The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/14/2009 III a TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING April 14 2009 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:1Ofs \Donna's \Ccpktl 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov Revised Agenda as of April 8, 2009 — Added Consent Agenda Item 3.5 ,E = City of Tigard e, Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda !•,,,i,,,./.3,,4 D TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 14, 2009 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session, 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 tflt PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign -up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign -in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 639 - 4171, ext. 2410 (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. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (MD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA - APRIL 14, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 1 of 4 Ili '® City of Tigard 4% per Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda w 6,.. - �. °. w,,, W , rRf.,'�,'�a. ° �"�'�°a..., ,;:": , u:.,: -,::3, a,f�"�..,. , . .. .,. , , ?P"u: Mf"M21w:r''�" n'. „.. >. ....as7. .a^Moa ..F t, . "Man ...:- ".;M MINUM.'k'ifi?� TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: April 14, 2009 — 6:30 pm Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. • STUDY SESSION > Discussion on Withdrawing Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project (TBWSP) and Terminating Membership in the Joint Water Commission (]WC) > Review Tigard's 20 -Year Facility Plan 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance: Cub Scout Troop 735 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items ' 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard Nigh School Student Envoy • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication • Citizen Sign Up Sheet TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA — APRIL 14, 2009 � ,.._ _. ......,_ City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov I Page 2 of 4 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes for February 10 and 24, 2009 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Application to the Department of Justice for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Formula Grant (JAG) under the FY 09 Recovery Act 3.4 Authorize Issuance of Work Order Agreements to Amec Earth & Environmental 3.5 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Pavement Overlay Project - Resolution No. 09- • Consent Agenda - It Retuned for Separate Discussion. Any items 7equested to be ?mixe l fpm t e Consent Agenda for separate discussion will he amide-red irraliately after the Council /L coal Contract Review Board has zoted on those item which do not need disaission 4. DISCUSSION WITH SENATOR GINNY BURDICK AND REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GALIZIO A. 2009 Legislative Briefing B. Consideration of a Resolution to Support the Oregon Legislature's Senate Joint Resolution 29 (SJR 29) 5. PRESENTATION OF TREE STEWARDSHIP AWARDS • • Staff Report: Community Development Department 6. QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER AND 'DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA2008- 00013), ZONE MAP AMENDMENT (ZON2008- 00007), LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (M1S2008- 00016), AND MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD2008- 00026) REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment, and a Minor Modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential BR 12) zone to Industrial Park (I -P . The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces for the Jackson usiness Center. LOCATION: Te property is located at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded by SW Durham Road on the north and Fanno Creek on the south; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S113BA, Tax Lots 200 and 401, respectively. ZONES: R-12: Medium- Density Residential District. The R -12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally, and I -P: Industrial Park District. The r P zoning provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses e.g., restaurants personal services and fitness centers, in a campus -like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no of -site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I -P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I -P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well - integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian - friendly. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIOOl: Medium - Density Residential to Industrial Park. APPLICABLE REVIEW TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA — APRIL 14, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov I Page 3 of 4 CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.740, Historic Overlay, 18.745 Landscapin g and Screening; 18.765, Off- Street Parking and Loading Requirements; Comprehensive Plan Goal # 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal # 2, Land Use Planning; and Goal # 9, Economic Development; and Goal # 10, Housing. a. Open Public Hearing b. Hearing Procedure Statement - City Attorney c. Declarations or Challenges - Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? - Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? d. Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony - Applicant - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Discussion and Consideration: Ordinance No. 09- 7. BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY AND LAND USE TRENDS REPORT • Staff Report: Community Development Department 8. HIGHWAY 99W TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND DESIGN VISION BRIEFING • Staff Report: Community Development Department 9. DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN BRIEFING • Staff Report: Community Development Department 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 13. ADJOURNMENT I: \ADM\CATHY\CCA \2009 \090414.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /LCRB AGENDA — APRIL 14, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard or.gov Page 4 of 4 City of Tigard gm Study Session — Agenda o q:10 •wmim—ayszatzormunroariamasimsmar, „am, 6 v TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: April 14, 2009/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM ➢ EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. ➢ STUDY SESSION ➢ Discussion on Withdrawing Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project (TBWSP) and Terminating Membership in the Joint Water Commission (]WC) ➢ Review Tigard's 20 -Year Facility Plan ➢ ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS o Remind City Council: April 21, 2009, City Council meeting will begin at 6 p.m. for an Executive Session prior to the Workshop Meeting. The Workshop Meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. o Poll City Council: Special City Council meeting on April 25, 2009, to consider a resolution naming the park adjacent to The Tigard House. Time: 1 p.m. Location: City of Tigard Library Community Room, 13500 SW Hall Boulevard. Council Calendar. April 14" Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 21* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:00 pm, Town Hall 25 Saturday Special City Council Meeting - Time and location to be determined 27 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 28'" Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - APRIL 14, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is dosed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192 -660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment- related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) (j) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. • 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. .' 