between them). The hearings officer finds the term "business activity" is ambiguous. Therefore the hearings officer must construe it. In so doing, the hearings officer relies on the context of the provision. a. Based on the foregoing discussion, which considers the context provided by CDC 18.742.010.A.2, the hearings officer finds the term "business activity" includes movement of clients from a parking area to the primary place of the business when 13 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 11 • 0 such movement causes a detrimental impact or disruption to neighboring properties or residents. b. The hearings officer finds that moving clients through an interior space, whether divided or undivided, does not cause a detrimental impact or disruption, because there are no off-site impacts associated with such movement. Therefore the garage and main floor area of the home (exclusive of the den, bathroom and a reasonable area between them) should not count toward the area of the business activity. c. However the use of the rear deck for movement of clients between the garage and the den does have a disruptive impact for the same reasons discussed above. Therefore the rear deck should count toward the area of the business activity unless the applicant provides a barrier to views east and west. Without such a visual barrier for the deck, the total area of the business activity exceeds 528 square feet. 13. Neighbors argued that the proposed home occupation will involve the use of chemicals that are hazardous and increase the potential for fire danger. The hearings officer finds this issue is relevant under CDC 18.742.040.A.4 and 7.14 a. The applicant's husband testified that the home occupation will involve use of and will store chemicals in quantities that are typical of a household. Although there is no objective evidence to support his testimony, neither is there any substantial evidence to the contrary. If the use is approved, the hearings officer can impose a condition of approval to prohibit storage of more than a certain amount of chemicals so as to ensure compliance with limits imposed by the relevant codes, and compliance with that standard could be verified by inspection. Therefore the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the home occupation will or can comply with the relevant part of CDC 18.742.040.A.4 dealing with this issue, subject to such a condition of approval. b. Exhibit B is a letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue ("TVFR") to the effect that the proposed home occupation does not pose a hazard due to fire or explosion greater than that posed by a typical dwelling. The hearings officer infers from this statement that the proposed use does not pose a dangerous risk. Therefore the applicant sustained the burden of proof under CDC 18.742.040.A.7. 14. Neighbors argued that the proposed use will cause excessive on-street parking, because it will consume two of the four spaces available for vehicles in the driveway of the home and will monopolize on-street parking. The hearings officer disagrees. a. A single family home is required to provide one off-street parking space (CDC Table 18.765.2). The applicant provides four spaces in the driveway and four to six spaces in the garage. Therefore there is ample parking for the home occupation and the residential use of the Property. 14 CDC 18.742.040.A.4 provides in relevant part as follows: The indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the building, fire, health and housing codes; CDC 18.742.040.A.7 provides in relevant part as follows: There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials, and spray painting or spray finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable materials which in the judgment of the Fire Marshal pose a dangerous risk to the residence, its occupants, and/or surrounding properties... HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 12 0 • b. The home occupation does not force the applicant, her nanny or other residents of the home to park on the street, although they are legally entitled to do so. The neighbors' complaints about on-street parking by the applicant, her family and guests are not relevant to the application for the home occupation and do not show the home occupation would violate CDC 18.742.040.A.8 or 18.742.050.A.2.c. 15. Neighbors argued that the addition of any traffic to Benchview Terrace as a result of the home occupation would be excessive, and that the driveway does not comply with visual clearance standards. The hearings officer disagrees with the first of those arguments and finds there is not enough evidence to resolve the second of those arguments. a. If the use is limited to six clients per day (and the hearings officer clarifies that a client means one or more persons arriving and departing in one vehicle), then the use will generate not more than twelve vehicle trips per day. That number of trips is not excessive, given the street carries more than 3000 vehicle trips per day in the vicinity of the Property, and the street does not exceed its engineered capacity or cause any intersection to violate level of service standards or maximum volume to capacity ratios. The glare caused by the setting sun for drivers of westbound vehicles is not caused or exacerbated by the proposed use, and it is not relevant to whether the traffic impact of the proposed use is excessive. Neither does the speed of traffic make twelve additional trips excessive. b. It is not clear from substantial evidence in the record whether the intersection of the driveway and Benchview Terrace complies with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. There are relatively small walls that appear to be within thirty feet of the east edge of the driveway along the Benchview Terrace frontage. It is not clear whether those walls exceed a height of three feet. If they exceed that height, a condition of approval could require the applicant to remove or lower the walls so that they comply. If they do not exceed that height, they do not violate the visual clearance standard even though they extend to the sidewalk, unless the City finds the slope of the street to the east warrants a more restrictive standard for this driveway intersection. A condition of approval could ensure that the driveway does or will comply with CDC 18.795. 16. Neighbors argued that, due to the cumulative impacts of the use on the privacy of adjoining homes, the safe use of Benchview Terrace by vehicles and pedestrians, the lack of definitive limits on the use, the alleged behavior of the applicant and her husband, children, nanny and friends unrelated to the home occupation, and other perceptions of and fears about the home occupation, the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the home occupation will not be detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. This is relevant under CDC 18.385.020.B.3 and 18.742.060.B.3.15 Curiously neither the planning manager's decision nor the Staff Report address this standard precisely. a. The hearings officer is not persuaded that behaviors in which the neighbors allege the applicant and her family have engaged in the past are relevant to this application, even if there was substantial evidence to support such allegations. These issues are better left to mediation or other means not related to land use permitting. The hearings officer also is not persuaded that concerns about potential impacts (e.g., impacts on Benchview Terrace) are appropriate bases for denial of the permit application if there is 15 CDC 18.385.020.B.3 and 18.742.060.B.3 are identical. Each provides that a Type II home occupation: Is undertaken in a manner that is not detrimental nor disruptive in terms of appearance or operation to neighboring properties and residents. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 13 no substantial evidence in the record to show that such concerns are reasonably likely to be borne out in fact. The hearings officer appreciates the frustration the neighbors have about the proposed use. No doubt, they do not want anyone in the neighborhood to conduct a home occupation that involves clients coming to a property. They could have provided for such a prohibition through deed restrictions that can go beyond the protection afforded by zoning and can be enforced privately. But the hearings officer concludes the law allows the home occupation in this case, subject to appropriate conditions. Action on the permit application cannot be based on popularity. b. The hearings officer finds that, in addition to the potential for detrimental impacts and disruption due to odors and loss of privacy of neighbors' properties, there is a potential fof disruption if people other than the applicant's client are on the Property while the applicant and the client are engaged in hair care. The applicant did not propose to provide care for anyone other than clients. Therefore the permit should authorize the home occupation to allow only the person(s) who is/are receiving hair care by the applicant (and the immediately preceding and/or immediately succeeding client) to be on the Property. Any individuals needed to reasonably accommodate disabilities of the client also should be permitted to accompany the client. This generally would exclude children who are not clients. Unsupervised children could pose a hazard to themselves and a disruption to neighbors. Exceptions are warranted for babies being nursed by the client and others whose health or other circumstances warrant that they accompany the client, provided such other persons shall remain in the vicinity of the client at all times. This condition minimizes the intensity of the use and ancillary impacts. c. The hearings officer also appreciates the frustration of the neighbors in having to be the first line of defense against violations of the permit. The City does not have a lot of resources devoted to enforcement. As is common elsewhere, enforcement is complaint-driven. If neighbors believe the applicant is violating a condition of the permit, they should contact the City and advocate for timely enforcement. d. To facilitate the enforcement process, the hearings officer finds that the permit should be subject to administrative review with the potential for appeal to the hearings officer to verify that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval. To that end the applicant should be required to submit an application for such a review of conditions within one calendar year after the effective date of this final order (i.e., after a final decision by the highest court to whom appeal of this decision is taken, if any). The application should contain substantial evidence that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval of this decision. The purpose of that review is not to reconsider the issuance of the permit. The purpose is to verify the applicant continues to comply with the conditions of approval of this final order and to determine whether any additional conditions may be warranted to ensure such compliance. If the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval of this decision, the result of the administrative review may be revocation or suspension of the permit or imposition of additional or modified conditions. 17. Neighbors argued the applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof that the proposed home occupation will comply with the ADA and Board of Cosmetology regulations. Conditions of approval of the planning manager's decision required such compliance. See conditions 2 and 3 of Exhibit A. a. The hearings officer finds that the ADA and the regulations of the Board of Cosmetology are not relevant approval standards for a home occupation permit, because the ADA and Board of Cosmetology regulations are not identified in the CDC as approval standards, and compliance with those standards is not necessary to show the proposed use HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 14 • • will comply with the approval standards listed in the CDC. See ORS 227.173(1) cited in footnote 3 above. The City does not rely on compliance with the rules of the Board of Cosmetology to fulfill any requirement of the City's approval standards. b. However under other provisions of the City Code, (i.e., provisions implementing the Uniform Building Code), the applicant is required to comply with the ADA. The hearings officer finds such compliance is feasible. The applicant may have to remove and replace doorways so they are wide enough; may have to remove, replace or alter door jambs so they are not an obstacle to the disabled; may have to replace door handles; and may have to remove or alter fixtures in the bathroom to provide adequate clearance for the disabled in wheelchairs. Nothing precludes these improvements. The applicant can do all of them. Whether it is cost efficient for the applicant to do so and whether it best protects the value of the house for purposes of resale is not relevant to the application. D. CONCLUSION, Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed home occupation permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves HOP 2002-00010 (Moos), subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Before the applicant begins use of the Property for a hair salon, the applicant shall submit a copy of the following to the Tigard Planning Division: a. The final inspection of the Property from the Tigard Building Department to verify all aspects of the hair salon business, including access from the driveway to the den and adjoining bathroom, comply with State Building Codes, including ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements; or submit a written statement from the Tigard Building Department that such an inspection is not necessary to ensure compliance with those standards. The applicant shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply. b. Certification of the hair salon from the Health Licensing Office of the State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology. In addition the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of any notice or inspection report the applicant receives from the Board of Cosmetology without ten (10) calendar days after the applicant receives such notice or inspection report. C. A business license issued by the City of Tigard. HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 15 • • 2. Also before the applicant begins use of the Property for a hair salon, the applicant shall: a. Install a minimum six-foot high sight-obscuring barrier along the east and west sides of the deck and along as much of the north side of the deck as is necessary to substantially obscure and block direct views from the deck on the Property to the decks of adjoining lots to the east and west of the Property. This condition shall not apply if the Board of Cosmetology authorizes the applicant in writing to access the hair salon by means of the front door to the dwelling, and the applicant limits client access to that door; provided, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a copy of such authorization if granted by the Board of Cosmetology. b. Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning manager that the intersection of the driveway on the Property and Benchview Terrace complies with the visual clearance standards of CDC 18.795. The planning manager may conclude that the slope of the street to the east warrants a more restrictive standard for this driveway intersection as provided by CDC 18.785.030.C. 3. The home occupation business shall occur only in the den and adjoining bathroom. Clients may enter the home business only through the side door or garage doors of the garage and along the rear deck or, if permitted by the Board of Cosmetology, through the front door. 4. The home occupation shall continue to comply with CDC 18.742 and the conditions of approval of this final order at all times. 5. Vehicle parking for the home occupation shall occur only in the driveway. 6. Signs and/or employees for the Home Occupation are prohibited, unless the applicant applies for and receives approval of such changes through a Type II Home Occupation process. 7. The planning manager shall promptly investigate any complaints from neighbors that odors emanate from the Property. If the planning manager concludes odors detectable at the property line originate on the Property, the planning manager shall issue a written order suspending the use of chemicals in the home occupation permit the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the planning manager that such odors will not occur in the future. The planning manager shall serve notice of suspension by certified mail or by delivery of such notice to the applicant in person. The applicant shall suspend the use of chemicals in the home occupation immediately upon receipt of an order to that effect from the planning manager; provided, the applicant may appeal the suspension order by filing an appeal as provided in CDC 18.390.040.G (i.e., as for a Type 11 decision). The home occupation may continue to operate without use of chemcials pending a final decision on a timely appeal of a suspension order. 8. The applicant may serve not more than six clients per day from Tuesday through Saturday, inclusive, between the hours of 9 Am and 5 PM. A client is a person who receives hair care from the applicant. A client and all HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 16 • • those accompanying the client as allowed herein shall arrive and depart in not more than one motor vehicle. Only clients are permitted on the Property in conjunction with the home occupation; provided, the following additional persons may accompany the client: any persons needed to reasonably accommodate disabilities of the client, babies being nursed by the client, and others whose health or other circumstances warrant that they accompany the client, provided such other persons shall remain in the vicinity of the client at all times. 9. The applicant shall not store on the Property chemicals in amounts in excess of those permitted by the Uniform Building Code, fire/life safety codes or the housing code, and the planning manager may inspect the Property to verify compliance with this condition of approval. 10. Within one calendar year after the effective date of this final order (i.e., after a final decision by the highest court to whom appeal of this decision is taken, if any), the applicant shall file an application with the City for a review of the conditions of approval of this final order pursuant to a Type II process, provided, a pre-application conference is not required. The application should contain substantial evidence that the applicant is conducting the home occupation consistent with the conditions of approval of this decision. If the applicant is not complying with the conditions of approval of this decision, the result of the review of conditions may be revocation or suspension of the permit or imposition of additional or modified conditions. DA this 28th day of Larry Epstein, sq., I( City of Tigard ari gs HOP 2002-00010 Hearings Officer Final Order (Moos Hair Salon) Page 17 O~ RE ~ CORD PARTI - HIgIT " --ES ' «EX at the hearing public TestimonY received (W Witten - 10 1, _ 4 i 400 POW r am r ''o ~ r • "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) CITY OF TIGA D Community (Development Shaping ,A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Larry Epstein, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner DATE: April 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Moos Salon (HOP 2002-00010) Appeal Candace White and Donnajo "Dee-J" Putzier, neighbors of the proposed Home Occupation, have filed an appeal with the City of Tigard in regard to the approval of the Home Occupation Permit. The appellants have requested your review of the City's approval based on several particular issues as enumerated in their letter of appeal received April 9, 2002. These issues are summarized as follows: 1. The Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations; 2. The proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone; 3. The proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations; 4. The impact study was inadequate; and 5. Condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. The subject site is located on the west side of SW Benchview Terrace, between SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Greenfield Drive within the R-7 residential zone. The Notice of Decision and record is attached for your review. 5/13/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 1 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal • • The appellants argue that the Director's decision failed to acknowledge the Purpose Statement for Home Occupations. The City's position is as follows: Purpose statements are not substitutes for the applicable review criteria. These statements act to guide decision makers when a particular circumstance arises that is not specifically addressed by the review criteria or when amendments to the codes are proposed. In this particular case., the appellants argue that the purpose statement for home occupations to "permit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters..." should be applied as a criterion to which the subject application does not meet. The City does not use purpose statements as evaluation criteria as they are not clear and objective standards. The purpose statement is merely a guiding principle for adopting the implementing criteria. If the appellant's believe the criteria do not achieve the purpose, then code amendments are the proper avenue for recourse. The appellants argue that the proposed salon use is a personal service commercial use and is not allowed as a Home Occupation in the R-7 residential zone. The City's positions is as follows: Any lawful commercial activity that is conducted from residentially zoned or residentially used property is subject to the requirements of the home occupation rules with two important distinctions. Garage sales, sales of produce grown on site, and hobbies that do not result in payment are exempt from the requirements of the home occupation chapter. Auto-body repair and painting, mechanical repair conducted outdoors, junk and salvage operations, and storage or sale of fireworks are completely prohibited as home occupation uses. So long as the person conducting the business resides in the dwelling, it is not relevant whether the dwelling is in a single family, multi family, or commercial zone. If the standards of a home occupation cannot be met, i.e. more than one outside employee, or greater than 6 client visits per day, then the use must be conducted from an appropriately zoned and properly developed property. The appellants argue that the proposed use exceeds the square footage limitation for Home Occupations. The City's positions is as follows: The appellant's argument is based partly on the fact that the applicant proposed to use rooms on the opposite side of the house from the proposed entry. While the rooms total 285 square feet, the route to these rooms passes through much larger rooms and the appellants argue that these areas need to be included in the business area square footage. Staff disagrees. The criteria states "The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall 5/13/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 2 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal 11 01 not exceed 528 square feet. Otherwise, the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 square feet." The business activity is limited to those areas of the house where the business is actually conducted, and not the route to those areas. Staff believes that including the route through a dwelling to the business activity areas was not the original intent of the space limitation, and furthermore, has not interpreted or applied this standard in this manner to previous Home Occupation applications. The appellants argue that the impact study is inadequate. The City's positions is as follows: The impact study is a requirement for any Type II application. There is no set threshold for how detailed the impact study need be. Staff reviewed the impact study and made findings based on the applicant's information, as well as from professional opinion and prior application experience. The impact study is a tool that is used primarily to justify public infrastructure improvement requirements. The public systems are existing and the streets are fully improved. There is no rational nexus between the proposed use and the park system or schools. A more thorough impact analysis was deemed unnecessary. Finally, the appellants argue that Condition Number 2 (ADA Compliance) and Number 3 (Department of Cosmetology Approval) cannot be enforced independently of one another. The City's position is as follows: The City is not the responsible agency for enforcing the Department of Cosmetology rules; this is a function of the State. However, based on the concerns expressed through the public comment period, staff felt it was important to assure that the business was in prima facie compliance with the State's requirements. The appellants argue that the Department of Cosmetology will issue a facility license prior to an on site inspection, even if the facility does not meet the State's requirements. It is the responsibility of the applicant, not the City, to ensure that the business is conducted in compliance with State law. The City may require documentation that the State has licensed the facility in accordance with their rules. The City administers the State Building Code, and is, therefore, responsible for ensuring compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. When a dwelling will be utilized for commercial business, and members of the general public will be conducting business on the site, the building codes require that an accessible route be provided. This means that adequate width through doorways is available, that ramps be provided for changes in grade, and certain hardware be used to facilitate easy access. 5/13/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 3 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal . • The appellants argue in part that if the applicant makes the necessary modifications to bring the dwelling into compliance with ADA requirements, but upon inspection by the Department of Cosmetology it's found that the route does not comply with the state's rules, then the applicant will be in non compliance. The City agrees. However, in that case, the applicant will be in violation of the State's rules, and it will be up to the State to enforce. If the State's enforcement results in a different route that is no longer accessible, the applicant would be in violation of the City's requirements. The appellants seem to make the claim, although not expressly, that any modification to the dwelling should occur after the State has determined the proposed facility is in compliance. This is beyond the scope of authority granted through the Home Occupation permit rules. In summary, staff believes that the proposed Home Occupation permit satisfies the general approval criteria and standards of Section 18.742.040, and that the appeal should be denied. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Notice of Decision Exhibit B - Agency Comments Exhibit C - Neighborhood Comments Exhibit D - Appeal Filing Form Exhibit E - Applicant's Submittal 5/13/2002 Public Hearing - Memo to the Hearings Officer Page 4 of 4 RE: HOP2002-00010/Moos Salon Home Occupation Appeal • 0 Exhibit "A" NOTICE OF TYP-E II DfCISIONt HOME OCCUPATION'PE-RMI>T (HOP) 2002.00010 CITY OF TI(;ARD MOOS: HOME OCCUPATION n „umt, nen Jig , S(utpui14"Rttcr(,rnmuttttyj DBA w,MOOSSA LOW W _ 120 DAYS = 6/13/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: MOOS HOME OCCUPATION FILE NO.: Home Occupation Permit (HOP) HOP2002-00010 APPLICANT: Sopaul Moos OWNER: Steven & Sopaul Moos 13783 SW Benchview Terrace 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon. The home occuppation rules limit the use to a maximum of six clients per day. The applicant has ro osed that the hours of operation will pbe between 9 AM to 5 PM proposed through Saturday. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-7; Low Density Residential. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7 (PD): Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a' minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The PD overlay permits some flexibility to the underlying development standards. LOCATION: The subject site is located at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; WCTM 2S104CD, Tax Lot 4300. APPI IrARI F REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.385, 18.390, 18.510 and 18.742. SECTION II. DECISION Nofice ,is hereby given that;theClty of Tigard Community Development Dlrecto► s designee has APPROVED the aboue,:request4 suktect to certain conditions : of approval The =.findings and conclusions on which the decision, Isbased'are rioted'inNSection 11/ HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 1 OF 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UNLESS OTHERWISE N07ED; THE STAFF CONTACTVSHALL BE" " w N 3)'6394 171 NI MORGAN TiRAC,Y IIVGTHE PLANNG} DIVISIO AT .,i. w,.., . _ 1. The applicant shall certify that the areas used for the home occupation business will be limited to that shown on the revised site plan. 2. The applicant/owner shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with State Building Codes, including ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. The business shall not be in operation until either the Building Department acknowledges that no modifications are required, or until final building inspection.approval has been issued. 3. The applicant/owner shall receive proper certification from the Health Licensing Office of the State of Oregon Department of Cosmetology prior to operating the business. Copies of the certification shall be submitted to the City prior to operation of the business. 4. All Home Occupation standards discussed in this decision and detailed in the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.742 must be complied with at all times. 5. The applicant/owner shall direct any customers who visit the site to park in the driveway and not utilize on street parking. 6. There shall be no signs, or employees for the Home Occupation, without reapplication through the Type 11 Home Occupation process. SECTION III. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The City mailed notice to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site providing them an opportunity to comment. The City received a large number of responses, including several phone calls and twenty-eight letters in opposition to the proposed salon. The issues raised during the comment period include: Additional traffic/ dangerous existing street condition. a.. 3 bus stops on one side of street require children to cross street. Incline, limited visibility make it difficult to see kids crossing. b. 3,000 vehicles per day, average speed 35 mph (25 speed limit). c. Minimal lighting, and no crosswalks d. Grade is 8% and increases to 13-15% downhill. RESPONSE: The street is designated as a neighborhood route in the City's Transportation System Plan. The addition of up to 12 trips per day (6 customers travelling to and from the site) will not result in failing levels of service, nor is seen as a significant increase (0.4%) in vehicle trips. The majority of the concerns related to traffic are of a general nature and apply to any driver utilizing the street and have no specific bearing on the proposed Home Occupation business. It would additionally be inappropriate to restrict traffic below the level allowed in the ordinance. 2. Fire danger. a. Salon uses flammables (hair sprays, peroxides, dyes) and prolonged use of appliances (dryers, curling irons, etc.) b. Proximity of greenway, difficulty of fire suppression. HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 2 OF 10 • • RESPONSE: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was contacted regarding the proposed Home Occupation and concludes that the business does not create a fire hazard that is more significant than a typical home use, see Agency Comments later in this report. Several neighbors commented that the TVFR had responded with emergency vehicles three times to this address in February and December. These responses were triggered by the automated fire alarm system in the house and the new owner's unfamiliarity with the system. There have been no other reported responses since the initial three calls. There is an undeveloped greenway between homes on Benchview Terrace and Hillshire Drive that has caused several neighbors to worry about fire spreading from the subject site to their homes. As TVFR has determined that the proposed hair salon use is not at increased risk for fire, the probability of fire spreading from this site is equal to the probability of fire spreading to this site. 3. Vehicle traffic pollution, noise pollution, litter, general noise, odors, excessive parked cars will impair livability of nearby homes. RESPONSE: Customers are required to park in the driveway, so there should be no impact to the available on street parking. Noise must be kept to a minimum and be in compliance with the noise limits set forth in the Tigard Municipal Code. Additionally, this type of business is not normally associated with noise producing activities above and beyond what is typically associated with a single-family residence. Similarly, odors are not expected to be beyond what is normally associated with a single-family dwelling. If code limits were exceeded, the owner would be required to comply or be cited into court. The City cannot restrict the use for possible violations that have not occurred. It is the owner's responsibility to abide by the law or else risk citation. 4. Defies the purpose of the ordinance to allow "small scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters." There are specific salon spaces that are available for small start up ventures. RESPONSE: While it has been noted that the applicant has had an established business practice, the limitations imposed by the home occupation rules de facto cause the business to be a small scale venture. Most professional salons service many more than 6 clients per day, and most employ more than one stylist. If the proposed use exceeds these limitations, then the use will have to relocate to commercial space. However, as proposed, the use does not violate the purpose of the Home Occupation provisions. 5. Use is not allowed in R-7 zone per use table. Classified as "Personal Service" use. RESPONSE: The proposed use is classified as a "Home Occupation" which is listed as a restricted use in the R-7 zone, subject to the requirements of the Home Occupation ordinance. While the use is of a personal service nature, the home occupation rules allow a wide range of services and sales, with the specific exception of "auto-body repair and painting", "on-going mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely enclosed building", "junk and salvage operations", and "storage or sale of fireworks". Other personal service uses that are typical Type II home occupations include piano teaching, acupuncture, massage, and counseling. 6. This type of business requires a steady flow of customers visiting the site versus the typical home business where the proprietor visits the clients. RESPONSE: The home occupation rules limit the number of customers to six per day. There is a distinction between Type I and Type II home occupations. Type I home occupations involve no employees or customers coming to the site, and are much more limited in scale. These home based businesses are granted permits "over the counter." Type II Home Occupations, because they allow for up to one employee and six customers per day, are thereby more conspicuous, HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 3 OF 10 require a more thorough review. While the proposed use is different than home "office" type businesses with no on-site clients, it is similar in nature to the other personal service uses listed above where clients come to the site. 7. No impact study was included. RESPONSE: The fact that no impact study was included with the application, as mandated by 18.390, was an oversight. The applicant was contacted and informed that an impact study was necessary. The applicant has since fulfilled this requirement. Discussion of the impact study is later in this decision. 8. Security. Lack of adequate police patrols, no fences. Strangers (clients) make monitoring the situation more difficult. RESPONSE: The clients are only permitted to visit the site between 9 AM and 5 PM and will park on the driveway. Any suspicious activity should be reported to the Tigard City Police Department as with any suspicious activity around any home. 9. Signage will detract from the character of the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The Home Occupation rules allow for a sign up to 1.5 square feet, which must be either attached to the structure or placed in a window. The applicant has stated that no sign will be used. 10. Size of rooms and related spaces exceeds 528 s.f. and there are no walls designating the 528 s.f. limits of the business space. RESPONSE: The code specifies that "the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 feet." This is discussed in greater detail in Section IV. 11. Additional Department of Cosmetology requirements: a. separation from residence with solid walls. b. Separate basin sinks for hair washing c. Different disposal methods for hazardous materials RESPONSE: These are requirements of the State Board of Cosmetology and are enforced by the Health Licensing Office (HLO) division. An annual inspection is performed by the HLO to ensure compliance with these standards. Staff contacted the HLO to discuss these concerns, nevertheless, to ensure that it is at least feasible to have a home based salon. The downstairs areas shown in the applicants site plan have doors that can be closed to separate the business from the residence. Whether the clients can walk from a segregated area (the salon) through an unsegregated area (the hallway) to get to another segregated area (the bathroom) is a question for the HLO to decide. The HLO did note that standard disposal of cosmetic supplies into trashcans for general pick up was acceptable. 12. Separate entry required by state cosmetology dept. a. forces users to go down "unsafe" stairs, no handrail, steep, and unlit. b. Clients must go around % of house exterior, 5 feet from neighbors house, to reach separate entrance. c. Entrance is a sliding door (is this code legal?) HOP2002-00010ITYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 4 OF 10 REPONSE: The separate entry is a requirement of the State Board of Cosmetology, however, in this instance the separate entry will dictate that the clients must use a stairway that may not meet Building Code standards. Staff contacted the Health Licensing Office, who administers the Board of Cosmetology rules to see if there was an exception process to this rule. There is not. The City ensures compliance with the building code. As a result of this discovery, the applicant has modified the proposed location of the business space to the entry-level floor where clients will enter through the garage and proceed to the study. While this may satisfy some issues with the building code, it may create problems for the Board of Cosmetology. To ensure that the proposed use is in compliance, the applicant will be required to provide documentation from the building division and from the Board of Cosmetology. 13. Multiple Building Code issues related to existing structure. RESPONSE: The building codes are administered by the City of Tigard. To fully address the concerns that were expressed, staff will require the applicant to consult with the building department, and make modifications as necessary to bring the use into compliance with State Building Codes. Any modifications must be complete and approved prior to operating the business. 14. Impacts to sewer system from chemical dumping RESPONSE: There is no evidence that significant amounts of chemicals related to the business will be dumped in the sewer. Nevertheless, the types of chemicals associated with a hair cutting business will not adversely impact the capacity or capability of the sewer system. 15. Salon is not defined as to the extent of the business, types of services, etc. RESPONSE: So long as the services provided do not violate local, state, or federal law, are not one of the four prohibited uses for Home Occupations, and meet the criteria discussed below, then the exact type of salon is irrelevant. However, the applicant was asked to provide clarification to assist the City in accurately identifying the types of home based businesses in the city. The applicant has stated that she will be cutting hair. In general, many of the concerns expressed were speculative in nature. The code specifies criteria and limitations on the Home Occupation use which have been determined to mitigate or prevent external impacts normally expected from home based businesses. There are other code provisions (both from the development code and the municipal code) that speak to continued compliance with environmental performance standards (noise, vibrations, and odors), parking, and garbage. The City cannot deny a proposal that meets the requirements of its codes on the basis that the proposed use may not meet other code requirements in the future, or that the possibility exists, in certain circumstances, that a violation will occur. The decision that is issued as part of this review is a determination that the proposal, as proposed, does not violate the City's development code. If subsequent violations are found to exist, the city may revoke the Home Occupation license, and the applicant must wait one year before reapplying for a new license. It should also be noted that the granting of a Home Occupation Permit only authorizes that the use may occur. It does not preclude the applicant from complying with all other relevant local, state, and federal requirements. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 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 system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. HOP2002-00010117YPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 5 OF 10 • In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 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 that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has submitted an impact study. Sanitary Sewer. The applicant states that there will be no impact to the sewer system, as the home is already connected to adequate sewer. Water Supply: The applicant indicates that cutting hair will not have an impact on the water supply. Storm Drainage: The applicant notes that proper storm drainage has already been established and will not be changed. Schools: The applicant states that "because what I plan to do is so low key and inobtrusive [sic], it will be just as if I were living in my home and having a friend over. There will be no impact on the area's schools." Power-Telephone-Cable TV: Private utilities are existing and adequate to serve the proposed use. Parks: There are no parks near the site. Therefore there is no impact expected to parks. Noise Impacts: The applicant notes that there will be only one car at the house at a time, therefore limiting noise from cars. The hair cutting will occur inside so there will be no noise associated with the salon. Transportation:. The applicant states that "since only one car at a time will be at my house, there will be no impact on transportation." Staff finds that since this is an existing developed parcel with public facilities that meet City standards, there are no impacts that require mitigation. The addition of up to 12 trips per day is an insignificant increase to the total capacity of SW Benchview, a fully improved street. The development is served by public water. Sewer service is present and no improvements are necessary. There is an approved public storm drain system, and the proposed use will have no effect on this system; as the use proposes no additional impervious area. Schools are not impacted as the use does not contribute to the enrollment demand. Parks, like schools are unaffected by the presence of this use. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Section 18.742.040 states that all home occupations except those that have proven non- conforming status, shall observe the following criteria in addition to the standards established for Type 1 and Type II uses described in 18.742.050: Home occupations may be undertaken only by the principal occupant(s) of a residential property; The proposed Home Occupation is being undertaken by the property owner who is a principal occupant of the property. There shall be no more than three deliveries per week to the residence by suppliers; The applicant has indicated there will be no delivery of products or supplies to the residence. HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 6 OF 10 There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Home occupations shall observe the provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.090, Environmental Performance Standards; No offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, etc. are anticipated based on the proposed Home Occupation business since it will be conducted indoors and involves no manufacturing or assembly. The home occupation shall be operated entirely within the dwelling unit and a conforming accessory. structure. The total area which may be used in the accessory building for either material product storage and/or the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. Otherwise, the home occupation and associated storage of materials and products shall not occupy more than 25% of the combined residence and accessory structure gross floor area, but in no case shall the portion of the home occupation occupying the accessory use exceed 528 square feet. The indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the building, fire, health and housing codes; Twenty-five percent of the home size is 1,950 square feet; however, the maximum area the code allows is 528 square feet to be used for a home occupation. The applicant has proposed to use approximately 500 square feet of the 7,800 square foot residence for the home occupation. Based on comments and concerns received from neighbors, Staff performed a site inspection on March 8, 2002 to verify the size of the proposed business space. Upon closer inspection of the building permit records, staff noted that the other areas accessory to the home occupation pushed the total square footage to approximately 770 square feet. The applicant's original location for the salon was downstairs and would not satisfy ADA requirements. Because of these two issues, the applicant has proposed to locate the salon space upstairs. On March 20, 2002 staff again visited the site to verify the size of room proposed for the use. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the size and location of the rooms to be used for the business. These areas total 285 square feet. The applicant will need to certify that the revised areas shown will be the only areas used for the home occupation business. FINDING: The size limitations for Home Occupations are satisfied as shown on the revised site plan. CONDITION: The applicant shall certify that the areas used for the home occupation business will be limited to that shown on the revised site plan. A home occupation shall not make necessary, a change in the Uniform Building Code use classification of a dwelling unit. Any accessory building that is used must meet Uniform n..:1 J:.... f%.. A. ..a.. ....J I..:. :aL Tnr%^ wn A A A -r.~e- &!&I-- LJuIIUIng VVUC Iegl111e111e1R, cII1U uC 11 VVIIIOIIIIdI1GC WILI1 I ~.va, ~,nap[er 18. 144 OT if11S ilil@~ No changes to the dwelling are proposed which would reclassify the occupancy type of the structure. One letter received during the comment period specifically questions a number of building code issues. To ensure that building codes are satisfied, the applicant shall consult with the Building Department to determine what modifications will be needed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with State Building Codes, including ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. The business shall not be in operation until either the Building Department acknowledges that no modifications are required, or until final building inspection approval has been issued. More than one (1) business activity constituting two or more home occupations shall be allowed on one property, only if the combined floor space of the business activities does not exceed 25 percent of the combined gross floor area of the residence and accessory structure. Each home occupation shall apply.for a separate home occupation permit. NOTE: The Tigard Business Tax HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 7 OF 10 requires payment for only one (1) Business Tax if the same owner is operating more than one approved business at the same location. Although payment for each separate business is not required, it is required that all names of the businesses' which are currently in operation at that location be specifically listed on the Business Tax Certificate and be visibly posted at the business location. There are no other Home Occupations approved for this site, therefore, this criterion does not apply. There shall be no storage and/or distribution of toxic or flammable materials, and spray painting or spray finishing operations that involve toxic or flammable material which in the judgment of the Fire Marshall pose a dangerous risk to the residence, its occupants, and/or surrounding properties. Those individuals which are engaged in home occupations shall make available to the Fire Marshal, for review, the Material Safety Data Sheets which pertain to all potentially toxic and/or flammable materials associated with the use; No storage or distribution of toxic or flammable materials is necessary for the proposed use, and the Fire Marshall has indicated that the materials in use for this proposed salon do not pose a dangerous risk to the residence, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. No home occupation shall require any on or off-street parking other than that normally required for a residence; The applicant has stated in her impact statement that clients will park in the driveway. This will be required as a condition of approval to ensure that on street parking is not detrimentally affected. FINDING: On-street parking will be affected by the addition of client's visits if no limitations are imposed. CONDITION: The applicant/owner shall direct any customers who visit the site to park in the driveway and not utilize on-street parking. The following uses are not allowed as home occupations: (a) Auto-body repair and painting. (b) Ongoing mechanical repair conducted outside of an entirely enclosed building. (c) Junk and salvage operations. (d) Storage and/or sale of fireworks. The proposed Home Occupation does not involve any of the above uses, and will be a hair salon use only, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. There shall be no exterior storage of vehicles of any kind used for the business except one commercially licensed vehicle of not more than three-quarters ton GVW which may be parked outside of a structure or screened area; No exterior storage of vehicles is proposed or anticipated, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. There shall be no storage of materials, goods, and equipment unless screened entirely from view by a solid fence. Storage shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total lot area and shall not occur within the front yard or the required side yard setback; No outdoor storage of materials, goods or equipment is proposed or anticipated, therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 8 OF 10 In addition to the general approval criteria, Type-II home occupations allow the following according to the TDC chapter 18.142.050: (a) One non-illuminated sign, not exceeding 1.5 square feet, which shall be attached to the residence or accessory structure or placed in a window; (b) No more than one outside volunteer or employee who is not a principal resident of the premises; (c) No more than six daily customers or clients. Customers and clients may not visit the business between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and shall not generate excessive traffic or monopolize on-street parking; (d) Storage of materials, goods, and equipment which is screened entirely from view by a solid fence. Storage shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total lot area and shall not occur within the front yard or the required side yard setback. The applicant has indicated that there will be no signage. There will be no outside employees related to the Home Occupation business. The applicant has indicated that there will be up to, but not more than six customers visiting the site per day. The hours of operation for the business will be between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday. Parking will occur in the driveway. As previously stated, no storage of materials is proposed or anticipated. Therefore these standards are met. SECTION V. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice 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 MARCH 26, 2002 AND EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 10, 2002 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: The Director's Decision is final 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 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 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, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 9 OF 10 THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON APRIL 9, 2002. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. _ P EPARE~ BY Morga racy 'A- Uociate Planner APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewersf Planning Manager i:\curpln\morgan\workspace\hopiilhop2002-00010 (moos)\hop2002-00010 staff report.doc March 26. 2002 DATE March 26. 2002 DATE HOP2002-00010/TYPE 11 MOOS HOME OCCUPATION (IN HOME SALON) PAGE 10 OF 10 I y 0 °Y7'L.ETOE DR SW HILLSHIRE DR I-IIC;H TnR n$ l i a I 1 r 1 J 1 1 ;o-imunity Development J I I I, ALPINE VIEVI JT~IpL~,1p~E OEOO RAPNIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP HOP2002-00010 MOOS SALON 0 200 400 600 Feet 1"- 402 feet x H z City of Tigard co HOODVISTA LN Information on this map is for general location only and J I should be verified with the Development Services Division. I 13125 SW Hell Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 httpYMww.cl.tlgerd,or.us Plot date: Feb 14, 2002; C:Unagic\MAGIC03.APR TVFOR. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 0 • TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE a SOUTH DIVISION COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • FIRE PREVENTION Exhibit "B" March 6, 2002 Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Salon Home Occupation Dear Morgan, As per our conversation, conducting a salon business in a home does not create a fire hazard that is more significant than a typical home use. Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions. Sincerely, Eric T. McMullen Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal 7401 SW Washo Court, Suite 101 • Tualatin, Oregon 97062 • Tel. (503) 612-7000 • Fax (503) 612-7003 • www.tvfr.com EXHIBIT C NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS (HOP2002-0001 O/MOOS SALON) February 18, 2002 Planning Division Attention: Morgan Tracy 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 97223 RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 21 2002 CITY OF TIGARD RE: Home Occupation Permit (HOP) 2002-00010 Ms. Tracy: My only concern to the above mentioned permit is that there are no Moos Salon signs displayed anywhere regardless if stationary or temporary. This includes in the house, front or backyard, and street. Also, no one should be allowed to wave signs to traffic advertising the salon. If signs are allowed, then I object to the city of Tigard approving this permit. Sincerely, kk~ V Carol Loop 137k SW Hillshire Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 _ _ _ i._ If Morgan Tracy- Moos--.-Sal-- _on application- ~chview Terrace _ From: <Minkieaube@aol.com> To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/27/02 9:34AM Subject: Moos Salon application- Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy, Page 1 Y L./ RECEIVED My wife and I, as homeowners on Benchview Terrace, Tigard, are writing in opposition to the application for a variance in land use ordinances relating to the above-referenced property on the following bases: - Referring to the "use table" found in section 18.510.030 A and B, we understand that there is no definition of a "salon" business. As we understand what activities a salon business commonly engages in, there is no support for classifying the applicant's business as anything but a commerial, personal service business, which under the use table is clearly prohibited. - This business requires a steady flow of customers into a residential neghborhood rather than the typical home business where the proprietor travels to the customer outside the neighborhood. - We also question the apparent decision to forego a required impact study. As we are sure you have realized by now from the comments of others, there is serious concern among the neighbors and parents with the applicant's business traffic interfering with the safety of school children waiting for, boarding and disembarking school buses. As parents of a small child, this is of particular concern for us. There are also other concerns which have a legal basis for objection, but I have not had the opportunity as of yet to fully research these given the short response date. These areas include plans, permits, and/or support for commercial waste disposal associated with the activities, neighborhood security issues regarding identifying legitimate versus suspicious traffic, the record of commitment exhibited by the City of Tigard to follow up on abuses in land use variances, and the potential devaluation of neighboring residential property because of this unusual activity. I am an attorney and I do intend to further research these legal issues, but wanted to get our concerns as property owners on your record ASAP. Respectfully, Gregory and Karen Aube 13843 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard (503-521-8192) FEB 2 7 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING CC: <dputzier@providence.org>, <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dpnews@earthlink.net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com>, <RWhite1589@aol.com> • Page 1 of 1 February 17, 2002 Morgan Tracy, You may not know but SW Benchview Terrace has better than 3000 one way auto trips per day. Tigard's connectivity theory really works. It is our belief that businesses that attract people and cars should be confined to areas other than neighborhoods. We don't have traffic lights, crosswalks or handicapped parking. We do have a nice neighborhood and it should stay that way. The permit says that they can handle up to six clients per day. It is our opinion that the six could turn into twelve. There will be vendors, suppliers and sales reps. that will also want to visit this home business. If I were you, I would visit the site. Notice the slight incline of the hill and how it blocks your sight as you back out of the driveway onto Benchview. The lastest traffic survey stated that the average speed of the cars traveling on Benchview was 35 mph and some travel faster. With more cars than necessary backing out of that driveway, you could be asking for trouble. As a final thought looking in the newpaper this last Sunday, there seems to be lots of commercial space available for lease or rent. Regards, Mike & Suzanne Benner file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00008.HTM " 2/19/02 • RECEIVED FEB 2 2 1002 CITY TIGARD PLANNINGOFNTGIINEERING 0(F) V/ Feb. 23, 2002 13 768 SW Benchview Ter Tigard, Ore. To the City of Tigard Community Development Program As a nearby neighbor of the proposed business application for 13783 SW Benchview Ter., we would like to offer our strong objections to this plan. This is a residential neighborhood and a business of this type would be completely unacceptable. Benchview is already a busy street. The home in question has limited parking.. The proposed customers would have to park on the street making the traffic problems even worse. Although we are aware we have other homes with businesses on Benchview, these are businesses that go to their customers. A salon is a business that has their customers come to them. A salon is a business that is successful by increasing their customers, services, and staff. This is a very nice upscale neighborhood. Let's keep it that way. -7 Sincerely, 0 RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 2 8 2002 CIVC7 T BARD Feb. 25, 2002 13768 SW Benchview Terrace To Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard, Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. We live at 13768 SW Benchview Ter., across the street from 13783 SW Benchview Terrace, the site of the proposed salon business. Although we have already written a letter last week to the planning commission, we would like to add a few adddional comments following a neighborhood meeting recently held on the proposed business permit. In our last letter we didn't address the safety issues concerning the traffic on SW Benchview. This street is indeed a very busy street. A business of this type on Benchview would increase the amount of traffic on a already busy street. Deliveries, cutomers, operators would need to park on the street. Many times their attention would be directed trying to find the adddress, causing a traffic hesitation. We who live one this street find many of the cars drive at least thirty to forty miles per hour, regardless what signs are posted. This is a main cut through to I-5 and SW Pacific Hwy. This traffic always increases when sfiidents are n»t of cchnnl or nn vacation Many times the cars shift gears to race down the hill. A danger but difficult for police to patrol Driving out of our driveway is often a problem. The traffic comes over the brink of a hill from the four way stop. When pulling out from the driveway, there is no way of knowing if there is a car coming down the hill. Adding cars parked along the street would make an additional hazard . V And one of our biggest concerns is the danger to the school children in the area-There are several school bus routes on Benchview. One of the stops is just outside our house on Benchview and Brim. The driver is very cautious when picking up or dropping off the children. He always uses his red lights and stop signs. Some of the children have to cross the street in front of the bus. Between the heavy traffic, speed, and sunlight blocking the view, cars parked along the street would cause a big problem. As we have said before the house in question has limited parking and will have to have cars and deliveries parking on the . street. A successftil business of this type depends on increasing it's number of customers, staff and services. We sincerely request you DENY the Land Use Application,Home Occupation Permit (HOP 2002-00010) at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace. Sincerely, G. Russell and Helen Case • • Page 1 of 1 Dear Morgan, (6) Attached is a letter stating our opposition to the pending home occupation permit for the Moos Salon HOP 2002-00010. I will also be hand delivering a hard copy of this letter to your office prior to Thursday. I do not understand how a commercial business consisting of personal services and retail sales can be granted a license to operate under a Type II application when such business is clearly not permitted in the R-7 zoning district pursuant to the city development code. I would also like to know if an impact study for this application is available at your office for public inspection. Regards, Nancy Everton 13737 SW Benchview Terrace email: ns.everton@gte.net file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00010.HTM RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING 2/26/02 February 24, 2002 Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard- Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy, Reference: HOP 2002-00010 Moos Salon RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING This letter is in response to the "Notice of Pending Land Use Application" which we received concerning the application for a home occupation permit (file number 2002- 00010). We hereby express strong opposition to an approval of such permit based on the following criteria and concerns. First and foremost, an in-home salon, which is a personal service and retail business, is STRICTLY PROHIBITED in the R-7 zoning district under 18.510.1 of the municipal community development code. Clearly, allowing such a business to operate within our neighborhood is not consistent with protecting the livability of the existing residential neighborhood. Apart from the zoning restrictions, which should serve to protect the existing neighborhood, we voice the following concerns regarding this. application: 1) We, personally, have small children who get on and off the school bus on Benchview Terrace. As it now stands, there are at least 3 different bus routes that go down this busy street, loading and unloading children, many of whom must cross Benchview. Due to the incline of Benchview Terrace, it is very difficult to see cars traveling along this street and, likewise, it is very difficult for drivers to see kids crossing the street. Based on a previous study of Benchview Terrace, we already have more than 3,000 vehicles each day traveling this street at an average speed of 35 mph (the limit is 25 mph). Please do not add to the endangerment of our neighborhood families by adding retail/ commercial traffic. 2) Fire danger from chemicals, other flammable waste materials (e.g. Hair sprays, hair peroxides and dyes, etc.) and prolonged use of electric appliances (dryers, curling irons etc.) is also a grave concern to us. Just behind the applicants home is a forest greenway. This greenway runs behind several homes along Benchview Terrace, including ours. It is inevitable that some chemicals will be used in a salon. Furthermore, in the few short months that these residents have occupied this home (less than 6 months), it is our understanding that fire crews have been called to this home on at least 2 occasions already. This is very frightening since our homes are very close together and very close to the trees; this poses a dangerous risk to several residents in the surrounding homes. 3) Noise, odors and excessive parked cars are another concern to us. Obviously, the customers who visit the salon will park their vehicles along Benchview Terrace. Once again, the traffic on this street has already reached dangerous levels for any children playing outdoors. Furthermore, encouraging multiple strangers to drive through the neighborhood compromises the safety of our homes and our children. It will be impossible for the residents to monitor stranger activity once a commercial business has opened. Accordingly, this business will substantially impair the livability of homes nearby. Finally, aside from our concerns and the zoning guidelines, Chapter 18.742.010 describes the purpose of home occupation permits as that, which is to allow "small-scale business ventures which could NOT be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". The salon business is not unique and there are many in the area that operate successfully within a commercially zoned area. Furthermore, many local salons offer the service provider (stylist) the ability to rent or share space within an existing salon setting. I submit that this individual could easily find an affordable setting for this venture that is not within a residential zone. Furthermore, 18.742.010 A2 states that the home occupation must be conducted in a manner that is NOT DETRIMENTAL OR DISRUPTIVE IN TERMS OF APPEARANCE OR OPERATION TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND RESIDENTS! Based on the issues noted above, this business would be detrimental, disruptive and DANGEROUS to nearby residents and children. Please give careful considerations to our concerns. We strongly oppose the issuance of this HOP and truly believe that such a business operation would not only violate the applicable zoning laws, but would also endanger our children and our property. Very truly yours, ?a~ ffP44_4 Steve and Nancy Everton 13737 SW Benchview Terrace wwo Tigard, OR 97223 1 i 13641 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 February 16, 2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit 2002-0010 "Moos Salon" . 13783 SW Benchview Terrace, Tigard, Oregon Dear Sir: RECEIVED FFR 2 0 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING We are in receipt of your February 14, 2002 letter soliciting neighborhood comments on the above referenced permit for a home based business. We have resided at 13641 SW Benchview Terrace for the past 7 years. While we do not oppose the owner of the above referenced property engaging in a home based business, we are both very concerned about any exterior signage that would identify the above referenced address as anything more than a residence. The Hillshire area is a residential neighborhood, not a commercial district. Should the applicant desire any exterior, yard or window signage to advertise or direct clients to their location, they should locate their business elsewhere. We are assuming that since the applicant is filing for a business permit for a single family residence that they do intend to identify their business location with exterior signage. We would ask that the Planning Division consider the residential character of the neighborhood in reviewing this application. As property owners, we are concerned about any decrease in property values that could result from the City of Tigard authorizing a retail commercial operation in our neighborhood. In granting a zoning variance, we expect the City of Tigard to see no other surrounding property value is negatively impacted as a result of the City's decision to grant this permit. As explained in the City's letter, R-7 zoning is designed for residential, civic and institutional uses exclusively. We request that any permit issued by the City as a variance to R-7 zoning take into account any negative impact on property values and include restrictions barring the applicant against any permanent or temporary exterior, yard or window signage for their business. Sincerely, S641 /4 Scott and Cecelia Granger Page 1 of 1 Dear Mr. Tracy: I had previously written you a letter regarding this application. Since that time a vast amount of additional information has become available about this proposed business. I am writing to urge you and the Planning Division to DISAPPROVE this application. Serious questions about the effects of this commercial retail business on neighborhood traffic, parking, type of business, effects on surrounding property values, and legal access to the business portion of the residence under Oregon State law. I am extremely concerned that your department is reportedly bypassing the normal traffic impact studies that would generally accompany this type of application. I am also concerned that approval of this application by the City of Tigard as an exception to the zoning under which all of us purchased our properties would open the City of Tigard to civil liability under Oregon land use laws in case a reduction in property values could be attributed to this commercial retail business. Please see that all these concerns are researched and addressed if you decide not to decline this application outright. The Hillshire and Benchview Terrace area is a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. My wife and I purchased our home with the intent that we would be living in a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I will be unable to attend the hearing on this matter due to occupational commitments that will keep me out of town on the hearing date. Please see that this letter is provided to the hearing board. Please reply to this email to verify receipt. Thank you. Scott C. Granger 13641 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00008.HTM 2/26/02 Morgan Tray- Disapprove- Home Occu n Permit 2002-00010: Moos Salon r4J ViV~~ (iR> From: "Granger, Cecelia" <cecelia.granger@intel.com> To: "'morgan@ci.tigard.or.us"' <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 1:14PM Subject: Disapprove Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010: Moos Salon 28 February 2002 Scott and Cecelia Granger 13641 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223-5670 Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010 Moos Salon - 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy: My husband and I have lived on S.W. Benchview Terrace for over 6.5 years. We have previously written to you to express our opposition and objection to the proposed granting of a permit for an in-home "salon" at the above address. It is my understanding that you have received other correspondence from similarly concerned Tigard citizens, likewise expressing their objections to the proposed granting of a permit for the occupants of 13783 S.W. Benchview to operate a "salon" in their residence. I am not going to reiterate all the excellent points made in missives previously sent to you by other Tigard citizens, but I will reiterate our vigorous opposition to the granting of a permit to operate a commercial retail business within the confines of a residential neighborhood. It has been conveyed to us that you have expressed a concern that, should the application to run this "salon" be declined by the City of Tigard, the applicant will take legal action. Considering the other objections that have been raised, citing residential zoning concerns, fire safety, environmental impact, traffic impact, safety of neighborhood children, etc., I would think the City would be more concerned about potential legal actions arising from claims that the City was negligent in its failure to fully consider the various risks and concerns raised by its citizens in regards to this application. Please do not allow the threat or presumption of legal action on the part of the applicant, to override the many well-reasoned objections raised by property-owners in this RESIDENTIALLY-ZONED AREA. Concern for the safety of the residents, and for the safety of their properties, and the preservation of value of those properties, should be paramount in your decision-making process. Perhaps other in-home businesses have been allowed in Tigard, but the Benchview/Hillshire Estates area is a unique one, and decisions to grant these types of permits should be made with full consideration of the unique issues in each case. It is not clear to us how the unique issues can be fully comprehended, and a fully informed decision made, without the required impact study, which we understand you have arbitrarily decided not to conduct, at least to this point. Additionally, as others have stated, the applicant does not demonstrate a financial hardship in the ability to lease commercial property for her enterprise, nor Page 1 _I Morgan Tri?cy -Disapprove Home,Occu~ n Permit 2002-00010: Moos Salon Pag is there any shortage of available and very affordable commercial property in the surrounding area. It is our earnest hope that you will take into consideration the data and inputs you have received from us and other citizens of our fair city, and DECLINE the above-referenced application for a permit to operate an in-home "salon". Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Cecelia Granger for Scott and Cecelia Granger 13641 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223-5670 (503) 579-3463 CC: "Granger, Cecelia" <cecelia.granger9intel.com> 13621 SW J • Joseph B Harrison Jr • White Cedar Place, Tigard, Oregon 972231 Tel: (5031579-6205 email: iosephha0easvstreet.com RECEIVED PLANNING February 25, 2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard - Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Notice of Pending Land Use Application (Feb. Home Occupation Permit (HOP) 2002-00010 Moos Salon @ 13783 SW Benchview Terrace; Dear Mr. Tracy; 14, 2002) FEB 2 77 2002 CITY I.-ARD WCTM 2S 104CD, Tax Lot 4300 I wish to express objection regarding this Type II Home Occupation permit application. I have reviewed the Community Development Code chapters your notice refers us to, as well as the Oregon State Regulation for Cosmetology. I find several areas for concern: 1. Traffic safety - increased vehicle traffic and/or parking. Re: 18.742.010.A.2 18.742.040.A.8 SW Benchview Terrace is a heavily used residential street. Recent traffic surveys estimate usage at over 3000 vehiclestday with an average speed of 35mph. The posted speed limit is 25mph. The section of the street in question has a steep, curving incline making it difficult for drivers backing out of their driveways or being seen by those passing by. Further, increased parking on the street by clients, delivery trucks, sales representatives, etc., will further impede visibility and therefore safety. This residence is between two established school bus stops, roughly 100 feet from each. 2. Fire Hazard and storage of flammable liquids & supplies. Re: 18.742.040.A.7 The potential for fire greatly concerns me. The commercial business indicated in the application involves chemical and other supplies, which can be highly flammable. This residence is in a row of single-family dwellings which backup to a steep, wooded ravine. There is a similar row of homes on the other side of this ravine (SW Hillshire Dr.). Wall-to-wall easements between these homes average 10 feet, making access by firefighting and emergency personnel very difficult and dangerous. Should a fire occur and spread to this ravine we could have great lose 9 • Joseph B Harrison, Jr 13621 SW White Cedar Place, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Tel: (503157"205 email: ioseohha(deasvstreet.com of life and property. There already have been 3 fire department responses to this residence since November, 2001. Disposal of hazardous waste material resulting from normal operations of this business is another area of concern. I have experience in manufacturing management where I was specifically responsible for the safe and proper storage and disposal of hazardous waste, adhering to OSHA regulations. I do not see sufficient space or facilities for their proper handling at this property. I would certainly expect your impact study to specifically address this issue thoroughly. 3. Residential zoning - prohibited use. Re: 18.510.030.A & B Table 18.510.1 - Use Table Inspecting the use table referenced I find that the code very clearly prohibits commercial and industrial use in an R•7 zoned area. I believe salon would ordinarily be considered a commercial, personal service business. It therefore, by definition, is not permitted and as such this application should be denied straight away. Please help me understand how this salon could be defined otherwise. In the interest of our neighborhood, I therefore respectfully urge you to deny approval and issuance of this permit. Resp ct , Josep Lesle Harrison , r cc: Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager Paul H. Richards, Chairman, Oregon State Board of Cosmetology 412 RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2002 Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard Oregon 97223 Attention: Morgan Tracy Dear Morgan, CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING February 20, 2002 I am strongly opposed to the pending land use application for a home occupation permit 2002-00010 under file name Moos Salon. There are several concerns that come to mind. 1. How will the extra parking be controlled? And by whom? 2. How will you monitor the use of the restricted operation to ensure it stays in compliance with the application? 3. How will an already congested neighborhood accommodate more traffic flow? 4. How will the disposal of toxic solutions frequently associated with a salon be handled? 5. Does this really fall within the designated R-7 zoning guidelines and the CC&R's associated with our neighborhood? I hope that you will make the best choice for our neighborhood and decline the request for this home occupation permit. Best regards, (::2 5". Richard Inukai Morgan Tracy Moos Salon at 13783 SN' nchview Terrace From: Dale E McNeil <dalemcneil@juno.com> To: <Morgan@CI.Tigard.OR.US> Date: 2/26/02 9:31 PM Subject: Moos Salon at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace We live in the Hillshire/Benchview neighborhood. We oppose the issuing of a license to do business in a home (HOP 2002-00010) Moos Salon at 13783 SW Benchview Terrace, Tigard, OR 97223. We believe this business to be inappropriate for our neighborhood violating the R-7 zoning code. We respectfully request the license for the salon be denied. Dale and Dona McNeil, 13957 SW Mistletoe Dr., Tigard, OR 97223 telephone (503) 579-1721 l3 Page .1. V RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING • V February 26, 2002 Dennis & Elizabeth Peddicord 13696 SW White Cedar Pl. Tigard, OR 97223 503-579-1999 Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-579-1999 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNINGIENGINEERING Re: Notice of Pending Land Use Application (Feb. 14, 2002) Home Occupation Permit (HOP) 2002-00010 Moos Salon @ 13783 SW Benchview Ter., Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy: We wish to object to the application for a Type H Home Occupation Permit for Moos Salon. We live directly across the street from this home, and have several concerns about this business operating in the home of the Moos family. Although our home faces White Cedar Place, we are on the comer with more of our property footage along Benchview Terrace than faces White Cedar. Most of our rooms are oriented towards the back of the house to take advantage of the view; and also situates our kitchen window, bedroom, and our patio and deck looking directly out at the Moos residence. One of our main concerns is the traffic problem on Benchview Terrace. We have a very heavy traffic situation on this street, with many of the residents of other neighborhoods on Bull Mountain using this street as a way to access the Walnut and Scholls Ferry Rd. areas. Many drivers exceed the 25mph speed limit, at all times of the day and night. We have several school buses which stop on our street to pick up and let off children. Two such stops are in close proximity to the Moos residence. One is at Brim & Benchview, and the other at White Cedar and Benchview. More traffic trying to access this location could present a danger to the children who use these buses. The Moos residence is near the crest of the hill and because the hill is quite steep, drivers coming up the hill cannot see the area near their driveway, also partly because of the way their front porch wall juts out all the way to the sidewalk. Parking on the street and backing out of the driveways has always been difficult for all residences on Benchview, but is particularly a hazard at this location. We have viewed from our windows, several traffic incidents in which people had (near miss) problems over the years. Another factor hampering the traffic on this street is that, in the spring and summer, the afternoon sun blinds drivers who are coming up the hill. We have experienced this problem ourselves, and it is extremely difficult to see the road at all at this point of the hill. Additional parkers at this area would be a hazard, whether using the street or the driveway. 0 • Page 2/Peddicord letter/Moos Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010 We bought this home in this neighborhood because of the great view and the fine homes in this area. We object to any type of signage that advertises a business on the premises. We definitely feel that it cheapens the fine residential character of the neighborhood, and would not enjoy looking out our windows to see a business sign in our neighbors yard, ruining our view, no matter what the size of the sign. We also would despise having a view from our kitchen window of all the comings and goings of Mrs. Moos' customers, salespeople, and deliveries, with all the inherent traffic problems they most certainly will create. The other concern with this, is that she will be operating her business on Saturday, which is a day that we like to entertain on our deck and patio. Again, the view of this business operation in progress, does not give us the type of atmosphere in which to enjoy the outdoor spaces of our home.. If she has the right to have an employee in this home business, we can surmise that six customers a day may very well turn into twelve customers per day or more. It seems that with other situations like this; once a permit has been issued there is no one to monitor this and very little done if those limits are exceeded. The access and egress to the proposed business would most likely be down a steep stairway on the side of the house. This stairway does not have a handrail and seems unsafe for a business entrance access. Mrs. Moos, herself, has said that entrance would be through her front door, and this also seems inappropriate for a business such as a salon, which, I would think, should have a separate entrance for its customers. We would like to know why a business such as this, which is obviously rendering personal services is being considered in a .R-7 zone. It is our understanding that a business offering personal services would fall under a general retail zone and not fit into a residential zone. Other concerns that we have are fire danger--this house backs onto a steep ravine and could be a difficult problem for firefighters to gain access to address a fire situation in the back of the home. This greenway area in the back of the house could also be a potential brush fire problem in the summer as the brush and grasses there become very dry. We also wonder about the safe storage and disposal of all the flammable chemicals that are used in this type of business. We have personally observed firetrucks dispatched to this house on three different occasions in the last few months. We request that an impact study be done as is usually required. We also would like a specific definition of the business known as a "Salon"--all inclusive of the specific services that would be offered at this business and those that would not be provided. In nlneina we rPnnPet that unn nnneidpr nnr thnnahte nn the ripantiva P41Fwrte that thie hrneinaee a......,.,...b, ......,.1...,.,....... J__ v., .aavww- - .aaTr .-b.. - va .aaa.. v-0 arw ...woo would bring to our neighborhood, and we insist that you apply the correct zoning application for a personal services type business, as we feel this does not comply with R-7 zoning. It seems to us that this business would fit better into a commercial setting. There is a lot of commercial . space available for reasonable rates at this time. Respec fully, n Dennis & Elizabeth Peddicord c: Board of Cosmetology Tigard City Council Members Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Mor an Trac Moos salon HOP 2002-0~ From: <rputzier@msn.com> To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 7:13AM Subject: Moos salon HOP 2002-00010 Dear Mr. Tracy, Page 1 J I continue to be troubled by a comment you made during our meeting, and while I believe it is addressed in the letter we sent in opposition to the approval of the permit, I want to make my case more explicit. You commented that denying her a permit would violate her right to have a home occupation business. I would like to make clear that she does not have a "right" to have a home occupation business, it is a privilege. As the rest of the homeowners in this neighborhood, Ms. Moos has a right to use her property in accordance with the rules and regulations of a residence. Should she choose to use her property for another use, such as a business enterprise, she must get permission (thus, the word permit) from the city to do so. It is my understanding. that when exercise of her privilege violates my right as a property owner, my right prevails. In this case, my inherent right to use my property in accordance with R-7 residential zoning regulations is clearly violated by the business use she proposes. Thus, she should not be granted permission for a variance if this would be to my detriment. Thank you again for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Dee-J Putzier 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 CC: "Bert & Susy Waugh" <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, "Cathy & Mike Satterlee" <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, "Dennis & Liz Peddicord" <dpnews@earthlink.net>, "Jo Harris" <josephha@earthlink.com>, "Karen & Greg Aube" <Minkieaube@aol.com>, "Mary Howell" <mary.howell@med.va.gov>, "Mike & Klaudia Rosa" <mkrosa@juno.com>, "Ralph VanHorn" <BEARREV@aol.com>, "Rick & Candi White" <RWhite1589@aol.com> February 27, 2002 Rick and Dee-J Putzier 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Home Occupation Permit 2002-00010 Moos Salon -13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy, RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2001 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING This letter is in opposition to the above referenced application for an in home beauty salon. As specified in the notice, these comments will address the relevant criteria used to make a decision, as well as issues/concerns believed to be important to the decision-making process. At the outset, I believe this application should be declared null and void because it did not meet all of the requirements specified in 18.390.04062e. This section clearly states that the application shall include an impact study. When we requested a copy of the impact study, we were told that one had not been required. It is my understanding of legal terminology that the word shall has the full force and effect of "must", and is inconsistent with the concept of discretion. We fail to understand why the process went forward without this requirement. It is also of concern to us that you do not seem to be too concerned about this obvious deficiency. Second, it is my understanding that zoning ordinances were established with the specific intent of imposing restrictions upon the use of land within certain boundaries. One of the major purposes was to separate residential and commercial enterprises in an effort to promote the health and security of residents, prevent disorder, facilitate the enforcement of fire, traffic and other regulations, protect residents from industrial creep, and preserve a more favorable environment in which to raise children. Departures from zoning regulations are granted as a measure to avoid overly harsh results of a particular zoning regulation. The residential zoning status of this neighborhood was not imposed on the applicant. In fact, she is a relative newcomer to the area, having moved into the house on October 31, 2001. Thus, the usual rationale for granting a variance does not seem to be relevant to this situation. 18.742.010 states that a variance is made to "permit residents an opportunity to use their homes to engage in small-scale business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". In this particular case, the applicant has been a licensed hairdresser since 1991, with-an established clientele. She has sustained the business venture in commercial quarters, and told us that the reason she is requesting a permit is because her clients have asked her to come back into the business. Clearly, this is not the situation for which the home occupation permit was intended. She is not a start-up business, but seeks to use this permit to have a commercial enterprise in her "spacious" home. She has also indicated on her application that she will have six (6) clients per day Tuesday through Saturday. Given that each client will consume at least an hour's worth of time, this does not seem to be a part-time or small-scale business venture for her. She intends to run a full-time business out of her home. The second section of the purpose statement indicates that the business is to be conducted in a manner that is not detrimental or disruptive to neighboring properties and residents. As the neighbor whose property butts up against the stairway clients will use to access the business, there is no question that this will be detrimental and disruptive to the use of our property. There are only ten (10) feet between the walls of our respective houses on the side of the property, which gives clients access to the separate entrance that is required by the Board of Cosmetology for businesses of this nature. The stairs are only five (5) feet from our decks and inches away from our back yard. To have strangers traipsing up and down those steps on an hourly basis five days a week, one of which is a weekend day, is extremely distressing. Because of the proximity of the houses to the lot line, which the city of Tigard allows, there is no way to buffer this intrusion. The separate entrance requirement coupled with the lack of any access other than adjacent to our back yard and decks create a conflict with the intent of the R-7 zoning standards. At six (6) clients a day, there will be 120 uninvited, unwanted "guests" per month in our back yard. It means that we no longer have the privacy and serenity that we thought we had when we purchased the property, and makes us an ipso facto home occupation business as well. Clearly, if this permit is issued, we are unable to use our property in the manner in which it was intended to be used - as a residential property. If this does not meet the requirement of detrimental or disruptive, I do not know what does. 18.742.040A.3. states that there shall be no offensive noise, vibration, dust, or odors...at or beyond the property line resulting from the operation. Unless you can guarantee us that the clients will be making no noise or throwing up dust as they descend the stairs and creating no vibrations as they hit the wood deck, then this is a clear violation of this portion of the code. The expectation is that normal residential use would be limited to the members of the household; she clearly expects to have up to six clients per day based on her application. This translates into a minimum of 12 (down and back up) additional trips, more if you count the number of people who usually accompany the individual client to a beauty salon appointment. If you have ever been in a salon or close to one when a permanent is being given, you know the extremely obnoxious odor that is inherent in that activity. All of these sounds and odors waft into the greenway and are easily carried beyond the property line. To think that this will not adversely impact our property is ludicrous. Who gets to decide if it is offensive? Usually, the person wanting the permit has the burden of proving it won't be offensive. We should not have to defend our right to not have commercial activity in our residential zone. 2 In the winter months, which in Oregon are many, the stairs used to gain access to the business will need to be well lighted. This will, again, have a direct impact on our property and our ability to use our property. Those lights will beam directly onto our decks and into our family room. Anything short of that kind of lighting will be a safety hazard for people negotiating the stairs. 18.742.040A.4. states that the entire square footage of the business shall not encompass more than 528 square feet. We happen to know that the square footage of the floor on which she is seeking to carve out her business is in excess of 2000 square feet. We are also aware, and have given you the relevant codes, that the Board of Cosmetology requires that the business space be separated from the residential space by floor to ceiling walls. Yet, when we questioned you about this, you indicated that you had not done, nor had you planned to do an inspection of the property to see if she meets this requirement. It seems to us that this is not only a prudent thing to do, but would be imperative to see if this requirement was met. We would certainly expect to find that type of information in any discussion of the evidence upon which the decision was made. Again, does she not have the burden of proving that she is not using more than 528 of the 2000+ square feet on that floor? We were able to point out to you that she has indicated the sauna as part of the 528 square feet, yet the only way to get into the sauna is through the exercise room, which she has not indicated as part of the square footage. The code clearly indicates that this area should also be counted as part of that total. We request that a site visit be made so that a careful measurement of all areas can be conducted. 18.742.040A.7. states that there shall be no more on or off street parking than that normally required for a residence. It is our understanding that the usual number of parking spots for residential purposes is two. If there is any overlap of clients at all, which there is more likelihood than not, she will exceed this number. The two clients constitute her limit, with her nanny taking up the third space. At the current time, her full-time nanny parks in front of our house, taking up one of the two spaces allotted to us. Even without the added congestion of clients, most of their guests and visitors park in front of our house because it is easier to traverse the distance from our property to their entrance than to negotiate the steep hill in front of their house to their entrance. This can only be expected to increase when six clients per day are added to the mix. As for the other relevant issues and concerns, we would like to start with basic safety. There is absolutely no legal way for us to protect our side and back yards from any type of trespassing or vandalism on the part of Ms. Moos' clients. Because of the slope of the hill, the side and back yards cannot be seen from the street. Thus, the usual police patrols are virtually useless for detecting any activity in these areas. In addition, the "salon" will be positioned on the opposite side of the house from the side her clients will be using to gain access. Thus, she is unable to have any kind of deterrent effect on her clients, or visualize any activity that would occur in our yard. The second safety issue is one regarding school bus stops. In the course of one block, there are two school bus stops on Benchview that are directly opposite the applicant's house. The children boarding these buses must cross the street to do so. Given the incline 3 9 0 of the street, it is very difficult to see the bus, let alone the children until one is almost on top of them. Add to that the sun which blinds most of us during the summer months, and you have a recipe for disaster. In the 2000 traffic study that was conducted on Benchview Terrace, the average speed of drivers up and down the hill was 37mph. This is a 25mph zone. You only add to the risk of danger when you create a commercial enterprise directly opposite these stops. There are no crosswalks, no identified intersections near the stops, and only one stop sign a block away that drivers frequently do not obey. Third, we are very concerned about fire safety in our greenway. Those of us who live here have chosen the greenway for its many benefits. We are also acutely aware of the potential risks involved with a stray match or cigarette butt. Because we have a vested interest, we are all very careful about what activities take place close to the greenway. We do not expect, nor have businesses in commercial areas seen, the same kind of care from clients. It would not take too much, given that she will have hazardous waste and chemicals on the premises, to ignite the woods and natural debris of the greenway. Should this happen, it will be the fire department's worst nightmare. Given the proximity of the houses to each other and the slope of the hill, access to the area by fire fighting equipment and rescue personnel is very restricted. If this were zoned commercial, which it is not, there would be many more restrictions placed on the business than will be imposed by this permit. We are already aware that they have had three fire department responses to their residence since December. Why would we even think of adding flammable chemicals, more traffic, and clients who smoke to this mix? The only access to the separate entrance to the business (which is required by the Board of Cosmetology) is down a set of concrete stairs that have no handrail, are not lighted, are not covered, are slippery when wet, and butt up against the adjoining property line. We have been informed by you that the applicant does not need to meet the same requirements for life safety issues that a commercial business would be required to meet. The likelihood of someone slipping, falling, and sustaining a serious injury is quite high. The potential liability this creates'for us is something we do not intend to assume. We have, in good faith, protected ourselves from the usual residential situations. We do not willfully assume responsibility or liability for a commercial enterprise that the city has forced upon us by issuing a permit for a business that has no other option for access. Lastly, we find it extremely distressing that we are placed in the position of defending our current residential zoning status, while the applicant has merely filled out an application (incomplete at that!) and paid a fee in order to obtain a variance. By your own admission, there has been tremendous opposition to this application and the approval of a permit, yet you indicated that 90% of these applications go through anyway. 