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State'L'andscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. I: \ ADM \Cathy \CCA SS - Pink Sheet\ 2009/090310.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA — APRIL 14, 2009 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 www.tigard- or.gov Agenda Item # Study Session Meeting Date 4/ /0100 f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Discussion on Withdrawing Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project ( TBWSP) and Terminating Membership in the Joint Water Commission (JWC) Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: 7 tfir I I " ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL No action required. The Council is asked to participate in a discussion on withdrawing participation in the TBWSP and terminating membership in the JWC. If the Council supports the withdrawal and termination, an agenda item authorizing the Mayor to execute letters to this effect will come before the Council at an upcoming meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Prior to 2008 the City of Tigard was exploring several long -term water source options including the TBWSP and the Lake Oswego Expansion & Water Partnership. • In order to pursue the TBWSP, the City became a partner in the project and a member of the JWC. • In early 2008 the Lake Oswego Expansion & Water Partnership was emerging as the best option to meet Tigard's long -term water needs. • The City's TBWSP partners graciously granted Tigard a one -year grace period to evaluate the Lake Oswego option in greater detail. At the same time, Tigard suspended its participation in the TBWSP, but reserved the right to return to the project by paying its share (approximately $3.03 million) of the FY '08 -'09 expenses by June 30, 2009. • Tigard and Lake Oswego entered into a formal water partnership in August 2008. This action established the Lake Oswego Expansion & Water Partnership as Tigard's long -term water source option. In choosing this option, the City can now focus its energy and financial resources on one, rather than several, long -term water source options. • Tigard's membership in the JWC is conditioned upon its financial involvement in the development of the TBWSP. The City's action to withdraw from the TBWSP triggers a provision in the JWC agreement that starts a two -year termination process. Staff has suggested in the attached draft letters that this process be shortened to 18 months. • The Intergovernmental Water Board considered this matter at its March 11 meeting and unanimously recommended the City of Tigard submit letters withdrawing from the Joint Water Commission and withdrawing participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project . • If the Council authorizes the Mayor to execute letters of withdrawal and termination at an upcoming meeting, the letters will effectively: - Sever our relationship with our partners in the 1'BWSP. - Avoid payment of $3.03 million dollars by June 30, 2009. - Change the City's relationship with the JWC from member to wholesale customer. - Allow the City to be reimbursed for real estate investments held by the JWC. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could choose to reinstate its participation in the '1'BWSP and membership in the JWC. This would necessitate payment of $3.03 million dollars by June 30, 2009. CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Draft Letter to Mr. Hanway Regarding Tigard's Withdrawal from the Joint Water Commission 2. Draft Letter to Mr. VanderPlaat Regarding Tigard's Withdrawal from Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact associated with discussing this item. If the Council ultimately authorizes the Mayor to execute letters of withdrawal and termination, the City will avoid making a $3.03 million payment and can recover its investment in JWC real estate holdings. Attachment 1 April xx, 2009 / Mr. Kevin Hanway Water Director City of Hillsboro 150 E. Main Street Hillsboro OR 97123 Re: Notice - Tigard's Termination of Membership on the Joint Water Commission Dear Mr. Hanway: The City of Tigard, on behalf of our Tigard Water Service Area partners, is terminating its membership on the Joint Water Commission QWC) in accordance with the 2004 First Amendment to Water Service Agreement and Joinder Agreement. As you know the City had been pursuing multiple water supply options for several years. To that end, Tigard recently entered into a water partnership with the City of Lake Oswego to jointly develop water supply improvements that will serve both communities through the year 2030. In selecting this option, Tigard intends to focus its financial resources and energies solely on the water partnership. Therefore, the City has decided to withdraw its participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project and terminate its membership on the JWC. While the existing agreement requires a two -year termination notice, the City is requesting the JWC partners consider shortening this time to 18 months. This will allow the partners to spread the buy -out costs over two budget cycles, and will allow Tigard to recover its investment within a slightly shorter time frame. We believe this should work for the partners due to our limited asset ownership position. Lastly, Tigard understands this change will allow us to continue as a surplus water customer of the JWC, either under the existing 2001 contract or under a new arrangement that would be mutually beneficial to the parties. We appreciate your efforts to develop additional water supplies in Washington County. Such efforts will benefit our region far into the future. We wish the remaining partners every success on the TBWSP. Sincerely, Craig E. Dirksen Mayor Distribution: Kevin Hanway, Water Director, City of Hillsboro, 150 E. Main Street, Hillsboro OR 97123 City Manager, c/o City of Hillsboro, 123 West Main, Room 150, Hillsboro, OR 97123 General Manager, Tualatin Valley Water District, PO Box 745, Beaverton, OR, 97075 City Manager, City of Forest Grove, PO Box 326, Forest Grove, OR 97116 Mayor, City of Beaverton, PO Box 4755, Beaverton, OR 97076 Attachment 2 April xx, 2009 0 0 3 Mr. Tom VanderPlaat Clean Water Services 2550 Southwest Hillsboro Highway Hillsboro, OR 97123 Re: Notice - Tigard's Withdrawal from Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project Dear Mr. VanderPlaat: The City of Tigard, on behalf of our Tigard Water Service Area partners, will not reinstate its participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project (TBWSP) as specified in the terms and conditions of the Fourth Amendment to the Joint Funding Agreement. We have instead elected to pursue a water partnership with the City of Lake Oswego. As you know the City had been pursuing multiple water supply options for several years. While pursuing multiple options has been expensive and time consuming, each option under consideration, including the TBWSP, held promise and merited study and evaluation. In early 2008 the Lake Oswego water partnership was emerging as the best option to meet Tigard's long -term water supply needs. As a result, our TSWSP partners graciously allowed us a one -year grace period to evaluate the Lake Oswego option in greater detail. At the same time, Tigard suspended its participation in the '1 13WSP,. but reserved the right to return to the project by paying • its share of FY 2008 -2009 expenses by June 30, 2009 Please consider this letter as official • notification that the City of Tigard does not intend to reinstate its participation in the "1'BWSP. We understand this action allows the remaining parties to assume Tigard's rights and obligations pursuant to Exhibit B. On a related note, please delete Tigard as a co- applicant on the stored water rights application number R-86734 dated December 20, 2006. We appreciate your efforts to develop additional water supplies in Washington County. Such efforts will benefit our region far into the future. We wish the remaining partners every success on the TBWSP. Sincerely, Craig E. Dirksen Mayor Distribution: Clean Water Services, Bill Gaffi, General Manager, 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway, Hillsboro, OR 97123 Tualatin Valley Water District, Greg DiLoreto - General Manager,1850 SW 170th Avenue, PO Box 745, Beaverton, OR 97075 City of Hillsboro, Kevin Hanway- Water Department Director, 150 E. Main Street, Hillsboro, OR 97123 City of Beaverton, David Winship - Public Works Engineer, City of Beaverton, 4755 SW Griffith Drive; Third Floor, Beaverton, OR 97005 City of Forest Grove, Robert Foster - City Engineer, 1924 Council Street, Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 Agenda Item # 5744C4 fess /io/L Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Review Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 v Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeler Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: L• - l ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL No action is required. The Council is asked to participate in a presentation on Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan. Paul Boundy, of LRS Architects, and City staff are seeking Council input and direction. The Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and consider adopting the plan at its May 12 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The City hired LRS Architects in the summer of 2007 to develop Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan. • The purpose of the 20 -Year City Facility Plan is two -fold: - It identifies future building space needs, life cycles of existing and new facilities, and facility maintenance requirements and costs. - It provides a road map for the City to meet its facilities needs over the next 20 years. • The City currently owns, occupies and maintains seven major buildings providing 118,358 square feet of useable space. This space houses city operations and various programs and accommodates public uses. • The buildings range in age from 4 to 56 years, and only two of the seven buildings have life expectancies that exceed the 20 -year planning window. • Additional factors affecting future planning for City facilities: - Existing Police Department facilities are undersized. - State law requires the Police Department be housed in a seismically hardened building by 2022. - The Public Works Department currently operates out of two separate locations: the Ash Street public works yard and the Public Works Building. The Downtown Urban Renewal Plan calls for a major housing complex to be sited at the public works yard. The Public Works Building is not large enough to allow for the consolidation of the two public works sites, nor would such a consolidation fit with urban renewal plans. • LRS Architects estimates an additional 50,000 square feet of office space will be needed for City operations by the year 2028. • The Council initially reviewed a draft facility plan on December 16, 2008. The updated plan incorporates the discussion points from the previous meeting and addresses issues raised regarding Police Department space needs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS Five -Year Council Goal of "Begin City Facility Needs Plan implementation." ATTACHMENT LIST Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan FISCAL. NOTES There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. If the Council ultimately adopts Tigard's 20 -Year City Facility Plan at an upcoming meeting, plan components will be approved and implemented through the annual budget process. i i ' I •k 4,J .� . t orm 1 ---e TIGARD'S DRAFT 20 -YEAR TIC;ARD CIT FACILITY PLAN ' I Cli A D R • March 30, 2009 L rs f►RC H ITECTS Contents 1 •Executive Summary 3 Existing Conditions 3 Staffing and Space Needs Projections 5 Master Plan Options 5 Project Description and Goals 7 Process 8 2 .Existing Conditions 11 Property Inventory 11 Existing Facilities Conditions 11 Tigard City Hall 13 Tigard Permit Center 17 Police Department Building 19 Tigard City Library 21 Public Works Building 23 Senior /Community Center 25 Niche Building 27 3 .Needs Analysis 29 Demographics and Growth 29 Departmental Staff Growth 31 Police Department Analysis by City 32 Needed Areas Projection Tables 37 City Administration 37 Community Development 40 Police Department 43 Public Works 46 Library 49 Senior /Community Center 53 4 .Master Plan 55 Concept and Planning Influences 55 Development of Alternatives 56 Major Steps Timeline 59 0 -5 Year Illustration 61 5 -10 Year Illustration 63 10 -20 Year Illustration 65 North Detail Illustration 67 South Detail Illustration 69 Cost Information 70 New Public Works Facility 70 Police Relocation to Public Works Building 70 New Police Station - Remote Site 71 Expand / Consolidate City Hall 71 Expand / Renovate Permit Center 71 Expand Police Facility 72 New City Hall / Permit Center 72 New Community Center 72 Expand Library 73 Capital Budget Outline 75 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan LRS Architects 1 2 .Executive Summary The following is a synopsis of the data compiled and an overview of the findings of this Twenty -Year Plan.This summary is divided into major categories of Existing Conditions, Projections and Master Planning. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions for the city of Tigard are comprised of seven major buildings. The total available area at the three sites totals 39 acres of total property (including the Fanno Creek Greenway) and 122,953 sf of occupiable space summarized in table 1.A. Facility Site Area Site Area No. Year Building available for Staff Built Area development 1 City Administration 343,959 sf 35% 120,386 sf 31 1985 10,950 sf Permit Center " included above 56 1985 12,437 sf Police Station " included above 94 1985 15,628 sf 3 Library 325,172 sf 30% 97,552 sf 32 2004 48,167 sf Public Works Building 166,911 sf 100% 166,911 sf 65 1989 17,968 sf Public Works Yard 142,432 sf 100% 142,432 sf 7 1970 +/- 4,320 sf Niche Building 28,262 sf 100% 28,262 sf 6 1952 3,240 sf Public Works Annex 15,441 sf 100% 15,441 sf 8 1950 +/- 1,500 sf Senior /Community Center 678,365 sf 10% 67,836 sf 11 1982 8,743 sf Loucks - Burton Property 22,651 sf 60% 13,591 sf - - - Schaltz Property 48,351 sf 30% 14,505 sf - 1938 (2,505) 2 Total 1,871,544 sf 666,916 sf 310 122,953 sf (43 Acres) (15 Acres) Table 2.A. Current Facility Staff and Area Totals 1 Property area may only be partially developed due to areas identified in the Tigard Local Wet- lands Inventory within the Fanno Creek Greenway. The developable percentage is derived from graphic approximations of CWS Vegetated Corridors and Goal 5 Safe Harbor area overlays. 