18.390.040C.2. states that the goal of the notice to relevant parties is to invite them to participate early in the decision-making process. By definition, the word participate means to share in, or enjoy in common, yet we do not get any sense that we are being allowed "to share" in anything. In fact, it seems quite the opposite. All of the letters that we have seen in opposition to this application have quite eloquently spoken to the relevant criteria. If we were truly participating in the decision-making process, these would count for something. However, today, you indicated that the objections put forth are not enough. When queried about 4 0 0 what evidence would be considered enough for denying the application, you could not supply an answer. Once again, the applicant has had to supply nothing in support of her request for a variance to the existing zoning, while the avalanche of opposition to the variance and defense of the current zoning seems to hold no sway. In every sense of the words, this does not seem to be fair or just. We were under the impression that the city had a duty to protect the property interests of the majority of its residents, not cater to a select few. We continue to wonder, in the absence of any clarifying statements to our earlier queries, what conditions rise to the level of meeting the standard for denying a permit. We have a sense that as opposition mounts, the bar continues to be raised. If the act of obtaining a variance from the existing zoning is a mere formality, then the entire application process and solicitation of comments is a mockery. It also means that there is no residential/commercial distinction, but, in fact, every piece of property in Tigard is inherently both. This will be news to residents who believe that property is inherently residential, and that variance means a license to engage in an act contrary to the usual rule. We should not be put in a position to defend our usual and customary use. Today, you alluded to the fact that you were concerned about possible legal action on the part of the applicant should you not grant the permit. It is frightening to think that our city can be so easily intimidated by one individual. It is our sincere hope that the city would not be held hostage by such possibilities and judge each application on its merits. We recognize your concern about previous decisions to approve this type of business in a residential area. We are also painfully aware that each neighborhood and potential business dwelling have their own set of characteristics that make it more or less likely that a permit would be granted. If that were not so, then why go through the sham of gathering evidence and pretend that there is a decision point. In this case, the house design and state regulations for this type of business make it impossible for clients to access the business without intruding on our privacy. The street incline, property incline, and greenway have inherent potential for serious life safety issues. We have lived in many other houses where this is not the case. We expect that the city would also be able to make the distinction. We strenuously object to the approval of this application for permit, and request that you seriously consider the merits of all opposition received as evidence that this situation is not similar to other applications you have previously approved. Respectfully, /.a /-1 ' Rick Putzier Dee-J Putzier cc: Mayor James Griffith Councilor Brian J. Moore Councilor Ken Scheckla Councilor Craig Dirksen Councilor Joyce Patton 5 ~,_Morgan Tracy- HOP 200200010 Page 1 `17 r~ From: <RoodALRood@aol.com> ~ To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/28/02 4:11 PM Subject: HOP 2002-00010 Moos Salon Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 28, 2002 Dear Mr. Tracy, Feb. We would like to state our opposition to the granting of the above-cited HOP. We believe it would be detrimental & disruptive to neighboring properties under Community Development Code Chapter 18.742.010. SW Benchview bears a heavy traffic load for a neighborhood in R-7 zoning. Having up to six customers a day at this home would certainly increase this problem. The traffic on Benchview often ignores the 25 mph speed limit, does not properly obey the stop signs and is oblivious to neighbors pulling out of driveways, children crossing the street & buses picking up & dropping off children. The steepness of the hill also makes this street more prone to problems. We saw this on SW Hillshire last Summer when a truck driver was killed by his runaway trailer. More cars parking on the street would also make visibility an issue. We believe an impact study should be part of this application. Other issues which concern us about this application are the use of square footage beyond the 528 square feet provided for in 18.742.020, the fire safety to the neighborhood given that chemicals would be sold and stored there, the calls the fire department has already made to. the home and the safety of the children in the home. We urge you to reject this application. Sincerely, Andy L.'Rood Terry M. Rood, Esq. 13779 SW Hillshire Dr. Tigard Or 97223 ~I February 24, 2002 Michael & Claudia Rosa 13707 SW White Cedar Place Tigard Oregon 97224 Morgan Tracy Planning Division City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard Oregon 97223 Re: Home Occupation Permit (HOP) # 2002-00010 Dear Mr. Tracy, V RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING We are highly opposed to the approval and issuance of the Home Occupation permit listed above. We are very concerned about the negative impact that this issuance will have on the quality of life that many of us have made in the Bull Mountain area. We have chosen this area as our home to raise our families away from the everyday activity of the retail, and faced paced life of downtown City living. The exclusive and private feeling that we have come to know has attracted such high profile people as former Portland Trail Blazers Brian Grant and Jermaine O'Neill. They chose our neighborhood, just as we did, for it's quiet and private appeal. Many of us moved to the Bull Mountain area to escape from the hustle and bustle of City life. By issuing the permit, The City of Tigard compromises the serenity of our neighborhood, the security of our families, and many other issues that need to be addressed. We have listed several negative impacts to our neighborhood that are in question. We would like to know how the City of Tigard will insure that the neighborhood will not unnecessarily suffer as a result of this action. Security: How will the City insure that, with the increase of traffic into our subdivision, there will be adequate police patrols and response to handle potential problems? We already show signs of some vandalism because of the lack of Police patrols on Bull Mountain. Many of the properties do not have fences and rely on neighbors to remain vigilant for improper or questionable activity. Not knowing who is parked in a neighborhood only adds to the stresses of family security. I am in the Security and Fire business and have seen the best and the worst that this type of environment can bring to a neighborhood. Fire: I know through experience that a Salon will be storing highly flammable and toxic chemicals. We are concerned that the proposed Salon will be next to a Greenway that runs up the canyon between the homes. • 0 What code inspections, impact studies, or life safety measures have been provided to protect against loss or injury to persons or property or the surrounding neighborhood. How does the City plan to insure the protection of the nearby homes within the neighborhood when the proposed location will be storage accelerants that will feed and spread a fire quickly? What has been done to reduce the amount of false alarms that have already occurred at the site? Who will pay for the increased costs to respond to fire and life safety issues at this site? Our tax dollars are already spread thin to support essential community services without creating additional "at risk" environments to expose the neighborhood to potential loss. Will our property insurance rates increase due to the proximity to this salon operation? (During the past few months the Tigard Fire Department has responded to several calls to this address increasing disruption of the neighborhood) Safety, Traffic and visibility due to steep grade of Benchview Terrace There are school bus stops on Benchview Terrace that are already challenged by vehicles parked on the roadway. There is a school bus stop at almost every corner leading up and down Benchview Terrace. Additional parked vehicles may impair or impede drivers, thus increasing the likelihood of accidents of a pedestrian or a child being struck. How will our children be assured safety if there are additional vehicles parked on the roadway? How are we to know that a parked vehicle with a person inside is normal or abnormal activity? Will it be safe for our children and grandchildren to play outside as they do today with the increase of retail traffic into our neighborhood? The negative impact of sun, glare, reduced visibility, already impair safe ingress and egress for. those who have driveways directly onto Benchview Terrace, added traffic to a retail location will create additional risk. There is minimal lighting and no provision for crosswalks in this residential neighborhood. We have asked the City, on numerous occasions, to do something to reduce the speed up and down Benchview Terrace. We suggested several speed bumps but were told that the hill was too steep for them. (Grade at the site increases from 8% to as high as 13-15% as you travel downhill. Posted speed limit is 25MPH. Most recent speed surveyed by City of Tigard (2000) registered in excess of 37MPH based upon the 85% rate). How will the City regulate speed and traffic and pedestrian safety in our area? Vehicle traffic pollution, noise pollution and litter: With the increase in traffic come noise pollution, vehicle pollution, and litter. Who will be responsible for insuring the noise and pollution levels are not exceeded within our neighborhood? Who will be responsible for the increase in roadway deterioration on Benchview Terrace and surrounding roadways? Who will be responsible to insure that our neighborhood is not overrun with litter and the inherent pollution issues that follow a retail type business? • 0 Signage: We live in a prestigious, exclusive residential neighborhood. I fear that the displaying of a retail sign on the front of the property will negatively impact the resaleability of the properties in our neighborhood. This is not a retail neighborhood, but a residential neighborhood. What are the signage standards for this type of business? Who approves the signage? Unfortunately, we feel that many of these issues will fall onto the neighbors and neighborhood to police. This would also lead to an increase in taxpayer dollars to pick up the tab for many of the public safety, maintenance, enforcement issues that will arise from the issuance of the above listed permit. We are very interested to review the reauired impact studv that should have been completed upon receipt of the permit application. Perhaps answers to my questions listed will be answered. Any new commercial /retail business is required to address fire and life safety issues, pollution and environmental impact issues, traffic and parking issues, etc. before permits and business licenses are issued allowing business activity to commence. Could you also clarify the Residential zoning-prohibited use listed under Residential Zoning Districts R-7 table 18.510.030 A&B. This strictly prohibits the introduction of a commercial business into a residential neighborhood. Who protects our residential neighborhood from the negative impact it may suffer as result of skirting standard business practices and requirements in allowing a potentially harmful retail business operation to commence in a residential area who will protect the neighborhood property owners? What is the value of R-7 zoning if it allows retail business exceptions without accountability destroying the integrity of R-7 residential use? We are highly opposed to the issuance of the Home Occupation Permit (HOP) # 2002-00010. We urge you to deny the above listed application to preserve our residential neighborhood. With kind regards, Michael & Claudia Rosa - / CC: Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager Paul H. Richards, Chairman, Oregon State Board of Cosmetology Jeffrey D. Johnson, Fire Chief, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue #!9 February 17, 2002 Planning Division at the City of Tigard RECEIVED PLANNING 13125 SW Hall Blvd FEB 21 2002 Tiger, OR 97223 CITY V TIGARD ATT: Morgan Tracy Dear Morgan Tracy; As residents of Bull Mountain within 500 feet of proposed development HOP 2002-00010, file name Moos Salon, type 11 Home Occupation permit, We are opposed to this Application and cannot. understand why. this area which is zoned as residential has to be defended as such. We wonder if the proposed annexation of Bull Mountain to the City of Tigard will allow for these proposed infractions of rules already in place? Please consider this written comment as a definite "No" from us concerning this permit. Sinc rely, a &Yars and Suzanne se 13596 SW Mint Place Tigard,;OR 97223 J • • V February 28, 2002 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2002 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or 97223 Re: Home Occupation Permit 200200010 Moos Salon 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy: We are writing to you in opposition to the application which was submitted to the City of Tigard for a "Salon" to be operated in a residential neighborhood. It is our understanding that in order for this variance in land use be denied we must site concrete evidence that approval for this home based business is in direct violation of the Home Occupation Laws. As citizens of the City of Tigard we find this very disturbing as we have entrusted the Mayor, City Council Members and the employees such as yourself in the Community Planning Development to make decisions for the common good of all of the residence within our city. Our home is located on the corner of Benchview and Mistletoe. As we are able to see down Benchview, we have watched traffic increase significantly since the addition of the Brownstone Homes located at the bottom Benchview and Gaarde Road. We are now watching another development, Pacific Crest, whose entrance is an extension of Mistletoe Drive, and will add another 63 homes to our neighborhood. A business would only add traffic to a highly used thoroughfare which also serves as many bus stops for Tigard's public students. This information would of been revealed had a traffic impact survey been completed. We feel that an overall impact study is imperative prior to the approval of this permit and would appreciate the results mailed to us. We have read over the Home Occupation Criteria 18.742 as well as the Administrative Rules from the Oregon Board of Cosmetology and find there to be some discrepancies. We question which criteria for operating a facility will this salon be held accountable to. Here is an example to which we refer: Tigard: 18.742.40 A.4 The total area for the business activity shall not exceed 528 square feet. (Will the city required an inspection of the facility to confirm that the "Salon" meets the criteria of the Board of Cosmetology) Board of Cosmetology: 817-020-0011 1.E Maintain separation between the residential living area and facility by solid walls extending from floor to ceiling, with connecting doors kept closed during hours the facility is in operation and/or serving clients as required in ORS 690.205(2) We question which administrative body will enforce these codes if a violation should occur. We are sure that the city has a legal department which will explore all laws governing this type of business. Perhaps one area that might be researched is whether the correct zoning was applied for. The City of Tigard has many different commercial properties available for a salon We hope that Ms. Moos would choose to find one in which her business could continue to grow. As residents of this neighborhood, we ask you to please consider carefully all the implications this type of business establishment would have on everyone. Please allow us to keep our residential neighborhood such as it is. . C4" %Lz~~ Michael and Neelt a Satterlee 13851 S.W. Mistletoe Drive Tigard, OR 97223 503-521-9625 • Larry & Barbara Simonsmeier • 13721 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97223 February, 24, 2002 Morgan Tracy Associate Planner, City of Tigard-Community Development 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 Dear Mr. Tracy: 6Z RECEIVED PLANNING F E B 2 7 2002 C,f ^'"''^A.RD We are writing in reference to the notice we received regarding the Home Occupation Permit Application (HOP) 2002-00010, submitted by Moos Salon to be located at 13783 S.W. Benchview Terrace for an in-home salon. As residents of Benchview Terrace, we are very much opposed to the granting of a permit by the City of Tigard for an in-home salon. We chose to buy a home in this area in July of 1996, because it provided an up scale, strictly residential setting in a secure and serene setting with a greenbelt. Until . now, we have enjoyed the peace of a very nice residential neighborhood. We fear that the granting of this permit will create a negative effect on this fine Bull Mountain neighborhood, creating safety concerns causing property values to decrease. We have many concerns regarding this permit, but it appears from our interpretation of Title 18.510.030 Table of Uses of the Community Development Code, that personal services are specifically not permitted in an R-7 zoning area. An in-home salon certainly qualifies as selling personal services, i.e„ hair treatment, manicures, facials, and massages, etc. We are amazed that given this criteria alone that the application is being considered. Title 18.742.010 Purpose, which states ..."suffering a hardship for a venture which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". This home is a 7000 plus square foot property in a very up-scale neighborhood, and the applicant hardly qualifies as "suffering a hardship for a venture which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters". The applicant's husband is a physician and the .couple employs a full time Danny to watch their 4 children. Given the availability of reasonably priced commercial property for lease in down town Tigard and the surrounding area, an in-home salon is certainly not justified. Under Title 18.742.40 General Approval Criteria and Standards Section A.4, this is a multi (4) level residential property and the floor on which the applicant plans to "locate" her business has 2000 square feet, considerably more than the 528 square feet limited by code. Further, the Board of Cosmetology requirement for an in-home salon is that the salon area be separated by solid walls from the rest of the home with adjoining doors to the home to be kept closed. The applicant has indicated that access to the business would be via the front door of the residence and down a flight of stairs. I understand this access does, not meet code for public entrance because there is no landing at the top of the stairs leading to the lower floor. Additionally, the front entrance is strictly forbidden'by the Board of Cosmetology regulation, 817-020-0011(2)(d) that require a separate entrance. • • 2 The outside entrance to the area would be down 13 very steep, narrow concrete steps with no handrail which are not covered or lighted and would not meet ADA regulations. This outdoor entrance would also be disruptive to the neighboring property owners, because the two houses are separated by a ten feet, wall to wall, and the stairs are located on the property line between the two residences. Not only would there be customers frequenting the home, but also vendors and sales representatives and delivery people who would also be entering the home, five feet from the back yard and deck of the neighboring home, thus infringing on their privacy rights. See section A.3 Offensive Noise and Glare. Additionally under Title 18.741.40 section A. 8... "there shall be no street parking other than that normally required for a residence". For an R-7 residence, that number is two cars. There is no way with 6-12 clients per day plus sales representatives and vendor deliveries that only two cars would be parked at any time. Given the mailbox access for six homes located directly across the street, parking is very limited in this area. Our concern is that customers to the salon would park in front of other homes on the street, thus interfering with their parking allocation for friends, etc. and/or they would park in front of the mailboxes, which prevents the mail from being delivered. Traffic on Benchview is already a problem, with over 3000 one way auto trips per day. Further, there are at least 3 or 4 school bus routes that also make a minimum of 2 trips per day with school children crossing this very busy street. Additional cars in the area will further exacerbate the traffic and safety issues which already exist. This property is located at place on the street where traffic coming up this steep street cannot clearly see persons or traffic at this location, especially in the afternoon when the sun is shinning and drivers are blinded by the glare. Safety is already a major concern for children and residents along this busy street due to the amount of traffic and the high speeds at which people travel up and down this steep hill. By its very nature, a hair and nail salon uses hazardous and flammable solutions and materials, thus, raising concerns about fire safety as well as environmental issues related to storage and disposal of products. We are also concerned about proper venting of noxious fumes that will be generated by this type of business. This residence along with all of the houses on the same side of the street, back up to the greenbelt, which drops into a steep ravine, thick with natural undergrowth and trees. Given the fact that since the applicant and her family moved into the residence on October 31, 2001, there have been fire trucks called to the residence on 2 or 3 occasions. A fire at this residence could be a real threat to all of the others located along the green belt. Clearly, this applicant has applied for a permit to operate a "personal service" business that has no place in this otherwise strictly residential neighborhood. We have lived here for six years and other than the traffic issues that exist, it has been a peaceful neighborhood where residents live in peace and serenity with nature, including deer and other creatures that come out of the greenbelt behind our homes. We know when strange cars are parked in the area and watch out for each other's homes and safety. Bringing a • strangers and strange cars into this neighborhood will cause suspicion and unrest and concern for the safety of our children and grandchildren who play in our yards. In essence, approval of this application brings unnecessary individuals into an otherwise relatively secure neighborhood in a day and time in our history when security is more an issue than it has ever been in the history of this country. Given the general criteria and standards for application cited in the Community Development Code, we sincerely request that you deny this application for a Type H Home Occupation permit for an in-home salon. We believe this application is in violation of the Community Development Code and should be denied. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sin rely, Larry & Barbara Simonsmeier Cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon, 97223 State of Oregon Board of Cosmetology 700 Summer NE, Suite 320 Salem, Oregon, 97301 v RECEIVED PLANNING ~j FEB 2 8 2002 ..Xe . / n 0-Yu CITY OF TiGARD y ,1221 G ~ . c Ae 1 jZI/> LJL~'4-,V/ -,de)ly zmc AV Ct J l3y36 .S.CC)_ L3eHCl~v~:-eu~_ ie~.._. ~ ~ 3) 57~- a3.9`4' RECEIVED PLANNING RALPH & CORALIE VAN HORN 13632 SW WHITE CEDAR PLACE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 503 579 5350 bearrev@aol.com MORGAN TRACY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF TIGARD-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 DEAR MR. TRACY, ReEHOP 2002-00010 Moos We hereby record our opposition to the referenced HOP. F E B 2 8 2002 CITY C. T!GARD A review of Residential Zoning Districts: 18.510 City of Tigard codes reveals that a "Personal Services" business such as Moos Salon (hair styling, nails, facials etc.) would fall in the category ofGeneral Retail and would not be a permitted use ofthis R7 property. See Use Table 18.510.1. It seems that the HOP must be denied on that basis alone. We believe that a traffic study and an environmental impact study should be required ofthe applicant. The traffic on Benchview Terrace in Stunt of 13783 is very high. I believe that COT recorded nearly 3000 one way trips per day. The School District has indicated that about ten different school bus routes are In use at this point and that the buses stop within about 100 feet on each side of this address. Busing starts about 7:00 thru 9:00 am restarts about 2:30 pm thru 5:00 pm. Increased use ofon street parking on Benchview would create more traffic hazards then currently exist and could lead to a serious accident. The view from the windshields of cars traveling both east and west on Benchview is limited by setting and rising sun and the fact that the road curves in such a way that a driver's view in Impeded. More on street parking would only aggravate this situation. In checking with the COT fire department we learned that they have responded to alarms at this address. Further on street parking could cause problems for fire response. We understand that Mrs. Moos has stated that parking would be in the driveway and not the street but we feel that she would not be In a position to enforce that. Some times mothers bring their children to a salon and this could increase the number ofpeople at Moos home and the potential for auto accident. We also feel that the possible toxic wastes from a Salon dumped into the sewer system would be a hazard. As we understand the purpose ofHOP it is to provide an opportunity for small ventures that could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters. This area is made up of homes in a price range of 0 • $600,000 to a million. Public record shows that the Dr and Mrs. Moos paid $1,000,000 for their home. We don't feel that they fit the intent ofHOP and that this usage would devalue all of our homes. Please decline the HOP for this property. Yours truly, H~"V l HORN CORAL. AN HORN J Copies to Paul Richards, Chair, Oregon State Board of Cosmetology and Bill Monahan, City Manager COT I Morgan Tracy Moos Salon Benchview From: <RWhite1589@aol.com> To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/27/02 8:26AM Subject: Moos Salon Benchview y RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2002 Mr. Tracy, Thank you for your time yesterday. Having left our meeting feeling fairly "safe" in terms of at least I thought you were open-minded and listening to our concerns while you attempt to make your decision based on facts. I came home to a disturbing message from another neighbor who claims to have spoke with you after our meeting only to be told by yourself and/or Mike, a city engineer, that you indeed will be approving this application, as is, because the City of Tigard is afraid of another lawsuit such as the one that happened at A-Boy. This highly disturbs us since this situation has nothing to do with A-Boy and the City should NOT be partial to the applicant and not the homeowners. The lawsuit with A-Boy was all about the City taking away their property rights for the pathway. I assure you that if you grant this application, you again will be taking away the property rights of the neighbors, by allowing a pathway into our private yards. The Moos' will not be the only seeking legal counsel should you continue down this "path"! I do not believe that this conversation could have taken place as the neighbor has stated and would appreciate clarification on your part. We understand that you have a legal responsibility to represent both sides fairly. We feel we have given you and the City of Tigard ample opportunity to defend yourself legally with the issues we have provided. Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING CC: <dputzier@providence.org>, <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dpnews@earthlink. net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com> ~'_Morgan Tracy^-One i From: To: Date: Subject: nore thing , alt? <RWhite1589@aol.com> <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> 2/28/02 9:19AM One more thing age-11 ZS Mr. Tracy, Dee-J spoke with the Board of Cosmetology this morning and felt the information she gathered would be helpful to you as you make your decision. Ms. Sopaal Moos is currently licensed as an Independent Contractor at the Classic Touch Salon in Portland. Key word here is CURRENTLY, therefore when you stated your case about how the COT (City of Tigard) likes to help people who are starting a business, by allowing them to work in their home obviously this rationale doesn't apply to Ms. Moos and this case. Again, this proves that she is currently licensed and practicing at the Classic Touch Salon with an established clientele. This also proves that there is no hardship in this case as well. Also, speaking the Board, Dee-J learned that the State only does an inspection one time during a calendar year and that they could issue her a license before they inspect the premises, therefore the main responsibility of seeing that the building codes are met, will fall directly on the COT once she begins to practice in her home. Thank you for your time. Candace White CC: <dputzier@providence.org>, <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dpnews@earthlink. net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com>, <Bsimonsmei@aol.com> ~i Morgan Tracy- moos applications HOP " -00010 From: <RWhite1589@aol.com>~ RECEIVED To: <morgan@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 2/27/02 8:13AM FEB 2 7 2002 Subject: moos application - HOP 2002-00010 CITY OF TIGARD Mr. Tracy, PLLANNINGMNGINEERING Thank you for your time with us yesterday, following is the point I wanted to convey in a more clear way during our meeting. The point I was trying to make is that the application is for a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Yes, Commercial businesses have been approved in the past in R-7 zones. Yes, these business may have met the interpreted requirements of the zoning codes. However, these applications should all be determined on a case by case basis. It is required by State regulations that the access to a Salon business is through a separate entrance / exit. The ONLY access point to the home for this proposed business is at the rear of the house, forcing the access of clientele pedestrian traffic around and adjacent to the private and open rear yard of the neighbor. This requirement is in conflict with the intentions of the original R-7 zone requirements which are set as standards for livability in a residential zone. To give approval to one side you diminish the privacy of the other. The original R-7 standards should always supersede the other if the intended use of the commercial application violates the privacy of another as in this case. Other houses may have worked or not worked for this type of application. When you allow public pedestrian traffic to leave the cities right-of-way you must insure the privacy and protection of the original zone requirements for all... It is not the cities fault, nor is it the neighbors fault that this house is designed in such a way that the only access point encroaches onto the privacy of others. If she wanted to teach Piano lessons-and enter through the front door, that would not encroach on the privacy of the rear private yard area, and may in a gray world seem somehow appropriate for use as people come and go on an hourly basis. If the house had a second entrance from the street, it may also have worked. If the house were at a corner with a side entrance, again from the public right-of-way, it may have worked. A salon license has specific requirements for access as imposed by State Regulations. The application shows the only route of access is going to conflict with the intent of the original rights of the neighbors R-7 zone standards. The original rights and zoning should prevail. Please consider this additional issue as well as all others when making your final decision to deny this application. I believe this clearly allows the city the'legal out' you are most likely looking for to address why you may have allowed this type of application in the past, and why it should not occur at this specific location. Thank you again for your attention to this matter, Richard L. White 13817 S.W. Benchview Terrace Tigard, Oregon 503.590.0209 _Page-1 V CC: <BEARREV@aol.com>, <neeltjesatterlee@hotmail.com>, <RPutzier@msn.com>, 1~7 rgan Tracy_ --moos. application - HOP : -00010 Page,2al <Minkieaube@aol.com>, <bwaugh@pru-nw.com>, <ns.everton@gte.net>, <dputzier@providence.org>, <dpnews@earthlink.net>, <mkrosa@juno.com>, <josephha@easystreet.com> • RECEIVED FEB 2 2 1001 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING/ENGINEERING Mr. Morgan Tracy City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Morgan: 13555 S. W. Brim Place Tigard, OR 97223-5667 February 19, 2002 File Number: HOP 2002-00010 File Name: Moos Salon This is in response to the request for approval for a Type II Home Occupation permit to allow an in-home salon at 13783 S. W. Benchview Terrace. 1. The property at issue is zoned as a medium density residential district. It is not zoned as a commercial district. 2. Although the home occupation rules limit the use to a maximum of six clients per day it is unlikely that this proposed commercial enterprise will be content to limit itself to that number. This request appears to be merely the forerun- ner of other requests for exceptions to the current zoning regulations. A disapproval of the request at this stage may well head off further ill consid- ered future requests. 3. The property is located on a steep hillside. Client parking can be expected to be on the street. Since Benchview Terrace is a through street and since there are numerous lots currently being developed at the foot of Benchview the traffic flow can be expected to increase over time. Street parking, even for the limited number of clients now being proposed, will be an unneeded safety hazard and annoyance. 4. The character of the neighborhood will be altered once this type of commercial use-is permitted resulting in a possible reduction of property values and subsequent loss of tax revenues. The request is inappropriate and ill advised. I urge that this request not be approved. Yours truly, 5~ Bradford W. Wild Shirley E. Wild 4,41 February 26, 2002 Mr. Morgan Tracy Associate Planner City of Tigard - Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Notice of Pending Land Use Application for Moos Salon Home Occupation Permit (HOP) 2002-00010 Moos Salon @ 13783 5W Benchview Terrace Dear Mr. Tracy; We would like to express our objection to this application for a "Moos Salon" in a residential neighbor. Upon reviewing the application and reading the requirements necessary for a permit, it is noted that many things are missing or incomplete on this application. • "A traffic impact study shall be done..." yet we were told by Diane Parkes at the City of Tigard yesterday, that you, yourself made the decision to forgo that required study. What gave you that authority and why would you not require the study be done on one of Tiigard's most notoriously dangerous and busiest street due to the steep incline and blinding sun? "Shall" as defined is: As used in statues, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory. (page 1375 law dictionary) • Nowhere on the application has the word "SALON" been defined. Again, this word can take on many a meaning and yet you never required the applicant to specify in writing what her intentions were for this neighborhood. "Salon" defined as: (the American heritage dictionary) 1. A large room, such as a drawing room, used for receiving or entertaining guests 2. A periodic gathering of people of social or intellectual distinction 3. A hall or gallery for the exhibition of works of art 4. A commercial establishment offering a product or service of fashion, including hair treatment, nails and facials. Since you did not require Ms. Moos to specifically define in detail what her intentions were - this application should be void due to incomplete information provided. A salon is too broad of a definition for a residential permit. Nothing currently states that she is limited to one or more of the above-mentioned definitions, therefore the City of Tigard could technically be licensing her for an open ended business with no definitions. r • If you have ever visited this home site, you would notice that this home backs up against a serious sloped hillside, which is covered with very large trees. A home fire could be very detrimental to at least 35 homes that back up to the same greenway as the Moos residence does. Since they moved into this home November 1, 2001, they have had 3 fire department responses! Public record shows that TVFR has responded with a truck in December and twice already for this month of February. All three times were due to smoke detector issues in the home. This alone brings great concern to those of us who live next to this house. As a former Washington County 911 dispatcher, I can tell you that it is very uncommon for a single residence to have that many fire calls in such a short time period. Either they have wiring issues already which is cause for great concern now, let alone with more equipment or hazardous material for a salon - or they prove to be irresponsible in being able to do the smallest of home maintenance such as changing a smoke detector's battery. Either scenario does not bode well for a home business and poses a threat to all of their neighbors. There also have been four police calls to this residence over this past year. We attribute this to the alarm system, yet the wiring still could be in question. Another problem we see with the original application is the fact that she applied for a Type II Home Occupation is that she is saying that she will be providing what is defined as "personal services" which is not categorized under the type of permit originally applied for. Personal services are clearly defined under a "Commercial permit" and therefore not allowed at all in an R-7 residential neighborhood. Again, this application should be voided immediately. In the current application filled out by Ms. Moos on 01-29-02, at least some of the questions were answered incorrectly. L Will you have any paid employees or subcontractors working in the home in conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home? The applicant answered NO - this was answered incorrectly as the applicant currently has at least one full time employee, a nanny, taking care of their four children Monday- Friday. Again, this application was filled out incorrectly therefore should be voided. 2. Will the businessgenerate any noise -which can be heard outside of the structure.? The applicant answered NO - yet the added traffic and clients will most definitely add noise, especially since the applicant plans to have their clients enter the residence through a back door which requires the customers to enter the greenway and jeopardizes our privacy. i • Other serious issues and concerns consist of safety. The proposed entrance/exit that Ms. Moos is stating will be used for her clients consists of coming off of a driveway, down the left side of their home (see pictures), down a steep-sloped embankment, down 14 concrete stairs that have no handrail or significant lighting therefore putting the clients and neighbors at risk for serious injury and lawsuits. They are unable to add a handrail at this time as they are already encroaching on the neighbor's property to the left and will cross over the property line. Please note in the enclosed pictures how steep this lot is and the wooded trees that back up to the deck that they are proposing their clients use to enter. As a safety issue, what will prevent a client from throwing lighted material, such as a cigarette, into their backyard, which is a greenway and causing a fire. It should also be mentioned that while the City of Tigard is trying to promote anyone who is trying to start a new business, by starting out small and in the home and yet hoping that the homeowner would have enough sense to lease a space commercially when the business expands. It is our belief that Ms. Moos already is an established stylist since she has been licensed in the State of Oregon since 1991. This is not a new stylist starting out small as you are trying to encourage. So in closing, we believe it would be in everyone's best interest to deny this application for a salon in the Hillshire/Benchview neighborhood. The facts are clear that issuing a license for this type of business puts all of us in jeopardy of losing our privacy, safety and security. Furthermore, this violates the R-7 zoning code, which specifically states no commercial application is allowed, this being defined as a commercial application due to personal, non-tangible services being rendered. There is plenty of commercial space available in this County and we encourage Ms. Moos to seek that as a solution to conduct her already established business. We, the citizens of this city, depend on our City of Tigard employees to protect us all. You have a responsibility to be non-partial and interpret the codes as written. Please do not continue to be defensive of the applicant as we found yesterday. We all have a right in this City to voice our concerns and be heard before a judgment has been made. Richard and Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 503.590.0209 cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager State of Oregon, Board of Cosmetology 13125 SW Hall Blvd 700 Summer NE, Suite 320 Tigard, OR 97223 Salem, OR 97301 4-A I Moos Salon 13783 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Building issues with this residence • Allowed to build a retaining wall in the front of the house which was built in an easement • Allowed to build a stairway down to side yard with no required hand rails or landing pads - every 3`d stair is required a handrail or landing • Issues in basement - full kitchen installed including stove - not allowed Was a waiver signed for a non-use of second residency? Second kitchen • Rooms that don't meet egress in the basement were/are being used for bedrooms - they have closets with no windows or emergency exits should fire start • Unprotected ponds with deep water in the front yard and entry way with no required protection - 4 kids are living in this house currently • Plan shows the proposed door for exit/entrance, as being a slider is this legal? • No wall definition between rooms to contain hazardous materials or limit the business to 528 sqft. • No separate basins for salon business as required in State ordinances - have they applied for permit to change the residence plumbing? • Off street parking already used by nanny full time basis • Ms. Moos has told neighbors that she plans to have all clientele coming through front doors. Does the interior stairs leading to basement have a required landing? • Neighbor has ordered a survey to confirm that the proposed wall and stairway is indeed in their property which does not belong to the Moos' • Requirements of a public sauna? Does this require separate showering facilities? • ADA requirements? Who will enforce these? This is the reason you are prohibited from zoning residential to commercial - the area is gray and they want to be able to enforce their rights which is impossible for residential It is one thing working in your home as a professional - It's another turning your home into a commercial setting and performing personal services for clientele on an hourly basis orotmm MOOS maty Aeerm 13783 SW Benchview Terr a Ti¢ard cou,+y Washineton rodeo or mod Washineton Mutual Bank aw OR wr w I er we ~ Bed~oae POW# w E :e` Baal Sfa4vre11 1t9 UMYRm Bedmar~ thgm Level w w r. I* File No. 01102001 zip cove 97223 • ar r r LMrg Rm w ` r wr J\`~ lChchen panty stow Scars (dwM) ~ k >Lr reo 1 Main 9taMwe r Dk*gRm Enbr I.M r 10 Recreeaoo Pm 1a.S 11.4' Bath Benzes Rm ~ u.a• 11.eT DaynoM ) 4 1is VAIn Level to" r v r r w car s Redem" Rm a Std". rr 1 i Bath ( Wfd~en I J`~ . r w Enwcbe R ~C I yr, Me" Rm o.,~ esms .ar K rr LM v Area oay%m Bsmf 1 63.0 X 9.0 - 567.0 Oayw Bsm1 1 2454 235 25.5 X 6.0 = 153.0 42.0 X 14.0 = 568.0 DVYW Bsmt 2 948 203 34.0 X 4.0 = 136.0 8.0 X 2.0 = 16.0 FW Flow 2454 235 60 X 2.0 = 12.0 41.3 X 1.0 = 41.3 Seootd Floor 2144 273 60.5 X 13.0 = 786.5 14.6 X 6.0 = 07.6 Stalm -226 56 63.0 X 9.0 = 567.0 8.0 X 20 = 16.0 Total 7774 1002 42.0 X 14.0 = 508.0 3.1 X 10.9 = 33.7 a o X 2.0 = 16.0 3.1 X 5.4 = 167 G-SoeK*Pc,l 41.3 X 1.0 = 41.3 Total 2453.8 z 0 a En x 0 w w U 9 H z w a4 H ~w ~x ~w A n a 0 A :r4a ~ W D w a M s7 A 1: W =a ° ~4 0 0 P4 za 1} t f 3 4 a w w a a ch w W LYi A H U H P-1 U W A STAIRWAY FROM DRIVEWAY DOWN 14 STAIRS TO DECK TO ENTER PROPOSED SALON EXIT/ENTRANCE NOTE: NO HANDRAIL OR LANDING EVERY 3 STEPS - POSSIBLE OVER NEIGHBORS EASEMENT AS BUILT NOW Toe FRONT DOOR ENTRY, STEEP GRAD POND ST t TO PROPOSED ENTRY FOR SALON SACK Wk,PZ0 R9HS DOWN FROM GROUND LEVEL FOR ENTRANCE PROPOSED ENTRY BY GARAGE AND NEIGHBORS HOUSE ~y INTO 1400S RESIDENCE C . CHILDREN VISITORS OR WITH NO ~D~IL OR PROTECTION NOTICE A POND ~ EEN MOOS ENTRY BE'TW AND NEIGHBORS NO LIGHTING VERY STEEP NO ~DR&ILS TOTAL ENTRY LINE 14 STAIRS yg VIEW OF PROPOSED PROPERLY P AGAINST NEIGHBORS VIEW FROM GARAU~ March 1, 2002 Richard and Candace White 13817 SW Benchview Terrace Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. White and Ms. White: cmr of nGaRu OREGON Thank you for your recent letter regarding an application for a Home Occupation Permit for Moos Salon. Your letter was also forwarded to the Community Development Department staff. Staff will evaluate the application and the comments received from property owners as they consider and make a determination whether the application meets the requirements of the Development Code. This staff decision is sent to property owners. That decision can be appealed to the Hearings Officer with a further appeal available to the Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have further concerns or questions about process, please contact Community Development Director Jim Hendryx at 503-639-4171, Ext. 309. Sincerely, William A. Monahan City Manager c: Jim' Hendryx, Community Development Director 1Vfnroar► Tranv Ocen~ia♦Fn T~lannor. 111V1 Ll.all 11 K<Y, (LUUV\. L{.14.t. L L(AL LLI~.l ' 1AADMOWLETTERSWOOS HO REQUEST - WHITE.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Board, of Cosmetology_817_C* • Page 1 of 4 OREGON SECRETARY OF STATIE 0- Oreaon State Archives The Oregon Administrative Rules contain OARS filed through January 15, 2002 HEALTH LICENSING OFFICE, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DIVISION 20 LICENSING AND OPERATION OF A FACILITY 817-020-0005 Issuance of Facility Licenses A facility license may be issued if the applicant: (1) Is at least 18 years of age, as required in ORS 690.055(1)(a); (2) Has registered with the Corporation Division and received an assumed business name prior to applying for a facility license (unless doing business under the full name of the owner); (3) Files an application on prescribed forms with the Board and pays the required application and license fees. If the facility is owned by a corporation, the application must state the name of and the form must be signed by the corporate officer; (4) Complies with all applicable rules and regulations of the Board and other state agencies; and (5) Certifies the application information is correct. (6) The premises where services are performed by solely independent contractors who are registered by the Board shall be required to be licensed as a facility. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Hist.: BH 2-1978, f. & ef. 11-29-78; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 1-1992, f. 6-1-92, cert. ef. 7-1-92; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS-800/OAR-817/817-020. html 2/23/02 , Board of Cosmetology_817_* A facility owner or license holder shall: 0 Page 3 of 4 (1) Allow the Board's enforcement officer to inspect the facility when it is open for business. (2) Abstain from obstructing or hindering the normal progress of the inspection, threatening or exerting physical harm, or enabling another individual or employee to impede the inspection process. (3) Contact the Board in writing to make arrangements for an inspection if the Board has been unable to perform an inspection after one year because the facility was closed. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.225 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.225 Est.: BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 2-1990, f. & cert. ef. 10-29-90, BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96 817-020-0015 Facility Licensing Requirements (1) A facility owner or license holder shall meet the requirements of a new facility (refer to OAR 817- 020-0011) and submit a new facility application and required fees when any of the following conditions exist: (a) A facility is purchased from the current or previous owner, partnership or corporation. Facility licenses are not transferable from person-to-person or from business-to-business; (b) There is a change in the legal ownership, partnership or holding of a facility regulated under ORS 690 and OAR 817, such as: (A) A partner(s) or co-owner(s) is added to the existing facility license; or (B) A partner(s) or co-owner(s) is removed from the existing facility license, including change in ownership status due to death of facility owner(s), or spouse listed as a co-owner on the Board's records. (c) An existing facility moves or relocates to a new physical address. Facility licenses are not transferrable from location-to-location. (2) Facility license holders who close a business regulated under ORS 690 and OAR 817 shall: (a) Inform the Board office in writing within five (5) business days of the closure of the facility; (b) Inform the Board office in writing prior to reopening the facility, when the same individual listed as the owner on file with the Board office reopens the facility while the license is still current. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.165 Hist.: BH 2-1978, f. & ef. 11-29-78; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 2-1996, f. 6-28-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; Renumbered from 817-020- 0025 & 817-020-0030 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817020. html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_4 Z/Ze/oZ 817-020-0011 Facility License Criteria (1) Applicants for a facility license shall: . Page 2 of 4 (a) Provide a map or directions to the facility if it is located in a rural or isolated area. (b) Meet the specifications for building, fire and plumbing codes as specified in OAR 817-010-0007 and comply with exit and fire standards established by the Building Codes Agency and Office of the State Fire Marshal. (2) Applicants for a facility license located within a residence shall: (a) Have an identifying house number or a sign which is easily visible from the street and indicates the location of the facility; (b) Maintain equipment the Board requires for all facilities; (c) Comply with all applicable regulations in accordance with OAR 817-010-0007; . (d) Provide an entrance to the facility that is separate from the entrance to residential living areas; and (e) Maintain separation between the residential living area and facility by solid walls extending from floor to ceiling, with connecting doors kept closed during hours the facility is in operation and/or serving clients as required in ORS 690.205(2). (3) A practitioner who supervises the performance of services in the facility must have a current valid Oregon certificate. (4) Facilities shall comply with the administrative rules of the Board concerning health, safety, and sanitation pursuant to ORS 690.055(1)(b). (5) The cleanliness and sanitation of any common area used by or provided for separately licensed facilities or independent contractors located at one premises is the responsibility of each license and/or registration holder on that premises. (6) Violations found in a common area will be cited against all holders of facility licenses and independent contractor registrations at the premises, unless a contractual agreement exists which ~J__ _C_ 7L 717 C__~1_ r luuicates specific resporisiviuiy IOU Me sanitation or a common area within the premises. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.055 & ORS 690.205 Hist.: BH 2-1978, f. & ef. 11-29-78; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1-88; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 817-020-0012 Criteria for Operating a Facility http://arcweb. sos. state. or. us/rules/OARS-800/OAR-817/817-020. html 2/23/02 . Board of Cosmetology-817-00 817-020-0305 Licensed Health Care Facility 0 Page 4 of 4 (1) Health care facilities licensed under ORS 442, are exempt from facility license requirements as stated in ORS 690.025(2) if services are provided to residents only: (2) No person acting individually or jointly with any other person shall establish, conduct, maintain, manage or operate a facility defined in ORS 690.005(7) without a license issued by the Board of Cosmetology. Licensed health care facilities defined in ORS 442.015(14) shall comply with the Board's licensing, safety and sanitation rules if services regulated under ORS 690 are administered to the general public (3) The Board may inspect those areas of a licensed health care facility where services are performed if alleged licensing or safety/sanitation violations are reported. The Board may investigate the facility in response to a complaint. The Board may report the safety and sanitation conditions and results of inspection or investigation to the Oregon State Health Division and/or other appropriate agencies. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.015, ORS 690.025, ORS 690.035, ORS 690.055, ORS 690.165, ORS 690.205 & ORS 690.225 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.015, ORS 690.025, ORS 690.035, ORS 690.055, ORS 690.165, ORS 690.205, ORS 690.225 & ORS ORS 442 Hist.: BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5- 12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 The official copy of an Oregon Administrative Rule is contained in the Administrative Order filed at the Archives Division, 800 Summer St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97310. Any discrepancies with the published version are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon Administrative Rules and the Oregon Bulletin are copyrighted by the Oregon Secretary of State. Terms and Conditions of Use Alnhabetical Index by Agency Name Numerical Index by OAR Chapter Number Search the Text of the OARs Ouestions about Administrative Rules? Link to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Return to Oregon State Archives Home Page http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_020.html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_G• Pagel of 3 Off-GON SECRETARY OF STA Oregon State Archives The Oregon Administrative Rules contain OARs filed through January 15, 2002 HEALTH LICENSING OFFICE, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DIVISION 60 CHEMICAL USE AND STORAGE 817-060-0010 Client Protection (1) When administering chemical services to a client, all practitioners, as defined in ORS Chapter 690, shall follow safety procedures which prevent eye, nail, hair, or skin injury to clients or damage to the clothing of clients. (2) When an employee/employer relationship exists employees shall comply with ORS 654 and OAR 437-002-0360(25), 29 CFR 1910.1030, OAR 437-002-0360(35), and 29 CFR 1910.1200. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Stats. hnplemented: ORS 654, ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Hist.: BH 1-1983(Temp), f & ef. 10-4-83; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1- 88; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; Administrative Correction 1-15-98 817-060-0020 Chemical Storage (1) For the purposes of this section, the following terms are being used as defined by OAR 437, Division 2, General Occupational Safety and Health Rules subdivision (z) Toxic and Hazardous Substances (29 CFR 1910.1200) as amended and in effect November 2, 1999; (a) Corrosives; (b) Flammables (aerosol, gas, liquid, and/or solid); http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/0ARS_800/OAR 817/817_060.html 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817Page 2 of 3 (c) Oxidizers. (2) For purposes of this section "hazardous" and "segregated in storage" are defined as follows: (a) "Hazardous" means capable of causing an unplanned, uncontrolled reaction which could present a hazard to practitioners or clients by explosion, fire, release of toxic gases or by-products, or physical or chemical burns; and (b) "Segregated in storage" means that potentially hazardous chemicals and materials are separated (so as to prevent their mixing with one another through leakage, spillage or breakage) by an adequate distance or through the use of physical barriers such as partitions or separate shelving arrangements. (3) All facilities, independent contractors and practitioners using chemicals in providing services to clients shall store the chemicals safely to avoid fire, explosion and bodily harm to clients and practitioners: (a) Flammable chemicals shall be stored remote from potential sources of ignition (e.g., the pilot light of a hot water tank); and (b) Chemicals which could interact in a hazardous manner (e.g., oxidizers, corrosives and flammables) shall be segregated in storage, in areas where surrounding air temperatures do not exceed 140 degrees Fahrenheit: (A) Chemical containers holding one gallon or less may be stored in the same area or in the same storage cabinet with materials with which they could react, if one of the following conditions is met: (i) Containers of reactive chemicals are separated by location or sufficient distance (i.e., at least 12 inches apart or on different shelves) to prevent their reaction; or (ii) Glass bottles of reactive chemicals are treated to make them break-resistant (e.g., resin-coated) or are stored in rubber buckets or sleeves, or are stored with a partition separating them. (B) Chemicals which are highly reactive or stored in containers greater than one gallon must be stored in separate cabinets, in safety-valve containers, or in locations isolated from other chemicals; (C) Chemicals may be stored in containers which the Oregon Department of Transportation has approved for the shipping of those chemicals; and (D) Chemically related waste or refuse and chemically dampened or saturated towels must be placed in the appropriate fire-retardant containers as stated in OAR 817-010-0060. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.165, ORS 690.205 & ORS 654 Hist.: BH 1-1983(Temp), f. & ef. 10-4-83; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1- 88; BH 2-1990, f. & cert. ef. 10-29-90; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31-96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 817-060-0030 Use, Handling and Disposing of Chemicals http://arcweb. sos. state. or. us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817_060.htm1, 2/23/02 Board of Cosmetology_817_0, . Page 3 of 3 (1) Practitioners who use chemicals in order to provide services to clients shall mix those chemicals in a dispensing area which has adequate ventilation. (2) When mixing chemicals in this area, practitioners shall: (a) Not mix chemicals near an open flame or an electrical device; and (b) Remove all chemically saturated towels and waste from the work and storage area and place them in covered, fire-retardant containers. (3) All chemicals shall be disposed of according to manufacturers instructions and in accordance with local and state environmental requirements. (4) Cosmetic products containing hazardous substances which have been banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in cosmetic products are prohibited on the premises of facilities. (5) Products are prohibited from being used in a manner that is disapproved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (6) A practitioner shall not use any product containing compounds or substances characterized as hazardous or harmful to humans by Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and/or random product testing. (7) Smoking by either the client or practitioner during any phase of chemical service, i.e. mixing, application, processing, or use of any potentially explosive chemicals, is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes smoking by the client inside the facility while any phase of a chemical service is being performed. Stat. Auth.: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Stats. Implemented: ORS 690.165 & ORS 690.205 Hist.: BH 1-1983(Temp), f & ef. 10-4-83; BH 4-1984, f. & ef. 12-7-84; BH 1-1988, f. & cert. ef. 7-1- 88; BH 1-1992, f. 6-1-92, cert. ef. 7-1-92; BH 3-1994, f. 6-23-94, cert. ef. 7-1-94; BH 1-1996, f. 5-31- 96, cert. ef. 7-1-96; BOC 1-2000, f. 5-12-00, cert. ef. 5-15-00 The official copy of an Oregon Administrative Rule is contained in the Administrative Order filed at the Archives Division, 800 Summer St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97310. Any discrepancies with the published version are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon Administrative Rules and the Oregon Bulletin are copyrighted by the Oregon Secretary of State. Terms and Conditions of Use Alphabetical Index by Agency Name Numerical Index by OAR Chapter Number Search the Text of the OARS Ouestions about Administrative Rules? Link to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Return to Oregon State Archives Home Page http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_800/OAR 817/817 060.html 2/23/02 FROM :-RJ DELORTO • FAX NO. :480 657 3234 . 24 '2002 09:45PM P2 fc3 ~fp l1: let I p at e Or a~:rl i_,I I L N Ar } o~ ti d'.• ,C.,. l e a w1pK P K I 1 . Ir..w~.nwwwnw-- -w.1---------------- I~I S III x 1~1 !II _I . GGh III {I{ IIi~ V -S V 1 I s r Q l~ •c~+rt.vcac - p I M { P, I 2 xarvxA4..n' ob. I i I I~ 11 Il ~ I~ ~ i tl I!~ I ~ I ilx ~ II . iii 9 J it I 1 ' ' ~ IIA ~ II~ t RI ~ ~ ~ x 11 ~ I I ~ ' I t Ira' Io: 1„ i IV iii m 1 i~ I 1' 1 r i ! 1 q . ' x 0.1. WK xaa 11 1 i , • r• oA '~'I 1 aa j_ 1 ~ ~ 3€ ..--..-L k 9xaRR nTti. a, or- IC I' 0_ ' Mir 1 • Vii, .•.e• l ~ 1 , ' iL i s l~ V• I iF I I~ V'r Q I+ I i 1 ~I ' I ! 6 f; s I~ XJ vi ~0 * A v~ n , t 1 I I. - r 4 x ioti ~ ei eit nilirt:u ~ i ! ~i z ~ $3taEii~ ~ ; is R• O i 4 ; 1 1 1 I 91 i h ` 1 -._._...__J 9r14~JDM,aK'OA bil Y .S a•~ ! K 4 rw. rsTS . a• oG• - - -._w _72bYLAiRAt7t ~ 4e'fti~ek. ItEn FDM WLL D~ f,.a• ~ yr i -7 Jc 4 ruc •ISr4 • v' D' 'r1 ii i ~ f~CO 6 Low ow LEI 1 Ix V ~ i41 I Ia I • aL ert 5/0 at O e ~ i iF Z x D RLA ,btn, • K• OG 1 r I i f x 's R6 Pei I 1 ATA • 16 eS r 77 m.r a•.r L a. u.r L l1 L w.r ; 9 Exhibit "D" APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS TYPE II CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Application Being Appealed: Moos Home Occupation 13783 SW Benchview Terrace How Do You Qualify As A Party?: Homeowners living within 500 feet of the applicant.. 13799 SW Benchview Terrace Appellant's Address: City/State: Tigard Zip:97223 Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(503 116-2276 Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: April 10, 2002 Date Notice of Final Decision Was GivenMarch 26, 2002 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: S..t Aga4 (.c4 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Appeal Filing Form (completed) Filing Fee (based on criteria below) D~Dire es Decision to Hearings Officer $ 250.00 Expedited Review (deposit) $ 300.00 Hearing Referee $ 500,00 Planning CommissiontHearing's Officer to City Council $1,745.00 Transcript) Signature(s) of Appellant(s): APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS 1:lcurplMmasterMappeal (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) PAGE 1 OF 1 The specific grounds for appeal of the decision regarding HOP2002-00010 Moos Salon are as follows: 1. 18.742.010 Purposes: The clear intent of the home occupation section of the community development code is to permit residents to use their home for business ventures which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters. Neither the city nor the applicant has adequately addressed this issue. The only rationale the applicant has given for wanting to have her salon in her home is that she wants to be near her children during the down times. She has never stated that she is unable to rent space commercially. On the contrary, she is very proud of the fact that she lives in "a million dollar home" and has a full time nanny. In fact, the structural changes she must make to comply with AAA and Board of Cosmetology requirements will necessitate a considerable outlay of money. This is someone who can afford to rent space in a strip mall or salon. She simply wants to run a commercial establishment in a residential zone for her convenience. The city has stated that if she meets the criteria set forth in 18.742.040, she can be issued a permit. Without showing that the applicant meets the intent of the purpose, it appears that our current R-7 zone is really a residential/commercial zone, with no need to apply for a variance. In a residential zone, we don't need a permit with notification of surrounding homeowners and opportunity for comment and appeal to build a house; we just need to meet the building code standards. Likewise, the city maintains that a commercial enterprise can be conducted in the same manner. Regardless of the comments that come in during the comment period or any of the other requirements of the code section, the business just needs to meet the code standards set forth in 18.742.040. This runs contrary to the entire permit process, as well as protection against commercial creep in a residential zone. The city maintains that the "home occupation rules de facto cause the business to be a small scale venture." The code does not give blanket approval for any small scale business, it CLEARLY adds the caveat - "which could not be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters." The city maintains that a full-scale salon services many more than 6 clients per day and employs more than one stylist. This is not necessarily true. Salons can range in size from a one-person shop to a shop with many stylists, manicurists, tanning beds, etc. The majority of independent stylists, like Ms. Moos, rent their own space in an established salon, working the eight hours per day, five days per week that she has applied for. At 6 clients per day, she is working as much as she would if this were not in her home. For a stylist, this IS a full-scale business. What she is proposing to do in her home is what she has done in a commercial establishment for the past twelve years. If the applicant does not have to show the hardship designated in the section, then what IS the purpose? Likewise, the second stated purpose is to prevent the applicant from conducting the business in a manner detrimental or disruptive to the neighboring properties. The city has not addressed our concerns regarding the openness of the back yards in this development and the complete lack of privacy that would ensue from the applicant's clientele entering her "business" from the back deck. At a minimum, there would be 120 strangers (240 trips) per month looking directly into our back yard and deck area. What used to be a private, serene area would become a de facto commercial business area. In any definition of the words, this would be detrimental and disruptive. One of the major reasons to purchase property such as this is for the privacy it affords. In addition, the security of our property is greatly compromised. Too many strangers get to view the secluded side of our homes and their contents. They would not have access to this area were it not for this business. Some residential areas and houses are better suited to this type of activity than this setting. There are no fences to hide the trips in and out, nor is there any way to buffer with foliage. She is not a discrete distance from her neighbors, nor is she tucked in a secluded section of the development. There is a mere ten-foot distance house wall to house wall from the nearest neighbor, who can do nothing to prevent this unwanted intrusion. There are a number of other issues that fall under the purview of detrimental or disruptive that also have not been adequately addressed by the city. One of these is the extra traffic and the associated safety issues. Backing out of the driveway onto a very busy street is an art practiced daily by those of us who live here. We are constantly surprised to find a car directly behind us as we proceed down Benchview, when we were so sure the "coast" was clear prior to backing out. Visibility is further hampered at the Moos residence by the large retaining wall that juts out to the sidewalk, thus making it difficult to see if a car is coming up the hill until you are already in the street. The city may think it has fixed the parking issue, but it has simply moved the safety hazard to a new location. This will also be addressed under the impact study section. 2. 18.510.030 Zoning Uses: It is not until R-25 that a limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted. The use table (18.510.1) lists personal services as a commercial enterprise. As such, it is not permitted in R-7 zones. There is an entire list of businesses that are not permitted in R-7 zoning. What is not clearly stated is a list of businesses that are permitted as part of the restricted use for home occupations. The restriction applied to home occupations is that they are subject to compliance with requirements in 18.742. If, as the city maintains, the rules allow a wide range of services and sales, with only a few exceptions, the business should at the very least meet the description given in the purpose section of 18.742. The city has listed piano teaching, acupuncture, massage, and counseling as other typical "personal service" home occupations. Personal, defined as "of the person, body, or physical appearance", would not apply to piano teaching or counseling. Acupuncture and massage would be personal services, and, as such, are also not permitted in R-7 zoning, no matter what has been allowed to occur in the past. To permit one commercially defined business to operate in a residential zone sets a precedent for all of the commercially defined businesses to operate in a residential zone, given that the business complies with only one section of 18.7842 - namely, 18.742.040. That section does not comprise the entire chapter. The city maintains that the precedent has been set to allow these types of businesses to operate under a Type n home occupation permit. However, the city has broken with its own precedent in building code permits on at least one occasion, and in this very neighborhood. Thus, that rationale falls short. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right; there is no excuse for continuing a poor practice. 3. 18.742.040 General Criteria: The city has not addressed our concerns about the amount of square footage devoted to this activity. In the revised plan, the city has measured the square footage at 285 SF. This includes only the den and adjacent bathroom. The problem is that the proposed entry to this area is through the garage, which should be counted as an accessory structure, and through the kitchen/nook area out to the back deck. The city has stated that they do not believe this "entry", which goes through a major portion of the home, is associated with the business activity, and therefore, does not need to be counted. Without this section of the house 0 being used to route clients through, the applicant would not be able to run her business. Therefore, it should definitely be counted as part of the total square footage "used" for the business activity. 4. 18.390.040 Type II Procedure: This section states that an impact study shall be submitted as part of the application. While the city did ask the applicant to provide one, it merely consists of her statement that there will be no adverse impact on anything. This "impact study" smacks of pro forma punch the ticket and is not a serious effort to document. the true impact -to others. There has been tremendous negative impact already. For example, the homeowners have indicated concern regarding the traffic this business will generate on an already busy street. The city has stated that 12 trips per day will not adversely impact the traffic on the street. In the absence of any measurable criteria, how does this address all of the concerns listed during the comment period? At the very least, there needs to be a discussion regarding the lack of visibility, the location of bus stops and children crossing, the speed, which is already on average 12 mph over the posted limit, and the fact that the hill is so steep that speed bumps cannot be installed. At what point does the purposeful addition of more traffic become excessive or a safety hazard? If one is already at the edge of safe, it might be only one more. 12 trips per day may not seem like much, but it adds up quickly when it equates to 60 trips a week and 240 trips a month. In addition, the city has already added to this traffic by approving the building of row houses at the bottom of the hill. The additional traffic these residents will bring also needs to be considered in the equation. This and all of the other areas listed in the impact study have not been adequately addressed with criterion referenced, evidence based data. 5. 18.390.080C4 Pre-application conferences: The last sentence in this section states that the applicant is responsible for ensuring that its application complies with all of the law (identified as federal, state, regional, and local) applicable on the day the application is deemed complete. Now that there is a revised plan for client entry, the state regulations have not been met, nor have they been addressed by the applicant or the city. The city knows that the applicant is out of compliance with the state rules at this point, with no plan for coming into compliance. They maintain that this is an area for the Health Licensing Office to enforce. Because compliance means major renovation of the kitchen/nook area of the home, with all of the proper permits issued through the city of Tigard, it would seem that the city would have a major role in this area as well. Conditions 2 and 3: It is difficult to see how the AAA rules will be followed, if the structural changes are all required, approved, and accomplished in isolation of one another. The city has stated that the applicant will be required to provide documentation that the proposed use is in compliance, however, the condition states only that she receive proper certification to operate her business. This, as stated by members of the Board of Cosmetology, consists of a blanket permit to operate for up to a year without compliance with the regulations. How will the city make sure her proposed pathway through the kitchen, which must be a hallway with floor to ceiling walls, meet the AAA requirements if they do not see the plans for remodel? To ensure complete compliance, the applicant needs to have her in_ps ection with approval by the Health Licensing Office done prior to any permit issued by the city. We, the surrounding homeowners, are requesting a hearing to dialogue about these issues. EXHIBIT E i APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL (HOP2002.000 I O/MOOS SALON) L .X CITY OF TIGARD GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address/Location(s) Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s) Site Size: ' • HOME OCCUPATION TYPE II APPLICATION 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 %7783 5w get clv,e4v ~K `:~t 7-2- 5, 4 cb- Applicant*: Address: 13763 SNJ T .R- tl vl City/State: T, a e-11, rr~ Q Zip: Primary Contact: Phone:( ~b -3) SP `f - -347 y -7 Fax: ~Sa-g) y s-r, 3 Property`` Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) ~TGtJZM, / `-1~0-5, -4- ~d ( /Lc- 5 Address: 13783 5LAJ City/State: GivJ R~vc G--j Phone: (OW rDt"CL zip: `7 2 D * When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request approval of a Home Occupation Permit to allow (please be specific): 1 -t. t~L4^e- .5,-A / D ti's SPECIFICATIONS Specify whether you are using a detached building on your property and give dimensions: 1 FOR STAFF USE ;ONLY Business Tax Paid? ❑ Yes (~i'No Rev 81VO1 iacurplnUnastersVev seMhop2.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will n-Qt be accepted without the required submittal elements) Application Form O er's Signature/Written Authorization ( Title Transfer Instrument or Deed 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped #10 Envelopes & Copy of 500` Property Owner List Generated by the O`ti y Fili g Fee $545.00 • List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: NIA l' APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate anv_ deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject poperhL . If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this 574&~t-4" xtoos Owner's Signature O~ifrfier's Si ature ~ Z73 day of TellkA..-- v- ti 20 07- S~ Owner' Sir/e . oLC~I is Signature l i 1 2 TO APPLY FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: [fITY OF TIGARD H.O.P. TYPE II QUESTION PAGE] Will you have any paid employees or subcontractors working in the home in conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home? 0 Yes (If yes, please explain): Will you have customers/clients coming to your residence? F1No l Cz+'~ wt~1 (Yes (If yes, how many per day?): 6 C /rer► 5,-I was 3. Will you have deliveries or pickups made of products or supplies to yoy~ residence? 40 'Yes (If yes, how many & what type?): ! 4. What will your hours and days of operation be? _ 7i t -e- 5. Will the business generate any noise which can be heard outside of the structure? FJ KNo Yes (If yes, please explain): 6. How many square feet is your residence andelhpw many square feet will be devoted the operation of yr business, 5.~l i -ot2 1 including storage areas? -7 w, 7. Will you have any signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises? _ o /~Q Yes (If yes, please explain): 8. Please show the floor layout of your house and the area to be used for your home occupation on the graph paper on the back of this page. Please designate those areas which shall be utilized as follows: A. entirely for the home occupation; and B. partially for the home occupation. Please designate the approximate dimensions of the rooms(s) to be used for the home occupation. 3 T I D E M A R K COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. Line Items: Case No Tran Code HOP2002-00010 Payments: Receipt 27200200000000000340 Date: 01/29/2002 Description ILANDUS] Type II Permit Fee Revenue Account No. 100-0000-438000 Bank No Acct Check No Confirm No. 0 253 0 8 E'I HOPI Amount Due $545.00 Amount Paid $545.00 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $545.00 Method Payer Check SOPAUL P. MOOS • 0 r~ L 2~ ~5.' t f x 'k r~ % . 'r x f 9 SOPAUL R MOOS t t ti 197O7sk325o r Zr5~3 ` 3832178532 * , , , r _ 13783rSW $ENCHVIEW_TER X503 524 3947 f,:k, j E r { PORTLAND``OR 97223=5666 DATE PAY TO THE ORDERrOF. ' ,z /L'~ a ~S `DOtt'ARL }'ie..ibs..~.wt i W!D U. !!Q t 5 r ington'Mu#liliali Washingtori ,yw E x~- i s n Mutual Bank taratatt. e Fl Interst. FlnaneiaVCenter 7404 N. Interstate Avenue 1.800-788-800o t".s } r Portland: OR 97217 24 troe Ctnlome SerMCe 'NOT.ES 1: 3.2 50 ?0 ? 6;0:`37154 n 2,1 ?B': I• ;z 0 5 I P(qlu 1-r':r. _ RECEIVED CI 2- t y . MAR 14 2002 ~J CITY OF TIGARD PLANNINWENGINEERING C~rC`~lnC adfinc 'lco r'-' ryoM ML -if will e k -Fucadcu, iViyzach SahWticti. Aa-L CA irk i _ rn y rj ve W CAL , w.I11 m a.nL _ ~ 4h-cre- vill bt Yw- W6 c6y)ccv-y)e(t LAI' 'If -H, _lnri_ I . _ . 11~ Ylo ~jC..r? ~ --C,r r~elc j%i. :c7c~►%'~rov _ n 1 . l IC~~C' Y 1 I SE°. (Yl c rjfzs1-, Sa 'it ~J LACin( on in NL ~1G.rr1c, 13 ralrre- Qdy Suppiq -,,d~nc Lol not 61- orYr~. Dp~ 1 r) (A bccn CkS T Ckm v wi 1 I aIrcad 1Inc , Z drairiac-~ hn b~ d®u.~i h c res (Ae"cam : ?)ccoLt3-e W h c T Pan.. -Fo 00 , I+ VVI 4s CAr).c V)OVi rn -a ricrid oVcr- The . _ Vj► I 1 b r~ c _ . POyvcr__.....Te.le.phone C_aLic.... elcvisio n- -~}_l~t~~~ -~TF_ heire care Ic- Ockr-kts.....nc r ill.i-s- - - - 11UU i s~~l C Zry, c+s 0(,)15C e :n I .I Lf' I I I I'S I (5) 3/0 X-3/0 FXD. OVER . I , UV a1WONDER BD. I I q R III/ 12' PAVERS O R / - c 5t, x a. 1I . I - RECEIVEp Qu~ ~0 - _ ~Im ~ a Way 1I N~ Z 5 1001 x .s... ~ 3 9 Q 4i Z I n 6 ry y J CI IGA C - 5l0 1 METAL • b f-I .X m 4/0 X 4/0 FPRE-FAW MSERT d'I I E UV COMB b. F PLAN I I 20 X 4/0 5H. EA 9iD oo! A FIREPLACE I~ AIFR VENT AND 20' 5 I o r I I I FLUSH MIARBLE WEARTH h I I ay I I. ( h ~ i I f (FIRRE13OX TO BE 8' IgARTHI X I I 5/ ATRUm DR . i I Y . bX 9' G BM USW) 1 STORY Y tTETS'> ' I I - L1TE . ( LL I=I 1 _ _ ----I IE ILY I I I" ~ rr v . ~a. 2 I^ R.C. I (FLUSH.) '(C,. , L. i .•0 j /U/ i I4 10/6 X 19/6 L-1__ f. I 0 X 16/0. ( • t I~ - I ~ IIx „I a a 1410X 16/b ."BOTTOM • S* .I n DEN m . 11 %111r.'PAR4LLAH8fM. 12/0x13/4./ X - yo . 12V STRUCTURAL -~-p - (10 c t~ i 0 •i. COLU'45 CNl c A .(9' CIIW ; LAP 4 BASE TYP. $WADED AREA L 2' 00 loll _ 0 / ~ T: 111 ' Z n r. 111.' co BUILT-M yl1 PANTRIj ~ III , Il J, - - " ~ • Y ~ ~ 1 i , / Q~l'.". I~ ' . f 11 1 ~ Ill; ~ ".III USE'.%'ttPE'X'GYP.BD. / I I. ."Clk - T 1 .J~l 1~~..1"'I~, ON ALL CLGS, WALLS, 41 I I BUTLI AS Ctlh~~ /,i I L EX0'09ED 9TRUGT. 115". Y i I R •Ij.PANRt'' '(SCLGJ ' Xlq``.\ ©-'+SdtaLL 4•: ~•a ✓ II .aV. ' •1 F~ I. N • 3' TOPPING SLAB OVER - 0 b MIL. VAPOR BARRIER i~ " PART. TO 4 !Y rjJ~\`\ I & ~ifl~.• dRi: TO 42' JJII_~ -L~IJ (1 Y OVER /i' P.T. PLYWOOD .1 I + x_12 8MJ'~~ o i n OVER 2X12DF,-2*12' 6'•I' I I. 3'-8' LI'-5' - '..M`t~. I~ 'S O.C. (MAX SPAN 11'•09 ' i 1 I I .(9'•CLG.A q~`M1~J,a!F xbl,,'GL.BM.J~. X I @' 4'-2• SHADED. AREA / / I SEE ROOF FR-AMMG rv I I I' I I (9' CLGJ i/ PLAN FOR TRUSS LAYOUT X 12 -2 GARAGE I I 5'•4*)` 3 40/4 X 22/41 i _l1i '1'-3• 4 I I 9 I I I~~ . / ' " Z W , I I I 11'1 9TRUCTU,RAL lose 6 , I I 411 COLD 14S GW . I j0 I I. U.L. LISTED DIRECT b I ~ m> I D IN INCA 1 , I CAP J BASE TYP. IX , I I VENT GAS FIREPLACE I , x g 13 m 13/6 x 13n 1 I. , UV COMB. AIR VENT i 201I 0 X 101j- 24F GL. HDR I i (10' CLGJ d• a , i m I 'S FOYER Ii FLUSH TILED HEARTH. Y 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _IX I I i , X, I MSTALI As PER hFR'9 I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - b X b POST W I I I I I I w 1 I I 6 I I 1 2 STORY I I I 5PEG5 AND CODE I , CCI& COL. CAP J m I I , 1. I I I i I 1 I I LIVING 1 r-~O , - 1 - 150X15n T 810 FRENCH DRS. j= 4 1 G5 I 1 9 (10' CLG.) m , COQ O~ ~ ~ I 2/6 X 610 FXD.UV I I,~5 i I , 2/6X6/0FXD. UV 2/0 TRANSOM Y , I 0 I 0\ ' I6/0XB/0011DR - ---__I. VbTRAN50M.EASIDE r t-----------_ • . (VERIFY CLEAR) i---------------- 51/i'.X I6U2' 24F..GL ON. - - - - - .,~5~ m \"7~ b~ ,•v I 16/0 X 8/0 OR m I 1 ..4 - 8/0 ~A" 3 „ - _ ___:_____________._1.~_ I e I r I ;,F~ \I I I I17n~1 V r' L/~~ ~FI°Y~-T ~ r I BY44 E) DATE 10 6 . 9 6 •I I0 -b 10''6' W-6' V-6' 9'_6• T-0': f 16'-0' I. PUIDE flu CON REV SED E UPPER FLOOR MAIN.FLOOR LOWER FLR, TOTAL AMA 9 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.2 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS S Q ZRNO: BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 {a BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 u~o Legal Notice Advertising •City of Tigard • 0 Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • O Duplicate Affidavit Account-s Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ss. I Tz~i-hv Snvr~nr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT i qard -Tn a 1 a t i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti aarrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the Purl i r Hr-ari naA TIP 90_02-onn_02 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE Successive and consecutive in the following issues: Legal NoticeTT 10 0 4 6 Agri 1 2 5, 2 0 0 2 OFFICIAL SEAL 1 SUZETTE 1. CURRAN 1 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 329400 1 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 28, 2003 1 'U Subscribed and sworn to before me this? 5th. day n f__LP-rj- l , 2.0 0 2_ v Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 1 Y~V, ~ -/03 AFFIDAVIT The following will e-cconsidered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday May 13, 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public; oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.390 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Hearings Officer. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter accompanied by state- ments or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker and all par- ties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed pre- cludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are avail- able inspection at no cost and copies can be provided at a reasonable cost. A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing and can also be pro- vided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from Brad Kilby, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639- 4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)2002-00002 n OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to expand the facility by 5,000 square feet for administrative offices and classrooms, and to expand th main sanctuary by 580 square feet. LOCATION: 12256 SW 135th Avenue; WCTM 2S 104AB, Tax Lot 4700. ZONES: R-4.5; Low-Density Residential District and R-25; Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Some civic and institutional uses are permitted condi- tionally. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate exist- ing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi- family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. Civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. APPLICA- BLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. ® ~ ~ i rItl1//Tr NA► ® - CUP2002.00002 OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION r 1 A TT10046 - Publish April 25, 2002. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TIGARD OREGON NOTICE: PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THIS SHEET. AGENDA ITEM Page of I DATE OF HEARING: 5-/13 / 0 ; CASE NUMBER(S): oZ . a I) VLI J10 D 0 a - DV 0O ;L OWNER/APPLICANT: IL_fiiwr 61-2ed1✓ebej- tk4 C" rcA [~IC~oQnSt On LOCATION: /aas6 .5W /3st"' Clue PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal) (Print Name/Address/Zip & Affiliation) (Print Name/AddressOp & Affiliation) Name: ) I U-S I. Name: Address: a:~4 D 1^ J ~ r wf, St *X1 Address: City: Tntd G.v%rt State: Zip: q To v City: State: Zip: Name: TC~% ~r Name: Address: wL J S~ /'e'v, Address: Ci . 74v,,- State: Z52 Zip: q~72Z~ City: State: Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zip: Citv: State: Zip: Name: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zip: Citv: State: Zia: Name: Name: Address: Address: Citv: State: Zia: Citv: State: Zip: • - • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Our Redeemer Lutheran ) FINAL ORDER Church for a conditional use permit to expand a church ) and parking at 12256 SW 135th Avenue in the R-4.5 ) CUP 2002-00002 and R-25 zones in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church) A. SUNIlVMARY 1. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church (the "applicant") requests approval of a conditional use permit to expand its church building and to increase the number of off-street parking spaces on the site. a. The site is at 12256 SW 135th Avenue (tax lot 4700, WCTM 2S104AB) (the "site"). The site is bounded by Walnut Street on the west, Benish Street on the south and a portion of 133rd Avenue on the east. The site contains about 3.9 acres and is zoned R-4.5 (Low Density Residential) and R-25 (Medium High Density Residential). b. The city approved a conditional use permit allowing the church in 1990 (CUP 89-07, the final order for which is incorporated herein by reference). The site is improved with a 6037-square foot one-story building with a daylight basement. The main floor of the building includes a sanctuary with seating for 151 people, lobby, offices, and rest rooms. The lower floor contains a kitchen, 7 classrooms, a library and storage. There is a parking lot with spaces for 35 vehicles, based on the topographic survey (39 spaces based on the application text). There are two driveways from Benish Street to the parking lot. One driveway is 30 feet wide; the other is 27 feet wide. The church building is setback about 1150 feet from Walnut Street, about 1250 feet from Benish Street, about 1200 feet from 133rd Avenue, about 2600 feet from the east lot line (beyond 133rd Avenue) and about 2600 feet from the north lot line. The church conducts worship services primarily on Sundays and conducts other church-related activities throughout the week. The classrooms are used for Sunday school; classes are not conducted generally during the week. c. The applicant now proposes construction of a 5,000-square foot, two- story building north of the existing church and expansion of the sanctuary by about 600 square feet and 59 seats. The applicant also proposes to provide 36 new off-street parking spaces west of the church with access through the existing parking lot, requiring the elimination of at least three existing parking spaces for the access drive to the new parking lot. One or two additional existing spaces may have to be eliminated to comply with city parking or access standards. However the applicant can modify the parking lot design to accommodate the requisite number of spaces. The applicant proposes to provide parking consistent with a recent amendment to the parking requirements for churches, so that parking is provided at a ratio of one space for every three seats in the sanctuary, instead of at ratio of space l _f one ne r-v a---- 7"- - - T, , , , , a Ur CVCry LWU SeaLS In the sanctuary. 1 ne latter standard applied when the application was filed, but the former standard applies to subsequent applications., The applicant also proposes to develop a storm water quality swale and a shallow, grass-lined storm water detention facility in the northeast corner of the site with access from the north end of the proposed west parking lot and across the north edge of the site. 1 The applicant originally proposed to provide another 36 parking spaces in a lot that would be developed east of the church building with access to 133rd Avenue where it stubs into the site. However those spaces are not needed to comply with the parking standards now in effect, and the applicant amended the application to delete that parking lot and its associated access. CUP 2002-00002 Hearings Officer Final Order (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church) Page 1 • • 2. Tigard Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. At the public hearing, City staff recommended conditional approval of the application. Tow witnesses testified for the applicant. The applicant accepted the recommended conditions with certain exceptions with which city staff largely agreed. Other than service providers, no one else testified orally or in writing regarding the proposal. The hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing. Disputed issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the applicant should be required to improve the 133rd Avenue stub abutting the site; and b. Whether the site should be addressed from Benish or Walnut Street. 3. The hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof for a conditional use permit based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on May 13, 2002. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Brad Kilby summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated April 29, 2002 (the "Staff Report"). He noted the applicant elected to be subject to the parking standards that went into effect after the application was filed. 3. Tricia Dickson and Hal Reitmeyer testified in support of the application. Ms. Dickson accepted the findings and conditions of approval recommended in the Staff Report with the following exceptions. a. She objected the condition of approval 8 requiring the applicant to improve the stub of 133rd Avenue, because the applicant does not propose to have direct vehicular to 133rd Avenue from the site. Corresponding conditions 9, 11, 13 and 15 should be deleted or modified if the condition of approval 8 is deleted. b. She requested that condition of approval 10 requiring the applicant to address the site from Benish Street be changed to address the site from Walnut Street, because Walnut Street is more familiar to people who live in Tigard. A /1_t_. eng neer Tl _ _ an "ag 1 1 t 1 l - • 1 1 % -I i nnn 11. responaea to ivis. Licxson by agreeing to the deletion of condition 8 and deletion or modification of conditions 9, 11, 13 and 15, because the applicant will not take direct access from 133rd Avenue. However he argued the city has a written policy to address properties with reference to the street from which the property has access to facilitate response by emergency service providers. In this case, the property has access only from Benish Street; therefore it should have an address on Benish Street. 5. At the conclusion of the hearing, the applicant acquiesced in condition 10 and waived its right to offer a written closing argument, and the hearings officer closed the public record. The hearings officer announced his intention to approve the application subject to conditions recommended by city staff with amendments. CUP 2002-00002 Hearings Officer Final Order (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church) Page 2 • • C. DISCUSSION 1. The Staff Report identifies the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The hearings officer largely concurs in the identification of applicable criteria in the Staff Report and in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is, substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards and criteria for a CUP, and adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and standards and will prevent, reduce or mitigate potential adverse impacts of the development consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report as his own except as otherwise expressly provided herein. 2. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should not be required to improve the existing stub of SW 133rd Avenue with an eyebrow cul de sac, based on CDC 18.810.020.A, because that improvement is not sufficiently related to the impact of the proposed development on the need for the improvement. That is, the 133rd Avenue stub already is improved consistent with the standards for a stub street, including sidewalks and a barricade. Although its ultimate improvement with a cul de sac is warranted to comply with city standards, its existing condition does not pose a hazard to the public safety, and the development proposed by the applicant will not appreciably increase use of the stub. No direct access is proposed from the site to the stub. Therefore conditions of approval 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15 should be deleted. 3. The hearings officer finds that the site should be addressed with reference to Benish Street, consistent with city addressing policy, incorporated herein by reference, because the site has access exclusively to Benish Street. It facilitates delivery of emergency services to the site to have the site addressed with referenced to the street from which the site has access; therefore, it is in the public interest to do so. There is no cost to the applicant for such re-addressing, based on the recommendation in the Staff Report. 4. The hearings officer is persuaded that an adequate number of off-street parking spaces can be provided on the site consistent with standards for such parking now in effect. The hearings officer notes that the applicant's topographic survey and application text are not consistent about the number of parking spaces provided in the existing parking lot, and the Staff Report is not clear about whether one or two existing spaces must be eliminated to comply with parking development standards (in addition to the three spaces eliminated by the proposed drive to the new west parking lot). However there is ample area within which the west parking lot can be extended to provide the requisite number of spaces, and the hearings officer expressly authorizes such a minor extension of the west parking lot for that purpose. The applicant should work closely with city staff in drafting final plans to ensure that those plans provide an adequate number of spaces. Recommended conditions of approval 1, 2 and 5 are adequate to ensure an adequate number of spaces will be provided consistent with city standards. Final plans also should show that vehicular access to the storm water facility will be provided from the west parking lot. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. CUP 2002-00002 Hearings Officer Final Order (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church) Page 3 0 E. DECISION 0 In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 2002-00002 (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church), subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report with the following amendment: 1. Conditions of approval 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are hereby deleted, and other conditions may be renumbered accordingly. DATE this 17th da o ay, 2002. P Larry Epste=Officer, City of Tig CUP 2002-00002 Hearings Officer Final Order (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church) Page 4 "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) i Agenda Item: Hearing Date: STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 2.2 Mav 13.2002 CITY OF TIOARD Community (Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Shaping A (Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/5/2002 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION CASE NO: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2002-00002 APPLICANT/ OWNER: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 12256 SW 135th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICANT'S REP. Zaik/Miller Associates 2340 NW Thurman Street, Suite 201 Portland, OR 97210 PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use Approval to expand the facility by 5,000 square feet for administrative offices and classrooms, and expand the main sanctuary by 580 square feet for a total expansion of 5,580 square feet. LOCATION: 12256 SW 135th Avenue; WCTM 2S104AB, Tax Lot 04700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential and High Density Residential within the comprehensive plan, and R-4.5 and R-25 in the zoning code. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.360, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards as outlined in this report. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 1 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department ra i y, 639-4Tn, ext. 388)--for review and approval: 1. Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate the manner in which crossings of the traffic aisles will be identified in compliance with Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 1$.705.030(F)(3). 2. Prior to site work, the applicant shall eliminate any and all parking spaces that are located within the access way. 3. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the buffering and screening requirements of option C-2 in Table 18.745.2 along the north and east property lines. (NOTE: The Church may use existing fencing as long as it is constructed of site obscurin materials, in good repair, and meets the minimum height requirements of option C-2.~ 4. The applicant shall ensure the vitality of said landscaping plants with a maintenance and irrigation schedule. 5. Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the overall parking plan to demonstrate compliance with the TDC Section 18.765. The applicant shall demonstrate dimensional compliance with the parking lot as illustrated in figure 18.765.1, provide for wheel stops, identify overhang areas, and label the compact spaces on the plan and on the site. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the parking plan to accommodate 10 bicycle-parking spaces. Said spaces must be designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. 7. Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the parking plan to include one "1) off-street loading space. Said spaces shall be designed and constructed to meet tie dimensional criteria in TDC Section 18.765.080(B). Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 8. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI hermit is required for this project to cover the eyebrow construction at Benish Street/13 Avenue and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 9. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide 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 entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 2 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 10. Prior to issuance of the site permit, Department with regard to revising new number that will be referenced Treat, (503) 639-4171, ext. 419). • the applicant shall coordinate with the Engineering the address for this site. City Staff will assign a from Benish Street. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley 11. The applicant's construction plans shall show the new eyebrow corner to be built at the intersection of Benish Street/133' Avenue. The geometry of the eyebrow shall comply with Washington County's Detail No. 405.5. 12. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facilitNa s r equired by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final cans and calculations shall be submitted to he Engineering Department (Brian Rager) 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. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate additional ROW at the intersection of Benish Street/133t Avenue to complete the new eyebrow corner. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to tihu~Engineering Department (Brian Lager, 6347M, ext. 31SPor review and approval: 14. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 15. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water, valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 16. 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 construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, 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. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 17. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall pay $990.50 to the City for the striping of the bike lane along the frontage of Walnut Street. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 3 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Historv: Prior to conditional use approval in February 1990, the subject site was vacant land. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 89-07 permitted the construction of a 7,500 square foot church and associated facilities to house Our Redeemer Lutheran Church. That use continues to exist to this day. The only other land use action taken on this property was a Temporary Use Permit to allow the construction workers to live in their RV's on site during construction. Vicinitv Information: The site is surrounded by property zoned for a mixture of residential densities. However, the surrounding properties have been developed primarily with single family residences. There are some apartment complexes located north of this site along SW135th Avenue. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is currently developed with the existing church. The current proposal involves a 5,580 square foot expansion to bring the area of the structure up to 13,080 total square feet and the associated site work. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to amend the existing conditional use permit to allow for expansion of an existing church by 5,580 square feet and the associated site work. Churches are permitted by Conditional Use in all zones. Conditional Use applications are subject to a public hearing before the City of Tigard Hearings Officer. Summary Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed amendment to the existing Conditional Use permit is a Type III-HO decision. SECTION V. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS The Tigard Community Development Code requires that property owners within 500 feet of the subject site be notified of the proposal, and be given an opportunity for written comments and/or oral testimony prior to a decision being made. In addition, the applicant is required to post the site with notice of the public hearing. Notice of the application was mailed and staff has verified that the site was posted. To date, staff has not received any letters in support or against the proposal. SECTION VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case, in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. Soecific Conditional Use Criteria General Approval Criteria) (Additional Conditions of Approval) OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 4 OF 22 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING CUP2002-00002 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.330 (Conditional Uses 18.360 Site Developmen ; Review) 18.510 Residential Zoning) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Additional Site Development Review Approval Standards D. Street and Utilitv Improvement Standards (18.810) E. Impact Study_(18.3901 SECTION VII. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be .permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 18.330. General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use: Section 18.330.030: The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The existing site size is 3.9 acres. This report evaluates the proposal and necessary setbacks, landscaping, etc., and as conditioned, the site size is adequate for the needs of the proposed 5,580 square foot expansion. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; There are no apparent natural features on this site, and the size, shape, and location are not extraordinary. The site slopes to the south end of the property. As discussed in this report, the site appears suitable for the proposed development. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and According to the comments received, all public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers, and water have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The following table provides the dimensional standards in the R-7 zone, the additional dimensional requirements for religious facilities are specified in the Conditional Use Standards of Section 18.330.050.13.9 and the dimensions proposed for this development. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 5 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • STANDARD R-4.5 R-25 CONDITIONAL USE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT Minimum Lot Size 1 7,500 sq. ft. 1 6,100 sq. ft. 1 20,000 sq. ft 1 169,884 sq. ft Minimum Lot Width 1 50 ft. 1 none 1 296.8 ft Minimum Setbacks Front yard 1 20 ft 1 20 ft 1 25 ft 1 94 ft Side facing street on comer & through lots 115 ft 1 20 ft 1 20 ft 1 113 ft Side yard 1 5 ft loft 120 ft 1113/244 ft Rear yard 1 15 ft 1 20 ft 1 20 ft 1 67 ft Maximum Height 1 30 ft. 45 ft. 1 Varies 1 24ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 1 - 1 80% I - I -29% [2] Minimum Landscape Requirement 1 - 1 20% - 1 -71% [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. As identified in the table above, the applicant's plans show tha the base zone and Conditional Use standards are met. t the dimensional standards for The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.390, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the followin chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.360, Site Development Review; 1837, Decision Making Procedures; 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 125 Environmental Performance Standards; 18.74 Landscafing and Screening; 1055, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage; 18.769, Off-Stree Parking; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; and 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: Variances and Adjustments; 18.390, 18.600, Community Plan Area Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standard; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured//Mobile Home Regulations- 18.760 Nonconforming Situations- 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.780, Temporary Uses; 19.797, Water Resources Overlay district; and 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use have been satisfied. Additional Conditions of A roval for Conditional Use. Section 18.330.0303 saes a e Hearings Aufhorify may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public faciXties is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The majority of activities for the Church occur on weekends and evenings. A search of the City's code enforcement records shows no complaints against the existing church operations. Staff finds no reason or circumstance to impose conditions limiting the hours, days, and/or manner of operation. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 6 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • Requiring design features, which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The hazards related to odor, dust, noise, glare, air pollution, and vibration can be mitigated through the design of the building and the buffering and landscaping of the use that has been proposed as conditions of approval. Those hazards that are inherent during construction will be held to the same standards as other construction within the City of Tigard as regulated by the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC). The applicant will also be paving the proposed lot to minimize fugitive dust and providing a stormwater filtration and detention swale within the project site. All of these items will be subject to local and state enforcement review if the applicant exceeds the allowed levels. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; The buffer requirements are discussed further in this report. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; Based on the plans submitted, the applicant has designed and placed the building such that it meets the underlying zone requirements, as well as, the additional requirements imposed on conditional uses. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The applicant is proposing to utilize the two existing accesses off of SW Benish Street. Access is discussed in detail further in this report. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; Street dedications have been requested and are addressed later in this report. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; The applicant has proposed to pave the lot, provide a filtration facility for groundwater, and utilize existing trees and vegetation to screen the use from surrounding properties. A condition of approval is recommended later in this report to bolster the landscaping and screening that has been proposed by the applicant to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; There are no new signs proposed with this expansion. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; Lighting is addressed later in this report. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; The applicant has proposed placing a berm along the western edge of the west parking lot to screen the lot. Staff will address additional screening and landscaping later in this report. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The applicant has proposed to utilize the existing fencing that was constructed on the adjacent properties. However, the screening that is discussed later in this report will address potential deficiencies in this proposal and recommend a condition to solve those deficiencies. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 7 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER i • Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; The applicant has provided a tree preservation plan that will be discussed further in this report. There are no watercourses, habitat areas, drainage areas, or vegetation other than domesticated that will be affected by this proposal. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain; therefore, a condition is not necessary. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. This development is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, therefore, a condition is not necessary. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Site Development Review - Chapter 18.360: 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 proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. Residential Zonina Districts - Chapter 18.510: The residential zoning district development standards are discussed previously in this report under the Conditional Use standards. It should be noted that Religious Institutions are permitted conditionally in all residential zones. Access. Earess and Circulation - Chapter 18.705: Public Street Access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030(H) and 18.705.030(1) shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the city for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis; The applicant has existing access to SW Benish Street, which is a public street. This criterion is satisfied. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways 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 multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The existing facility already has designated walkways to SW Benish. This criterion is satisfied. 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 OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 8 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 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; and The walkways have been identified on the site plan. All existing walkways are over four feet in width, and all new walkways vary in width from five feet to ten feet in width. No proposed walkway is less than 5-feet in width. All proposed walkways across traffic aisles are less than 36 feet in length, but it has not been determined how those crossings will be identified This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The application fails to identify by which means the parking lot crossings will be identified. CONDITION:The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate the manner in which crossings of the traffic aisles will be identified in compliance with TDC Section 18.705.030(F)(3). Required walkways 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 applicant indicates that the new sidewalks will be constructed of concrete. This criterion has been addressed. 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 less than 99 parking spaces is one 30-foot-wide access with a 24- foot pavement width. The applicant has proposed two access points. One of the accesses is substandard at 27 feet in width, while the other meets the required minimum of 30 feet. The TDC Table 18.705.3 requires a minimum of one, 30-foot access with 24-feet of pavement. The required access must also be unobstructed, and the site plan shows a parking stall located within the one access that meets the 30-foot width standard. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The existing access is obstructed by a parking space. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall eliminate any and all parking spaces that are located within the access way. Environmental Performance Standards - Chanter 18.725: Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards ranulatac• Nnica vicihla amkcinnc vibratinn and nrlnrc_ Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park fl-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stac 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 f Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340 p21-615 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 9 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily 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 temperature 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 shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the expanded use of the property will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, and possible fines until they were brought back into compliance. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement issues associated with the existing use. Landscapina and Screenina - Chapter 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be 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 subject site is separated from Walnut Street b City owned property, and there are pre-existing street trees along the property line along he entire frontage of Phis project. This criterion is satisfied. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. It is the intent of these standards to provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution that a development site may impose on adjacent properties. The proposed use is in a residential zone and abutting residential uses on three sides, and City owned property utilized for stormwater drainage on the fourth side. The facility fronts both Benish Street and Walnut Street. In these locations, buffering is not required. Staff has visited the site and the buffer area is very large, and with the exception of the trees is not landscaped. The trees were planted during earlier construction as required by the original approval. The perimeter of the site is bounded by existing fencing that has been placed by the owners of the residences on adjacent parcels. The fence is in disrepair or non-existent in Pa laces. The buffer requires a fence or wall, and a combination of trees and low lying ndscaping. The existing site has the trees and partial fence, but contains no shrubs as called for in the TDC. FINDING: The site and landscape plan does not adequately screen the property along the north and east property lines. CONDITIONS: Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the buffering and screening requirements of option C-2 in Table 18.745.2 along the north and east property lines. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 10 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER i r The applicant shall ensure the vitality of said plants with a maintenance and irrigation schedule. NOTE: The Church may use existing fencing as long as it is constructed of site obscuring materials, in good repair, and meets the minimum height requirements of option C-2. Screening - Special Provisions: Section 18.74.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped Parking areas shall include special design features, which effectively screen the parking of areas from view. Planting materials to 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 existing parking area is already compliant with the requirements of the TDC, and the applicant has provided the City with a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the standards within the TDC around the west parking area. The applicant has amended the application in order to withdraw the east parking area from consideration since the code has been amended by the Tigard City Council requiring less parking. This criterion is satisfied. Mixed Solid Waste and Recvclables Storaae - Chanter 18.755: Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan, which indicates compliance with this section. Re ardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off Irom the franchise hauler regarding the acility location and compatibility. The applicant has stated that the location of the existing facility will not change, and has indicated that the service provider is satisfied with continuing regular service at that location. This standard is satisfied. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-se arated recyclable shall be co- located witffi the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; 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 roposed 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 design standards• The storage 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 applicant does not intend to change the size or location of the existing facility. The existing facility is already within the south parking lot. This standard has been met. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 11 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 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 labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The existing facility is already screened. This criterion is satisfied. Off-Street Parkina and Loadina (18.765): On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, the Tigard City Council amended the regulations pertaining to parking standards for Religious Institutions within the Tigard City limits. The regulations become effective on April 11, 2002. Under the new regulations: Religious Institutions must provide one parking space for every three seats in the main assembly area as opposed to the previously imposed one parking space for every two seats in the main assembly area. For added flexibility, the religious institution may provide one space for every four seats in the main assembly area on the site as long as they provide staff with a parking plan that illustrates compliance with one space for every three seats utilizing adjustments, Joint parking agreements, or on-street parking. Religious Institutions may count on-street parking where streets are designed and improved to accommodate such parking. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church has requested that they be subject to the new requirements as opposed to the requirements that were effective at the time of application. Staff has indicated to the applicant that this request is appropriate and would be considered. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces, for disabled persons 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. According to the Oregon Uniform Building Code, a parking facility accommodating 51-75 spaces requires three ADA accessible spaces. The applicant has shown two in the new DroDosed west lot and one in the existina lot. This criterion is 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 Chapter, 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 occupied 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.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The applicant is proposing to utilize the two existing accesses. The TDC requires one, 30-foot access with proposing feet of pavement. If the condition to remove the parking space in the access is complied with, this criterion is satisfied. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 12 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 Loading/unloading driveways: A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose o loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. The applicant has identified a loading and unloading area on the site plan at the front entrance of the church. This criterion is satisfied. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street pparking requirements 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 applicant has indicated that the parking lot will be striped and has indicated striping on the plans. This criterion has been met. 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. The applicant has not proposed nor indicated on the site plan wheel stops and overhang areas as required by the TDC. This criterion has not been satisfied. FINDING: The proposal does not address the requirement for wheel stops and overhang areas as required in TDC Section 18.765.040(J) Space and Aisle Dimensions: Table 18.765.1. outlines the minimum dimensions for angled parking. The proposed west parking lot identifies 15 compact spaces, 36 standard spaces, and 2 ADA accessible spaces that meet stall width and stall depth dimensional requirements based on a 90 degree parking angle, but fails to satisfy the remaining dimensional requirements of figure 18.765.1. FINDINGS: The proposal fails to satisfy the dimensional requirements for aisle width between stall lines, stall width parallel to aisle, module width, and bumper over hangs. The proposal does not identify the compact spaces as required by the TDC. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the overall parking plan to demonstrate compliance with the TDC Chapter 18.765. The applicant shall demonstrate dimensional compliance with the parking lot as illustrated in figure 18.765.1, provide for wheel stops, identify overhang areas, and label the compact spaces on the plan and on the site. 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. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 13 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 The TDC requires 1 parking space for every 20 seats in the main assembly area. The applicant has indicated that the expanded sanctuary will seat 210 patrons. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide 10 spaces for bicycles. The applicant has indicated that there is an existing bike rack on the site, however, they have not indicated the number of spaces available. FINDING: The applicant has not adequately addressed the minimum requirements and design standards as required by TDC Sections18.765.050 and 18.765.070. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the parkingg plan to accommodate 10 bicycle-parking spaces. Said spaces must be designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. 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. As indicated in the previous discussion, the Church has requested that the new standards be imposed on their development. As such, the Church is required to provide a minimum of 70 off-street parking spaces. Without counting the two spaces that are required to be removed from the access drives, the site plan shows 70 spaces. This criterion is satisfied. Off-street loading requirements: 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: 1. A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more- 2. A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. Off-street loading dimensions: 1. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; 2. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turnin and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering lengtl9 shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using The facility site; 3. Entrances and exits or the loading areas shall be provided a locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; 4. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Because of the size of the building, the church would be required to provide one (1) off-street loading space to meet the standard. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has not addressed the need for off-street loading facilities as required by TDC Section 18.765.080. CONDITION: Prior to site work, the applicant shall revise the parking plan to include one (1 off-street loading space. Said spaces shall be designed and constructed to mee the dimensional criteria in TDC Section 18.765.080(B). Tree Removal - Chanter 18.790 Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 14 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The applicant does not propose to remove any of the trees over twelve inches for this expansion, and has provided a tree protection plan to ensure that any trees within close proximity to the construction areas will not be harmed. This criterion is satisfied. Visual Clearance Areas - Chanter 18.795: Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.B. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measure from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center fine grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. There are no proposed structures inside of the vision clearance area, and the applicant has stated in the narrative, that no obstructions will be placed in the visual clearance areas. This standard is satisfied. C. ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA 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: 18.360.090.13 Parking); 18.360.090.12 (Landscaping ; 18.360.090.13 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 Provision for the Disabled); 18.360 0 .15 (Provisions of the underlying zone). Compliance with all of the applicable reauirements of this title includina Chapter 18.810. Street and Utilitv Standards: As discussed in this report, all applicable sections have been addressed and where the proposal is deficient, staff has recommended conditions to ensure compliance. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall 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 fire-fighting; and oriented wih 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 Removal. The applicant has proposed to retain all the trees on site. There are no extraordinarX physical or natural restraints that would dictate the placement of the expansion. No buildings or structures are proposed that will hinder air circulation, or prevent fire-fighting apparatus from performing their jobs. The proposed structures do not exceed the allowed height. This criterion has been met. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 15 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 0 Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses: Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses and decreased noise levels, air pollution, visual barrier, on site screening of service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be considered in determining the intensity of the buffer or screen. Buffering and screening has been addressed elsewhere in this report, and has been conditioned such that it will meet this criterion. Crime Prevention and Safety: Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangBrous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this project and has not indicated concern or objection with the proposal. To ensure that the plan addresses crime prevention concerns, the applicant needs to provide a detailed lightingg plan to the Tigard Police Department and the Tigard Planning Department. The crime prevenfIon standards have been satisfied. Public Transit: ' Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to 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 Cityy and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. There are no transit services adjacent to this site. The nearest stops to this are located at 121St Avenue and out on Scholl's Ferry Road. This criterion is satisfied. D. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS - CHAPTER 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 TDCrtion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E requires an arterial street to have a 60 toy to 122-foot right-of-way width and 1246o. travel lanes. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 16 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 • This site lies adjacent to SW Walnut Street, which is classified as an arterial, based upon the recently adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP). At present, this roadway is fully improved adjacent to this site with ample ROW. No additional dedications or improvements are required. This site also lies adjacent to SW Benish Street, which is a local residential street. This roadway is also fully improved exceppt for the corner at SW 133rd Avenue. At this intersection, there is a northerly street stub of 133rd Avenue that extends part way into this site. Since there is no possibility or need for a northerly extension of 133rd Avenue, the applicant is proposing to complete that intersection with the construction of an eyebrow corner. This subject was discussed between Staff and the applicant during the preapplication conference. An eyebrow corner will complete the intersection and will provide a location for a new driveway to serve the proposed new easterly parking lot. Staff supports the construction of the eyebrow and agrees that it should be constructed to the geometry shown in the Washington County Detail No. 405.5. The applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW at this intersection to allow for the new eyebrow corner. 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. Sidewalks exist along the frontages of both Walnut Street and Benish Street. As the applicant constructs the new eyebrow corner at Benish Street/133rd Avenue, sidewalk will need to be constructed at that location. 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 including 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 is an existing 8-inch public main line that crosses this site. The plan shows that a new lateral to the main will serve the new addition. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states regwires 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 necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of 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). There is an existing public storm drainage line that crosses this site from 133rd Avenue. The line continues through the site so does not discharge water onto the site. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 17 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 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). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments 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 will 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 plans show that they will convey all new storm water runoff to the north and east. There will be a biofiltration swale along the north boundary of the site that will treat water from the new westerly parking lot. In addition, there will be a detention/water quality pond located at the northeast corner of the site. Storm water from the site will eventually be piped into the existing public storm line that leaves the site in that location. The new onsite system will eliminate an existing natural Swale that is located at the northeast corner of the site, and currently conveys surface water off the site during winter storm events. The new system should eliminate all overland flow of storm water, which addresses a concern one of the neighbors raised at the applicant's neighborhood meeting. Staff finds the proposed onsite storm system is acceptable. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Walnut Street is classified as an arterial street with bike lanes. There are no bike lanes striped along the roadway at this time. 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. Since the bike lane on Walnut Street is not striped at this time, and since this site will benefit from a bike lane, the ap licant should contribute funds toward the future striping. The City will install the bike lane striping as a part of their upcoming striping program. The amount of the striping would be as follows: 275 feet of 8-inch white stripe, at $2.50/lf 687.50 7 Mono-directional reflective markers @ $4.00/ea 28.00 1 Bike lane legend @ $175/ea 1175.00 1 Directional mini-arrow @ $100/ea $100.00 $990.50 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 City will likely set the bike lane width at 5 feet. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 18 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Studv Findinas: A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering. The report analyzed the following intersections: Scholls Ferry Road/135th Avenue 135th Avenue/Walnut Street, and 135th Avenue/Benish Street. Lancaster found that signal warrants were not met fc that intersection operates at a level of service 'LOS background traffic growth (without the affect o ' this The site traffic impact will not change that rating. improved by adding an additional westbound right Lancaster looked at LOS on Sundays. When the n will operate at LOS B or better. This is acceptable. r 135th Avenue/Walnut Street. Currently, of D during the PM peak period. With development), the LOS will drop to E. Lancaster notes that the LOS could be turn lane. Since this is a church use, aw addition is occupied, the intersection The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road/135th Avenue currently operates at LOS C during the weekday PM peak and LOS B on Sundays. After this development is operational, the LOS will be C or better on weekdays and B or better on Sundays. The intersection of 135th Avenue/Benish Street currently operates at LOS B or better during both the PM peak period and on Sundays. The LOS will not change with the addition of the traffic from this development. In summary, Lancaster found that the additional traffic added from this development would not warrant any further offsite improvements. Staff concurs with their findings. Public Water Svstem: This site is currently served from the City's public water system. The applicant's plan shows that they will tie into existing onsite water lines to serve this addition. No further public water improvements are needed. Storm Water Qualitv: The City has 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. 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 construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall providthe City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that he water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 19 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Gradina and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards. also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS rgulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for 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 five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The Buildin Division will review the grading and erosion control plans for this development as a part of he site permit review. Address Assianments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address is typically assessed. This fee is usually paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. This site is currently addressed as 12256 SW 135th Avenue. The address was issued many years ago before the intersection at 135th Avenue/Walnut Street was reconstructed. Now the address does not make much sense, especially since the church takes its access from Benish Street. Typically, the City will assign an address from the street where access is taken. The 135th Avenue address could be very confusing for emergency services, which therefore poses a public safety issue. Staff recommends the address for this site be changed to be referenced from Benish Street. Since the City is prompting the change, the $30.00 address fee should be waived. E. IMPACT STUDY: Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan/Resolution 95-61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development. Presently, the TIF for this project is estimated at $5,607. According to the Washington County TIF ordinance, 32 percent of a projects impacts are met by its TIF assessment in Tigard. This leaves 68% unmitigated. The actual cost of system improvements per trip generated by new development on the Tigard street system can be determined. by the following equation (Larson, Mackenzie Engineering, Dolan Findings, June 1995): $5,607 divided by. 32 equals $17,521.87. ($5,607 is theTIF assessment according to the Washington County TIF ordinance effective July 1, 2001). OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 20 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Less mitiaated costs The applicant is required to dedicate and improve the right-of-way along SW Benish Street to complete a safe curve radius at the intersection of SW Benish and 133' Street. At an estimated cost of $3 a square foot forapproximately 900 square feet of additional right-of- way dedication, and an estimated cost of $150.00 per lineal foot for approximately 130 lineal feet of improvements, the improvement is estimated at $21,300. The applicant is also required to pay funds towards the improvement of the bicycle path along SW- Walnut Street. The value of this improvement is estimated to be approximately $990.50. Estimate of Unmitiaated Impacts Full Impact 17,521.87 Less TIF Assessment 5,607 Less Mitiaated Costs 22.290.50 Estimate of Unmitigated Impacts 1-10.375.63 FINDING: Usingg the above cost factors, it can be determined that there are no unmitigated impacts and, therefore, the proposed improvements and imposed conditions are roughly proportional and justified. SECTION VIII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and stated that the utilities serving the structures that pass througgh proposed future building pads should be relocated. The applicant should coordinate with the Building Division prior to construction. The City of Tigard Engineering Department was sent this proposal for review and the comments have been incorporated into this report. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed this application and has indicated that all utility work should be coordinated with the City. City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed this application and has requested that the applicant notify him prior to site work so that he can ensure protection measures are in place and functioning. He can be reached at (503) 639-4171, ext. 423 City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. Long Range Planning Division has reviewed this application, but offered no comments. SECTION IX. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal but offered no comments. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this application and has provided the following comments: 1. The minimum required fire flow is 2910 gpm @ 20 psi, based on V-N construction with no automatic fire sprinklers . Prior to the issuance of building permits, documentation shall be provided that indicates the minimum fire flow is available at the required hydrants. (UFC Appendix III-A) 2. A minimum of 2 fire hydrants shall be provided for this development. Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no art of the structure is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. The current layout of the hydrants is acceptable for current and future proposed development. (UFC 903.4) OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 21 OF 22 CUP2002-00002 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 3. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) 4. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be ng combustibles on-site or the installed and operational prior to stockIGSec.8704) commencement of combustible constru( tion. 5. A Knox brand key box shall be provided on the building. Contact the Fire Marshal's Office for installation details and an application. (UFC Chapter 9) 6. A building survey and plans, in accordance with TVF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the Fire District web site. To access this information via Internet, follow this link: httr)://www.tvfr.com/Departments/FireMarshal/newconstruction.htm Washington County has reviewed the proposal and has stated that they have no objections to the proposal. Portland General Electric, Tri-Met, and Tualatin Valley Water District were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. w~ PREPARED BY: brad KilKy Associate Planner C APPROVED BY: Richard Bewer doffif Planning Manger OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION PAGE 22 OF 22 5/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING April 29, 2002 DATE April 29. 2002 DATE CUP2002-00002 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER C 001EO O0ODO 10 R Z- sw Mel3cA -DR_ ~ 11 -Sid/ w ALNUT LN U ROSY \ T \ I_ F co -TCl) -ST L I L ;ommunity Development MORNING T T ST r I 6E0GR11"' INFORMATION SYSTEM C VICINITY MAP CUP2002-00002 OUR REDEEMER T6 LUTHERAN CHURCH III EXPANSION N 0 200 400 600 Feet I 1"- 403 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. • 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 httpJA~.ci.tiga rd. or.us Plot date: Mar 8, 2002; C:Vnagic\MAGIC03.APR Cdr s r-p yea. ~s W Z W a r N M N EXISTING BUILDING a fxAgNsja a I (QTY OF -nGARD T 04~io S (mat) is not to scale) SW BENiSH CUP2002-00002 - REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION OUR r 'ti ~ • ZALK / MILLER ASSOCIATES I ul'3 ARC:1111 EC:'1 S / PLANNERS Applicant Statement Date: 02/15/02 RE: Conditional Use Type III Application/ Site Development Review Type II Application Project: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 12256 SW 1351h Avenue, Tigard Summary of Proposal The existing building constructed in 1990, has a lower floor of 2758 sq. ft. and a main floor of 3279 sq. ft. A sanctuary with chairs for 151 people, a Narthex, 2 offices and toilet rooms are located on the main floor. The lower level contains a kitchen, 7 classrooms, a library and storage. The existing site of 3.9 acres has a parking lot with 39 parking spaces. The proposed project at Our Redeemer Lutheran Church consists of the addition of an Administration/Education wing onto the northeast corner of the existing facility for offices and classrooms. Approximately 5000 S.F. divided between two floors creating a footprint of 89'-0" long and 28'-0" wide. Additionally, the proposed project includes an expansion of the existing sanctuary to the north and south adding 59 seats and 591 S.F. The site work proposed includes re-grading, landscaping, and utility work consisting of storm, water and sewer. In addition to these improvements, the project proposes a play area and additional parking. The proposal shows a new parking lot to the west for 36 cars and a second parking lot for 36 cars to the east. As discussed during the pre-application meeting on December 20, 2001, street modifications to the corner of S. W. 133,d Avenue and S. W. Benish Street are shown at the entrance to the east parking lot. An eyebrow corner per Washington County detail M- 405.5 distributed during the pre-application meeting, is created at this intersection. The existing parking will be modified at the northwest corner for an access drive to the new West lot. As a result of the changes the existing lot will have a count of 38 parking space. The total of all three lots is 110 spaces (36 + 36 + 38) which exceeds the 1:2 ratio for parking spaces to seats in the sanctuary (210 seats: 105 spaces). We are aware that there is a proposal presently being considered by the City Council to modify the Community Development Codes and reduce the parking ratio for Religious Facilities to 1:3 seats in the Sanctuary. If this proposal is approved during Our Conditional Use review, we ask that we may submit our project for a building permit meeting this reduced 1:3 parking ratio. If approved, we propose eliminating the east parking lot and street corner modification. At 1:3 ratio, the required parking would equal 70 spaces and would be met by the existing and new west parking lots (38 + 36). ~;+r)Il~~:'i11i_IIL~lAt`;til'.5I_fl'1'L3U1.1'ti~F;LLAN1).C)1ZLGc)NU?1C~ 51.i-?22-Q154 ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES ARCIll IEC1.S / PLANNERS Narrative Demonstrating Comoliance ■ Zoning District Dimensional Requirements: The proposed project is within the required setbacks, site coverage, minimum natural vegetation area and building height. • Neighborhood Meeting: Mailing to neighbors and C.I.T. on January 17, 2002. Affidavit included in submission. Posting of notice on January 17, 2002. Affidavit included in submission. Meeting held three weeks later on February 7, 2002. Notes included in submission. • Impact Study: Traffic Impact Study included in submission. pre-application conference. 11 No other impact studies were requested at the ■ Access: The property has 2 existing driveways off Benish Street. The 250" and 28'-0" pavement width exceeds the minimum width of 24'. A third driveway is proposed off of the intersection of SW 133rd Avenue and SW Benish giving access to the proposed eastern parking lot. The third driveway will require a vacation of an existing right of way in the location of the proposed driveway. The addition of this driveway incorporates a revision to the street allowing an eyebrow corner as requested in the pre-application conference. We propose eliminating the third driveway, and revision to the corner if the eastern parking lot is not required to meet the parking ratio at the time of submission for a building permit. ■ Walkway Requirements: The proposal includes walkways from ground floor entrances to the street to provide the required access and egress. ■ Special Setbacks: Our proposed addition is not with in the 30' setback from the centerline of SW Walnut Street. ■ Buffering and Screening: The proposed parking lots are buffered by shrubs and trees along the edges and an existing 4' high fence along the property line. Please refer to the landscaping drawings. ■ Landscaping: All existing street trees are to remain. The proposed parking lots are to be landscaped and have a minimum of 1 tree for every 7 spaces. A landscaped berm is used on the west edge of the west parking lot to screen the parking lot from view. ■ Recycling: The existing trash/recycling enclosure will not be changed. Lori of Miller Sanitary 503-644- 6161 said that there were no problems with the existing location. '340 N%V'111UR L-UN ST. SUril 201.PORILAND, URliCUN 971 _503-2222-4158 F: '503-222-1460 L. 1 0 ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES ARC IRLI:C"I.S /YL NNL:RS Parking: The proposal shows a new parking lot to the west for 36 cars and a second parking lot for 36 cars to the east. The existing parking lot will require some modifications to the northwest corner for an access drive to the new West lot. As a result of the changes the existing lot will have a count of 38 parking space. The total of these three lots are 110 spaces (36 + 36 + 38) which meets the 2:1 ratio for parking spaces to seats in the sanctuary (210 seats = 105 spaces). If the existing parking ratio of 1:2 seats in the Sanctuary is changed to 1:3 by the time of submission for building permit, we ask that the hearings officer would allow us to eliminating the proposed east parking lot. At 1:3 the required parking would equal 70 spaces and would be met by the existing and proposed west lot (38 + 36). The proposed west parking lot for 36 cars contains 19 full sized (8'-6" x 18'-6"), 15 compact (7'-6" x 16'-6") and 2 disabled persons parking spaces (dimensioned on site development plan). The proposed east lot for 36 cars contains 17 full sized, 17 compact and 2 disabled persons parking spaces. ■ Bike Rack: A bike rack is provided on the South side of the existing building at the main entrance to the Sanctuary. ■ CWS Buffer Standards: Clean Water Services issued a sensitive area Pre-screening site assessment that states that sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. Please refer to the assessment signed 1/30/02. • Signs: No signage is proposed. ■ Tree Removal Plan Requirements: Please reference the Existing Conditions drawing for existing tree size and location. Four existing trees are to be removed for this project (3-1 " diameter and 1-2" diameter). Their locations are shown on the Landscape plan. ■ Mitigation: This project will retain 100% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper and therefore requires no mitigation. ■ Clear Vision Area: The The street trees 1-or`J`iuciring access drives will be m '..k -,4 ,-.,J 4L- r*.4., Ti.._ A 1 nci nca vnirvc~ vv III L., al~iiuiiIq='_A egiiircu A.Jy 11 I= \-iiy vi iiyuiu for visibility., 3-'tl Nit '1111 IkL~L~~~` tii'. i31 J1'fL 2U1. L'ORLLANL), ~)RLCc?N yi_1CI 503-222-9158 I :SCI3-'32-1 h11 L: lririad: izailamllcrxc~rn Jan-24-02 12:02P Dan Symons, P.E_ (5~) 762-1962 P_02 01/13/02 15:40 VA.& 503 s4 25 CLEAN WATER SEKVIC WJ002 Pi Ir; Number ~ J / C1earlWate Seirvices Sensitive Area Pee-Screening Site Assessment Our commitment is crcac. Jurisdiction Gtrf aF ► A'z~ Map & Tax Lot 26 i vq A 6~0 Site Address i z 256 S. U. 135. 60MV , Y>K Proposed Activity Q,,2V.5 7"IZL91_' -lerU 0r' 14 it kI'v'-L,&7- Y N NA Date C-1)~ Owner >=r'D,g-C 2 Contact Address 1225!'0 ,,1,.~. )y,s? Ave. T, A (t D D (Z, Phone Y N NA Sensitive Area Cor~osite Map Map #514.4.1 Locally adopted studies or craps Specify a Ei NQ Stoan water infrastructure maps QS 3`- -4-3/,6 IM El Other d Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 00-7: Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 21110' of the ite. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUMICE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent prop ertles, a I4atural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to *:valuate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE P F!OVIIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. Q The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS, REQUIRIE- D. Comments: nh l - 9 ~CdZ T% rc Reviewed By: Date. / - 310 Returned to Applicant Mail Fax Counter Date 1 -,3 o 0 ~7_ Bye 155 N First Avenue, Suite 276. Hiftboro. Oregon 97124 phone: (so3) 846-8621 • Fax. (503) 8463525 • -clcanwsrcracnrices.arq D T JAN 2 4 2002 J By "Al K / M1 L.LER ASSOCIATES i ::1LI I ,CTS; / PL.41' NLRS Letter March 4, 2002 City of Tigard Attn: Brad Kilby Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church Conditional Use Application CUP 2002-00002 Incompleteness Letter dated Feb. 27, 2002 Dear Brad: 1 u i' 1 Thank you for your timely response regarding the completeness review of our Conditional Use application. Included, you will find an impact study and site coverage figures requested. Please except the attached letter from Andrew Vincent, Landscape Architect, in lieu of the Arborist's report mentioned. The letter addresses the tree preservation measures proposed to ensure the existing trees are not harmed during construction. I feel that our Landscape Architect is qualified to address the few, small trees that may potentially be impacted by the construction of the proposed west parking lot. There are only five trees, ranging in size from 1 " to 6" in caliper, within close proximity to any improvements. We would like to retain these five existing trees, however if the process becomes costly, we will consider planting new trees. Sincerely, T Tricia Dickson Zaik/Miller and Associates Enclosed: Impact study Site Coverage Landscape Architect Letter • r; N~~' "I11i JLlNL~N S'1 S1.J1"11: 2U1. Yt_)R1' ~Nll, f)LtLCc?h 1{ ~ 03-222-915N 1 : 5(} 3-222_ i 1r;{} L. lric.<:d;ii:z ~l duller. om ZAIK /MILLER ASSOCIATES A1:C'111:1L''C:'1.S /PLANNERS Impact Study Date: 03/01/02 RE: Conditional Use Type III Application Project: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 12256 SW 1351h Avenue, Tigard Transoortation VI: The effect of the proposed project on the vehicular traffic system was investigated by Lancaster Engineering and the study was submitted with our Conditional Use application. The report also includes information regarding transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic systems and has been used to anticipate potential impacts. Please reference the Traffic Impact Study dated February 2002 for supporting information. The findings of the study pertaining to the effects our proposed project will have on the intersections of SW Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135th Avenue, SW 135th at SW Walnut Street and SW Walnut Street at SW Benish Street are there will not be any significant impacts. This is based on the findings that a majority of the increased traffic trips to the site will be on Sundays and the high traffic times for these intersections is during weekday AM and PM peak commute. As identified by Lancaster, the closest transit stop is located three-quarters of a mile away from our site. Due to this distance and the fact that a majority of the church members live in the neighboring residential areas there should be no significant impacts on the existing transit service. Lancaster explains the existing pedestrian and bicycle system in the following way: SW Scholls Ferry Road has curbs, sidewalks and signed bike lanes. SW 135th Avenue has curbs, sidewalks and shoulders. The shoulders although they do not extend to the intersection, are of sufficient width to be used as a bike lane. SW Walnut Street has curbs and sidewalks to the south of the intersection with 135th Avenue and curb, sidewalks and shoulders to the north of the intersection. SW Benish Street, south of the intersection with SW Walnut Street has no curbs, sidewalks or shoulders. SW Benish Street has curbs, sidewalks and room for on street parking in the vicinity of the site. Pedestrian and bicycle commuting is enabled by connecting the sidewalk system to the entrances with paved walkways and providing a bike rack at the main entrance. Any increase in pedestrian and bicycle commuting would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. ^t~ lYt~"1'llLill.i~'L=~N S'1'. Si.rl'1'L.'U1.1•'tiRlL~~i:R1?.!:?!Z?~:C~i?N y?~IGr ;r:7,-~?"`-yl5k 1 : ~.~~,_ry'?~1~}f~r.r L'. lricicl:r<-c<~ila~ull~~i.com 0 • ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES .L L,UJll I EC TS r YLAI\!NLRS Storm Drainaae The runoff from the proposed addition and the east parking lot will be piped into a pollution control manhole to remove oils and particles. Next the water will be piped to a dry detention pond for flow control. The detention pond is planted with native grasses to create a settling basin allowing additional pollution extraction. From the detention pond the treated water is released into the existing storm sewer system at a controlled rate. Due to the siting and elevation of the proposed west parking lot additional pollution removal and flow control is possible. The runoff from the west parking lot will first be piped to a bio swale containing native plants and check dams to absorb pollutants and control the rate of flow. The water will then be piped into the pollution control manhole and then into the detention pond. There will be no significant impact on the capacity or quality of the existing storm sewer as a result of the proposed addition and parking lots, due to the described on-site detention and treatment. Water Supply The water service for the proposed addition's domestic requirements will tie into the existing building's water supply with a new water lateral along the east-side of the buildings. A separate line will tie into the main for fire service. The existing water meter will be moved to an approved location during the construction of the east parking lot and eyebrow corner. The existing main is anticipated to be adequate to service the building's domestic and fire needs and not create any significant impact. Sanitary Sewer A new sanitary lateral along the east-side of the buildings will tie the addition into the existing building's sewer line. The elevation and direction of flow have been evaluated and the existing sewer line is anticipated to be adequate to accommodate the additional volume and no significant impact should result. Parks and Schools The site is located near Jack and Summerlake Parks and Mary Woodward Elementary school. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church attendance is from the local area. The proposed project will continue to draw from the immediate neighborhood and should not have an impact on the park or school systems. =_+4_~N~~''111IJ}ilvL ' ;'1', SiJl'!'L ?U?. YiiR1LAN1), ~)1ZLCc.)_n i?TIt) 503-?2?-0158 F: j03-??2-1.160 • • ZAIk / MILLER ASSOCIATES yi.C'i11ILC"1'S /PLAN N RS Noise Impacts The property is bordered to the south and west by streets and to the north and east by residences. The existing building and proposed addition are sited on the property 180'-0" away from the north property line and 250'-0" away from the east and are to be screened with landscape and an existing 4'-0" high fence to minimize the impact on the neighboring residences. In addition, the anticipated activities at the church should not generate any significant noise. ~.:~r,; NVti''i'il(.fN.[:-L4N S'1'. 5111'1'1.: sULYC)RTL~Nll. C)KLCiUN Ui~lO jt1:ti-~'3?-91,8 1~: 5{i:-22'-1~?6~.~ L'. Iriciadirt;z<~ilnullcr.cum ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES ARCIRILCTS/1-'L NINLRS Site Coverage Date: 03/01/02 RE: Conditional Use Type III Application Project: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 12256 SW 1351h Avenue, Tigard Site Coveraae Existing impervious areas: Parking lot 16,988 SF Concrete sidewalks 3,485 SF Building 3,920 SF Proposed impervious areas: East & West Parking lots 41,818 SF Concrete walkways 1,307 SF Addition & expansion 3,049 SF Total impervious area 70,567 SF Landscaped areas Existing landscaped 15,682 SF Proposed landscaping 22,390 SF Existing natural to remain 62,749 SF Total Landscaping area 100,821 SF Total site area 171,388 SF 1 of i 23-41 2N%V 1111-JRA!L6-N ST. SI-IfiL 201_PORI LAND. O1LL•'C(.)N 972 1() j(13 222-9158 F: 5~~3-_^22-i?bpi L. lriciad:izziilnullcr.cam 0 0 ANDREW VINCENT ASSOC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 520 9TH STREET, LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 PHONE/FAX: (503) 635 4132; CELL: (503) 705 8663 4 March 2002 ZAIK/MILLER ASSOC 2340 N.W. THURMAN PORTLAND,OREGON ATTN: TRISHA Re: Our Redeemer Church; Grading @ West Parking Lot It is my recommendation that grading along the west edge of the west parking lot be accomplished in a manner that NO grading be accomplished nearer than 5'0" from the base of any existing tree. If this is not possible, in order to maintain the alignment of the parking lot, a stone retaining wall should be erected in a manner which results in NO grade cuts nearer than 5'0" from the base of any tree. Hence, the stone wall shall be constructed outside the 5'0" line from base any tree. Further, grades of cut banks should not exceed 2: 1. Should necessity require, a stone retaining wall should be constructed in order that no grade exceed one foot (1'0") in two feet (2'0"). I further clarification is required, please call at any time. Sincerely 6w) Andrew Vincent Z/%1K / MILLER ASSOCIATES ~E Cl11 i LCTS / YLANNL kS Neighborhood Meeting Notes Date: 02/07/02 Time: 7pm Location: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 12256 SW 135th Avenue, Tigard 1. Welcome by Pastor Paul Linnemann 2. Opening by Hal Reitmeier Introductions: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church Facility Expansion Committee members: Hal Reitmeier, Virginia, Tim Tom is not able to attend the meeting tonight. Architectural team: Daryl Seiker Architect Zaik/Miller Architects Jim Miller and Tricia Dickson Agenda for this meeting: Please ask your questions after each section. 3. Building plans presented by Daryl Seiker Expansion due to Growth of congregation. Addition of 28'-0" x 90'-0" onto the northeast corner of the building. Addition to house administration and education functions of church. Main floor will have administration functions. Lower level for classrooms. The addition will help eliminate congestion before and after services by creating another way to enter the Sanctuary. Expanding Sanctuary by 6'-0" on each side to increase the seating to 210 people. t? N~:' llli.Jlu:LN Si. 5 .11'i'L. %~i.l'C)R:l? ~NL), ~)iL C c717 4~'li:t ;r;; ~~?_ai~k 1', 0 0 ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES RC'1111LCTS /-PLANNERS Enlarge bathrooms by 6'-0". Some interior remodeling of the lower level in the existing building. Questions: Will there be a lot of land moving? Answer: No, not a huge amount. There will be some earth moved to level the North parking lot. 4. Building elevations presented by Tricia Dickson East and West elevations Line of existing Sanctuary vs. 6'-0" expansion. 89'-0" long addition location on drawing vs. existing building. Addition roof height will be approximately 3-0" lower than lower roof line of existing building and 22'-0" lower than tallest part of the Sanctuary roof. Porte Cochere will be re-built with a roof 7'-6" lower than the existing. North and South elevations Location of 28'-0" wide addition and Sanctuary expansion on the drawing vs. existing building. Location of new entry, from the North parking lot, shown on drawing. Questions: For the expansion of the Sanctuary, how will the roof be done? Answer: The angle of the roof will be reduced so that the appropriate ceiling height is maintained. Question: Where will the elevator show above the roof? Answer: Centered on the ridge at the North end of the addition. 5. Site work presented by Jim Miller Located Walnut and Benish Avenue, the existing building and addition for orientation. Location of the new north and east parking lots on drawing. The current parking requirements of 1 parking space per 2 seats in the Sanctuary (210), we will be required to provide 105 spaces. > 3 !i! N1~' 'llli_ll~[v1 51_ ~,i_fl';'L ? !l, Yilh1L4N1), C)l~LCUN U-?lit 503-232-11)158 ~iknullcr.car~ 9 • Z IK / MILLER ASSOCIATES 3 Of— AACIIt I EC TS / PLANNERS With the addition of the north and east parking lots the total parking spaces provided will be 105. There is a proposal to reduce the parking ratio to 1 space for 3 seats in the Sanctuary. If this is approved, we hope not to have to build the east parking lot. If the east parking lot is required, we will modify the corner of Benish and 133rd Avenue for an access drive. An eyebrow corner will be created as shown on the drawing. In the northeast corner of the property, a dry water retention pond will be built. There will be an overflow at approximately 3'-6" so the water should not get above that level. The grade will slope away from the neighboring yards so that water should not flow from the Church onto the neighbors yards as currently happens. Question: Will the retention pond be fenced? Answer: The retention area off of 135th Avenue is not and we do not anticipate the city requiring it for our project. The committee has not decided about a fence. We have discussed both sides of the issue and are open to more discussion. Question: Should consider a fence incase we want Daycare in the building? Answer: Yes that should be considered. Question: Will the pond be built with the addition? Answer: Yes Question: Where is the play area compared to the retention area? Answer: The play area is located to the west of the addition and the retention area is in the northeast corner of the property. Question: Will the east parking lot be built now? Answer: Only if it is required by the city. Question: Will there be a large retaining wall around the north parking lot? 2?4i.iNVV 11IIIR LAN ST. Kfflli 301.POKILANll.ORLGON Y7210 503-232-9158 F: ~0+-232-1460 L. Lici:Ai4'ztd1RLllcr.conl ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES 4o!- A N 0:1111 ECTS / PLANNERS Answer: No, on the west side, the grade will be sloped up towards the road and planted with ground cover. There will be a low retaining wall near the southeast corner. 6. Traffic analysis explained by Hal Reitmeier The church has hired a traffic engineer to analyze the traffic impact of our addition and expansion. The draft of the report indicates that there will not be any significant impact due to our proposal. The traffic analysis also included a study that takes into account a 7% growth of the community. Due to that growth, the intersection of Walnut Street and 1351" Avenue will be downgraded to a 'D' designation. This may suggest a separate Right turn lane from West bound Walnut onto 135th. We do not anticipate that the city will require the church to make this modification because it is caused by general community growth and not our expansion. Question: Does the traffic Study include Sunday? Answer: Yes. 7. Next steps described by Hal Reitmeier Submission for Conditional Use and Site Development Review next week. The city will review the applications for completeness. This may take up to 30 days. The Hearings Officer will make a ruling within 6-8 weeks of complete submission. If approved, we will submit for a building permit. We anticipate beginning construction in June. Question: How long will the construction take? Answer: Construction will take around 6 months. Question: Cost of construction? 2 310 NW'1111.jKNLAN ST. SI_Til. 2111. PORI LAND. OREGON ~ IU 1.i3-222-915!: 1 : j(i3 ?22 1»'6:1 i. iriciril:iazailsiullrr.cerr ZAIK / MILLER ASSOCIATES A CI1i I EC TS / PLANNERS Answer: We will be bidding the project after we submit for Conditional Use and will have construction cost after that time. Question: Will there be enough storage in the addition? Answer: Yes, the addition contains a large storage room. Question: Will we be using Labors of Christ for the construction? They did a nice job on the last phase. Answer: We have not made any decisions on who will be doing the construction. We anticipate using a general contractor and we will consider some volunteer labor. 8. Closing by Pastor Paul Thank you for coming. -End of meeting - Number in attendance: 21 Please reference sign in sheet for names and addresses. Additional Neighborhood Comments: Prior to the Neighborhood meeting, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church received a letter from Ron and Sharron Gibson regarding the proposed expansion. Please refer to the attached copy of their letter and Pastor Paul Linnemann's letter in response. 2340 NW '1111.112IIAN ST. SIATL. 2 U1. PORI LAND, ORLUc)N y?210 5(13-222-9158 1'. 503-222-1460 L: lrici,id: t~ail~mll~r.a.tt • January 29, 2002 Ron and Sharron Gibson 12289 SW Morning Hill Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ron and Sharron, • Thank you for responding to our letter and invitation. I'm sorry you won't be able to join us on February 7`h I want to assure you that the issue of water run-off is certainly on the table. The city of Tigard requires us to include a plan for the handling of water in our proposal. As of yet we don't have any definite plans for how water will be handled. The option of a retaining pond on the property seems like it will meet the city's and the water district's standards. I will forward your letter to our architects at our next meeting. Again, I appreciate your interest. Know that Our Redeemer wants to be a good neighbor to you. Please don't hesitate to write or call if you'd like some information down the road. God bless you. Pastor Paul Linnemann • January 27, 2002 Dear Pastor Paul Linnemann, We are a neighbor to Our Redeemer Lutheran Church and we received your letter regarding expansion of your facilities. We are most happy to hear of your church's growth and support you in your plans to expand. We have prior commitments for Thursday, February 7 so we will not be able to attend your meeting, but we would like to voice one concern regarding water run-off. Our property is located at the northeast corner of your property and we get quite a bit of water coming from the field. It enters our neighbors corner of their lot and runs into and through our yard. It would be great if that water would be redirected. We even have a portion of our driveway that has sunk because of all the run-off. We offer you our support for your plans and praise God for your growth. Sincerely, URon and Sharron Gibson 2 W F N N > Q z 0 a rc 0 LL U . IL Z a It U 0 W U ~Y._ OAlBI.1VH'~ i-- RAW ip. NOR 10MOOMP-TW72-7-11- a- 8~e y v ~ sp r Y u•~ I f *s dPM l In f Z*... ~,C hl Rnr M {i m 5 o Z.a 0 N CC ~ U A m f0 7 c Em E:= m m m m _ Az 3: 0 2 -q '6 ESN Av m m . a N M 941., M 1 F' P~ f l r f . 12805 S.E. FosterRoad Portland, OR 97236 (503) 760-1353 FAX 762-1962 STORM WATER RUNOFF AND DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS for OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH 12256 S.W. 135TH Avenue Tigard, OR February, 2002 P P/7 R 16,091 D R" N qN E. SYM~~ • • SYMONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Inc. RENEWS 6/30/021 • SYMONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Inc. PAGE PROJECT ~U2 ~~D Ecw~r'~2 / ufNFr~LA~ ~fE~Q/.kl TA A 1" 4 1^,F H o~-a 4 L- --e < < JOB NO. 2Z/ c' 2- BY Ll- 14, xn aj& 1!Ob- DATE 't~ITlc~i~ -;IAApvgaA AZC-A % ~C/ AG ~y ~c T!^+C~ vii pERvt v~5 AR C A ' ?,49 4 //1► ~j . c~ J A c, e-1 C- C5 ' ~l• ~Cl qL w .ir' ..~c ~ J• AG Q `l 3 A L CJ, 3 /aG ~ ¢ /anrDSG~~v1~ 60 en YEC1v~..vs : ~YA[c~' D`f k J LANDS~.ivi;y P7.3(o X ~5. 1 S U. 02 o. Syr asyr Z S4, 12 ,S G/ u r ~-l /-66. . ~~r5 SYMONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Inc. PROJECT ie ~KC~~T,~ECK%C- C< ~UTTHC2.aAj/ PAGE X1~ fIr✓(T (il✓:tiirl S 171?r- VY'/~' l ~!/1•'iiri~T~ JOB NO. l RI-JfIO.~• BY Gr~•i DATE ZZ~D? I r rr ri r J~:;•> 36.1 iHAr.r.~.a c~ti~, C~~q~v~~ ~.~y ~ \ Ci • rl , `1 t G ~•J o,z)(z'oo)~ rel. - b. S = 0, 0 s _ c~~ 05,5 v = 3 ~ /sic 7714 G-r' t el ,Ou LI) C~SC=7 ~V~- . / • • SYMONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Inc. PROJECT Oc9(C 7F r.1 -/C- Z. L';'l ~lfc,IZL H PAGE 5 / l/ ~A IA ' A 4, ~ 141141 Y -~a-. JOB NO. i T +/i°V ~LoP n~rNTi~n~ri~:u.•. /10,'✓.>>r'' /o~.t~f/ciVSgY ~i'/~ DATE /2 Z v i o,-, r; i .7o-j A (67A 1 C, TVI /w 4'.- -0- - e X I; T,rva 4 -~jE,a LIP - A~ - /U1L W,,l f, k C.7 A y (9 • V AG TvT~c, ~•^-,~GlZv~c~us AKFA v J i C5 = Z.Z~ Ac.. 6Ur -?o IDEAL ~JE~v1ov~ EA ' 4. 3ll AC_ - 2, . ' A c. - 2 • - % `l .A G L /4,,DScA(-rGD = D • ~G^ A c. .4 cr. WF i CsF~ rr D F ~~s 55 = 6 r • LTANTS, Inc. ONS ENGINEERING CONSU SYM PAGE /~U .z i; r JOB NO. ,OJECTr i+^iJ DATE L(o. L ^ j~/~~ V= AcG- (i ~,y Wit, C?c.,7 l o k G ~ ~ ~ D • ~ ~ ~ Awq~G9 i P►: p O r• I'rv ~ 410 rt~~ 0.5 D• LL 0 k 7,A 02 ~ J C rs ~~...C r," J 7 5: 3~2 - v~ SYMONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Inc. PROJECT r-" 1= YZ I v r{I r 2.a.- / ,Ko 2C H PAGE JOB NO. I/ / 2ti o BY C ~ ~7 DATE `o r ? Z~ yr iiL~R~~ ~~t r a- f ~ 5, Z y o ~ MA x ~Gr=S) ~e)IZI 5 wl 1 R G GT GP t i JAS cv 10 J 5 ~I T or 6% 11- 041 o.5/ h5 SYMONS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Inc. PROJECT Duff fEflG J~GhI FAQ 10 TH r-12' N 0,H,1 k G H PAGE JOB NO. ATTe- 01AL►tY rAt%L.Me Ilti S►I'.J BY. Li~~ DATE Hydra flow Hydrographs Manning's N-Values P:i es Mannino's "n" Reinforced concrete 0.013 Vitrified clay pipe Smooth welded pipe Corrugated metal pipe Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Natural Channels 0.013 0.011 0.023 0.010 Gravel beds, Straight Gravel beds, large boulders Earth, straight, some grass Earth, winding, no vegetation Earth, winding 0.025 0.040 0.026 0.030 0.050 Miscellaneous Smooth surfaces (concrete, asphalt, bare soil) Fallow (no residue) Cultivated soils 0.011 0.05 0.06-0.17 Short grass Dense grass Bermuda grass Light underbrush woods Dense underbrush woods A-3 0.15 0.24 0.41 0.40 0.80 1•. ~1. 1 d I Arr ?1 ~`~y F , Sltti~ -(k l . ti# 1~ F {j,'. + R* ~ + 14 ale. 3u „ ~yti'IF0~Y a F.^•. 1e r?h+t~,i, +,L~~; l+f~ "i d,{ fir' i•~*5,~ 41 . -74 %6 F, 'At ~1 ` 4 1 . i t , J : 1 511 tS c ''`J 1: . A'•s":a':d:.~.'::''i.,.._..;.~.L.ai j~j~'..y~•~•.~.i;~.:{~r±id:•,~~t;.r.;r r A 'p~r Y',, f tlt ~d~•.. ~r k , F`ik: u t M N~C~ ~I t~ 5 `N,;+~£'•}71s ;Y ?'61"~~ fF4 ~~.,ti~ '*-1'i A~1 ~y 01. . ~ llq~x$`; . Z1. til 11.,,1. Zr KING COUNTY WASHI 01TON SURF IO , , ACE WA TER ESIGN MANUAL TABLE 3.5-23 SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS in 1982).:, i' i Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for T pe 1A rainfall distribution, 24-hour storm duration. CURVE NUMBERS BY } HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP LAND USE DESCRIPTION A 8 C D Cultivated land(1): winter condition I 86 91 94 . 95 I i Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands. I . I 74 82 89 92. J i Meacow or pasture: 65 78 85, 89 f i wood or forest land: undisturbed or older second growth 42 64 16 81 Wood or forest land:. young second growth or brush 55 72 81 86 Orchard: with cover crop 81 88 92 94, Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, . f landscaping. good condition: grass cover on 7596 t or more of the area 68 80 _ 86 90 fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 77 85 90 . 92, • t Gravel roads and parking lots . 76 . 85 89, 91 Dirt roads and parking lots 72. 82 87 89.1:..,, Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs, etc. 98 98 98 98 °r;.:.. Open water bodies:. lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 100. 100 100 :•.100::::'' Single Family Residential (2) Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre % Impervious- (3) j 1.0 DU/GA 15 . Separate curve number' ; 1.5 DU/GA 20 shall be selected 2.0 DU/GA 25 . for pervious and 2.5 DU/GA 30 impervious portion 3.0 DU/GA 34 of the site or basin , 3.5 DU/GA 38 4.0 DU/GA 42 4.5 DU/GA 46 5.0 DU/GA 48 } 5.5 DU/GA 50 6.0 DU/GA 52 6.5 DU/GA 54 . 7.0 DU/GA 56 Planned unit developments, % impervious condominiums, apartments, must be computed . commercial business and , industrial areas. I (1) For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering.. Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, August 1972. (2) Assumes roof and driveway runoff is directed into street/storm system. (3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers. 4 3.5.2-3 t • F . I TY, OREGON - SHEET NUMBER , WASHINGTON 1 ~ i•;i ~ C , 1.~~{ - .1;3 ..•+.7C• :~..~4 DG :tr''4t,1,'i. .,,f, ! •4 .,4 f+ ~3' i~'- ;i.•:;°i;~ i tt.•~.r, 'j~ l.y}~ 5"i~ ''~lf.• ~fK r•. .~.,xa 'a;8,: 458 ' 7 SG'' i +s 1$ 1 , i .J ~ ~.y 1. iP~ ~ w ,t••,ly,h~ ' '15i~aLq tr''r j ~.1~ Y ; ti, ~.:~j7,c• •1 rR ly~> (f ~ '.r' .iq- , "'~4.3' S1.`y.° F~,~:11K..t . 'S~. r • rt« :I tir•N t -~,i' ` +458:. :l, yn. - 4. • , l , `y. Y• S•" Zr',f !n?.tle"r''. f'Si r:'.f). r. ~ ~,~i' }"~+19E,; 4 a r., . ~kw • a` ~ 1 t I • Y :1 ~ r ~ . l•' } y+yy' oo S'l• • ! 1 w r l y IF.F.1l r L~ n • :C, r;ti'~: "'~~F" `~{ti '~~...1 , ~i;2} .A5 , li•:,{.:;~`~;?~~ !N-.:;.. i~t - 58 • i..: ' ..b ' / ' A 'u+Jwt i.~~t•. •~.i'~~ v:r G'7'9~~'tI,l1"Sl~ + 1f f. •~p liCi~~ ~•r:f~ ~q ~t ti••~1i~ •A,• I ~ 6M~G.e,~•~~w ~ ?I ,.d ~~'~3!1...`~♦I ltd'::'; S' }ta_•M1}>`{• ,r ';,,'~t;; •j. 3 ~ r rv.'~"• ~ . '~d~ j ~ a ~ 41.78 a,` ` I y o 3' o } j 1 • 5000 V4000 3000 2000 1000 Scale 1020000 1 Mile 1 5000 Feet n;13 110 OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TIGARD, OREGON PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2002 • i engineering • OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH Traffic Impact Study Tigard, Oregon ~Q`~0 PROF s .c~S~GINF' 9 OREGON r vGCY9 M~N EXPIRES: 12 3~ Z Prepared By TODD E MOBLEY, P.E. CATRIONA SUMRAIN January 2002 Union Station, Suite 206 . 800 NW 6`" Avenue ■ Portland, OR 97209 ■ Phone 503.248.0313 ■ Fax 503.248.9251 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Location Description 4 . . Trip Generation 9 Trip Distribution 10 Operational Analysis 14 Summary 20 Appendix 21 -2- 9 0 INTRODUCTION Our Redeemer Lutheran Church is proposing an expansion to the existing church build- ings. Phase lA will be an expansion of the classroom and office spaces and Phase 1B will be an expansion of the sanctuary seating capacity. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of SW Benish Street and SW Walnut Street in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed expansion on the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative measures. The analysis will include level of service calculations and left-turn lane warrants comparisons. Detailed information on level of service, traffic counts and trip generation calculations is included in the appendix to,this report. -3- 9 4~~ LOCATION DESCRIPTION • The church is located in the northeast quadrant at the intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW Benish Street in Tigard, Oregon. The church is proposing to expand both the class- room and office spaces and the sanctuary 'seating capacity. Phase 1A will be an expansion of the classroom and office space and Phase 113 will be an expansion of the sanctuary seating ca- pacity. In addition the church will expand the parking facilities from the existing 33 parking spaces to either 70 or 105 parking spaces based on the City of Tigard's parking regulations. An area map showing the proposed site location is on page six. A vicinity map showing the proposed site and the study area intersections with intersection configuration and traffic control devices is shown on page seven. The City of Tigard has determined that the following intersections require study: • SW Scholls Ferry Road at SW 135` Avenue • SW 135` Avenue at SW Walnut Street • SW Walnut Street at SW Benish Street SW Scholls Ferry Road is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard, but is still classified by the City as an Arterial. The road is of approximate 100-foot width with a posted speed of 40 mph. There are curbs, sidewalks and signed bike lanes in the vicinity of the site. The intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135` Avenue is a standard four-legged inter- section that is controlled by a five-phase traffic signal with about a two-minute cycle length. The Scholls Ferry Road approaches have two through lanes and separate left-turn lanes in each direction. The westbound approach has a separate right-turn lane while the eastbound ap- proach has a shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound 135` Avenue approach has a shared through/left-turn lane with a separate right-turn lane. The southbound 135' Avenue has a single lane approach. SW 135' Avenue is under the jurisdiction of and is maintained by the City of Tigard. It is classified by the City as a Minor Collector. The road is approximately 40 feet wide and has a posted speed of 40 mph. There are curbs, sidewalks and shoulders along 135' Avenue although the shoulders do not extend to the intersections. The shoulders are of sufficient width to be used as a bike lane. The intersection of SW 135' Avenue at SW Walnut Street is a stan- dard three-legged intersection that is controlled by STOP signs on all three approaches. The 135'hAvenue approach has separate right and left-turn lanes. The eastbound Walnut Street ap- -4- 0 0 proach has a through lane with a separate left-turn lane. The westbound Walnut Street ap- proach has a shared through/right-turn lane. SW Walnut Street is under the jurisdiction of and is maintained by the City of Tigard and is classified by the City as a Major Collector. It is approximately 42 feet wide and has a posted speed of 35 mph. There are curbs and sidewalks to the south of the intersection with 135` Avenue and curbs, sidewalks and shoulders to the north of the intersection with 135`' Avenue. SW Walnut Street, south of the intersection with SW Benish Street, has a width of about 26 feet and no curbs, sidewalks or shoulders. The intersection of SW Walnut Street at SW Benish Street is a standard three-legged intersection that is controlled by a STOP sign on the Benish Street approach. The Benish Street approach has a shared left and right-turn lane. The southbound Walnut Street approach has a separate through and left-turn lane and the northbound Walnut Street approach has a shared through/right-turn lane. SW Benish Street is under the jurisdiction of and is maintained by the City of Tigard. It is classified by the City as a Local Street. It is of approximate 32-foot width with no posted speed. There are curbs, sidewalks and room for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site. The closest transit service is located about three-quarters of a mile from the site. At this distance, it is unlikely that people traveling to and from the church will use the transit ser- vice. Manual turning movement counts were made at the study . area intersections during January, 2002, from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The morning, evening and Sunday peak hours are typically from about 7:20 to 8:20 AM, from about 5:00 to 6:00 PM, and from about 10:45 to 11:45 AM. The peak hour volumes for the morning, evening and Sunday peak hours are' shown in the traffic flow diagram on page eight. -5- - r I A , L~- ~ C 210 G i u =1 I SITE- AREA MAP -6- If/D/v' _t c ORCh No Scale s • Q G= SW Scholls Ferry Road 16 Legena coo • Study Intersection Traffic Signal STOP Sign - - - - - Site Boundary PROJECT SITE SW Benish Street VICINITY MAP Existing Intersection Configurations & Traffic Control Devices -7- ORCh AM PEAK 0- ' L) 2620 "F 51 6 -T <-11' I) 1535-) 140 00 `)00 N N X ~ • PM PEAK mn Ej~y E- 1585 X167 10 -T Fl T I> 1071-~ 218 SUNDAY PEAK ,L u)m <j L> E-- 619 78 11-T FITF> 1005 -4 °`6° 5 ~ AM PEAK PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK tiCp 9 ti~ 6 ~ a° ' ?~A G AM PEAK No 16 1.4 IT0 TF> SW Walnut Street PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK aj 11 31 N a, •h - CN L> 7 TF> TF) It N^ SW Scholls Ferry Rom PROJECT SITE s i SW Benish Street L/ TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions AM., PM & Sunday Peak Hours -8- No Scale ORCh 9 0 4~~ TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed expansion, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The trip rates used were for land-use code 560, Church. The trip generation rates are based on the square footage. The total expansion for all areas was ap- proximately 5,600 square feet. Typically for church trips, the highest impact will be during the Sunday peak hour. The calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 4 trips generated by the pro- posed expansion during the morning weekday peak hour. Of these, 3 will be entering and 1 will be exiting the site. An estimated total of 4 trips will occur during the evening weekday peak hour, with 2 entering and 2 exiting the site. The estimated trips generated during the Sunday peak hour is 52 trips, with half entering and half exiting the site. The expected week- day traffic volume is 54 trips, with half entering and half exiting the site. The expected daily Sunday traffic volume is 206 trips, with half entering and half exiting the site. Because the closest transit service is located about three-quarters of a mile from the site, no reduction was made for transit use. A summary of the trip generation calculations is shown in the following table. The trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Our Redeemer Lutheran Church Entering Exiting Total Tries Tries Tries Weekday AM Peak Hour 3 1 4 Weekday PM Peak Hour 2 2 4 Sunday Peak Hour 26 26 52 Sunday Daily 103 103 206 Weekday 27 27 54 -9- • 0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of the trips generated by the proposed expansion was esti- mated from the locations of the residential areas around the site. A conversation with church staff revealed that the distribution of the 'church members is about equally split between the four cardinal directions. Since the proposal involves an expansion of existing buildings and not a new development, it was assumed that the trips to and from the church would be similar in distribution to the existing traffic patterns. The locations of Highway 217 to the northeast and Highway 99W to the east were also considered in the distribution. The traffic flow diagrams on pages 11 and 12 show the distribution of the projected site-generated trips for the proposed development for the morning, evening and Sunday peak hours. The diagram on page 13 shows the assignment of the site trips to the roadway network. -10- • 0 SW Schc,lls Ferry Rood 7 5? r SW Benish Street o ~ \7 2 v Ut rt a c m PROJECT S1TE No Scale wog SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages AM & PM Peak Hours -11- ORCh • i i C - - - 20Xb ' SW Benish Street o ~ d 2 SW Scholls Ferry Road cry c ~o PROJECT SITE No Scale ~f SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages - Sunday Peak Hour 430%. 30g~ ORCh AM PEAK PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK t-0 t- 0 t-0 000 F- 0 000 F- 0 000 0 L) .C 1 E-i 1~ y .C 1 <-j L> .C 8 0~' 0-' <-1 Tr) 0<-1 0 00^ 0--) ^o^ 0 U)oao Rood 5 SW Scholls Ferry a boo ~ tto ~ 5~ ? N AM PEAK PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK ~o ti ~o ~o ry 1~ L./ PROJECT AM PEAK PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK SITE r----- ~1 ~2 co X16 1 ON ON o- -----J ~4 ~0 ~y z7- 0 ~4 X10 -SW Benish Street Tr) TFil TF> O" 00 00 \ No Scale SW Walnut Street TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Trips AM, PM & Sunday Peak Hours -13- ORCh 0 4~~ OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Background Traffic 0 No specific developments have been identified near the site that will contribute to the traffic at the study area intersections. However, to account for area-wide growth, a growth rate of three and one half percent per year for two years was applied to the existing traffic vol- umes at the study intersections. A growth rate of between three and four percent per year is acceptable to the City of Tigard. This growth accounts for developments that are not in the immediate vicinity of the site, but still may add through traffic. The existing traffic volumes with the growth rate applied comprise the background traf- fic. These background traffic volumes for the morning, evening and Sunday peak hours are shown on page 15. The total of background traffic volumes plus site trips from the proposed development is shown on page 16. -14- AM PEAK T- 1 E- 2664 Ej ~ y 55 61' <-I TF~ 1644 )N \150 - , cc',' N PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK / ms C14 ° n E- 1698 <j ~ y X179 11~ FITI~ 1147-4 234 rn~tn oa ~o 5~ PM PEAK .C Ito ~j ~ y 663 X84 12-T ~ITr~ 1097 112 SUNDAY PEAK AM PEAK V'o AM PEAK / In~ 17 ` ~L) TF) 00 ^ t7 L./ y SW Scholls Ferry Roams SW Walnut Street PROJECT PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK SITE 12 33 too '*C1q C14 y y 7 SW Benish T r~ T ~ Street o M- LO N TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background Conditions AM, PM & Sunday Peak Hours -15- No Scale ORCh AM PEAK 04 't'L- r-nu)"t 0 PM PEAK ° 11898 -j L> X 180 11~ FITr> &12135-q, ~ rn^~ SUNDAY PEAK 663 < L> x"92k012 97 °p1nN 117 ° a ~ 5 °(t0 m AM PEAK PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK PQ AM PEAK ~ X18 1~ 4 •c' T r> co N M SW Walnut Street PM PEAK SUNDAY PEAK 14 49 (M N~ 4, y .C' ~L> X17 TF TI> 00 ~ NN ~ SW Scholls FerrY Road PROJECT SITE SW Benish Street TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background + Site Trips AM, PM & Sunday Peak Hours -16- No Scale ORCh • 4~~ Traffic Signal Warrants • A traffic signal warrant comparison was made to determine if a traffic signal is war- ranted at the intersection of SW 135`h Avenue and SW Walnut Street. The Eight Hour Vehicu- lar Volume Warrant and the Peak Hour Warrant from the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, Millennium Edition, published by the Federal Highway Administration, were examined. One hundred percent of the standard warrants were used since the surround- ing area population is greater than 10,000 people and traffic speeds do not exceed 40 mph on Walnut Street. The traffic signal warrants were not satisfied during either the morning or evening peak hours at the intersection of SW 135' Avenue and SW Walnut Street for background plus site- generated traffic.. Traffic Volumes The greatest impact to the roadway system near the church will be on an average Sun- day rather than an average weekday. A conversation with church staff revealed that about one quarter of the church trips are to and from the east. These trips include both local and non- local trips. The conversation also disclosed that a number of the trips to and from the church are non-local trips. Thus it was estimated that about 20 percent of. the trips to and from the east were local trips. Assuming this distribution, during the Sunday peak hour, it was calcu- lated that five of the site trips would be to and from the residential neighborhood to the east. For the entire day on an average Sunday, there are expected to be a total of 206 trips to and from the church. If 20 percent of these trips are to and from the residential neighborhood to the east, this is an increase of 41 trips on Benish Street near the church site. Although this will have an impact on the road, the effect is not significant. Capacity Analysis To determine the level of service at the study area intersections, a capacity analysis was conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to level F, which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The analysis was made for ex- isting conditions, background conditions and background plus site-generated traffic. The study area intersections were analyzed using the signalized and unsignalized inter- section methods in the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, Millennium Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. -17- • • 4~~ The results of the capacity analysis show that the signalized intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW 135` Avenue is currently operating at level of service C during the morn- ing and evening peak hours and B during the Sunday peak hour. This level of service does not change for the background traffic, with or without the addition of the site trips. The unsignalized intersection of SW 135' Avenue and SW Walnut Street is presently operating at level of service C during the morning peak hour, D during the evening peak hour and A during the Sunday peak hour. For background traffic conditions, the level of service drops to D during the morning peak hour, -E during the evening peak hour, but remains A dur- ing the Sunday peak hour. This level of service does not change for background plus site traf- fic. If a separate right-turn lane is installed at the westbound approach at the intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW 135` Avenue, for background traffic the level of service can be im- proved to C during the morning peak hour and D during the evening peak hour, although the Sunday peak hour remains unchanged. This level of service does not change with the addition of the site trips. The unsignalized intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW Benish Street is currently operating at level of service B during the morning, evening and Sunday peak hours. Typically, this level of service describes the minor street left-turning movement which is the movement that experiences the highest delay. This level of service remains the same for background con- ditions or background plus site trips conditions. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the Levels Of Service (LOS) and the de- lay are shown in the following table. Tables showing the relationships between delay and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. -18- • • 4e LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Our Redeemer Lutheran Church AM Peak Hour PM Peak hour LOS Delav LOS Delav SW Scholls Ferry Road @ SW 135th Avenue* Existing Conditions C 25 C 22 Background Traffic C 28 C 23 Background + Site Trips C 28 C 23 SW 135th Avenue @ SW Walnut Street Existing Conditions C 20 D 26 Background Traffic D 25 E 35 Background + Site Trips D 25 E 36 Background Traffic** C 23 D 29 Background + Site Trips** C 23 D 29 SW Walnut Street @ SW Benish Street Existing Conditions B 11 B 13 Background Traffic B 11 B 13 Background + Site Trips B 11 B 13 LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Se conds *signalized intersection **with separate westbound right-turn lane Sunday Peak LOS Delav_ B 15 B 16 B 17 A 9 A 10 A 10 A 9 A 9 B 10 B 11 B 12 -19= • i 4F"" SUMMARY 1. The proposed church expansion is expected to generate approximately 4 trips during the morning peak hour, with 3 entering the site and 1 exiting. The evening peak hour is ex- pected to result in 4 total trips, with 2 entering and 2 exiting. The Sunday peak hour is ex- pected to result in 52 trips, with half entering and half exiting the site. The estimated daily traffic volume is 54 trips, with half entering and half exiting the site. 2. Traffic signal warrants were examined at the intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW 135`' Avenue for background plus site trips conditions. The warrants were not satisfied during the morning or evening peak hours. 3. The estimated increase in Sunday trips, due to the church expansion, in traffic volumes on Benish Street west of the church is about 50 daily trips on Benish Street. The estimated in- crease in Sunday trips on Benish Street east of the church is about 10 trips during the Sun- day peak hour and about 40 daily trips during an average Sunday. While these increases in traffic volumes will have an impact on the residential streets, the effect will not be signifi- cant. 4. The intersections of Scholls Ferry Road at 135' Avenue and Walnut Street at Benish Street are presently operating at level of service C or better. These intersections will continue to operate at level of service C or better for all scenarios examined. 5. The intersection of 135" Avenue at Walnut Street is presently operating at level of service D or better. For background traffic and background plus site trips, the level of service drops to E during the evening peak hour. If a separate westbound right-turn lane is in- stalled at the Walnut Street approach, the level of service improves to D or better for all scenarios examined. It must be noted that the level of service drops to E for the back- ground traffic and the impact of the church trips on the evening peak hour traffic is mini- mal. -20- 0 APPENDIX -21- LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service A to C are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service C. Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E is generally considered acceptable. Here is a more complete description of levels of service: Level of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles. Level of service B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; short traffic delays at intersections. Higher average intersection delay than for level of service A resulting from more vehicles stopping. Level of service C: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service B due to.a significant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This is the recommended design standard for rural highways. Level of service D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in- tersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable. At traffic signals many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are noticeable. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections. Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals, and traffic vuiuiues near capacity. riuw is unstable so mat any interruption, no matter now minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F. Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable. Level of service F. Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may interfere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and speeds may drop to zero. There may be frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service F will typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is considered unacceptable by most drivers. • 4~~ LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL CONTROL DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-20 C 20-35 D 35-55 E 55-80 F > 80 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL CONTROL DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-15 C 15-25 D 25-35 E 35-50 F >50 01/17/2002 14:24 5036438866 • TRAFFIC SMITHY PAGE 09 INTERSECTION TU RN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT SW 135TH AVENUE AT SW SCHOLLS FERRY RD • T= 4.1% 29 P=.604. DATE OF COUNT': 01/15/02 p l 131 DAY OF WEEK: Tue 11 7 11 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED : 09. :00 Lip. A-69 1. J t2 0 6 1535-p- 4-620 P=.913 P=; .850 140 51 j TEV=TOTAL T %TRUCKS ENTRY VOLUME BY APPROACH A = 41 1 r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 1681-► 17 54-► WCGO 208 5 208 Peak Hour 1198 A 07:20-08:20 2822 V Traffic Smithy (503) 641-6333 T = 2.3% P=.8 77 421 = TE EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD FROM - TO J .J 1 L 41 I r► q-- L ALL 07:00-07:05 6 115 0 0 0 2 18 0 14 3 41 0 199 07:05-07:10 3 132 0 0 0 0 23 0 22 2 31 0 213 07:10-07:15 7 120 0 0 0 0 16 0 15 5 46 3 212 07:15-07:20 11 125 0 2 0 1 16 0 19 4 .51 0 229 07:20-07:25 5 133 0 0 0 2 16 0 13 1 49 1 220 07:25-07:30 23 127 0 1 1 4 22 3 29 3 57 0 270 07:30-07:35 7 104 1 2 1 1 17 0 20 3 59 4 219 07:35-07:40 23 .163 0 1 1 0 13 0 14 2 58 1 276 07:40-07:45 8 100 3 0 0 0 28 0 16 6 68 2 233 07:45-07:50 12 150 1 0 1 0 9 0 23 12 51 0 259 07:50-07:55 14 115 1 1 0 4 23 1 10 12 44 0 225 07:55-08:00 13 145 0 2 0 0 9 1 16 1 53 0 240 08:00-08:05 10 107 0 2 0 0 17 0 18 3 44 0 201 08:05-08:10 9 134 0 0 2 0 18 0 15 3 29 0 210 08:10-08:15 6 122 0 1 1 0 21 0 17 3 60 7 238 08:15-08:20 10 135 0 1 0 0 15 0 15 2 48 5 231 08:20-08:25 13 93 2 1 1 1 17 0 19 3 44 2 196 08:25-08.:30 13 131 0 0 0 1 15 0 1.8 3 40 0 221 08:30-08:35 8 106 0 1 1 2 17 0 15 1 46 0 197 08;35-08:40 10 112 2 1 0 0 23 0 18 2 74 0 242 08:40-08:45 14 116 0 2 0 0 15 0 20 2 51 0 220 08:45-08:50 6 120 1 1 0 0 10 0 11 7 64 8 228 08:50-08:55 9 103 0 1 0 2 19 0 17 5 44 2 202 08:55-09:00 11 132 1 0 0 0 7 0 19 7 51 2 230 Total Survey 251 2940 12 20 9 20 404. 5 415 95 1203 37 5411 PHF .66 .93 .3 .55 . 58 .39 .87 ,42 .83 .43 .84 .42 .918 % Trucks 5.2 3.1 1 6.7 0 11 .1 5 3 0 1,7 5.3 8.1 2.7 4.3 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 132 1529 6 9 4 14 210 5 213 54 608 11 2795 07:15-08:15 141 1525 6 12 7 12 209 5 212 53 623 15 2820 07:30-08:30 138 1499 8 11 7 7 202 2 203 53 598 21 2749 07:45-08:45 132 1466 6 12 6 8 199 2 204 47 584 14 2680 08:00-09:00 119 1411 6 11 5 6 194 0 202 41 595 26 2616 • 01118/2002 11:17 5036438866 TRAFFIC SI'+1I TH'Y' IN'T'ERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUn4ARY REPORT 135TH AVENUE AT SCROLLS FERRY ROAD PAGE 02 • T= 0k P=.638 N 1 23 DATE OF COUNT: 01/1 7/02 0 1 38 DAY OF WEEK; Thu R 11 9 3 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 1 8:00 H A-1776 41 f LO. -1769 10 ? X17 T= 1.9a T= 1. 2%. 10 7 1-► 4--1.5 8 5 P=.927 P=.96 7 218 j167 A_ T M S = UCK BY APPPRO a4 •3 T r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 12 99-► 1220-o- DLFK 180 11 146 Peak Hour 394 A 17:00-'18 :00 Tra ffic Smithy - T= 1.7% P=.825 337 TEV=3428 (50 3) 64 1-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD AL a . FROM - TO -10, .1 .4J + I Lo. -q3 1 r► I- . ALL 16:00-16;05 13 90 0 3 0 0 16 0 5 14 137 0 278 16:05-16:10 15 87 0 2 0 0 10 0 7 9 105 1 236 16:10-16:15 15 70 0 0 0 0 16 0 7 11 79 0 198 16:15-16:20 18 75 0 1 0 1 10 0 9 20 152 1 287 16:20-16:25 20 74 0 0 1 0 26 0 9 14 96 1 241 16:25-16:30 14 97 0 0 0 0 9 0 13 12 125 2 272 16:30-16;35 22 80 1 1 0 0 12 0 8 8 118 0 250 16:35-16:40 12 . 85 0 1 0 0 13 1 11 21 122 0 266 16:40.16:45 15 110 1 3 1 0 6 1 6 9 152 0 304 16:45'-16:50 9 72 1 0 2 0 18 1 8 13 73 2 199 16:50-16:55 23 79 2 4 0 2 1,9 0 2 14 142 1 288 16:55-17r00 14 69 0 1 0 0 17 0 8 10 140 1 260 17:00-17:05 14 65 2 1 2 1 14 1 8 17 130 2 257 17:05-17:10 22 119 1 1 0 0 14 0 10 9 135 1 312 17:10-17:15 14 71 1 2 0 0 26 2 12 9 142 1 280 17:15-17:20 17 97 2 4 0 1 12 1 20 18 130 0 302 17:20-17:25 20 80 1 1 0 0 13 1 9 12 142 3 282 17:25-17:30 17 92 0 0 3 0 16 2 12 17 126 1 286 17:30-17:35 23 91 0 0 1 0 18 0 19 8 130 1 291 17:35-17:40 12 79 0 0 1 0 15 2 18 9 144 1 281 17:40-17:45 21 88 0 0 0 0 9 0 13 20 141 3 295 17:45-17:50 19 95 1 1 0 1 16 1 14 16 106 1 271 17:50-17:55 13 87 1 1 2 0 15 0 4 19 129 0 271 17:55-18:00 26 107 1 0 0 0 12 1 7 13 130 3 300 Total Survey 408 2059 15 27 13 6 352 14 239 322 3026 26 6507 PHF 91 93 .63 .39 .45 .75 83 _ 69 73 .76 95 .85 958 t Trucks 2.2 1.9 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 2.1 .9 1.2 0 . 1.5 Pedsped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 11 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 190 988 5 16 4 3 172 3 93 155 1441 9 3079 16:15-17:15 197 996 9 15 6 4 184 6 104 156 1527 12 3216 16:30-17:30 199 1019 12 19 8 4 180 10 114 157 1552 12 3286 16:45-17:45 206 1002 10 14 9 4 191 10 139 156 1575 17 3333 17:00-18:00 218 1071 10 11 9 3 180 11 146 167 1_585 17 3428 01/17/2002 14: 24 0 R T H .-728 • 5036438866 TRAFFIC SMITH,'' F'r",GE 13 INTERSECTION AURNN(1MOAT OCOUNT SUUMM RY REPORT T= 0%~ P=.675 27 DATE OF' COUNT: 01/13/02 1 119 DAY OF WEEK: Sun 13 5 9 TIME STARTED: 10:00 TIME ENDED: 12:00 4J L► .4-7 0 0. • t 11 T= 5~ ~ 3 T= .0 1024-1- .4-619 P= 845 P=.925 105 78 . TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME r T=TR UCKS BY AP PROACH -4 00- P=PHF BY APPROACH 1340-11- 1 96 5 1 1158-P. 25 Peak Hour GTVW 188 10: 55-11:55 Traffic Smithy 3 - T= 0% P=.8 56 1.226 TEV=2 093 ' (503) 641- 63 3 y EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD FROM - TO J 4j { i L► 1 M r t ALL 10:00-10:05 4 51 .0' 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 13 0 1 8 12 2 3 31 31 0 1 110 141 10:05-10:10 10:10-10:15 5 7 75 50 0 1 0 1 8 0 14 1 23 0 105 10:15-10:20 9 66 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 6 6 0 1 14 9 5 4 42 23 1 0 148 106 10:20-10:25 10:25-10:30 7 12 55 76 0 1 0 0 2 0 9 1 48 0 149 10:30-10:35 8 69 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 0 12 15 4 5 36 51 0 1 138 174 10:35-10:40 10:40-10;45 5 10 87 83 2 1 2 0 0 16 1 18 6 39 1 177 10:45-10;50 .5 82 68 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 5 14 0 0 9 12 5 3 63 46 0 2 171 161 10:50-10;55 10:55-11:00 12 9 98 1 1 0 0 8 0 8 7 62 0 194 11:00-11:05 11 69 80 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 8 0 2 14 7 9 7 42 63 0 0 160 187 11;05-11:10 11:10-11:15 18 12 95 1 1 1 2 10 1 12 5 39 1 180 11:15-11:20 8 8 94 70 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 5 10 0 0 14 10 8 2 43 41 0 1 173 148 11:20-11:25 11:25-11:30 6 84 1 0 1 0 9 1 4 9 51 0 166 11:30-11:35 9 8 85 88 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 6 3 1 0 114 12 4 7 42 66 0 0 163 187 11:35-11:10 11:40-11:45 1 94 1 0 0 1 6 0 9 6 64 1 183 11:45-11:50 11:50-11:55 7 8 83 84 4 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 3 16 0 0 8 13 5 9 58 48 0 0 170 182 11:55--12:00 6' 77 0 1 0 1 10 0 10 6 70 1 182 Total Survey PHF I Trucks Stopped Buses Peds Hourly Totals 10 : 00,11:00 10:15-11:15 10:30-11:30 10:45-11:45 11:00-12:00 195 1863 16 26 11 13 201 8 267 123 1122 10 3855 .64 .95 .39 .81 .42 .45 .8 .42 .87 .85 ~.82 .38 .967 .5 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .7 0 .5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 93 860 6 13 6 3 103 3 2,40 46 495 6 1774 118 928 7 14 8 5 100 5 139 61 554 6 1945 112 979 7 15 7 7 1,10 5 135 70 576 6 2029 107 1007 7 11 7 9 96 5 125 72 622 5 2073 102 1003 10 13 5 10 98 5 127 77 627 4 2081 • • 01/17/'2002 14:24 5035438866 TRAFFIC SMITHY PAGE 02 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUAMMY REPORT SW 135TH AVENUE AT WALNUT STREET ♦ T= 2% P=.783 N 1188 :DATE OF COUNT: 01/16/02 0 + 145 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 90 0 98 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 0 9:00 H 4--576 '4J h519 14 x-31 T= 3.9k T= 3.0 224 .4-486 P=.875 P=.826 0 j2 ~ VOLUME ♦ T T RUCKS BY APPR C14 ~l ( i"► P=PHF BY APPROACH 238 32 2 -o,. DJVN 0 0 0 1 Peak Hour ~2 T 0k P O T 07.;25-08:25 TEV 5 Traffic ( Smithy = = , O =9 4 503) 64 1-..6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ♦ FROM - TO 43 1 L► 41 r► j , L ALL 07:00-07:05 0 16 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 14 1 38 07:05.07:10 0 14 1 5 0 9 0 0 0 0 28 3 60 07:10-07:15 0 13 1 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 26 1 52 07:15-07:20 0 12 1 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 36 0 64 07:20-07:25 0 15 0 8 0 17 0 0 0 0 32 2 74 07:25-07:30 0 19 0 7 0 15 0 0 0 0 32 1 74 07:30-07:35 0 20 1 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 45 3 82 07:35-07:40 0 23 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 48 0 82 07:40-07:45 0 15 1 8 0 7 0 0 0 1 54 5 91 07:45-07:50 0 14 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 1 43 0 67 07:50--07:55 0 27 0 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 51 2 97 07:55-08:00 0 15 1 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 39 1 68 08:00-08:05 0 12 3 8 0 10 0 0 0 0 29 6 68 08:05-0$:10 0 18 1 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 23 3 63 08:10-08:15 0 21 2 11 0 13 0 0 0 0 35 6 88 08:1508:20 0 18 4 10 0 7 0 0: 0 0 45 1 85 08:20-08:25 0 22 1 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 42 3 80 08:25-08:30 0 23 3 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 17 4 58 08:30-08:35 0 20 3 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 21 5 63 08:3508:40 0 20 1 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 18 6 58 08:40-08:45 0 14 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 23 0 45 08:45-08:50 0 14 3 8 0 11 0 0 0 0 23 2 61 08:50-06:55 0 12 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 23 2 46 08:55-09:00 0 13 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 20 1 45 Total Survey 0 410 29 155 0 188 0 0 0 2 767 58 1609 PHF 0 19 .5 .75 0 .77 0 0 0 .25 .82 .52 .926 Trucks 0 4.1 0 1.9 0 2.1 0 0 0 50 3.7 1.7 3.4 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 0 203 6 76 0 95 0 0 0 2 448 19 849 07:15-08:15 0 211 10 92 0 107 0 0 0 2 467 29 918 07:30-08:30 0 228 17 88 0 89 0 0 0 2 471 34 929 07:45-08:45 0 224 19. 87 0 86 0 0 0 1 386 37 840 08:00-09:00 0 207 23 79 0 93 0 0 0 0 319 39 760 01/17/2002 14:24 5036438866 U 4 6 1 X116 -4-3 4 6 ro INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT SW 135TH AVE @ WALNUT SST ♦ T= 1.7% P=.857 ♦ -4-1 I r. N 196 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 01/16/03 0 189 DAY OF WEEK:.Wed R 5 T H 1-3 9 6 ~J ♦ 73 J T= 1.2% 504 P=.930 0 577 -o- 0 TIME PERIOD FROM - TO • TRAFFIC SMITHY 111"E STARTED: 11;00 TIME ENDED: 18:00 /-4 6 L T= 1.6k P;--.77 `['EV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME T= TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 550 -0, DJVO 0 0 0 Peak Hour T= 0% P=O. EAST BOUND PAGE 04 ALL A. 17:00-18:00 Traffic Smithy 10 TEV=1135 (503) 641-6333 SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND ,4J 1 L I, F• j 16:00-16:05 0 28 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 26 16:05-16:10 0 27 4 1 0 4 0. 0 0 0 16 16:10-16;.15 0 .34 1 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 17 16:15-16:20 0 32 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 15 16:20-16:25 0 32 5 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 16 16:25-16:30 0 34 8 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 23 16:30-16:35 0 39 8 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 22 16:35-16:40 0 ' 35 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 19 16:40-16:45 0 41 9 5 0 5 .0 0 0 0 22 16:45-16:50 0 39 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 19 16:50-16:55 0 41 8 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 17 16:55-17:00 0 29 2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 24 17:00-17:05 0 33 4 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 23 17:05-17:10 0 41 5 5 0 2 0 0. 