2 Residential properties acquired 2008 are not included in Total Facility Building Area. 3 Includes off-site storage and portable structures The Public Works Yard and Public Works Annex are assumed to be temporary loca- tions based on previous evaluations and have not been included in the detailed facility analysis. The Annex is scheduled for demolition as part of the Burnham Street improvements and the Public Works Yard is scheduled to be decommissioned and the property redeveloped after a new Public Works facility is complete. The Niche Build- ing, a re -used residential structure, is also considered to be temporary, though the property itself is in a prime location for future consideration. Only two of the structures, the Library and Public Works Building, have life expectan- cies that exceed a twenty year planning window without significant renovation. The Permit Center /City Hall /Police Station complex and the Senior /Community Center are structures that could face potentially costly renovation to reach the goals of the twenty year plan. These buildings are primarily wood frame construction and do not meet current seismic requirements and have suffered water infiltration issues. Both of these conditions will require costly mitigation if significant renovation is undertaken. Oregon Revised Statute 455.400 (sec. 3) requires seismic improvements to police sta- Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 2 .Executive Summary LRS Architects 3 F it �b 1, i 4 1 .; . VMorb Nierti r anA { ! / f!. PWblk VMorke t ildiryt 5 cit Administration w` . _ 6. ET # 5 �. r 9 P » . io. Llbnry • 11 a 4 ,1 i � d ' 1 i +. e w r j iiii }J 1 Figure 2.A. Regional Map showing all Properties 4 tions to be complete before 2022. For purposes of this study, we have assumed that these structures will require replacement within twenty years, though they could be left in service longer if it is found to be cost effective to undertake these significant renovations. The existing properties are all located within an area along the perimeter of the Down- town Improvement Plan. The properties are all contiguous and well located for access from downtown and centrally located along Hall Street, a major north -south route. The Public Works facility is the only city function that does not appear to be complimentary to the area. A 2006 Needs Assessment identified the current location in the Public Works Building as an intermediate solution. The long term solution will relocate the Public Works Department to another area of the City that contains uses more compat- ible with the function of a Public Works Department. STAFFING AND SPACE NEEDS PROJECTIONS Based on surveys, staff interviews and comparisons to similar departments, an ideal space program was developed with staffing projections in five year increments. A sum- mary of the required space recommended for each department is shown in table 1.B. A summary of population and growth projections is provided in table 1.C. Departments Existing Need 2008 Need 2028 1 City Administration (HR/Risk, IT, Admin, 16,369 sf 17,874 sf 23,375 sf Finance) Community Development 11,064 sf 13,300 sf 16,589 sf Police 15,628 sf 28,130sf 50,120 sf Public Works 17,697 sf 18,173 sf 19,935 sf Library 48,167 sf 47,782 sf 66,162 sf Senior /Community Center 8,743 sf 8,743 sf 15,864 sf Total 116,648 sf 134,002 sf 192,045sf Table 2.B. Department Floor Area Needs Projections 1 Derived from Needed Area Projection Tables in chapter 3 Year 2000 2008 2013 2028 Population 42,260 46,715 50,350 63,042 Growth Rate 7.78% 34.95% Table 2.C. Population Growth Rates Findings indicate an immediate need of 17,354 sf to reach an ideal space utilization for all departments, with a need for 75,397 sf in 20 years. This is growth of 65% from the existing area or 43% from the current need, which is greater than current popu- lation growth projections. Most of this growth is realized in the Police Department, which provides the most compelling long term need. The Senior /Community Center, when transformed to serve a larger demographic as a Community Center, also shows above average increased space need, though the time line for this growth is flexible. The balance of the departments growth is projected to maintain the same level of service to an increased population. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 2 .Executive Summary LRS Architects 5 MASTER PLAN OPTIONS After reviewing the existing conditions and considering the remaining expected life of existing facilities and properties, the planning team compared that data with the space needs projections and appropriateness of existing facilities. A single pathway to the master plan is provided in the report, but there are many ways to get to that goal. The master plan incorporates the following key ideas: • Minimize acquisition of new property • Reuse existing facilities as long as feasible Utilize existing properties by increasing density • Maintain a centralized location for City operations and create a Civic Complex • Support the objectives of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) One critical assumption used to start the planning process is that Public Works will be moving from an intermediate location to a consolidated location that is more appro- priate for industrial use in support of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. This makes the existing Ash Street Yard available for mixed use or residential development and makes the Public Works Building property available for expansion of other city functions. The key finding of the space needs projections is that the Police Department's current space has not kept pace with growth.This current shortfall drives the need for either a short term intermediate solution or the need for a replacement facility. This report identifies both options for consideration, though the primary focus is on the intermedi- ate solution of siting the Police Department in the Public Works Building. Should funding for a new Police Department facility be made available before Public Works relocates from the Public Works Building, a choice can be made to either retain the favorable location by scheduling to accommodate Public Works relocation, or to identify and acquire another suitable location. Upon the relocation of Police, the City Hall / Permit Center complex will have ad- equate space for growth to meet the 20 year need with minor renovations.The limita- tion of this complex will be the longevity of the structures as previously noted. This report projects that just inside of the 20 year window, a new City Hall will be required. The Master Plan identifies, with the exception of a new Public Works Yard, that the current properties north and south of SW Burnham Street along Hall Street will be adequate to accommodate City buildings. In addition, the Library property and Senior/ Community Center properties will continue to serve their functions over the 20 years. 6 Overall Master Plan Strategy Major Steps Key Points Timeline Cost 1 - New Public Works Yard Consolidates all staff; 0 - 5 years $15,600,000 / Decommission Ash Street Frees up Yard and Annex Yard for other use or sale 2 - Relocate Police to Adequate site and build- 0 - 5 years $13,042,686 Intermediate Facility at ing area. Maintains central Public Works location. Build new sup- port and training areas. 