0 0 35 17:10-17:15 0 53 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 26 17:15-17:20 0 40 6 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 29 17:20-17:25 0 40 6 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 19 17:25--17:30 0 53 2 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 31 17:30-17:35 0 34 6 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 17 17:35-17:40 0 42 6 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 19 17:40-17:45 0 46 13 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 33 17:45-17:50 0 41 7 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 45 17:50-17:55 0 41 7 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 33 17:55-18:00 0 40 4 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 36 Total Sui-vey PHF % Trucks Stopped Buses Peds Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 16;15-17:15 16:30-17:30 16:45-17:45 17:00-18:00 5 67 4 56 5 67 7 64 7 68 8 79 6 81 7 71 6 88 5 73 5 77 6 68 9 78 6 96 9 99 5 88 10 82 12 110 15 77 8 86 4 103 14 112 17 112 5 92 0 915 134 67 0 89 0 0 0 0 582 187 1994 0 94 .68 69 0 77 0 0 0 0 76 .78 .867 0 1.4 0 1.1 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 1,9 .5 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 411 61 37 0 43 0 0 0 0 236 71 859 0 449 67 36 0 46 0 0 0 0 261 83 942 0 484 66 41 0 46 0 0 0 0 286 88 1011 C 491 69 41 0 48 0 0 0 0 292 96 1037 O 504 73 50 0 46 0 0 0 0 346 116 1135 0 • 01/17/2002 14:24 5136438866 TRAFFIC SMITHY PAGE 11 INTERSECTION STTUURN EMET PwC~ STREET Y REPORT 13 AVENUE T= 9o P=.691 N 166 1 T DATE OF COTWr-. 01/13/02 DAY OF U1EEK : Sun O • 171 R 49 0 117 TIME STARTED: 10.00 T TIME ENDED: 12:00 H 4-162 ~J 4-2 2 9 55 X116 T= • 3 0 T= .2k 113 *--113 P=.736 0 P=.894 p TEV=TOTAL EN'T'RY VOLUME ~ T=TRUCKS BY APPROACH 41 I f' P=PHF BY APPROACH 168 -0. 0 230 0 0 Peak Hour ERGR TIME PERIOD FROM - TO 10:00-10:05 10:05-10:10 10:10-10:15 10:15-10:20 10:20-10:25 10:25-10:30 10:30-10:35 10:35-10:40 10:40-10:45 10:45-10:50 10:50-10:55 10:55-11:00 11:00-11:05 11:05-11:10 11:10-11:15 11:15-11:20 11:20-11:25 11:25-11:30 11:30--11:35 11:35-11:40 11:40-11:45 11:45-11:50 11:50-11:55 11:55-12:00 ~0 t 11:00-12:00 Traffic Smitka T= 0%, P=O. 0 TEV= 563 (503) 641- 6333, FAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH: BOUND WES'T' HOUND a ,j 1 L► r► j r L 0 4 5 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 14 0 12 2 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 10 13 0 6 2 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 7 0 8 4 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 9 8 0 8 5 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 7 4 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 10 3 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 4 15 0 7 5 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 6 17 0 8 5 6 0 14 0 0 0 0 9 8 0 7 5 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 6 11 0 10 3 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 9 14 0 3 6 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 6 11 0 7 4 4 0 14 0 0 0 0 5 8 0 5 2 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 3 16 0 10 4 6 0 19 0 0 0 0 8 10 0 15 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 10 3 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 12 0 5 4 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 16 10 0 19 8 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 12 6 0 12 6 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 9 3 4 0 5' 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 6 6 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 10 7 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 8 11 0 5 6 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 14 13 Total Survey. PHF* Trucks Stopped Buses Peds Hourly Totals 10:00-11:00 10:1.5-11:15 10:30-11:30 10:45-11:45 11:00-12:00 ALL 41 34 .45 38 48 5o 48 41 42 43 57 36 47 58 45 39 51 51 0 203 104 78 0 244 0 0 0 0 206 247 1082 0 .71 .72 77 0 .6 0 0 0 0 .69 .85 .902 0 .5 0 1.3 0 .8 0 0 0 0 .5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 90 49 29 0 127 0 0 0 0 93 131 519 0 90 50 36 0 153 0 0 0 0 81 131 541 0 97 . 46 45 0 141 0 0 0 0 85 138 552 0 112 50 44 0 121 0 0 0 0 104 120 551 0 113 55 49 0 117 0 0 0 0 113 116 563 01/17/2002 14:24 5036 438366 TRAFFIC SMI THY, PAGE 06 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT.COUNT SUMMARY REPORT BENISH STREET AT WALNUT STRREET • T^ 3.7% P=.817 N 507 DATE OF COUNT: 01/16/02 0 T3 41 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 502 5 TIME STARTED; 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09 :00. H 4-0 .4j I 4- 16 0 ? i L16 T= 0% T= 12t 0 .4--0 P=O. P=.5 0 i ' ~V TUC KS ENTR Y VOLUME ♦ TR K S A P r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 -r 5 _ - ADFH 0 325 0 Peak Hour (502 • 07:20-08:20 Traffic Smithy - + T= 3.9k P=.864 3 25 TEV=848 (503) 641 -6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST FOUND TIME PERIOD 1 ~ I • t FROM - TO . ♦ ► 4-1 1 r' ALL 07:00-07;05 '0 0 0 0 15 0 0 19 0 0 0 1 35 07:05-07;10 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 19 2 1 0 1 55 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 23 0 0 0 1 54 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 16 0 0 0 0. 45 07:20-07;25 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 34 0 0 0 4 74 07:25-07:30 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 3 69 07:30-07:35 0 0 0 0 50 0 '0 27 0 0 0 1 78 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 78 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 21 0 0 0 2 80 07:45-07:50 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 19 0 0 0 1 59 07:50-07:55 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 33 0 0 0 1 83 07:55--08:00 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 18 0 0 0 1 58 08:00-08:05 0 0 0 0 38 1 0 22 0 0 0 1 62 08:05-08;10 0 0 0 0 26 2 0 28 0 0 0 1 57 08:10-08:15 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 32 0 0 0 0 73 08:15-08:20 0 0 0 0 47 1 0 28: 0 0 0 1 77 08:20-08:25 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 28 0 0 0 1 67 08:25-08:30 0 0 0 0. 23 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 54 08:30-08:35 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 24 0 0 0 1 52 08:35-08:40 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 26 1 0 0 3 52 08:40-08:45 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 39 08:45-08:50 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 48 08:50-06:55 0 0 0 0. 27 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 44 08:55-09:00 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 45 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 809 7 0 594 3 1 0 24 1438' . PHF 0 0 0 0 81 31 0 86 0 0 0 5 898 Trucks Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 1 14.3 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 0 1 . 2.5 . 3.9 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00.08:00 0 0 0 0 457 0 0 292 2 1 0 -16 768 07:15-08:15 0 0 0 0 484 4 0 313 0 0 0 15 816 07:30-08:30 0 0 0 0 494 5 0 317 0 0 0 10 826 07:45-08:45 0 0 0 0 405 7 0 409 1 0 0 11 733 08:00-09:00 0 0 0 0 352 7 0 302 1 0 0 8 670 P31 /17/20021 14: 24 N R. T H 4-2 T= P=O. 5036438366 TRAFFIC 91ITHY PAGE 08 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT BENISH STREET AT WALNUT STREET T= 1.4% P=.818 455 DATE OF COUATI' : 01/16/02 • 1553 DAY OF WEEK: Wed 2 434 19 TIME STARTED: 16:00 TIME ENDED: 18:00 L► .4-12 o ? t11 I T= 0k 0 •-0 P=.428 0 1 'rEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME j T=° TRUCKS BY ,A.PPROA(I •3 T r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 _ 23 DLF'2 0 542 4 Peal: Hour `435 % A 17:00-18 0 :00 Traffic Smithy 0 - + T= 1.4 P=.954 1 546 TEV=1 13 (5 3) 641,-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD FROM - TO 3 ~3 I 0- j _ L ALL 16:00-16:05 0 0 0 0 27 4 0 28 0 0 0 1 60 16:05-16:10 0 0 0 0 21 3 0 32 0 0 0 2 58 16:10-16:15 0 0 0 0 21 2 0 36 0 0 0 2 61 16:15-16:20 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 39 0 0 0 3 62 2 0 0 8 16: 5-16:30 0 0 0 0 30 1 0 29 1 0 0 6 1 16:30-16:35 0 0 0 0 26 2 0 43 1 1 0 0 73 16:35-16:40 0 0 0 0 31 2 0 33 6 0 0 0 72 16:40-16:45 0 0 0 0 20 2 0 35 13 0 0 1 71 16:45-16:50 0 0 0 0 25 1 0 38 0 0 0 1 65 16:50-16:55 0 0 0 0 24 5 0 46 0 0 0 1 76' 16:55-17:00 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 30 0 0 0 1 58 17:00-17:05 0 0 0 0 31 3 0- 41 0 0 0 3 78 17:05-17:10 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 44 1 0 0 1 87 17:10-17:15 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 52 0 0 0 3 87 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 44 0 1 0 1 83 17:20-17:25 0 0 0 0 26 -3 0 47 0 0 0 0 78 17:25-17:30 0 0 0 0 44 1 0 52. 0 0 0 0 97 17:30-17:35 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 41 0 0 .0 0 70 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 0 33 3 0 45 0 0 0 1 82 17:40-17:45 0 0 0 0 28 3 0 49 1 0 0 0 81 17:45-17:50 0 0 0 0 48 2 0 41 0 0 0 1 92 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 1 51 0 0. 50 0 0 0 1 103 17:55-18:00 0 0 0 1 35 1 0 36 2 0 0 0 75 Total. Survey ~HTrucks Stopped Buses Peas Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 16:15-17:15 16:30-17:30 16:45-17:45 17:00-18:00 0 0 0 2 732 42 0 971 25 2 0 24 1798 0 0 0 .25 81 .59 0 95 .5 .25 0 .39 .917 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 23 0 429 21 1 0 13 785 0 0 0 0 332 18 0 470 22 1 0 15 858 0 0 0 0 364 21 0 505 21 2 0 12 925 0 0 0 0 376 22 0 529 2 1 0 12 942 0 0 0 2 434 19 0 542 4. 1 0 11 1013 •41 503643• TRAFFIC SMITHO PAGE 02 ill/2'1,12002' 11. ♦ N 0 T H .,0 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SL .Y REPORT BENTSH STREET AT WALNUT STREET T= .9% P= .685 1255 DATE OF COUNT: 01/20/02 1247 DAY OF WEEK: Sun 0 ~ t31 0 224 31 TIME STARTED: 10:00 TIME ENDED: 12:00 1 L► .-3 8 T= 0 P=,413 T= 0 P=O . 0 0 TIME PERIOD FROM - TO 10:00-10:05 10:05-10:10 10:10-10:15 10:15-10:20 10:20-10:25 10:25-10:30 10:30-10:35 10:35-10:40 10:40-10:45 10:45-10:50 10:50-10:55 10:55-11:00 11:00-11:05 11:05-11.10 11:10,11:15 11:15-11:20 11:20-1:1:25 11:25-11:30 11:30-11:35 11:35-11:40 11:40-11:45 11:45-11:50 11:50-11:55 11:55-12:00 7 'R'EV=TOTAL %T P CKS ENTRY VOLU; S . P = RU BY A PROACH .-1 I r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 41 -i JWDP 0 216 10 Peak Hour 1231 ' 10 :30-11:30 Traff ic Smithy T= .4~ P=. 784 1226 TEV=51,9 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND J .J I j l.► t ' Lr AL 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 22 0 0 0 2 35 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 16 0 0 0 1 32 0 0 0 0 19 4 0 23 2 0 0. 3 32 0 0 0 0 14 3 0 1.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 9 0 24 2 3 0 6 67 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 13 4 1, 0 8 39 0 0 0 0 117 5 0 28 1 2 0 3 56 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 12 3 1 0 1 31 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 20 0. 0 0 3 41 0 0 0 0 20 3 0 17 0 0 0 2 42 0 0 0 0 22 2 0 11 0 0 0 1 36 0 2 0 0 2 51 0 0 0 0 16 1 8 0 0 1 26 0 0 0 0 19 4 0 17 0 0 0 1 41 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 28 0 0 0 1 49 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 14 0 0 0 2 40 0 0 0 0 21 2 0 21 0 0 0 1 45 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 20 0 0 0 2 38 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 22 0 0 0 1 39 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 18 1. 1 0 0 43 0 0 0 0' 17 0 21 0 0 0 c 0 1.3 2 1 0 3 40 Total Siz-Vey PHF Trucks Stopped Buses Peds Hourly Totals 10:00-11:00 10:15-1x.:15 10:30-1'j,:30 10:45-11:45 :11:00-12:00 0 0 0 0 398 53 0 4:34 14 9 0 49 957 0 0 0 0 .85 .43 0 .83 .31 .29 0 .46 .800 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 .5 0 0 0 0 .6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 176 38 0 215 13 7 0 29 478 0 0 0 0 207 36 0 21.0 13 7 0 31 504 0 0 0 0 224 31 0 216 10 7 0 31 519 0 0 0 0 225 18 0 21.4 3 1 0 18 479 0 0 0 0 222 15 0 219 1 2 0 20 479 • • TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use Code: 560 Land Use: Church Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 5.6 AM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.72 Enter Exit Total Directional 64% 36% Distribution ri Ends P WEEKDAY Trip Rate: 9.11 PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 0.66 Enter Exit Total Directional 54% 46% Distribution Trip Ends' SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 9.49 Enter Exit Total Directional 51% 49% Distribution Trip Ends Source: TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition • 4~~F • TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use Code: 560 Land Use: Church Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 5.6 SUNDAY Trip Rate: 36.63 Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Distribution Trip En 1' 3 Source: TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition • • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: SW Walnut Street Minor Street: SW 135th Avenue 2004 Background Traffic + Site Trips Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) WARRANT 1 CONDITION A Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 6,200 x: 5Q r ' 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 CONDITION B 9,300 ~`;zr1350 , 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note: ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6% of the daily volume Warrant Used X 100 percent of standard warrants used 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 8 5th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1 Condition A: Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 1 11,150 8,850 Minor Street* 1 510 2,650 No Condition B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 1 11,150 13,300 Minor Street* 1 510 1,350 No Warrant 3: Peak Hour Warrant - AM Peak Hour Major Street 1 810 Minor Street* 1 107 280 No Warrant 3: Peak Hour Warrant - PM Peak Hour Major Street 1 1,115 Minor Street* 1 51 170 No * Minor street right-turning traffic volumes removed • 0 General Information Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Date Performed 1121102 Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Volume andliming Input SHORT REPORT ISite Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year 40 SCHOLLS FERRY @ 135th AVENUE All other areas EXISTING CONDITIONS (2002) EB WB NB 1 SIB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT Num. of Lanes 11 1 2 1 0 1 1 12 I 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Lane group I L I TR 1 I L I T I R I I LT I R I I LTR 1 Volume (vph) 1 6 11535 (140 1 51 620 1 20 208 5 208 11 .7 11 % Heavy veh 1 17 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 8 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 11 1 0 PHF 10.92 10.92 10.92 .10.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Actuated(P/A) IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA I A IA IA Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 1 2.0 1 Ext. eff. preen 12.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 2.0 1 Arrival type 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 13 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N O N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 10 10 1 0 0 10 I 10 Unit Extension' 1 3.2 1 3.2 I 3.2 I 3.2 Excl. Left WB Only I Thru & RT I 04 I NS Per m 06 07 I 08 G= 2.0 Timing 1G= 2.0 1G= 76.0 IG= 1G= 24. 0 1G= 1G= 1G= Y= 3.0 1Y= 4.0 1Y= 5.0 1Y= 1Y= 4.0 1Y= IY= 1Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 (Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity;: Control, Delay, and LOS: Determination.<' I EB I WB 1 NB 1 SB Adj. flow rate 1 7 11820 I 1 55 1 674 1 22 I 1231 1 226 1 1 32 1 Lane group cap. 1 26 12188 1 1100 12284 11071 1 1 262 1 317 1 1 262 1 v/c ratio 10.27 1 0.83 1 10.55 10.30 10.02 1 10.88 10.71 1 10.12 1 Green ratio 10.02 1 0.63 1 10.06 10.68 10.68 1 10.20 10.20 1 10.20 1 Unif. delay d1 158.3 117.0 1 155.0 17.5 16.1 1 146.6 144.8 1 139.4 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.37 1 10.15 10.11 10.11 1 10.41 10.28 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 15.5 12.9 1 16.4 10.1 10.0 I 127.5 1 7.4 1 10.2 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay HCS2000TM 163.8 119.9 1 161.3 1 7.6 16.1 1 174.1 152.2 1E IB I IE 1A 1A IE 1D 1 20.1 1 11.5 1 63.3 I C I B I E 1 24.6 1 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 139.6 1 ID 1 39.6 D C Version 4.1 a SHORT REPORT General Information ISite Information Analyst CA TRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection SCHOLLS FERRY @ 1 AVENUE 35th Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1121102 Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS (2002) V.olume'andTlmin;I nput. . EB I WB I NB I SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 11 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 10 Lane group 1 L. I TR I I L T I R I I LT I R I I LTR Volume (vph) 10 1 1071 1 218 167 11585 17 180 1 11 146 1 3 1 9 11 %Heavy veh 10 12 12 11 11 10 11 10 +2 10 10 10 PHF 10.96 10.96 0.96 J O.96 10.96 10.96 10.96 10.96 0.96 10.96 10.96 10.96 Actuated(P/A) IA IA IA IA I A IA IA IA IA IA IA IA Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Ext. eff. green 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 1 2.0 I 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 I Arrival type 1 3 13 I 13 13 13 I 13 1 3 I 13 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volum e 1 0 1 1 0 10 1 1 0 1 10 1 10 1 0 I 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing ~G= 2.0 1G= 10.0 IG= 68.0 IG= I G = 24.0 IG= IG= IG= IY= 3.0 IY= 4.0 IY= 5.0 IY= IY= 4.0 IY= IY= IY= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 I (Cycle Length C = 120.0 Larie Group.Capac ty,,Control Del ay, an d LOS_Determina-ion EB I WB I NB I SB Adj. flow rate 1 10 11343 I 1174 11651 1 18 1 1 199 1 152 I 1 23 1 Lane group cap. 1 30 11954 1 1223 12442 11104 1 1 271 1 317 1 1 345 1 v/c ratio 10.33 10.69 1 10.78 10.68 10.02 1 10.73 10.48 1 10.07 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.57 1 10.13 10.68 10.68 1 10.20 10.20 1 10.20 1 Unif. delay d1 158.3 118.5 1 150.9 111.2 16.1 1 145.0 142.5 1 138.9 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.26 1 10.33 10.25 10.11 1 10.29 10.11 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 16.5 '11.0 1 116.2 10.8 1 0.0 1 19.9 11.1 1 10.1 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 164.8 119.5 1 167.1 111.9 1 6.1 1 154.9 143.6 1 139.0 1 Lane group LOS 1 E -1 B 1 I E I B I A I I D I D I I D Apprch. delay 1 19.8 1 17.1 1 50.0 1 39.0 Approach LOS 1 B 1 8 1 D 1 D Intersec. delay 1 21.5 1 Intersectio n LOS 1 C HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a General Information Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Date Performed 1121102 Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR SHORT REPORT Site Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year Volume and Timing Input 0 SCHOLLS FERRY @ 135th AVENUE All other areas EXISTING CONDITIONS (2002) EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Lane group I L I TR I 1 L 1 T I R 1 I LT I R I I LTR 1 Volume (vph) 11 11024 1105 178 1619 13 196 15 1125 19 15 113 % Heavy veh 10 11 11 10 11 1 0 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 10 10 PHF 10.97 10.97 10.97 . 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 Actuated(P/A) IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 I Ext. eff. green 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 I Arrival type 13 13 I 1 3 1 3 13 I 13 13 1 3 I Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 I 10 10 I 10 1 0 I 10 0 1 10 Lane Width 112.0 112.0 I 112.0 112.0 112.0 I 112.0 112.0 I 112.0 I Parking/Grade/Parking I N 10 I N I N 0 I N I N I 0 I N N I 0 I N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 10 10 10 10 I 0 I 10 0 I 10 Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left I WB Only Thru & RT I 04 NS Perm I 06 07 08 G= 2.0 Timing IG= 3.0 IG= 82.0 IG= IG= 17. 0 IG= IG= IG= Y= 3.0 IY= 4.0 IY= 5.0 IY= IY= 4.0 IY= IY= IY= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 I (Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane. Group Capacity; Control Delay, and LOS Petarmin a#ion EB WB 1 NB I SB Adj. flow rate 1 11 11164 1 80 1 638 1 3 1 1 104 1 129 1 1 27 1 Lane group cap. 1 30 12409 1 1 120 12651 11198 1 1 193 1 229 1 1 230 1 v/c ratio 10.37 10.48 1 10.67 10.24 10.00 1 10.54 10.56 1 10.12 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.68 1 10.07 10.74 10.74 1 10.14 10.14 1 10.14 1 Unif. delay d1 158.4 1 9.0 1 154.7 14.9 14.0 1 1 47.9 148.0 1 145.0 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.11 1 10.24 10.11 10.11 1 1 0.14 10.16 1 10.11 1 Inc.,e1m delay d2 1 7,4 I' I n.2 I ~ I 1,3 .2 1 nn I nn I ~ ~ I 13,n I 1 3.2 ~ I ~ I n.2 I I I PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay HCS2000TM 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 165.8 19.1 1 167.9 1 4.9 14.0 1 150.9 151.2 IE IA I IE IA IA I ID ID 1 9.7 1 11.9 1 51.1 A I B I D 1 15.3 1 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 1.000 145.2 1 ID 1 45.2 D B Version 4.1 a General Information SHORT REPORT Site Information Analyst CA TRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection SCHOLLSFERRY@ 135th AVENUE Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1121102 Jurisdiction BACKGROUND Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Analysis Year CONDITIONS (2004) Volume and filming input EB I WB 1 NB I SB LT TH RT LT 1 TH RT LT TH RT 1 LT 1 TH 1 RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 12 1 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 0 Lane group I L I TR ( I L I T I R I I LT I R I I LTR Volume (vph) 6 1644 150 55 1 664 21 1 223 1 5 223 1 12 1 7 12 % Heavy veh 117 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 8 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 11 10 PH F 10.92 10.92 0.92 .1 0.92 10.92 10.92 10.92 10.92 10.92 10.92 10.92 0.92 Actuated(P/A) IA IA IA IA IA I A I A IA IA IA IA IA Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Ext. eff. green 1 2.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Arrival type 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 Unit Extension I 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 I 3.2 Excl. Left I WB Only Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= Timing 2.0 1G= 2.0 IG= 76.0 IG= I G = 24.0 IG= IG= IG= Y= 3.0 1Y= 4.0 IY= 5.0 I Y= IY= 4.0 IY= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 I (Cycle Length C = 120. 0 Lane',Group'Gapaci , Control;;DeL aX, an d: LO$: Determin.ation EB I WB I NB I SB Adj. flow rate 1 7 11950 I 1 60 1 722 1 23 I 1 247 1 242 I 1 34 1 Lane group cap. 1 26 12188 1 1 100 12284 11071 I 1 262 1 317 I 1 245 1 v/c ratio 10.27 10.89 1 10.60 10.32 10.02 1 10.94 10.76 1 10.14 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.63 1 10.06 10.68 10.68 1 10.20 10.20 1 10.20 1 Unif. delay d1 158.3 118.5 1 155.1 17.7 16.1 1 147.3 145.3 1 139.5 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.42 1 10.19 10.11 10.11 1 10.46 10.32 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 15.5 15.1 1 19.6 10.1 10.0 1 140.2 110.5 1 10.3 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 163.8 123.6 1 164.8 17.8 16.1 1 187.5 155.8 1 139.8 1 Lane group LOS I E 1 C 1 1 E I A 1 A 1 I F 1 E 1 I D Apprch. delay 23.7 1 12.0 1 71.9 1 39.8 Approach LOS 1 C 1 B 1 E I D Intersec. delay 1 28.2 1 Intersectio n LOS 1 C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 a 0 General Information Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Date Performed 1121102 Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Volume.and Timinq Input SHORT REPORT Site Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year 0 SCHOLLS FERRY @ 135th AVENUE All other areas BACKGROUND CONDITIONS (2004) EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group 1 L I TR . 1 I L I T I R I I LT I R I I LTR 1 Volume (vph) 11 11147 1234 179 1698 1 18 193 12 156 3 10 12 % Heavy veh 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 10 1 2 10 10 10 PHF 10.96 0.96 0.96 .10.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 10.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Actuated(P/A) IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 12.0 1 Ext. eff. green 1 2.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Arrival type 13 13 I 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 I 10 10 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1. 0 Lane Width 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 1 0 I N N 0 I N N 10 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 10 0 10 0 10 I 10 0 I 10 I. Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left I WB Only I Thru & RT I 04 I NS Perm I 06 I 07 I 08 Timing G= 2.0 1G= 10.0 IG= 68.0 IG= IG= 24. 0 1G= IG= IG= Y= 3.0 1Y= 4.0 1Y= 5.0 1Y= IY= 4.0 1Y= IY= 1Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0. 25 1 (Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane'.Group Capacity, Control De lay,; and LOS'Determin ation . EB I WB I NB I SB Adj. flow rate 1 11 11439 1 1186 11769 1 19 1 1 214 1 163 1 1 26 1 Lane group cap. 1 30 11954 1 1223 12442 11104 1 1 271 1 317 1 1 345 1 v/c ratio 10.37 10.74 1 10.83 10.72 10.02 1 10.79 10.51 1 10.08 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.57 1 10.13 10.68 10.68 1 10.20 10.20 1 10.20 1 Unif. delay dl 158.4 119.3 1 151.3 111.9 16.1 1 145.6 142.8 1 139.0 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.29 1 10.37 10.29 10.11 1 10.34 10.12 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 17.4 1 1.5 1 123.0 1 1.1 1 0.0 1 1 14.5 11.4 1 10.1 1 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay HCS2000TM 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 165.8 120.8 1 174.3 113.0 1 6.1 1 160.1 144.2 1E IC I IE IB IA I IE ID 1 21.2 1 18.7 1 53.3 C 1 B + D 1 23.2 1 Intersection LOS Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 1.000 1 139.1 1 ID I 1 39.1 D C Version 4.1a 0 SHORT REPORT General Information ..Site Information.. Analyst CA TRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection SCHOLLS FERRY @ 135th AVENUE Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1121102 Jurisdiction BACKGROUND Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Analysis Year CONDITIONS (2004) Voldme and,Timinq.lnput . . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1.1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group I L I TR I I L I T I R I I LT I R I LTR 1 Volume (vph) 1 12 1097 112 1 84 1 663 1 3 1 103 1 5 1 134 1 10 1 5 1 14 % Heavy veh 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PHF 10.97 10.97 10.97 0.97 10.97 0.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 (Actuated (P/A) I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Ext. eff. green 1 2.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Arrival type 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 I 1 3 1. Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 1 Parking/Grade/Parking N 1 0 1 N I N 0 1 N I N 1 0 1 N I N 1 0 1 N Parking/hr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bus stops/hr 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 ( 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left WB Only I Thru & RT 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 2.0 IG= 3.0 IG= 82.0 IG= I G = 17. 0 IG= IG= IG= Y= 3.0 IY= 4.0 IY= 5.0 I Y= IY= 4.0 IY= IY= IY= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 (Cycle Length C = 120. 0 Lare, Group dapacty,,.Control Del ay; an d: LOS Determination , , E13 I WB I NB SB Adj. flow rate 1 12 11246 1 1 87 1 684 1 3 1 1 111 1 138 1 1 29 Lane group cap. 1 30 12409 1 1120 12651 11198 1 1 193 1 229 1 1 224 v/c ratio 10.40 10.52 1 10.73 10.26 10.00 1 10.58 10.60 1 10.13 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.68 1 10.07 10.74 10.74 1 10.14 10.14 1 10.14 1 Unif. delay d1 158.4 19.3 1 154.9 15.0 14.0 1 148.1 148.3 1 145.0 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.12 1 10.29 10.11 10.11 1 10.17 10.19 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 18.5 10.2 1 119.5 1 0.1 1 0.0 1 4.2 14.4 1 10.3 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 166.9 1 9.5 1 174.4 1 5.0 1 4.0 1 152.3 152.8 Lane group LOS I E A E I A I A I I D I D Apprch. delay 1 10.1 1 12.8 1 52.5 Approach LOS 1 B 1 B 1 D Intersec. delay 1 16.0 1 Intersection LOS HCS2006T M Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 145.3 1 ID 1 45.3 D B Version 4.1a SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst CA TRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection SCHOLLS FERRY@ 135th AVENUE Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1121102 Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH J RT - LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Lane group 1 L I TR I I L 1 T 1 R 1 I LT I R I 1 LTR 1 Volume (vph) 1 6 1644 151 1 56 664 1 21 223 5 1 224 1 12 7 12 % Heavy veh 1 17 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 8 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 5 1 11 1 0 P H F 10.92 0.92 10.92 .I 0.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 0.92 Actuated (P/A) I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A Startup lost time 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 2.0 1 Ext. eff. green 12.0 12.0 X2.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Arrival type 13 1 3 1 J 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 I N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT~ 04 1 NS Perm I 06 I 07 08 G= 2.0 Timing 1G= 2.0 IG= 76.0 IG= I G = 24. 0 JG= IG= IG= . Y= 3.0 1Y= 4.0 1Y= 5.0 IY= IY= 4.0 IY= lY= lY= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 JCycle Length C = 120.0 Lane'Group.Capaclty: Coritrol:Delay; and LOS.DetermIn ation . I EB 1 WB I NB 1 SB Adj. flow rate 1 7 11951 1 1 61 1 722 1 23 I 1 247 1 243 I 1 34 1 Lane group cap. 1 26 12188 I 1100 12284 11071 1 1 262 1 317 I 1 245 1 v/c ratio 10.27 10.89 1 10.61 10.32 10.02 1 10.94 10.77 1 10.14 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.63 1 10.06 10.68 10.68 1 10.20 10.20 1 10.20 1 Unif. delay dl 158.3 118.5 1 155.2 1 7.7 16.1 1 147.3 145.4 1 139.5 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.42 1 10.20 10.11 10.11 1 10.46 10.32 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 15.5 15.1 1 110.4 10.1 10.0 1 140.2 110.8 1 10.3 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 163.8 123.6 1 165.6 1 7.8 1 6.1 1 187.5 156.1 1 139.8 1 Lane group LOS 1 E 1 C 1 1 E 1 A l A 1 1 F 1 E 1 1 D 1 Apprch. delay 1 23.8 1 12.1 1 72.0 1 39.8 Approach LOS 1 C 1 B 1 E 1 D Intersec. delay 1 28.3 1 Intersection LOS 1 C HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst CA TRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection SCHOLLS FERRY @ 135th AVENUE Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1121102 Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Volume.and.Timina Input . EB 1 WB i NB I SB LT I TH I RT I LT I TH I RT I LT I TH I RT I LT I TH I RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Lane group I L 1 TR I L I T I R I I LT I R I I LTR I Volume (vph) 11 1147 1235 180 1698 18 194 12 157 3 10 12 % Heavy veh 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 . 10.96 10.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Actuated(P/A) IA IA IA IA IA A IA IA IA IA IA IA Startup lost time 12.0 1 2.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Ext. eff. green 1 2.0 1 2.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 2.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Arrival type 1 3 13 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 l 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 112.0 12.0 1 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N O N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT I 04 NS Perm 06 _ 07 08 Timing G= 2.0 1G= 10.0 IG= 68.0 IG= I G = 24. 0 IG= IG= IG= Y= 3.0 1Y= 4.0 1Y= 5.0 IY= IY= 4.0 IY= 1Y= lY= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 lCycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group CapacControl Del ay, an d:,LO.SDetermin ation: EB I WB I NB I SB Adj. flow rate 111 11440 1 1188 11769 1 19 1 1 215 1 164 1 1 26 1 Lane group cap. 1 30 11954 1 1223 12442 11104 1 1 271 1 317 1345. 1 v/c ratio 10.37 10.74 1 10.84 10.72 10.02 1 10.79 10.52 10.08 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.57 1 10.13 10.68 10.68 1 10.20 10.20 1 10.20 1 Unif. delay d1 158.4 119.3 1 151.3 111.9 16.1 1 145.6 142.8 1 139.0 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.29 1 10.38 10.29 10.11 1 10.34 10.12 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 17.4 11.5 1 124.3- 1 1.1 10.0 1 114.9 1 1.5 1 10.1 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 165.8 120.8 1 175.7 113.0 16.1 1 160.5 144.3 1 139.1 1 Lane group LOS 1 E I C I I E I B I A I I E I D I I D Apprch. delay 1 21.2 1 18.9 1 53.5 1 39.1 Approach LOS 1 C I B I D I D Intersec. delay 1 23.3 1 Intersection LOS 1 C MCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 a 0 SHORT REPORT 1General Information Site Information Analyst CA TRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection SCHOLLS FERRY @ 135th AVENUE Agency or Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1121102 Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Jurisdiction Analysis Year BACKG ROUND + SITE (2004) I Volume' and Timing I nput EB 1 WB I NB 1 SB LT TH 1 RT LT TH 1 RT 1 LT 1 TH 1 RT LT 1 TH 1 RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Lane group I L I TR I 1 L I T 1 R I I LT 1 R I LTR Volume (vph) 12 11097 117 92 663 3 1 108 1 5 142 10 1 5 14 % Heavy veh 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 PHF 0.97 0.97 10.97 0.97 0.97 10.97 0.97 10.97 10.97 0.97 10.97 10.97 Actuated (P/A) I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A I A Startup lost time 12.0 1 2.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 1 Ext. eff. green 1 2.0 1 2.0 1 1 2.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 Arrival type 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volum e 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N O N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 (Unit Extension 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 1 3.2 Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 I NS Perm 06 I 07 08 Timing G= 2.0 1G= 3.0 IG= 82.0 IG= I G = 17. 0 1G= IG= IG= Y= 3.0 1Y= 4.0 1Y= 5.0 IY= IY= 4.0 IY= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 (Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, an d LOS. Determin ation EB WB I NB 1 SB Adj. flow rate 1 12 1252 1 95 1 684 1 3 I 1 116 1 146 I 1 29 1 Lane group cap. 1 30 12407 I 1 120 12651 11198 I 1 193 1 229 I 1 219 1 v/c ratio 10.40 10.52 1 10.79 10.26 10.00 1 10.60 10.64 1 10.13 1 Green ratio 10.02 10.68 1 10.07 10.74 10.74 1 10.14 10.14 10.14 1 Unif. delay d1 158.4 19.3 1 155.2 15.0 14.0 1 148.3 148.6 145.0 1 Delay factor k 10.11 10.13 1 10.34 10.11 10.11 1 10.19 10.22 1 10.11 1 Increm. delay d2 18.5 10.2 1 29.3 10.1 10.0 1 1 5.2 1 5.8 1 1 0.3 1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 166.9 19.5 1 184.5 15.0 1 4.0 1 153.5 154.4 1 145.3 1 Lane group LOS 1 E I A 1 1 F I A I A I I D I D I I D 1 Apprch. delay 1 10.1 1 14.7 1 54.0 1 45.3 Approach LOS I B 1 B 1 D 1 D Intersec. delay 1 17.0 1 Intersectio n LOS I B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1a General Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS (Site Information CATRIONA SUMRA/N LANCASTER ENGINEERING 1121102 AM PEAK HOUR lEast/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET Volume, Adjustments and. Site:Characterh3tics Approach I Eastbound Movement I L I T Volume 14 224 %Thrus Left Lane 50 (Approach I Northbounc (Movement I L I T IVolume 0 0 I%Thrus Left Lane I 50 Eastbound L1 I L2 L1 Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT STREET Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS (2002) Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE R 0 I R 0 Westbound I L2 L 0 50 L 98 50 Northbound L1 I L2 Westbound T I R 486 31 Southbound T I R 0 90 I Southbound L1 I L2 Configuration L T TR L R PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Flow Rate 15 240 555 105 96 % Heavy Vehicles 0 4 4 2 2 No. Lanes 2 1 0 2 Geometry Group 5 3b 1 Duration, T I 0.25 Satutation,HeadwaYA d)u9 m ent :Worksheet. , . (Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 1 1 1 1.0 1 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 1 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.1 1 I 1 1 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 1 1 1 0.0 • 1 0.0 hLT-adj 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 I 1 I 0.2 1 0.2 hRT-adj 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 1 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 hHV-adj I 1.7 I 1.7 1 1.7 1 1.7 1 1 1 1.7 1 1.7 hadj, computed 1 5.91 1 5.91 1 5.91 1 I I 1 5.91 1 5.91 (Departure Headway.,and.Serv ice.Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, Initial 0.01 0.21 0.49 0.09 0.09 hd, final value I 5.91 I 5.91 '5.91 I I I I 5.91 I 5.91 x, final value 0.02 0.39 0.82 0.18 0.14 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.5 ICapacityfandleivel, of Service:..:. , I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 265 I 490 I 675 I I I I 355 I 346 Delay I 8.76 1 12.05 127.30 I I I I 10.61 I 9.34 LOS I A I B I D I I I I B I A Approach: Delay I 11.86 1 27.30 I 1 1 0.00+ LOS I B I D I 1 B Intersection Delay I 19.97 Intersection LOS C HCS100dm Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS (General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS (2002) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH JEast/west Street: SW WALNUT STREET INorth/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volume Adjustments and Site Characte ristics Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement j L I T I R i L I T I R Volume I 73 I 504 1 0 1 0 1 346 1 116 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I I 50 Approach I Northbound I Southbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 46 1 0 1 50 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I I 50 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration I L I T I TR I I I I L I R PHI 1 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.87 I I I I 0.87 1 0.87 Flow Rate 1 83 579 1 530 I I I I 52 I 57 % Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 1 1 2 I I I I 2 I 1 No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 Geometry Group 1 5 1 3b I 1 1 I Duration, T + 0.25 Saturatio'n'-H, eadway Adjustment Worksheet.: " Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I L I I 1.0 ..0.0 Prop. Right-Turns I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.3 I I I I 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I I I I 0.0 I 0.0 hLT-adj I 0.2 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 i I I 0.2 I 0.2 IhRT-adj 1 -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I I I -0.6 I -0.6 IhHV-adj I 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 I I I 1.7 i 1.7 hadj, computed I 5.59 I 5.59 I 5.59 I I I I 5.59 I 5.59 Departure Headway.andService'Tme I hd, initial value 1 3.20 1 3.20 1 3.20 I I I I 3.20 1 3.20 1 x, initial 1 0.07 1 0.51 1 0.47 1 1 1 1 0.05 1 0.05 1hd, final value 1 5.59 1 5.59 1 5.59 I I I I 5.59 1 5.59 Ix, final value 1 0.13 1 0.87 1 0.78 I I 1 I 0.10 1 0.10 Move-up time, m 1 2.3 1 2.0 I I 2.0 Service Time i 3.3 1 3.1 1 3.3 1 3.1 1 3.3 ) 3.1 1 3.3 1 3.1 ---_41`&`d, C6Pacity;aneveService,. Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 333 I 663 I 671 I I I I 302 I 307 Delay I 9.12 I 33.32 124.82 I I I I 10.65 I 9.70 LOS I A I D I C I I I l e I A Approach: Delay I 30.28 I 24.82 I I 10.15 LOS I D I C I I B Intersection Delay I 26.37 (Intersection LOS I D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information (Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year EXISTING CONDI TIONS (2002) Analysis Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH 1East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET (North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE 1 Volu"me:Adjustments_and Site Characteristics _ . . . Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 1 55 1 113 1 0 1 0 1 113 1 116 %Thrus Left Lane 1 50 I I 1 50 I 1 (Approach I Northbound I Southbound (Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 117 ( 0 1 .49 %Thrus Left Lane 1 50 I I I 50 I 1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 1 L1 I L2 Configuration 1 L 1 T TR I I I 1 L I R PHI= 1 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 I 1 I I 0.90 I 0.90 Flow Rate 1 61 i 125 253 1 1 130 54 % Heavy vehicles 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 I 0 1 2 Geometry Group 1 5 I 3b I I 1 Duration, T 1 0.25 I ISaturation!Headway A djustment Worksheet.. Prop. Left-Turns 1 1.0 0.0 ( 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1 0.0 0.5 1 0.0 1 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1hLT-adj 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 hRT-adj 1 -0.6 i -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1 1.7 Ihadj, computed 1 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 16e64 rture Headway ond. ServiceM hd, Initial value 1 3.20 1 3.20 1 3.20 I 1 1 1 3.20 1 3.20 x, initial 1 0.05 0.11 1 0.22 1 1 1 1 0.12 1 0.05 hd, final value I 5.40 1 5.40 1 5.40 1 1 1 1 5.40 1 5.40 x, final value 1 0.09 0.18 0.33 1 1 1 0.19 1 0.07 Move-up time, m i 2.3 1 2.0 1 1 2.0 Service Time 1 3.1 1 2.9 1 3.1 1 2.9 1 3.1 1 2.9 1 3.1 1 2.9 CapacltY and Level of .Service.,: Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 1 L2 1 L1 1 L2 1 L1 I L2 Capacity 1 311 1 375 1 503 I I 1 I 380 1 304 Delay 1 8.65 I 9.07 I 9.98 I 1 1 I 9.34 I 7.67 LOS I A I A I A I I I I A I A Approach: Delay 1 8.93 1 9.98 1 1 8.85 LOS 1 A 1 A 1 A Intersection Delay 1 9.34 Intersection LOS 1 A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 9 ! ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATR/ONA SUMRA/N STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR OUR REDEEMER LUTHE RAN Project ID CHURCH East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volume Adjustments and Site Characte ristics Approach Eastbound i Westbound Movement L I T j R I L j T I R Volume 15 240 0 0 521 33 I%Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach i Northbound j Southbound Movement j L I T j R j L i T j R Volume 0 0 0 J 105 0 96 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I I I 50 I I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbou nd L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration L T TR L R PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Flow Rate 16 258 595 112 103 1% Heavy vehicles 0 4 4 2 2 No. Lanes 2 1 0 2 Geometry Group I 5 I 3b 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway'Adjustment.W'orlis heet Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I 1.0 I 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns I 0.0 I 0.0 0.1 I 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I I 0.0 I 0.0 hLT-adj I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I I I 0.2 I 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed I 6.04 6.04 I 6.04 I I I 6.04 I 6.04 I Departure Headway.and'Service Time: hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.01 0.23 0.53 0.10 0.09 hd, final value 6.04 6.04 6.04 6.04 6.04 x, final value 0.03 0.42 0.89 0.20 0.16 Move-up time, m I 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.7 ( 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 Capacity and.Le_'- eL of Service., Eastbound Westbound I Northbound. I Southbound L1 I L2 L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 L2 Capacity I 266 I 508 I 665 I I I I 362 353 Delay I 8.91 I 12.88 136.24 I I I I 11.00 9.66 LOS I A I B E I I I I B A Approach: Delay I 12.64 36.24 I I 10.36 LOS I B I E I I B Intersection Delay 25.14 Intersection LOS D HCS200dm Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • 0 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR OUR REDEEMER LUTH ERAN Project ID CHURCH IEast/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE I lVolume Adjustriie.nts and-Site. Characteristics Approach j Eastbound I Westbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 78 540. 0 0 371 124 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 (Approach I Northbound I Southbound (Movement I L I T I R I L T I R Volume 0 0 0 49 0 I 54 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I I 50 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration L T TR L R PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Flow Rate 89 620 568 56 62 % Heavy Vehicles 0 1 2 2 1 No. Lanes 2 1 0 2 . Geometry Group I 5 3b 1 Duration, T 0.25 I Saturatiori,HeadwaiAdlustment Works heet_ Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I I 1.0 I 0.0 Prop. Right-rums I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.3 I I I 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I I I 0.0 I 0.0 hLT-adj + 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I I I 0.2 I 0.2 hRT-adj I -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I I I -0.6 I -0.6 IhHV-adj I 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 1.7 I I I 1.7 I 1.7 I Ihadj, computed I 5.70 I 5.70 I 5.70 ( I I 5.70 I 5.70 Departure;Headway and SON ce,T.lme hd, initial value I 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.08 0.55 0.50 0.05 0.06 hd, final value 5.70 5.70 5.70 1 1 1 5.70 5.70 x, final value 0.14 0.95 0.86 0.11 0.11 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 I Capacity..and Level of Service „ Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 339 I 653 I 659 I I I I 306 I 312 IDelay I 9.33 I 46.60 132.29 + I I I I 10.97 I 10.01 LOS I A I E t o I I I I B I B Approach: Delay I 41.92 I 32.29 I I 10.47 LOS I E I D I I B Intersection Delay 35.34 Intersection LOS E I HCS200drm Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS (General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Analysis Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN Project ID CHURCH East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach I Eastbound Movement I L I T I R Volume 59 121 0 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 (Approach I Northbound IMovement I L I T I R (Volume I 0 0 0 I%Thrus Left Lane I 50 I Eastbound I Westbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Westbound L J T I R 0 121 124 50 Southbound L J T I R 125 0 52 50 Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration I L I T I TR I I I I L I R PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Flow Rate j 65 I 134 271 I I . I 138 I 57 % Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 No. Lanes 2 1 0 2 Geometry Group 5 j 3b 1 Duration, T 1 0.25 Saturation Headway-Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I I 1.0 I 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns I 0.0 0.0 I 0.5 I I I I 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I I 0.0 I 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 + 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I I I 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj i -0.6 I -0.6 -0.6 I -0.6 I I I -0.6 I -0.6 hHV-adj I 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 I I I 1.7 I 1.7 hadj, computed I 5.46 I 5.46 I 5.46 I I I I 5.46 I 5.46 Departure'Hep way: and Service :Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.06 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.05 hd, final value 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.46 x, final value 0.10 I 0.20 I 0.36 I 0.20 I 0.07 Move-up time, m 2.3 I 2.0 2.0. Service Time 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.0 'Capa'city aridLevel~:of,Service - J Eastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I Ll I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 315 I 384 I 521 I I I I 388 I 307 Delay j 8.76 I 9.26 j 10.36 I I I I 9.56 I 7.78 LOS I A I A I B I I 1 I A I A Approach: Delay I 9.10 I 10.36 I I 9.04 LOS I A I B I I A Intersection Delay 9.60 (Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS 1General Information (Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH IEast/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET INorth/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volume Adiustments and Site Characteristics Approach j Eastbound Movement I L I T I R Volume 1 15 1 240 0 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 (Approach i Northbound (Movement I L j T I R Volume I 0 1 0 1 0 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 Eastbound I Westbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 L I 0 50 1 L 107 1 50 Northbound L1 I L2 Westbound T I R 521 I 34 Southbound T I R 0 1 96 Southbound L1 I L2 Configuration 1 L 1 T 1 TR 1 1 1 I L 1 R PHF I 0.93 I 0.93 1 0.93 1 I 1 I 0.93 1 0.93 Flow Rate 1 16 1 258 1 596 I I I I 115 1 103 % Heavy Vehicles 1 0 I 4 1 4 1 1 i I 2 1 2 No. Lanes I 2 1 1 1 0 I 2 Geometry Group I 5 I 3b I I 1 Duration, T I 0.25 lsafuration,Headway,Ad)ustinent, .6ft, eet Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I I 1.0 I 0.0 Prop. Right-Tums I 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.1 I I I I 0.0 I 1.0 (Prop. Heavy Vehicle I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 1 I 0.0 1 0.0 hLT-adj I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I I I 0.2 I 0.2 I, hRT-adj I -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I I 1 -0.6 I -0.6 hHV-adj 1 1.7 I 1.7 1 1.7 I 1.7 I I I 1.7 I 1.7 Ihadj, computed I 6.06 I 6.06 I 6.06 I , I I 6.06 I 6.06 Departure.Headway 'and.Service.Time,.. . Ihd, initial value 1 3.20 I 3.20 I 3.20 1 I I I 3.20 I 3.20 x, initial I 0.01 I 0.23 I 0.53 I I I I 0.10 I 0.09 hd, final value I 6.06 I 6.06 I 6.06 I I I I 6.06 6.06 x, final value 1 0.03 1 0.42 I 0.89 1 1 1 1 0.20 I 0.16 Move-up time, m I 2.3 i 2.0 I I 2.0 Service Time 1 3.8 I 3.6 I 3.8 1 3.6 I 3.8 1 3.6 I 3.8 1 3.6 E astbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound i L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 266 I 508 I 664 I I 365 I 353 Delay I 8.93 I 12.93 136.81 I I I I 11.06 I 9.68 LOS I A I B I E I I I I B I A Approach: Delay I 12.69 I 36.81 I I 10.41 LOS ( B I E I I B Intersection Delay I 25.44 Intersection LOS 1 D HCS2006TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ! ! ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET (North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE 1Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T R Volume 78 540 0 I 0 371 I 126 %Thrus Left Lane 1 50 I I I 50 Approach I Northbound I Southbound Movement I L T I R I L I T I R Volume I 0 0 0 I 51 0 54 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I I 50 Eastbound I Westbou nd I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration L ( T I TR I I L R PHI 0.87 0.87 0.87 I 0.87 0.87 Flow Rate I 89 I 620 I 570 I I I 58 I 62 % Heavy Vehicles 0 1 2 I 2 1 No.Lanes I 2 I 1 I 0 I 2 Geometry Group I 5 I 3b I I 1 Duration, T I 0.25 I Saturation Headway:Adjustment Works heet. Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1 0.0 0.3 1 0.0 i 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1hHV-adj 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1 1 1.7 1 1.7 1hadj, computed 1 5.71 1 5.71 5.71 ( 1 5.71 1 5.71 Departure Headway and.Servlce Time hd, initial value I 3.20 ( 3.20 3.20 I I I 3.20 I 3.20 x, initial I 0.08 I 0.55 I 0.51 I I I I 0.05 I 0.06 hd, final value I 5.71 ` I . 5.71 I 5.71 1 I I I 5.71 I 5.71 x, final value I 0.14 I 0.95 I 0.86 I 1 I I 0.11 0.11 Move-up time, m I 2.3 2°0 2.0 Service Time I 3.4 I 3.2 1 3.4 3.2 I 3.4 3.2 I 3.4 3.2 Capacity and :Level : of Seryice ' Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound 1 L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 339 I 651 658 I I I 1 308 I 312 Delay 1 9.34 1 47.12 1 32.86 I I I I 11.02 I 10.02 LOS 1 A I E. t o I I I I B I B Approach: Delay 42.37 1 32.86 1 I 10.50 LOS 1 E I D I I B Intersection Delay I 35.76 Intersection LOS I E HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 0 • ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Analysis Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET INorth/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE I Volume Adjustments and:Sife Characteristics I !Approach I Eastbound I Westbound (Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R (Volume I 59 1 124 I 0 1 0 I 124. 