2A - New Police Facility Option to intermediate 0 - 5 years $28,150,357 step if funding source and site is available 3 - Expand City Hall into Renovation will extend 5 -10 years $3,339,500 Police Facility life of buildings ($4,065,000 - 2015) 4 - Expand Permit Center If needed, expansion will 10 -15 years $1,815,000 address growth issues ($2,690,000 - 2020) 5 - Expand Police Facility Create permanent offices 15 - 20 years $9,142,120 at Public Works Building staff areas. Reuse support ($21,666,081 - 2030 Site and training area. 6 - Build new City Hall / Replaces aging wood 20 - 25 years $19,050,000 Permit Center structures in lieu of ($38,600,000 - 2030) upgrade. 7 - New Community Cen- Replaces Senior /Commu- 20 - 25 years $7,100,000 ter @ City Hall site nity Center ($14,350,000 - 2030) 8 - Expand Library Provides growth on site 20 - 25 years $2,550,000 ($5,200,000 - 2030) Table 2.D. Master Plan Strategy Timeline Project Description and Goals The City of Tigard Department of Public Works solicited Architectural Services to produce a Twenty Year Plan that provides a cursory assessment of existing facilities, space needs assessment, space programming, conceptual planning and cost estimat- ing. The goal of this Plan is to establish a road map for facility planning for the City of Tigard for the next twenty years.This road map will provide guidance in planning for fiscal spending for acquisition of property, renovation of existing facilities, construction of new buildings and recommendations on efficient and general growth management and projects that will benefit the citizens of the City of Tigard. The following goals were identified during the course of the study: Determine current condition and utilization of existing facilities Determine expectations for replacement facilities Improve the utilization of existing facilities • Identify conceptual plan to accommodate future City growth • Comply with long term Downtown Improvement Plan • Confirm compliance with industry standards for all departments The scope of work following included the analysis of space usage for all employees of the City within the eleven departments: City Administration, Community Development, Engineering, Financial and Information Services, Human Resources, Library, Municipal Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 2 •Executive Summary LRS Architects 7 Court, Police, Public Works, Risk and Senior Services. The seven buildings include; City Hall, Police Station, Permit Center, Library, Public Works Building, Niche Building, and Senior /Community Center. PROCESS The Project Team has taken the following steps to achieve the goals of this project: Task 1: Inventory Existing Facilities LRS performed an on -site survey of existing facilities in sufficient detail to assess the present condition and make a reasonable determination of the utilization of each build- ing. The assessment included a cursory evaluation of each building and site, but did not include a detailed analysis of primary building systems including: mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, electrical, security, data, structural, ADA access and architectural sys- tems. The facility assessments are the basis for determining the condition and utiliza- tion of the existing buildings and the existing building components. The City provided life cycle cost expectations for each building and LRS incorporated this information into building assessments. Task 2: Gather user Group Data LRS utilized a survey, distributed by the City to supervisory staff, that was tailored to meet the needs of the Project to verify existing information. In this case, the survey focused primarily on the facility conditions, space configuration, functional adjacencies, space needs and projected growth for each department. Follow -up interviews were held with supervisory staff to confirm the findings in the survey. A concise summary of this information is provided in this document. In several cases drawings were updated with interior department layouts adjusted to reflect current program usage. This was necessary to determine staff and auxiliary space usage and provide accurate future projections. Exterior and off -site storage and parking needs for each department were recorded. Parking counts included fleet vehicles, service vehicles, staff and public vehicles. LRS also conducted a survey of Police Department space utilization from seven similar sized cities in Oregon and Washington. Those findings are summarized in the table 3.G Regional Police Department Analysis. Task 3: Project Future Staff and Space Needs With input from the City and results from the survey, LRS summarized projections of future personnel for each of the Departments. The projections define changes in personnel by type and number in five -year and twenty -year increments through 2028. Historical data was used to supplement the projections and several models for growth were compared and contrasted to reach the final growth projections. LRS determined future space needs based on the staff projections and average square foot space needed per employee. Consideration was given to the use of consis- tent space standards. Future space needs include consideration for specialized equip- ment, storage, conference and meeting room requirements. Task 4: Prepare Master Plan Options LRS provided multiple schemes showing relationships of program requirements, utili- zation of exterior yards, preliminary space and furniture layouts and approximate scope of work required by each option. A rough order of magnitude cost for each option was included and all five schemes have been presented for review and consideration by the 8 City. One scheme has been designated as an Interim Proposed Solution, a solution that can achieve the goals of increasing the efficiency of Public Works with the minimal cost. An Ideal Solution has been identified that will give Public Works a guideline for making long term planning decisions. Task 5: Cost Estimates All cost estimates contained in this report are preliminary in nature and are based on the Consultant's best judgment and understanding of current average construction cost and current projections for future cost escalation. The estimates are provided as a basis for budgeting only and do not reflect actual design or construction conditions. Estimates are divided to reflect typical construction hard costs including contractor's profit and overhead and separate out soft costs such as consultant fees, special inspec- tions, plan reviews, and other regulatory or developmental fees. These soft costs are estimated using industry standards for the 2008 - 2010 window. Land acquisition costs, where noted, are budgetary in nature and do not reflect any actual sites or specific market conditions. Our team would like to thank the City staff and the Executive Council for their in- valuable input and time spent assisting us with this process. Special thanks to Dennis Koellermeier, Nick Nissen and Dan Plaza. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 2 •Executive Summary LRS Architects 9 3 .Existing Conditions The purpose of the study is to determine the suitability of each facility for its current occupant and that occupant's long term needs. A central location, as currently exists, is desirable for the different city departments, both for citizen identification and internal city business. The facilities, with the exception of the Library, are all within the Central Business District and the 2007 Urban Renewal /Downtown Plan with close proximity to each other and to other city services such as the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The Library building is just outside the Urban Renewal boundary, but still located close to the City Hall complex. Property Inventory Properties considered in the property inventory: • City Hall • Permit Center • Police Station • Library • Public Works Building • Niche Building • Senior /Community Center The Public Works Yard and Annex are not being considered in detail as part of this study as previous evaluations have determined both to be temporary locations. Existing Facilities Conditions The facilities assessment done for this study is a review of the City of Tigard owned buildings and property within the study group note above. Each facility was appraised as to its existing condition, renovation requirements and remodeling possibilities. The study is limited to information available from earlier construction drawings, discussions with city staff, and on -site walk through observations. The buildings within the study have served the City of Tigard well and in most cases can continue to do so with some modifications and re- arrangement and consolidation of departments, however, a major exception to this is the Police Department. The facil- ity itself is in good condition, however, the Police Department has long outgrown the space. They are extremely over - crowded now and have no expansion possibilities to solve their immediate needs and none to address their future. Public Works is the other department that is in need of a more suitable location for their program functions.Their recent move to the Public Works Building was planned as a short -term temporary location until a suitable site that can accommodate all their requirements can be found and developed. Part of Public Works' department functions are still located at the Public Works Yard on Ash Street as there is insufficient space at the Public Works Building site. Programmatically, the entire department will benefit by relocating to a single location. Long -term use of the Yard is not consistent with the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 .Existing Conditions LRS Architects 11 TIGARD CITY HALL , 4 f , ' .�I irr f.« i' 7 } J , ..... H C jj U = t , Figure 3.A. Tigard City Hall Use City Administration, Courts, Finance Construction Type Type V -N Fully Sprinklered Single story, wood structure, Synthetic stucco skin with brick base. Property Area 343,959 sf Building Area 10,948 sf Built 1985 Renovations HVAC - 2002 Renovations -2004 Current Property Value $2,828,140 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $33,000 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $325,000 Twenty Year Life Cycle $693,000 Utility Expense Table 3.A. Tigard City Hall Data Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 'Existing Conditions LRS Architects 13 Condition The wood structural system appears to be in good condition however a structural re- port identified deficiencies. Remedial steps were taken as part of a renovation in 2004, but the building was only partially brought up to current codes. A building skin consultant has reviewed the building and recommends removal and replacement with a properly sealed and flashed conventional hard coat stucco system. There is evidence of water infiltration damage to the exterior walls and the potential for mold due to poor original waterproofing and flashing, and ongoing bird damage to the soft EIFS exterior finish. The City has provided regular maintenance on the facility. The renovation in 2004 pro- vided new carpeting and paint in most of the office areas and finishes were replaced in the Council Chambers and Public Lobby. The building mechanical system was upgrad- ed in 2002. Issues The facility has functioned reasonably well for many years as the City Hall. However, the departments housed in City Hall have grown as the City has increased in popula- tion. Currently the space is maximized and there is no room to expand without depart- ment relocation. Due to space limitations, not all the city administration functions can be housed under the same roof at this location. Information Technology, which is a part of the Financial Operations Department, is housed off -site in the Niche Building, which is not suitable due to lack of security features. Risk and Human Resources are located nearby in the Permit Center. Both Risk and HR are crowded in their present location and would ben- efit from additional space. Court services, including traffic court, code compliance and juvenile peer court, are well served by the large Chamber Room. However, the City would like to add a criminal court but is unable to do so as it requires a separate jury room and jury seating within the Courtroom. Criminal court will also add an extra staff person. The court's financial services area is currently extremely crowded with no expansion possibility. At some point in the near future the city attorney needs to be included in the city administra- tion offices. This position is currently being contracted out. Passport issuing is a heavy use and is a relatively new function that does not have an assigned area. This function adds to the congestion in the Public Lobby, which is already used for court, utility billing and as the main waiting room for Council Cham- bers and the Courtroom. Public rest rooms for these functions are only available in the adjacent Police Station. There is a general shortage of conference rooms available to both public and staff. They are heavily scheduled. The building was designed as an open office configuration; it does not have enough private offices. Confidentiality and privacy are a key issue. A lockable room is needed for financial records and the yearly audit. These records are now stored in a hallway. City Administration manages records and archive storage for all city departments. They microfilm many of the records, but are still running out of climate - controlled storage in the City Hall building. Much of the archived information is now being stored off -site at the Public Works Building or in modular buildings. While they will continue to store records off -site, City Administration needs more on -site storage capacity. 14 Conclusions The City Hall building functions well overall and could benefit from expansion of the Public Lobby and the relocation of a department to allow area for additional confer- ence rooms, storage and support areas. The relocation of Police from the adjacent building will resolve most of these issues. As a long term solution, the City Hall is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renew- al /Downtown Plan as recommended by that planning document. The Council Chamber is located here and it works well for council meetings. Once the exterior skin is re- placed and seismic upgrades are complete, it will be in reasonable shape and present an attractive image for the community. It may remain in service for 20 years if regular maintenance is continued. However, that would be stretching the life of the original inexpensive construction beyond its serviceable life. It is the recommendation of this plan that a replacement facility be built which can accommodate multiple departments, be expandable and have a service life of at least 50 years. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 .Existing Conditions LRS Architects 15 TIGARD PERMIT CENTER r Y ; ( '.: , .l y I r , . s , # , , , C A r. ... ^ 1, . -tea - -�., 1� +'.ti a Lull -w- - '-, i - �Q i y Figure 3.B. Tigard Permit Center Use Risk/HR; Community Development; Planning, Engineering and Building Departments Construction Type Type V -N Fully Sprinklered Single story, wood structure, Synthetic stucco skin with brick base. Property Area (Included with City Hall) Building Area 12,495 sf Built 1985 Renovations HVAC - 2004 Renovations - 2004 Expansion and New Roof - 1996 Current Property Value $3,181,660 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $31,400 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $258,000 Twenty Year Life Cycle $658,830 Utility Expense Table 3.B. Tigard Permit Center Data Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 .Existing Conditions LRS Architects 17 Condition The structure of the building is in good condition, though the exterior skin needs complete replacement. It has water infiltration damage and mold due to poor original waterproofing and flashing, and ongoing bird damage to the soft EIFS exterior finish. A building skin consultant has reviewed the building and recommends removal and replacement with a properly sealed and flashed conventional hard coat stucco system. The windows can be re -used or replaced at the same time. The City has provided regu- lar maintenance on the facility. Issues Like City Hall, the Permit Center has functioned many years for the City. It originally served as the City Library until relocating to a new City Library building in 2004 . The facility was remodeled into the Permit Center for the Community Development department. Although the space is becoming quite crowded, it still functions quite well overall. The biggest need is for three to four more private offices. The 2004 remodel focused on an open office layout, but confidentiality and privacy have become a big issue for the department. The other deficiency is in the public waiting area and at the public counter. This space is crowded, uncomfortable, and lacks privacy for business transac- tion. A problem that is not pressing now, but will become so in the near future, is room for expansion and future staff. Expansion is not anticipated to be large, but the current space is crowded with no expansion possibility. Conclusions The Permit Center is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renewal / Downtown Plan district. It is located in the same complex as City Hall, which is a preferred loca- tion. Risk and the Human Resources department are located in a portion of the Permit Center building. Programmatically, neither needs to be located here. They serve sepa- rate functions and client base. If they could relocate and free up their space, this would provide the needed expansion area for Community Development. 18 PO LICE DEPARTME BUILDING 1rt t sy 1 ,\0.;'0's‘41.41 i ,tea 4iu, g- " . e r t t ' x r . •r , .i ,, �� p � P d fw � + r t a r x s .. � P '' ', _ -,... 1 VmdriiitiAc k " : " . t:' , .'N ^ . .'...;.‘ . ' W. ' 'N't. ' ti: i ':, ' . % '-:71 ' 4 * 4,■ • ' _ .. / ` - _ i. —1 .^f - i' tom� , ..� r�,.... Figure 3.C. Police department Building Use Police Department Construction Type Type V -N Fully Sprinklered Single story, wood structure, Synthetic stucco skin with brick base. Type V -1 hour at Holding area with 2 -hour fire separation at that location Property Area (Included with City Hall) Building Area 11,368 sf (Original 8,200 sf, Expansion 3,168 sf) Built 1985' Renovations Remodel - 1993, 1998 HVAC upgrade, Expansion and New Roof - 1998 Current Property Value $ (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $37,860 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $313,790 Twenty Year Life Cycle $795,096 Utility Expense Table 3.C. Police Department Building Data Condition Similar to City Hall and the Permit Center, the Police Department's exterior skin needs complete replacement. It has water infiltration damage and mold due to poor original waterproofing and flashing, and ongoing bird damage to the soft EIFS exterior finish. A building skin consultant has reviewed the building and recommends removal and replacement with a properly sealed and flashed conventional hard coat stucco system. The windows can be re -used or replaced at the same time. Other than the building skin damage, the structure is in good condition. The City has provided regular maintenance on the facility. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 .Existing Conditions LRS Architects 19 Issues The exterior skin needs replacement as stated above. While the facility itself is other- wise in good shape, it is no longer adequate for the Police Department's needs. Tern - porary modular units now provide office space for several officer units. Locker rooms are full to capacity with lockers too small to hold all required gear and no place to electrically charge required equipment. There is no proper space for juvenile holding. Evidence processing has overflowed into the corridor. Storage of all kinds (evidence, records, equipment, uniforms) is severely limited. The department is using multiple off -site and rental units for some of the overflow storage. This is difficult and inconvenient for daily operations. Parking is limited and crowded for both fleet and staff needs. The department needs both covered and uncovered exte- rior storage, particularly for evidence, impounded vehicles, traffic management equip- ment, bikes and motorcycles. Conclusion The Police Department Building is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renewal / Downtown Plan area and is part of the City Hall complex. This has been a good loca- tion for them and they would prefer to stay within the Downtown area and in particular close to City Hall. However, their current building is entirely too small for their pro- gram needs as it is and has no expansion possibilities. The structure for their present building is not capable of meeting seismic requirements for a second story without extensive structural re -work. The department needs to relocate to a larger site with a larger building or one that can accommodate an addition to meet not only their current program needs, but any future expansion. 20 TIGARD CITY LIBRARY q i b � .. ff ' — t l . 