1 137 I%Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I 1 50 I I 1 Approach I Northbound i Southbound I Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 0 1 0 1 0 I 138 1 0 1 52 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I I 50 Eastbound I Westbound I Northboun d I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration I L I T I TR I I I I L I R IPHF 1 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 I I I I 0.90 1 0.90 Flow Rate I 65 1 137 I 289 I I I I 153 1 57 % Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 1 1 0 I I I I 1 I 1 No. Lanes I 2 I 1 I 0 I 2 Geometry Group I 5 1 3b I 1 1 1 Duration, T 1 0.25 1 Saturation:Head'way-`Adjustment Works heet ..:I (Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 I I I 1 1.0 1 0.0 Prop. Right-Tums I 0.0 I 0.0 1 0.5 I I I I 0.0 1 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 1 0.0 + 0.0 1 0.0 I I I I 0.0 1 0.0 hLT-adj I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 1 -0.2 1 I 0.2 I 0.2 hRT-adj 1 -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I -0.6 I I I -0.6 I -0.6 hHV-adj I 1.7 I 1.7 i 1.7 I 1.7 1 1 I 1.7 I 1.7 1 hadj, computed 1 5.54 1 5.54 1 5.54 I I I 1 5.54 1 5.54 Depa . ure;:HeadViiay'and Service Time hd, initial value 1 3.20 1 3.20 1 3.20 I I I I 3.20 1 3.20 x, initial 1 0.06 1 0.12 1 0.26 1 1 I I 0.14 I 0.05 hd, final value 1 5.54 1 5.54 1 5.54 1 I I i 5.54 1 5.54 x, final value I 0.10 I 0.20 1 0.38 I I. 1 1 0.23 I 0.07 Move-up time, m I 2.3 1 2.0 I 1 2.0 Service Time I 3.2 I 3.1 1 3.2 I 3.1 1 3.2 1 3.1 I 3.2 I 3.1 ICapacity;and,Le~el o f Eastbound I Westbound I Northboun d I Southbound L1 I L2 1 L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 315 I 387 I 539 I I I I 403 I 307 Delay I 8.85 I 9.42 110.75 I I I 9.84 I 7.85 LOS I A I A I B I I I I A I A Approach: Delay I 9.23 1 10.75 I I 9.30 LOS I A I B I I A Intersection Delay 1 9.88 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 General Information 9 ! ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT STREET Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Date Performed 1121102 (2004) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN Project ID CHURCH (WITH RIGHT- TURN LANE) East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE 1 Volume Adjustmen ts and Site Characteristics Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 15 1 240 1 0 1 0 1 521 1 33 1 I%aThrus Left Lane i 50 I 1 1 50 I I 1 Approach I Northbound I Southbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 105 0 1 96 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I 1 1 50 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration I L I T 1 T 1 R I I 1' L I R PHF 1 0.93 1 0.93 1 0.93 1 1.00 I I I 0.93 1 0.93 Flow Rate 1 16 1 258 1 560 1 33 I I 1 112 ( 103 % Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 4 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 2 ( 2 No. Lanes 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 Geometry Group 1 5 5 1 1 1 (Duration, T i 0,25 Saturatlon Headway Adjustment Works heet Prop. Left-Turns 1 1.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 I 1 1 1.0 0.0 1 Prop. Right-Turns 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 1.0 1 i I 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 I I I 0.0 I 0.0 hLT-adj 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 I I I 0.2 1 0.2 hRT-adj 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 I I I -0.6 I -0.6 hHV-adj 1 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 I I 1. 1.7 1 t7 hadj, computed 1 6.02 1 6.02 1 6.02 1 6.02 1 1 1 6.02 1 6.02 1Departuie.'1Headway-and:Servlt6e:Tilme . . hd, Initial value 1 3.20 1 3.20 1 3.20 1 3.20 1 1 1 3.20 3.20 x, initial 1 0.01 1 0.23 1 0.50 1 0.03 1 I I 0.10 0.09 hd, final value 1 6.02 1 6.02 1 6.02 1 6.02 1 1 1 6.02 1 6.02 x, final value 1 0.03 1 0.42 1 0.86 1 0.04 1 1 1 0.20 1 0.16 Move-up time, m 1 2.3 1 2.3 I 1 2.0 IService Time 1 3.7 1 3.6 1 3.7 1 3.6 1 3.7 1 3.6 1 3.7 1 3.6 _ - . Capacity and;Level-ofServi~e w_ - 1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound I Lt I L2 I L1 I L2 1 L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 (Capacity 1 266 1 508 1 645 1 283 I I 1 362 1 353 Delay I 8.88 I 12.81 1 33.13 17.80 I I I 10.84 1 9.53 LOS A I B t o I A I I I B I A Approach: Delay I 12.58 1 31.72 1 1 10.22 LOS 1 e I D I I B Intersection Delay 1 22.60 Intersection LOS 1 C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • • General Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT STREET CATRIONA SUMRAIN Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD LANCASTER ENGINEERING Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 1/21/02 2004 PM PEAK HOUR IEast/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET Volume Adjustments and Site Claracte~istics Approach I Eastbound Movement I L I T Volume I 78 540 %Thrus Left Lane 50 (Approach I Northbounc ( ) OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN Project ID CHURCH (WITH RIGHT-TURN LANE) (North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE I R 0 Movement I L I T I R Volume 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 Eastbound I Westbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 L I 0 50 L I 49 50 Northbound L1 I L2 Westbound T I R 371 124 Southbound T R 0 I 54 I Southbound L1 I L2 Configuration L T T R I I L R PHF 0.87 I 0.87 0.87 I 1.00 I 0.87 0.87 Flow Rate 89 I 620 .426 { 124 I 56 62 % Heavy Vehicles I 0 1 I 2 0 I I 2 1 No. Lanes 2 I 2 I 0 I 2 Geometry Group 5 I 5 I I 1 Duration, T I 0.25 ISaturation_Headway.Adjustment VNorksNeet I (Prop. Left-Turns 1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 (Prop. Right-Turns 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 I 0.0 1 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I ( 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0:2 I 0.2 I I I 0.2 I 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 + -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj I 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 1.7 I I 1.7 I 1.7 hadj, computed I 5.68 I 5.68 I 5.68 5.68 I I 5.68 i 5.68 IDepartureHeadway.and Service.Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 ( 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.08 I 0.55 I 0.38 I 0.11 I I 1 -0.05 I 0.06 hd, final value 5.68 5.68 I 5.68 5.68 5.68 5.68 x, final.value 0.14 0.95 . 0.67 0.17 I 0.11 I 0.10 Move-up time, m I 2.3 I 2.3 2.0 IService Time 3.4 3.2 I 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 ICapacityand Level_ of :Service I I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbou nd L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I . L2 I L1 L2 Capacity I 339 I 654 I 627 I 374 I I I 306 312 Delay I 9.31 I 46.01 119.18 1 8.79 I I I 10.65 I 9.71 LOS I A I E I C I A I I I B I A Approach: Delay I 41.41 I 16.84 I I 10.16 LOS I E I C I I B Intersection Delay I 28.91 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM ' Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 0 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT STREET CATRIONA SUMRA/N Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD LANCASTER ENGINEERING Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 1/21/02 SUNDAY PEAK HOUR East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach I Eastbound Movement i L J T Volume I 59 I 121 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 Approach I Northbount Movement I L J T Volume I 0 I 0 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I Eastbound L1 I L2 L1 (2004) OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN Project ID CHURCH (WITH RIGHT-TURN LANE) INorth/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE I R 0 I R 1 0 I Westbound I L2 Westbound L J T J R 0 I 121 I 124 50 Southbound L T i R 125 I 0 I 52 50 Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration L I T i T I R I I L I R PHF I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 I 1.00 I I I 0.90 I 0.90 Flow Rate I 65 I 134 I 134 l 124 I I I 138 I 57 % Heavy Vehicles I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I I I 1 I 1 No. Lanes I 2 I 2 I 0 I 2 Geometry Group I 5 5 7 I Duration, T I 0.25 ! (Saturation Headway Ad'ustment Worksheet ' Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj I 0.2 I 0.2 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 I -0.6 -0.6 I -0.6 I I -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj I 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 hadj, computed 5.45 I 5.45 I 5.45 I 5.45 I 5.45 5.45 Departueb Headway,alrid Service:Time. I hd, initial value I 3.20 I 3.20 I 3.20 I 3.20 I 3.20 I 3.20 x, initial I 0.06 I 0.12 I 0.12 I 0.11 I I 0.12 I 0.05 hd, final value I 5.45 I 5.45 I 5.45 I 5.45 I I I 5.45 I 5.45 x, final value I 0.10 I 0.20 I 0.19 I 0.16 I I 0.20 I 0.07 Move-up time, m I 2.3 I 2.3 2.0 Service Time I 3.2 I 3.0 3.2 I 3.0 I 3.2 I 3.0 3.2 I 3.0 Capacity andLevel4of Service, Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I Capacity I 315 I 384 I 384 I 374 I I I 388 I 307 Delay 8.74 I 9.25 I 9.15 1 8.17 I I I 9.41 I 7.67 LOS I A I A I A I A I I I A I A Approach: Delay 9.08 I 8.68 I I 8.90 LOS I A I A I I A Intersection Delay I 8.87 Intersection LOS I A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved I Version 4.1 • • ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH (WITH RIGHT-TURN LANE) East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET JNorth/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volumo.;Adjustments~and'S1te Characteristics Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 15 240 ( 0 0 521 34 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach I Northbound I Southbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 0 0 0 1 107 1 0 96 I%Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I I 50 I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration L T T R L R PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.93 Flow Rate 16 258 560 34 I 115 103 % Heavy Vehicles 0 4 4 0 2 2 No. Lanes 2 2 0 2 Geometry Group 5 5 1 (Duration, T 0.25 ISaturation;Weadway AdjustmentVHorks h®et Prop. Left-Turns 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Tums 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 I I 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 .0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 IhRT-adj -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 1 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed I. 6.03 6.03 I 6.03 6.03 6.03 6.03 I IDeparture'.:HeadwaYian S,erv ce,Time hd, Initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, Initial 0.01 0.23 0.50 . •0.03 0.10 0.09 hd, final value 6.03 6.03 6.03 6.03 6.03 6.03 x, final value 0.03 0.42 0.86 0.05 0.20 0.16 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 Service Time 3,7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 1 3.6 3.7 1 3.6 ICapacity;and Levehof S.®rvice' , _ . . a. . . r_., .=1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbou nd L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 , L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 266 I 508 I 644 I 284 I I I 365 I 353 Delay I 8.90 I 12.85 133.41 17.82 I I I 10.90 I 9.54 LOS I A I B I D I A I I I B I A Approach: Delay I 12.62 I • 31.94 I I 10.26 LOS I B I D I I B Intersection Delay 22.72 Intersection LOS I C HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS I General Information Site Information I Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATR/ONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN Project ID CHURCH (WITH RIGHT-TURN LANE) IEast/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET North/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R I Volume 78 540 0 0 371 126 I%Thrus Left Lane 50 I I 50 Approach I Northbound I Southbound I Movement I L T R I L I T I R Volume 0 0 0 51 0 54 I%Thrus Left Lane I 50 I I 50 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbou nd I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration L T T R L R PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.87 0.87 (Flow Rate 89 620 426 126 58 62 % Heavy Vehicles 0 I 1 2 0 1 I 2 I 1 No. Lanes 2 2 0 2 Geometry Group 5 I 5 I I 1 Duration, T 0.25 $aturation.HeadwayrAdjustmelnt Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I 1.0 I 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1.0 I I I 0.0 I 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I 0.0 I 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 i 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 I I -0.6 I -0.6 hHV-adj I 1.7 I 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 I 1.7 hadj, computed I 5.69 I 5.69 I 5.69 I 5.69 I I I 5.69 I 5.69 Deparfure:Headwa y and Servlce`Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 1 3.20 x, initial 0.08 0.55 0.38 0.11 0.05 0.06 hd, final value 5.69 5.69 5.69 5.69 5.69 5.69 x, final value 0.14 0.95 0.67 0.18 0.11 0.10 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 Service Time + 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 1 3.2 ~ 3.4 ~ 3.2 Capacity and:Levehof: Service I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 339 I 653 I 626 I 376 I I I 308 I 312 Delay I 9.32 I 46.50 119.27 1 8.83 I I 10.69 I 9.72 LOS I A I E I C I A I I I B I A Approach: Delay I 41.84 I 1 6.88 I I 10.19 LOS I E I C I I B Intersection Delay 29.11 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Intersection 135th AVENUE @ WALNUT Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) Analysis Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN Project ID CHURCH (WITH RIGHT -TURN LANE) East/West Street: SW WALNUT STREET JNorth/South Street: SW 135th AVENUE Volume Adjustments:and Sites Ghar6iiteristi6s . Approach I Eastbound I Westbound. Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 59 124 0 0 I 124 I 137 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach I Northbound I Southbound Movement I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 0 I 0 0 I 138 I 0 I 52 %Thrus Left Lane 1 50 I I I 50 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbo und L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Configuration I L I T I T R I L I R PHF I 0.90 I 0.90 0.90 I 1.00 I I 0.90 I 0.90 Flow Rate 65 137 137 137 153 57 1% Heavy Vehicles I 0 I 1 i 0 I 0 I I I 1 I 1 No. Lanes 2 2 0 2 Geometry Group 5 I 5 I I 1 Duration, T I 0.25 I$aturation HleadwaY.:Ad1u`stment Worksheet " , R..:. _ Prop. Left-Turns I 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I I I 1.0 I 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 1.0 I I I 0.0 1 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 1 0.0 i 0.0 1 0.0 I I I 0.0 1 0.0 hLT-adj 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 I I 0.2 1 0.2 hRT-adj I -0.6 -0.6 I -0.6 -0.6 I I I -0.6 1 -0.6 hHV-adj 1 1.7 1 1.7 1 1.7 1 1.7 I I I 1.7 1 1.7 hadj, computed 1 5.52 1 5.52 I 5.52 I 5.52 I I I 5.52 1 5.52 Deiarture;Heac~way..atid Service T.tM,e hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.05 hd, final value 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.52 x, final value 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.07 Move-up time, m I 2.3 I 2.3 I I 2.0 Cervire Time 1 . . 4 9 1 4 n 1 4 9 1 4 n 1 4 9 1 4 n 1 4.2 1 4 n v... CauacitVrand;;Level of_$ervice } y{....., _ , Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L1 I L2 I L1 1 L2 I L1 I L2 I L1 I L2 Capacity I 315 I 387 I 387 I 387 I I 403 I 307 Delay 1 8.83 1 9.39 1 9.27 1 8.36 1 1 9.66 I 7.73 LOS I A I A I A I A I I I A I A Approach: Delay 1 9.21 1 8.82 1 1 9.14 LOS I A I A i I A Intersection Delay 9.03 Intersection LOS I A HCS2006TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ! ! TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection WALNUT STREET @ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN BENISH STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS Date Performed 1121102 (2002) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET (North/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South (Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Northbound I Southbound Movement I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 0 I 325 I 0 I 5 I 502 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.90 I 0.90. I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 I 361 I 0 I 5 I 557 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I I I 14 I - I Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes I 0 I 1 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 0 Configuration I I I TR I L I T Upstream Signal I I 0 I I I 0 Minor Street I Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 0 I 0 I 16 I 0 I 0 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90' I 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 I 0 I 17 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I 0 I 13 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Grade 0 I 0 Flared Approach I N I I I N Storage I 0 I I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 I I 0 Lanes I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Configuration I I LR I Delay; Queue Length, an d' Level of Service Approach I NB I SIB I Westbound I Eastbound Movement I 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 5 I I 17 C (m) (vph) I 1134 I I 660 I v/c I I 0.00 I I 0.03 95% queue length I I 0.01 I I 0.08 Control Delay I 8.2 10.6 I I I I LOS I I A I I B Approach Delay I I - I 10.6 Approach LOS I I B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection WALNUT STREET @ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN BENISH STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING CONDI TIONS Date Performed 1121102 (2002) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHUR CH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET (North/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments' , Major Street 1 Northbound 1 Southbound Movement 1 1 1 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume ( 0 I 542 I 4 1 19 I 434 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1 0.92 I 0.92 1 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 1 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 I 589 4 20 I 471 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 I - 0 I - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 I I 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 I 1 I 0 Configuration I TR I L I T Upstream Signal I I 0 I I I 0 Minor Street I Westbound I Eastbound Movement 1 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 1 12 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 1 1 I 0 I 11 I 0 I 0 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1 0.92 1 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 1 I 0 I 11 I 0 I 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 1 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Grade I 0 I 0 Flared Approach N I N Storage I I 0 I I 0 RT Channelized I I 0 I 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I 1 LR D.elaueue..Lenpth.and Level of_Service.. : : ; Approach ( NB I SB I Westbound I Eastbound Movement 1 I 4 7 8 I 9 10 I 11 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 20 I I 12 C (m) (vph) I I 993 I I 464 VIC I I 0.02 I 10.03 I I 95% queue length I I 0.06 I I 0.08 Control Delay I 8.7 I 13.0 LOS I I A I I B I I I I Approach Delay I - I I 13.0 Approach LOS I I B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 Intersection WALNUT STREET @ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN BENISH STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS Date Performed 1121102 (2002) Analysis Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET INorth/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South (Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes an d Adjustments. . Major Street I Northbound I Southbound Movement 1 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I L I T I R I L I T I R Volume + 0 J 216 I 10 I 31 I 224 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 I 234 I 10 I 33 I 243 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I I I 0 I ( - TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information 1Site Information Median Type RT Channelized 0 1 I 0 TR 0 Westbound 8 I 9 T I R Undivided I 1 L I I 10 L 1 I T 0 Eastbound 11 I T 0 0 12 R Volume I 7 I 0 I 31 1 0 I 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.92 I 0.92 0.92 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 7 I 0 33 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Grade I 0 I 0 Flared Approach I I N I I I N Storage I I 0 I I I 0 RT. Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Configuration I I LR I Delay; Queue Lenth,.and Level'of.Service Approach NB I SB I Westbound I Eastbound Movement 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR I I + I v (vph) I I 33 I I 40 C (m) (vph) I I 1334 I I 723 v/c I I 0.02 I 1 0.06 95% queue length I 0.08 I I 0.18 Control Delay I I 7.8 I I 10.3 LOS I I A I I B Approach Delay I I I 10.3 Approach LOS I I I B KCS200drm Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 Lanes I 0 Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement I 7 I L • General Information i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Agency/Co. LANCASTER ENGINEERING Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South V6- 16le,1Volumes;.'and Adib!g' e` is Major Street I Northbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume I 0 I 348 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 I 386 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type RT Channelized Lanes I 0 I 1 Configuration Upstream Signal I 0 Minor Street I Westbound Movement 7 I 8 L I T Volume l 1 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 I 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 0 Percent Grade I 0 Flared Approach I I N Site Information Intersection WALNUT STREET @ BENISH STREET Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Analysis Year BACKGROUND CONDITIONS (2004) Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH JNorth/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 i 4 R L 1 5 0.90 0.90 1 5 - 14 Undivided 0 0 1 TR I L 9 R 17 0.90 18 13 10 L 0 0.90 0 0 Southbound 5 T 538 0.90 597 1 T 0 Eastbound 11 T 0 0.90 0 0 0 N Storage I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 Lanes I 0 0 0 I 0 Configuration LR Delay,.Quei~elen~th;and Level of:Service:,. . Approach I NB I SB I Westbound Movement I 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 5 I I 19 C (m) (vph) I 1109 I I 5,96 v/c I 0.00 I I 0.03 95% queue length I I 0.01 I I 0.10 Control Delay I I 8.3 I I 11.2 I I LOS I I A I I B Approach Delay I - I I 11.2 Approach LOS I I I B 0 0 6 R 0 0.90 0 0 0 12 R 0 0.90 0 0 0 0 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ENGINEERING Date Performed 1121102 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project ID East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET (North/South Street: Intersection Orientation: North-South (Study Period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street 1 Northbound Movement 1 1 2 L T WALNUT STREET @ BENISH STREET CITY OF TIGARD BACKGROUND CONDITIONS (2004) OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH SW WALNUT STREET 0.25 3 I 4 R I L Volume I 0 1 581 1 4 1 20 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 I 631 1 4 I 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I I - I 0 Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized I I I 0 I I Lanes I 0 I 1 I 0 I 1 Configuration I I I TR I L Upstream Signal I I 0 I I j Minor Street I Westbound 1 Movement 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 L I T I R I L Volume I 1 I 0 I 12 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 1 0.92 .1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 1 I 0 I 13 I .0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Grade I 0 Flared Approach N Storage I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 Lanes I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 Configuration I I LR Delay; .QueueLength; and: Level of Service Approach NB I SB I Westbou nd Movement 1 I 4 7 I 8 I 9 Lane Configuration I L I LR v (vph) I I 21 I I 14 C (m) (vph) I 958 441 v/c I 0.02 I 0.03 95% queue length I I 0.07 I I 0.10 Control Delay I 8.8 I I 13.4 LOS I I A I I B Approach Delay I I 13.4 Approach LOS I I B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Southbound 5 T 465 0.92 505 1 T 0 Eastbound 11 T 0 0.92 0 0 0 6 R 0 0.92 0 0 0 12 R 0 0.92 0 0 Version 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection WALNUT STREET @ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN BENISH STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year BACKGROUND Date Performed 1121102 CONDITIONS (2004) Analysis Time Period SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET INorth/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 VehicleFVolumes:snd Adjustments Mayor Street I Northbound I Southbound . Movement I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 L I T I R I L T I R Volume I 0 I 231 1 11 1 33 I 240 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 I 288 13 I 41 I 299 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 I 1 1 0 Configuration I TR L I T Upstream Signal I I 0 I I I 0 Minor Street I Westbound I Eastbound Movement I 7 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 1 12 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 7 I 0 I 33 + 0 I 0 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1 0.80 1 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 1 0.80 1 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 8 I 0 I 41 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade I 0 I 0 Flared Approach I I N I I I _ N Storage I I 0 I I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR I : ; Delay, Queue,.Length. and L' evel .of Service' : . , Approach I NB I SB I Westbound I Eastbound Movement I 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 41 I I 49 C (m) (vph) I I 1272 I I 660 v/c I I 0.03 I 10.07 I I 95% queue length I I 0.10 I I 0.24 Control Delay I I 7.9 I I 10.9 LOS I I A I I B I I I I Approach Delay I I - I 10.9 Approach LOS I I I B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Intersection WALNUT STREET @ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN BEN/SH STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE Date Performed 1121102 (2004) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET (North/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South (Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and:Adjustments Major Street I Northbound I Southbound Movement I 1 J 2 I 3 J 4 5 I 6 L J T J R L J T R Volume I 0 I 348 J 2 I 7 538 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 0.90 I 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 J 386 I 2 I 7 I 597 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I I I 14 I I Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 I I I 0 Lanes I 0 J 1 0 I 1 1 I 0 Configuration I I ( TR I L I T Upstream Signal I I 0 I J I 0 Minor Street I Westbound J Eastbound Movement 1 7 I 8 I 9 J 10 I 11 I 12 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 1 J 0 I 18 I 0 I 0 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF J 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 0.90 I 0.90 I 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 I 0 I 20 I 0 I 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles J 0 I 0 13 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Grade I 0 I 0 Flared Approach I I N I I I N Storage I I 0 I I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Configuration I LR 15e1ay,Queue'Len9th; and'Level-of•Service Approach I NB I SB I Westbound I Eastbound Movement I 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 7 I I 21 I I I I C (m) (vph) I I 1108 I I 599 VIC I I 0.01 I I 0.04 I I 95% queue length I I 0.02 I I 0.11 I I I I Control Delay I I 8.3 I I 11.2 I I I LOS I I A I I B I Approach Delay I I I 11.2 Approach LOS I I - I B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 Universi ty of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection WALNUT STREET @ Analyst CATR/ONA SUMRA/N BENISH STREET Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year BACKGROUND + SITE Date Performed 1121102 (2004) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project ID OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHUR CH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET (North/South Street: SW WALNUT STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South (Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes;,an d Adjustments; Major Street I Northbound I Southbound Movement I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 L I T I . R L I T I R Volume I 0 I 581 I 4 I 22 I 465 I 0 Peak-Hour Factori PHF I 0.92 I 0.92 0:92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 I 631 I 4 23 I 505 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 I 0 I Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized I I 0 I I 0 Lanes I 0 1 I 0 1 1 I 0 Configuration I I I TR I L T Upstream Signal I I 0 I I I 0 Minor Street I Westbound I Eastbound Movement I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 1 12 I L I T I R I L I T. I R Volume I 1 I 0 I 14 I 0 I 0 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 I 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 1 I 0 15 0 I 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade I 0 I 0 Flared Approach I I N I I N Storage I I 0 I I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Configuration I LR DelaY..Queue,Length, ;and Le'v"el,of Service.- , Approach I NB I SB I Westbound I Eastbound Movement I 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 23 I I 16 C (m) (vph) I I 958 I I 446 VIC I I 0.02 I I 0.04 95% queue length I I 0.07 I I 0.11 Control Delay I I 8.9 I I 13.4 I I I I LOS I I A I I B I I + I I Approach Delay I I I 13.4 I Approach LOS I I I B I HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 Universi ty of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information (Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period CATRIONA SUMRAIN LANCASTER ENGINEERING 1/21/02 SUNDAY PEAK HOUR Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project ID INorth/South Street: IStudy Period (hrs): WALNUT STREET @ BENISH STREET CITY OF TIGARD BACKGROUND + SITE (2004) OUR REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH East/West Street: SW BENISH STREET Intersection Orientation: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Northbound SW WALNUT STREET 0.25 Southbound Movement I 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume I 0 I 231 1 19 1 46 J 240 1 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.80 J 0.80 I 0.80 1 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 I 288 I 23 I 57 I 299 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I I I 0 I I Median Type I Undivided RT Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes I 0 J 1 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 0 Configuration I I I TR I L I T Upstream Signal I I 0 I I I 0 Minor Street I Westbound 1 Eastbound Movement I 7 1 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 L I T I R I L I T I R Volume 1 15 1 0 1 46 I 0 1 0 1 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 I 0.80 1 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 18 I 0 I 57 I 0 I 0 I 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ( 0 Percent Grade I 0 I 0 Flared Approach I I N I I I N Storage I I 0 I I I 0 RT Channelized I I I 0 I I I 0 Lanes I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 Configuration I I LR Delay,=;Queue' Length, and.Levef_ofService Approach I NB I SB I Westbound I Eastbou nd Movement I 1 I 4 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration I I L I I LR v (vph) I I 57 I I 75 C (m) (vph) I I 1261 I I 607 v/c I I 0.05 I 0.12 I I 95% queue length I I 0.14 I I 0.42 I I I I Control Delay I I 8.0 I I 11.8 LOS I I A I I B Approach Delay I I I 11.8 Approach LOS I I B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 ~ _ , ,.d, j , , - o s. A _ d ~ l ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i JAI f ~ , A , fir` t l ' ' ~ ~ ` ~ 5~ 25 I s r ~ ~ 2 .,.r , I • ~ ~ 1 ~ <s ~ , 1 s~, ~ 8 PVC ~ ag j I 1 I,- . , ~ ' , i - 2 1 r~ ~ o ,I , 1 v , f, v S- o. a~ ~ t,d, ~ ~ N r ~ 1 1 \ ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 ra ' ~ ; • , I ~ ~ I ~ r I v i / v V A V ~ r ' ~ ~ . v, ~ ~ ~ I ~~n,r, RIP RAP OUTFACE ~ • I , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ' ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ 1 INV OUTS, 250,57 CHECK DAM I • , I , ~ ~ , ~ ~ / i ~t I I 1 ~ ~ ~ I! { ~ \ I i ~ r , 1 • ~ ~ ~ 1 I Ali , ° - ~ ~~`+J \ ~ 1, CENTERLINE OF 1 ,1' r ~ , ~ , 1 \ ~ I , ~ ~ I~ i ~ ~ `I 1 W W t 1 { i ~ I ( l >l \ I 1 \ ~t 1 ~ I yl 1 i~ i ~ A ~ ~ • ~ 6~ 1 1 CB #3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ \ ~ ; 7 RIM= 258,57 ~ I I / ' 1 v ~ \ ~ ~ / ~ c. + 1 1 ~ . ~ ~ I r I ~ v ~ ~ - PVC I ! / I . ~ ~ i - ; - 1 ~ ~ i INV OUT- 25x,13 (6 ) ~ v~~ v v i/ 1 t 1~~ 1 I ~ I f ! o 1 ~ ~ v i ~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ;r / A ~ 1 ~ tY~ I~nn ~ 1 I ~ ~ i ,i I ~1 , l ~ r \ ' ~ t ~ \ t~"'"'~, 1 ~ v S ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ \ t31 \ 1 i ! 1 \ I ~ 1 1 r I ~ V ~ +.w~ ~1 1 I 1 , 1 i_-_ ~ ~ ~ e ' ( ~ ~ 1 ~ t ~ ~ , ~ ~ i 1 ( i ~~`'~s ~ ~ 1 it OWED BUILDING ' ; PROP 1 , i 1 ~ I ~ I 1 1 ) r I - 1 1 FUTURE I f r- ( } , , 1 ~ s f 1 ~ , , ji ,.k,e . I ~ I , 1 ~ I CB ~7 1 ~ t I I I 1 1 t 1 ( R1M= 24.52 I 1. ~ 1 I ' , ~ ( ~ I I 1 ~ ' ',1 ° ~ ~ ~ I ~ IN V OU 1'= 242, ~ 1 (6 P ~ ~ ~s I I ~ ~ 1 , I ~ ~ r I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ` \ ~ l , C8 #2 I , ~ ~ RIM= 259, 47 I I \ ~ , , 1NV. OUT- 256.13 (6 PVG~) I t i I 1 ' ~ ' SA MN \ ~ ► i ~ ~ , ' 1 ~ _ \ I , ~ 1 , 1 I RI - 245,5 ti ~ ~ I I I I , I ~ \ 1} , , 1 ~ 1 i I i I INV. 1N= 2,x,5, 5 1 ~w. A `~,w.~ '1 3 ~ i INV IN= 23'5,4 V 1 I ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ f , , , , ~ 1 ~ INV OUT= 235. - ~ I I ~ ~ I~ ~ I i t, a 1 i , f ~ 'N 1 I I ~ I I CB ~6 1 A I ~ 1 1 ~ ; } I C ~ I RIM= 46, .`s ~ s ~ i I I U N 1 ~ ~ , ~ 1 I 1 > 0 1 , ( i ' INV. 0 T= ~ 1 ~ I 0.d 1 C8 ~1 ~ 1 1 ~ I I 1 ~ ,1 1 ~ ~ , , II ~ r ~ i STORM MN \ RIM= 260 56 , ' ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1= 246. i ~ ~ , I I I INV OUT 257.40+ ~ I RIM ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I i , ~ ~ I INV. ~IN= 239.6 ~ ~ `I ~ I ~ ~ ~ - 39. - \ ~ , I i 1 ~ IN V, OUT- 2 ' ! I I + NEW FIRE' YDRANI~ / ~ ~ I i 1 r ~ I 1 1 1 a 1 I + ~ 1 1 1 I ~ ~ ~ r 1 Y ii .1 1 ; .,NEW FIRE HYDR~Y , , ~ , s..,,~ I ~ I i ~ L , i I ~ '1 ~ l L 1 ~ ~ , i ~ '1~ ~ t , i ~ / t i f ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 t 7 ; ! ~ ~ ti ~ NEW SAN LATER. 1, , e / / ~ SS ~ ~ I I / ~ ~ r 1 I 1 I ~ t ~ i ✓ / ~ ~ ~ h 1 ~ k i • 1 / ~r ,rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ l I s t ~ i ~i } l \ i t ~ 1 / ~ PROPOSED ~ I , 1 ; l / 1'~~ i ' ! ~ , ~ ~ ~ / - - ADMINISTRATION ~ '~ti 1 A ~ ~ ~ / i - ~ / ~S ~ ` , I BUILDING I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ it ~ A i i , I + j ~ / / \ ,,t , ~ r r' I ~ I r r I ~ / I / / _ _ / ~(1 r--, (s it I - 1 l I I t ~ ( ~ 1 1 ~ f i r' 1i , ,f' ~'p ~ I ( ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ PQ ED BOIL zl ~'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ . , o 4 S E ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~(FUTUR~) . ~a $ t ~ ~ I ~ v I ~ o J . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . 1 \ ~ ' ' ~ y~ 1 ~ ~ EXISTING CHURC B ~ ~ 1 1 - / 1 ~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ..i ~ ? I ; 1 ~ / ~ ~ i ;1 '1 i ' ~ \ 1 I` ~ ,1 , ,1 t ( ~ ,.dr Y ~ 1 , i , 1 ~ ,1 ~ I I ~ ~ . _ ~ (r . r 1 I. 1, - . _ 1 i I 1 1 { \ f { I ~ i , III l` \ 1 ~ f' ° ° \ / 11 ~ t ~ 1 . r l / 1 1 1 y r I ~ I / t ~ { ' I i ~ ~ - f 1 1 1 E i I r~ I tt I , r I 1~ / I ~ f~ i , l I / ~ ~ 1 1, 1 ~ I ° f ~ ii I I I, / J , I r { 1 ` i , I I l fl, ~ 1 II ~ i • ~ ~ V ~ I ✓ AI II ~ I I~ r - . ~ E f I II ,k i i } ~ L ~ ' 'I I I ~ I ` it ~ I ~ u' I '1 , VERIFY PIPE MATERIAL MEETS \ ~ • \ ~ 1 ~ 'i II ~ ~ ~ 1~ P MBING CODE UNDER , I, ! ~,F, i ,1 LU , a. I I ~ ~ 4 11 FUTURE BUILDING PE MIT 1 11 ~ ~ I ~ 1 I , I ,,1 ' i , ~ r 1 ~ I ~ ~ , ._.I A , i• I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ , { t ( I I t l I 1 11 i j{ I , ~ i 1~ I I i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I i h I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ I ! I\ i I i ~ ~ I I I r I ~ !i .r EXISTING CATCH BA SIN 2202 - PROJECT i r a I PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT E ; / • PROPOSED THRUST BLOCK SHEET 1 C1 -y^(F VcIARq EXISTING MANHOLE EEvklr r~ r" P IM A IN 'RY DRAINAGE RE~ jA I Y PLAN PROPOSED MANHOLE PLANNtNWErrGo a ` 66XIE, 1 = 20 ~1 •.d I t~ OF 1 SHEET 1 20 ~y I t1~ Y-- Si- - ST _ . v. - . . _ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTKA eapaAA A P400A ST z~ hi~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ ~o~ o~ N Q7 I 0 M O F...~ ~ M'""+ O r N h T/~ Z l/ 1 QV V 1 ~ O O ~ ~ O ~a WN Z ~ 225. SF 225 SF Z~ ADDIITION ADDITION I--~ ~ a. U W~ 3 =z U Q N ( SANCTUARY ~ 2~o s~aTS 4 ~ ~ i I r 1 REBUILD EXISTING PORTE COCHERE ~ NARTHEX i ti H ~ ~ 34'x24' r i - i J I ' ~ ~ PASTOR o ~ i ~1 ~ i v 16'x 18' I. - j u ;I ~p ~ _ ~~~J 1• ~ ~N q!i % N M ~ I ~ 1 COATS ~ COFFEE~_ M i 1 I T-- j 141 SF pDDIT10 EXISTING BUILDING 6'-0° 46'-0,• MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1 1 Al SCALE: t/8" = 1'-0" i A ~ r' DRAWING NO. A24,1 i r~ ~ ~ ~ W N I1 r 1 Q ~ W N QM N n T~~/ O1 V1 QU a o n W~~ ~ {^1 Z N z ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ HH~ =z STOR. U NQg A KIND. ~ a~xi s' . N ~ W a ~ UQ ~ O C.1-2 ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ 14' 16' ~Z w - - - O ~ Z ~Q o ~ / ~ W F- Q ~ ~ -JPR~E SC ' Z C. -4 14x16 14'1x6 w ~~p z ~Q Q w lL ~ ~ ~ I NEW PLAY AREA Y AREA i I Q w a I I o wz ~ STOR. M JR. T i I I z ~ ® ~ a W- ~ z Ce Q ~ o ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 0= U ~ - - - ~ ~ O~ 0 N ~s II ,1_H. °a ®w . - 20'x19' L' SUNDAY SCHOOL' ~ T COMMONS T ~ 5-6 4 3a'Xzs' i~ ~ ~~9 r~ li KITCH. ~P ~i - - ' o ~ EXISTING BUILDING I 46'-0" r{ i LOVv~'ER FLOOR PLAN _ ~ A2 SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0" DRAWING NO. A292 i _ _ V 1 NN ~ r N of I 0 I M O ~ O r N i V1 t ~ ~ V i C 0 ~f ~ I I ~ 0 ~ k I ~ ~i ~ I ;t I 4 I LL VN/ I W r W~ ZN Z~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ U~ i ~ W~ I f- - 3 . =z U g ~ . Q N - . ~ - - . - f~ ~ ~ „ ;i ~ ~ ; i ~i M. FLR. LINE ~ ~ ~ C ELEV. 263'-0" ~ ~ ' ' -r- - _ r i { - i j \ s ° I i i L. L. FLR. LINE ELEV. 252'-4" i ' ~ ~ i S NCTUA Y ADMIN/EDU. ADDITION E PANSI N _'1 I~ WEST ELEVATION A3.1 SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0" i 1 I~ r i i I M. FLR. LINE ~ ELEV. 263'-0'~ ~I i ' !~j ',i~ LANDING ' ~L-' ELEV. 256'-7 1/2" - L L FLR. LINE ELEV. 252'-4" - _ T ILETR:O M NEW PORTE COCHERE E PANSY N EXISTING BUILDING r2-\~EAST ELEVATION A3.1 SCALE-. 1/8. _ l._0'. DRAWING NO. A3o I ii v~ o ~ ~ N '1 r 1 N 0 ~ W I O } N V ~ o^ ~ ~I ~2 o ~ ~ w~~~ Z - " ~ o ® a gN Ml' ~ \ ® ~ 1 MCI U ~ UZ NQg A N ~ W ~ - - FLR. LINE V Q M. FLR. LINE - _ M. FLR. LINE V. 263,_>, . - ~ ~ o ELEV. 263'-0" _ - - = _ - - ELEV. 263'-0" ~ c~ C~ Z w 4 0 ~ i ~ ~ ~ Q o L. L FLR. LINE L L FLR. LINE L. FLR. LINE , i~ ~ ~ Q ELEV. 252'-4" ELEV. 252'-4° V. 252'_4>, - _ ~ c? s _ NORTH ELEVATION W/BRIDGE E A3.2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0° , { 4 - ~ p_ e . i E t tr { i `5 • ~ f \i ~ ~ I\\ M. FLR. LINE i ~ M. FLR. LINE J 1 ELEV. 263'-0" - ELEV. 263'-0" 1 LANDING LANDING ■ ELEV. 256'-7 1/2" ELEV. 256'-7 r3-N\SOUTH ELEVATION W/PORTE COCHERE (2~SOUTH ELEVATION A3.2 SCALE: 1/8" - 1 . 0.• A3.2 SCALE: ,/a, - ,._o. DRAWING NO. A34,2 \ - .P._~ ~ N. ~ ' "~H ~~D ~ ~F'yCf 1 O O r r,~ 1 ~ M^ N ~ I ~ s~~ / ~ 1 j 5"f. 7`F. O N 3"f. I `f, ~ \ ,r ~ 2".u . ~ ~ ~ M O ~ o~ ~ f ~ F..~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r' C Y ~ - ~ , 2 M. ~ E O r a`r. E`''1 w N s ~ f C' ~ 2"P- ~ 1 j, ~ % ~ ~ U ti.1 l.J `a 1 ~ kJ C . 2 k, ~ ~ T r~ z ~ ' d f ~ ~,~~_V_~- ~ ~,r ~ ~ ~7 ~ #~T < ~ Jl, - ~ _ r r r ? Cf. r r ~ - ~°s- - ~ s~: - ..._~i'~G t - s - ~ ~ ~ ~ cr:: k (/k.~C {~.r~~`, x-11 ~rv.. r_- r - - o _ - _ ~---t3 ~ ~ ~ r - F 2 ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~~m- ~ = L~ ~t ~ - - - - ~ 9 t u , ~ r",Y b . L. ~ =a~ - . . ~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~ cr a'. / ~ t ■ o t- t ~ ,r ~ , . a I i I, ~ l~~ ~h. k~ _ . t f_L ~ CE f 1 _ ~ ~ ,I~. ~ jS I r- ery/-r~ . 1~-'~ ~~~isvl~l he,~ld~ S hS~~~~GI l✓ r ~ ~ 't ~G~iCJ~~ - 1, ~J ~ r~ G'~ i I a ~ , .r p ,a - 4 I ,i~~ - r - p~r~ _ ~ t ~ .~~I~J~~ ~'~C r z: - - , , , i z , ~ ~ ~ ~4 " i. ~ =A- ~ o S°~ u~ ~ i x ~l `Y' wl J~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ , -~.w....r ~ ~ . ,W `_Y ~Cr li i i is ~ ` r ~ l . ! r~ ~`a. ~ ~ ~ ~ J,'`~ ii y , ' B'M - ' ~ t . I --f~~ z =a, f I p ~ ~ L TN N ~ .~-~~.~x~~r~-~ f . ~ ~ - ~ N 7 ~ ~ :,r ._r ~,i- _ ~ - , ~ Y" - ---HfAI t , 4' t, e OAf ~0 ~ r SM _ _ ~ .y ~ ~ ~ - - B/KE k4CK 1r . (i - r- ~ - - - 1 ~ 4 ~ ~ i~ cHU~eN - ~l~t.. Tk~I~ ~ ~ - - , ~ ~~E ~ ~ ~c q a~ ~ ~Nc _ a'i bi acrc `i .,~!)C p~1i ~ Boa t ~C i~ coNC. Sao N~3!!9 952 280 ` I f>?546.665 -I~-. P~U'~'~jIJI f~`.~~`S 1td.lG I ZI~> s~w,ar~r c~rx C ~l P P.~X? U ~C ~ 1 5"Al, ~ i n y Y SUR VE Y . ' I~ rne ~ I i t rvrt I L.P. = UCHT POLE v CHURCH O.L. = OVERHEAO LINES a M.L.P. = METAL UCHT POLE WrION I, T. 2 S, R. 1 W, W. M. LLI del S.S. = STREET SION COUNTY, OREGON DRAWING NO. 8".K 3 CN. WCR. = WHEELCHAIR RAMP M.S.R. = METAL S/KE RACK C-L FC = CHAIN-LINK FENCE h 7 M. JONES & ASSOCIATES INC. F.H. = FIRE HYOR4Nt LA1 CO. = CL£ANOUT - - - - -~JI ~ a~ ~ W N rn 1' H~~ ~ - - _ o'~ ~ ~ fr T ~ ~l H O ~ ~ N Ty.~~ rn V1 QU _ - _ . ,t ~ t ~ ~ . a o ~ ~ ~ ~ C J ~ - k' ~ _ . ~ 3 ~ t~ .t ~~t., ~ ~ ~ 1, ~ ~ i ~ F~~ - ~ - ~ N ~ elate rar- ,f , , ~ ~ - ~ ~f 'T~i~t ~ ._._.w~ V i , ' ~ ~ ~ .dY1 ~~o a _ , / .a., t , ~ r f ~ . r r l . _ u ~ "S ~ r y ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ s - _ M . . awi r n r, _ ~i f; _ _ ~ r~ / t - ~ ~ c~ . ~ ~ - ~ a . ~ / ~ ~ ; , i ,~r ~'i~i " ~ i ,~f , ~ % ~ / ' l ,l ~ f YL I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 9 ~ ! f - - s ~~~1 r ' q~ L s~ ; , _ ~ , - ~ ~ ,t I l - ,F'~ f ~ ~ _ ~Jf~ U `r' ~ r C~ _ n j' i ,,rr'~ p 'r ~;vk?fk'~ Y~ C ~i~ . _ 6/ r' . 1 ' _ J 1 ~j^su T 9 / ff ~ ~~7 lf... Rte.. ~ , • Y i ~ ~ ~ ._x___ Ut~E t J.~,km l~-~.~ I~ ~~~~G.~.. - - ~ i li` I ~ ,rya ~ i~ J . ~ e I ~ .h" . 3 s ~ ~ ~ ~ A a t ~ _ _ . ~ . ~ ~ _ N y . _ 7 ' ~ ti n ~ > ' ~ a ~ _ - ~ _ - s ~ti ~ ~ _ I s ' - ,o~ _ ~ ~.~f r,,. ~ - t n _ . ` y ~ W 1 I~ . ~ ~ } r P • 9 . _ ~1L4- A- i ~ ~ ~ _ , . a i- Arl,.~ _ - T/~ a~~ l ~ r _ . - ~ Q It - - . w . _rv..._ L. J,~ w.,r ~ ~ - ~ 4 I"~ 4P wn+. 4 I 1 - - _ . I ' y ~ fog r DRAWING NO. LA2, . t , j~ ~ - b , / ~ 1 /7 t 6 O f NOTES ~ 17. i. i , r j J , BENCH A/ARK.~ CITY Of T/CARD B.M. N0. 1~1. (1 >/1' BRASSJ £I£VAT/ON = 169,39. s1 j~ r, ~ ~ ~ 1, CONTOURS AR£ AT ON£-f00T /NTERYALS AND AR£ COA/PUTER GENERAT£0 • , 3 UNO£RCROUNO UT/L1T/£S ARE SUB✓ECT TO ACTUAL fJ'£LD LOCATION. ALL UTILITIES ~/AY NOT B£ SHOWN. 6 ~ f < t ~ 117 S TREE SPREADS AR£ NOT TO SCA[E. E ; ' 71 ~ 171 ~ r - d° ~ ~ 6. = AS PER S/t£ PUN PRO~IOED 8Y TH£ CHURCH. o ,f , r 1 Naa'1 ~ G ~ ~ i ttr° t , o, 6 05" ~ ~ ! W~' ' !4, 89 , k'. l ~ f ~ N/Cfl NGgo fiMSE os PROPOSED LANDSCAPE SHOWN ON LA 1 0 s 17. ' " 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ! 88'!6 08 {4 1 n~ ! ~ ; ! F r w ~`e~ ~ 148.00' % / / i t l ti~ i ~`k N.8 ~ , ~ / i ~ 8'16'08"W. 74.00' _ ~ / j ~ ~ ~ 0 i ~ ~ ' D/A. b ~ ~ ~~[uv ss 27. r % ~ ~ 1 i i' ~ ~ ~ , i ~ Z 1'l/. ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ; , 1 ~ B19s • ' jt r; ~ ~ _ 6 ' ( / ~ f ~ ' ; ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1 e ~ , ~ s i ~ ~ ~ 1" 6 ~ % ~ f~ 1 f - a , ~ ,f I - ,UFR 1'~l. WA16P J',K t ~ ~'s '1 r~ BGCK PLA,SIIC UD ~ ~ T ~ SPK,17T ~ o ~i~-°I , 1 , f ~ ~ 1'P 2 AC t ~ 1 i . ` f i i E ~i + ~ ' ' ~ 1 1 % t ~ I 1 - t Q i; Sfi ~ ' ~ i~ % ~ ~ ~I ' :R~MOb ` YTS' PNd~~«- % / i i ~ \ ~ ' EX ST E 17, ~ ~ ~ , ' ~f , , r ~ ~ ~ P OPOSEQ ti ~ ~ + ti ~ ,'j + ~ ~ GARDEN EW` , t !fi ~ , ` , ~ s7 STO AGE ~ P R WG LOT t u- i t r. / \ ~ LIGH , , r 1 + 1 4 is 4 s' s ~ ~ O 1'1:''.i !'7 'S' ~ 1 i ` ~ ~ + t ~ i ~ ~ , = 67 e `i 1 ' 1 3 ~ t , 1 , 1 Cf. ~ ~ I , i 1 f , i j sr i i , 'r+ t f ` t ~ t ~ s~ ~ ~ I ~ , i ~ ~ ~ ~ , 'Y ~ ~ t ~ ~ NEW i ~ , ` N ~ ~ i PARKIN LOT wn~av Conran ~ ~ ~ ~ 'L ~ urrr>Fa , ~ / \ LIGHT 7 ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ , o 3 ! ~ ' , h h , ~ { _ -o i ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ^ I -n , ~ ~ ` ' t y ~ t ~ , ex~ '0 i J. M ~ p , , ~ N i i s J CF. ~ 37. ~ v f ' ' PROPOSED ~ l o ~ . . !d ~ o I g , ~ i t PARKING LOT b ~ 1 t. l ~ r e; ' ' ~ ' , ra ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ' ~ I , 1 ~ ,7 ~ ' } S .t i 4 R 1 L g t .yn . ~E 161 ~ ~ ` ` ~ I ' <~~jJ~ i i , ~ ~ NEW t a ~a ~ ~ 14~' i \ / P ~RKING LOT r I 1 ~ 1.4 i t' I 1 ~ ~ t L4GHT ~ ' / % { PROPOS ' ` I a I t s~ r ~ + , KWp`1 , RIDGE / PRO c~. , or ~ WpL ~ / ( POSED N , + S , ~ ' ~ pROQO 1 l , E P.! ~ / + / ~ / ~ / ~ / ~ D -r~_ - i~ 9f ~I - t i I J ~ /r PROPOSED + C ~ ~ ~ / f ~r ADDII i'E e r 1 ~ C ~ + TON ~ --1 ~ ;t 1 ~ p ~ J u ~ i ' ~ f 5~ ~ / / / ~ 1- r ~ . i ~ ! i„of.9~ PROPOSED , I k" ~ ~ ' 't ~ 1 ~ ~ PLAYAREA 1 1 > ~ ~f 1 ~ i~ , 1 1 r rt f ~ j l / l/ ~ r ~ ~ ~ / f 1 t , ~ . ~ ~ SH I / i ,a ~ , / f - i r _ i _ i , ~ / 41' 1 ! f " € ~ NE ~ PROPOSED EXPANSION • ~ ri r W ~ ° PARKIN '4 ~ 3~, r ~ IGH~ Ew~ i j ~ pA0 t i F ~ i...,. Y , r ' a~ ,Jt~Ew SITE ~ `W, , ~ ' r C1RCU~ATI ' ~ ~ y lS G D~ ~ ~ B DI / L Il! AN U YYI.YIiL/L~ ~N~• i H Lr ( r` 4. ` i _ , w I ` i t , , 'M i 4 ' n ~ , J 8£ p. .8816b " CO =16.69 ~ , ~ 10.00' NA/ fL 0 CA fT . , . ~ ~ ~ , NEST ,°y~ J r ` . - aN a 25~ s ~ ~ 0....... . , ........w..6 `,K PROPOSED EXPANSION ~ ~ 1 ~ t cttPf~O ~~ICx ° NSI , L ~ , vl~ w~>rR r \ ~ SPIGOT ' cwu~N r. s v,1ri~...-...., 7~NO,~ i,~ aL ...y.. ' s/cx I , ~ ~1 1 6GKo 't ' EXISTING ~ ,YLP. • ` ~.p A4 Q AlYNkVC LINE- ; o LIGHT ~ c~ ~ cauMNS ~ r V UECX EIEl: q l ~ _ 0 ~ W S/O17Y,1 CG.YBlNA1TGW CONCRETE- 0 1 ~ LA' CURB t GUlI£R j• h ~ I ~ ; "1 ~ ~ ~ ~ SiY. r ;r=r 't ' o ~ ~ EXISTING t `5 PARKING LOT ~ \ ~1 ~ l h5t ~ ~ ~t t r ~ t~~. 8 N7DE f/TILOY ~ ~ i 's fASE,Y£Nl AS PER t FLIT Of '.YARNING ~4 yILL NQ T ~'s • W it '4 f 4 ' ~ ~ 't \ E } 1 Y 1 `'f }S rt, ( , ~ , ~ ~ ,x~ ~A \ C.d ~ w t PARKING ~ \ B•,Y r / \ aI.LP. o Q=90'00 08 ti \ 1LLP." o~ 1F~E. - Sly ~ 1 7',1/, R-27.00 `t } , 11~ L=41.4/ `t ~ " fC=38,18 i j ~ 1 5 ` l~f. q 9'V.'. B'K ~ 3 ~ s N. RSER /EYE. PFC ~scR EX. SITE /'-"~R~sER - ~ ~ f ENTRANCE ntiao L . saa•T6'o8 E 296.86/ i a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ R/SER ° J__ _ T 25'-7' ~ Gd if=163f! 1.~:=160,5 ,;p S/AfWALY W.//. 1.E.=16d5 0 p ~ , ' LW/YFWAY- ,s . ~ . ~ SIL'EWALK XN. - COULD NOT fN0 CO,I/B/KATTON ~ • . lf.-159.8 ~ p ,y~ CU,PB d CUTTER ,v. INVERTS , © a r~", 1.F=?.Sd1 /.f.=?5.~/ __.q... , ° YE.=1569 ~ j/.E=15dtB r,T~ " YY , a ~ ~ BEN :w _ ~ l S H ~ ~ e . + ~ ~ ~ ~ / ii: ~ 7 f ~ % i p i ~ / , ~ , a t arm F.N. ~fi I 6 }}a a fs~~_~ F1f mat 'tea ' ~ I it = . f ' 238.53 TC 238.03 G ?38.59 ; 158.84 ~ 258.5 1gBS ' 4 bYHURO g,2g ?59,33 TC i • 2 2' E ?58.83 C C " ® 59, ~j~ ; . . V ' V ' 6p 2`C ~y''' ti 25.7 G- ~ 0.3 8 V 260.54 TC 139,84 G ~ ~ 160,44 3"CG 3 ~ 60,9 161,7? TC ?6l G ?61,78 ~ ~5! 0 259.5 ' ° ~ 26! 2 ~ 16 . o I 6,, 1 r. ~:y . ~ ~ 163.14 TC r ; ® 6 .3 r' I ~ / ~s ~ 2x274 c I ~ ~ ~ i 63.3 ? 5 !T 258,3 1 2 1 ~ ~ as I 'i zy 1'T. 26 .4 I I 264.67 TC ~ I 264.!7 • . ~ 6 .9 1/7 G ~ ~ 262.5 i i • • 1'r l ~ h6 N ~ a N h~ y I ~ .88'16 08 W. 246,89' (TOTAL) 'A : N ~ ~ I 7~N.88'16'08'W, ' N 258.5 I 7 14.89' ~ h ,+k ` ~3 ' " ~ ~ MYiOD f£NCF bhk 3'~ 265.95 TC / I o• , by tiyz yti, o~ tS 6 ti 238.0 `14589 265,45 G . ~ y ~ `h~' ~ N88'l6'08" 1"/. N 4~ 'I 1 ~ ld8.00 as ~ 1 V~ I 266.53 TC ~ $ ~ 1 ~ ~ 266.03 C ~ i9 / f I ~ ,IICTAL UO 7. 1 S3: / ~ 1'M. / 1T"PVC 163 B ~ 237, ?ss 266,0 ?59,1 l,f. ~ I ~ N r'~ ~ 236.6 ~ c / Af I yj•5~' y~ 0~'' r~ / I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 i 267,71 7C t 2 ,8~~/ 2383 + 258.3 ~ C~ tt I ~ 252.8 267,22 G f y 159.8 Suf. ~ 5,1 "f ' 267.83 2 / `I I . I I ~ rll ~ 238. ?68.34 TC I I I ?'~M. 0 13).4 ?67,84 G . ~ I ~ I ~ 2 8.7 I ti - , I 264.6 1'Cf 52 r~ ~ 2ss + 26s so r~R~ I l s'r. ~ ; 169,? 67. 38 0 I I WATGP l M. ~ ~ .Z 2 8.8 6a BUCX P ~ ~ 1 '~-11.0 SP/[~T r I + 160.8 1"P,: 154,9 ® ~~9 I 2 ~ 0 52.8 59.1 ~ ~ 1 I 269,64 TC ?6 ,3 269.14 G ~ I ~ ~s - _ Ja 269.x7 rc + 16963 ss a9 l ( I 1'T, 269.17 G ~ X169 97 \ ~ by 'h .9 3'T. + 1577 ~ \ ya• ~ I I 169,91 TC 1 T. ~ .'•i , r \ ~ ~ ~ + 161. 169.41 C YT i 169.98 ~ ! ~ 165.8 I + 15 ,5 + 256.7 ~y 259.93 TC ~ 269.45 C 1'T. \ 265. I 0 \ R~+ 146.5 I t 269,79 T I N 269,79 fC 1•r 1 ~ I I 269.29 G ~ ~ I + 1528 'i. 0 ~?ss \ ~-j-,,.~ ?"CF. + 1.9 + 1 6,3 + 233,9 o y 0.08 \ ?s~~ ?70,02 TC ®?66, I 17.0 b8.1 ~ ti I i ?69,52 G I I p ~ I N f ~ 0 26 3 I I H + 158, ! w { 1 L 270.00 rc + zs9.dd I ~ r. 269.50 G ?ss I ~ I f'C£ ~ 0 3 0 f :_a R ' I ®267.8 q ~ ' 70,07 i I N 169.98 TC ` ` : I ~ 6 + 53,1 1 C~ 16k 255.0 ?69.48 C I 0 ~ Z + 2 4.2 I 0 ?66.9 H ~ 270 O1 TC • •r I u~ + 3.7 y 26951 G +269,85 h A o~1c I L _ _ _ CONB/Wf10N CONWP£T£ V ,4 N + 58.4 CURB ct CUIT£R h 169. ~ ~ 1' 269 B6 TC . , ; . ~ 269 36 C " ' ` ~ I D \ ~y ~ W . ~ 0 b8.7 WW 4.0 ?69,94 TC 'z W W ~ , + 25 .3 269, 44 G • ~ i ` ~ ~ ~ + 258. + 269.69 ~ h q + 214.5 p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Yr~ ~ l 269.76 V q 269,6s r ~ ~ N~ 169,13 C 1 E. h 0 5"7. Z + 2 .4 y I 67.1 ~ ~V + 4.4 ~W J 269.72 TC I y 16921 C M A l 1 + 269.45 ryry~OI " ~f 168,79 ''1'' +2528 { 4"7. 259.3!'~M lfs16f.4 2570 + 154.7 ' 26 .44 f, t .5 ~6~' 11 ~E. 169,381C 169.44 TC 168.88 268.9 G + 158 257. I X ~ 1 6h / ~ t h6 B'1/ C.~ + 269.22 2 73 + 5,3 / , / 231.9 269, l1 269.07 TC ~ . l ?68.57 C / + 156 4 yy + 253 8 E C' / ti ~,OP / 169.!7 TC / K- } 268.67 G ~ . 5">: / ~ ~ 2600 Qf a G - ~ ~ + 263 + 3J4 / 155 i 1 ~ / + 168.91 + ?6 4 ~ / x ~3 / / X60 n ~'i ~ ~ / . a j 168,73 TC •N wj 1 Uo ~ 168,25 C :'a. tN~ q~~ ~25i,1 ,cnr Q"'~o'$4; , 5'T. + 25 .8 E / 3 ?68,90 TC ~ • ~ N ~ / / 5~' t ~ 168.40 G ~ ~ 11 + 163.8 ~ / ~ ~ Zy `~9 1 ~ T 1 'r ~ 1 2 1.7 ~ Zy , ' ~ . ~ ~ SHfO a " ~ 251.7 'CONCREI! ~ I / + 168.54 ~ ~ ~ Q~ ?S~ t "a, i r, ~ w 168.31 TC + 166.4 + 263.7 ~ 13 9 ~.h` v ~ 168, 01 G • 26 .61 j ca 26857 TC ~ ~ ~S~r h 268.07 G / 1 ~ ~aP 0 s K r P t a` ~ ;ti ' . ~ SZJC r t 268.29 I ' 1 t 265 S. '~t 2 8.26 TC / ~ ' t• N' ;f ~ I •y 4J ~ X61 ~ LUTNfRAN CNURCN 67,78 G '.a ~ lGN ~ O 268.28 C ` ' ~ t 16 ,4 C- fC, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`S7RUCl10NJ 26778 ~ ` N~ ~ 1-STORY W/OAYUCNT BAS~~, ' I ~ ~ t~`~ fy 263.97 y0• ~ ~ 1 . I 588'1 08"E. ~ P,4~, ~ \ i100R £IEY.=161,63 ti 16800 ! ~ /0, ~ 3 ®MA/N 1YCOR ON CAR -rr r na. 1 t 2637 N >s / 5 ON CDNG. PAD \ t'aw^ 268.08 TC ~ \ ° I ~ ~ vJ 26758 C 2881 ~'r ` ' A/. I CO. 268.04 TC " ' {t 267.54 G ~ ( "1 ~ B/Xf RACK ~ 165.0 6b' h~ by \ iOL 261.03 ~3 1 m 263.9) TC i ~ ma I CNU/RCN ?63.7! G f CQNC EIf~ r". • 619 f "Y n.eE' - I.GY.~ 263.62 TC CAL a WC,P. f . !R; y, b ~ ° 1ff3,16 TC rna 6"T,J~ ~ 'sa. ~ g 263.1? G 162,76 C R t ?6781 6~` ~ ~ ® s 62.59 TC 26789 TC " M,LR / 1 g, • 262.09 G 26~.4o rC i 167.39 G ~ I j~' s?m CON4: ~ ~ • . , AWN GONE-►~ 16Q 90 G ?67.91 IC ~ ~ I / >s3 s N7 COYU~IiKt •s OfCK fLFY. 267.41 G ; , ~ as ? d ?sl ~ • `T f'., • ' " ?61, l9 TC 16 85 TC ,r s i• 280.4 ••x, 0 3g3 '9? 161.69 G ~ 2635 G COMB/NATlON COl4CRETE 3' kry 6 as`' 162.86 TC 16158 TC CURB ?GUTTER ~ 's h c 261,36 16 .08 G • 1a w~~, ..,t . Y 3.~ -A 25 15~ " 0 ~ 164,03 ~ M16 ~ ~ X z t ?62.59 x 16776 TC ? 26477 s`~r9 t 161,91 + 161.11 ?6726 G s a 16L80 TC S f ~ ~ 1 6 9 267,30 C • ' ' ~ 8',W~E UT/ TY 6ti' h6~~ 619 6~ • f,VENI A PER ~ ti 6 ~ PAT OF RNING 61,6 _ ~ ~ ' 6 !1L N0: Y ?si 2 k 2b 25 !P p •9° a66~6 Zb r~61r 6,~6 161.11 267.10 TC 'NON-YEN LAR b~ hp 1 '•:~a•~ g0 267.70 TC rn~ ?67.20 G ~ ~ CCESS' STR/P `~6 `V6~' s`'a 6~' 1B12o c x ~ zs3sr ° ' ti 2s~ 11 s7. e , ~ 3'CX, ~ 164.4 f 68,2 B'M~ a 16 a ~ 167.1 0'~ i C.& ~ 67. 163.!! J1.l.P. '`3i ~~i . _ i T , ?x7.11 C,6: _ _ , ARKING ~ ~ B•M .L~ _ 90' 00 08" SIR/PE ~ 1633 T' \ i 267.97 TC ~ ~ ~ -?X 00 =42.41 ®1824 a ~6~ ?63.77 267.47 G •9,S C=38.18 r"` ~ 8=5.43'!6'09"£. r 162.5? 162.48 187.19 C ` 6~ ® 66.1 t 167.59 ~ S`~ ®264.4 167.88 TC ~ I ~ 163.5 167.38 G ~ ~ ~---7-- i B~AIJf : N fl: RISER ~EIE: Y PYC ~ RISER ~ 'RISER ~,p . r 267. !0 . S . 'A/LP. N~~ ~ 6 ~ Ps,► 66 W000 LP. 5.88'!6' i ~ ~ ~ ° ~o' ~ ~ 1 ti's 167,15 s • b 2 ,2 Mfl. _ sue. •CA4CRETE!" , ~ Sl ~ ' ~ 16 ~ 6Z `°°~6~' C.6: lf,=761.5 1. =16313 -160.5 !.t' ~ .ag--z~_ G~ C.B. - ~ ~ d.,., NA/L80X r' 267 09 267.60 ~ - - - ~ 167.78 TC ~ ?66.77 TC 166.1 TC 165 07 C 164, !8 C - s - " S- - - H 68.27 G ?65.73 ?64.57 163.68 6~ ~ ~ 2'623 ~`l` ` "761.9 16728 G MN. /.f.=?39.8 ~ ~Tf ~Ca ~~N 265.15 ~ 16248 26194 G ?61.54 ?61.53 C 161. 267,67 ~ ~ INVERTS _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~F.=15ds Lf.=731.4 ?sj /.F.-158,9 .f.=238.8 W~ - - - - ~ . o j3 t 287.38 t 266.4 263.3 x x BEN/S'H o+ N st t 1 313 ? X o+ °s ~ sus t 262 0 ?s, !t t. . c~•S d ~68,l1 TC w .Y if 267.61 G w. ~ a„ ® 1h y.~ 3h 0 ~ s rybh' M16 p4• 3ry 267 ss ~ ti ti6 b2 yb t 167.91 2 a~, ~ ~D o 181,85 t ?67,43 261•b2 261.57 ~ f.H. c~, l 0 0 cv F N ~T CD O CL .-y ~Y- 1. BENCH ~ C4NTO~ e a. _ L 3. UNDER ' s 4. ALL Ul cD r. ~ 5. TREE ; 0 ti 6. - 0 ti -L s ~1 ti H ~ j ~P ~