1.lBRf.F.i 4 1 k-) n n In :'1 -, _ 6 Figure 3D. Tigard City Library Use Public Library Construction Type Type II Fully Sprinklered Two story, steel structure with masonry exterior cladding. Property Area 325,172 sf Building Area 48,000 sf (22,000 upper, 26,000 lower) Built 2004 Renovations None Insured Property Value $9,837,118 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $61,826 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $210,820 Twenty Year Life Cycle $1,299,230 Utility Expense Table 3.D. Tigard City Library Data Condition The Library, one of the city's newer buildings, was built in 2004. The two -story facility is in very good condition with upkeep provided through regular planned maintenance by the City. The interior spaces are open and well laid out with plenty of natural light, numerous study and reading areas, and clearly designated areas for different age groups and interests. The library can accommodate a large number of users comfortably. Some expansion ability was initially planned into the building. As the collection grows the shelving system can also expand to accommodate this growth. There are further de- Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 3 •Existing Conditions LRS Architects 21 velopment options available on this site for future needs, or the library could provide branch outlets as another possibility. The entry lobby has public rest rooms, a comfortable waiting area, and a small snack shop. Spaces have natural light from the large window walls on two sides of the lobby. It is a very welcoming space and can serve as a pre- function or display area for the com- munity room without interfering with the library's daily business. Adjacent to the entry lobby is a large community room, which can be accessed without entering the library. Issues The facility is functioning well for the library and doesn't have any significant problems. Some upgrade for technology will be needed in the next few years, but it's primarily additional outlets for public use. The large community room located in the library and used for community events has a 400 - person capacity and parking can be a problem, but only at these occasional special events. Parking on a daily basis and for normal library use is busy, but can be accommodated in the existing lot fine. Conclusions The library is located just outside the 2007 Urban Renewal and Downtown Plan area. As one of the newest city buildings, present and future growth needs are satisfied. An attempt was made to address future technological and electrical needs as this is probably the area that will face the most change. Eventually expansion may be needed, probably not in the next 20 -year period. 22 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING (_ 1 I 1 Figure 3.E. Public Works Building Use Public Works, Community Meeting Room Address • 8777 SW Burnham Blvd. Construction Type Type V -N Fully Sprinklered One story structural masonry with wood roof structure Property Area 166,911 sf Building Area 9,736 sf: Public Works Building and annex. 7,270 sf: garage and the fleet repair build- ing. Total: 17,006 sf. Built 1989 Renovations 2007 Current Property Value $1,383,830 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $42,100 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $303,015 Twenty Year Life Cycle $884,164 Utility Expense Table 3.E. Public Works Building Data Condition The Public Works Building has been well maintained. It was remodeled in 2007 for the Public Works Department. The site has a large secured vehicle yard, a 5 -bay garage, and a separate fleet service building. Additional public and staff parking is located at the front of the building. The large garage is partially used for city record storage. There is an underground fueling tank on site. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 .Existing Conditions LRS Architects 23 The site has some building expansion possibilities. However, second floor expansion is not practical, as the building could not meet current seismic requirements for a two - story structure. The public rest rooms off the main lobby were not made ADA acces- sible during the recent remodel. Instead single male and female ADA compliant toilet rooms were provided within the office area. The large auditorium at the front of the building is primarily rented out to community and non - government groups. It does not provide a program need for Public Works. Issues The Public Works Building is a short -term solution for the Public Works Department. • This was an attempt to consolidate most, but not all, of the department's operations at one location. Most of the staff was relocated to this site, but it is not adequate for all operations and in particular the Public Works yard. As a result, the department is split into two locations. Conclusions This site is located on the edge of the 2007 Urban Renewal /Downtown Plan area and is located near City Hall and other city functions. However, Public Works would be bet- ter served at a different location that could accommodate all it's staff and department functions, including enough area for the service yard. The service yard is not an entirely appropriate function within the Downtown Plan. The facility is in good condition and could possibly be remodeled for the Police Department or some other City business. 24 SENIOR /COMMUNITY CENTER anr - t -- Figure 3.F. Senior /Community Center Use Senior Services, Education, Special Events Construction Type Two - story. Type V -N fully sprinklered wood frame and metal roof. Property Area 678,365 sf Building Area 8,779 sf (3,578 sf upper, 5,201 sf lower) Built 1982 Renovations Elevator - Early 1990's HVAC -2000 Renovation and Expansions - 2008 New Roof - 2008 Current Property Value $1,457,417 Life Cycle Expense $18,015 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $124,660 Twenty Year Life Cycle $378,325 Utility Expense Table 3.F. Senior /Community Center Data Condition The Senior /Community Center was recently remodeled, including a small library ad- dition, kitchen, new roof and site lighting. Fire sprinklers were added in the 1990's. The building has been maintained by the City and will continue to be on their maintenance schedule. All toilet rooms and the building entries are ADA accessible.The building has an elevator. The kitchen serves daily meals to the elderly and houses the Meals - on- Wheels Program. A garden room addition is planned for the building opening late 2008. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 .Existing Conditions LRS Architects 25 Issues The building is set back on a flag lot and has low visibility from the street. The topog- raphy of the site and the two story configuration of the building can provide access issues for building users with mobility problems and are not ideal for a Senior /Commu- nity Center.. The recent remodel /addition has addressed a significant number of access issues and presents a better - defined entry partially resolving these issues. Staff and visitor parking is adequate for the facility, though some mutually beneficial overflow oc- curs between the adjacent church and the Senior /Community Center. Significant water damage was uncovered during the 2007 renovation and the building was re- roofed to prevent further damage. A structural beam was replaced and other areas were dried out before being finished.. Other areas not impacted by the renova- tion were not uncovered and additional water damage may be uncovered in the future. Conclusion The Senior /Community Center is located in the Fanno Creek Greenway and within the 2007 Urban Renewal /Downtown Plan area.This is a desirable location for the facility, though a higher visibility location would be preferable for a more community oriented facility. The library and garden room additions are anticipated to provide ad- ditional program space but is not be adequate for expansion of programs as the facility becomes oriented toward a wider community. Room on this site for future expansion is limited due to the site topography and the planning issues related to the proximity to the Fanno Creek watershed. 26 NICHE BUILDING ;1 " oar Figure 3.G. Niche Building Use Information Services Location 8720 SW Burnham Construction Type Two - story.TypeV -N non - sprinklered wood frame and wood shingle roof. Property Area 28,262 sf Building Area 4,548 sf ( 2,009 sf upper, 2,539 sf lower) Built 1952 Renovations Remodel -1991 Electrical Upgrade - 2003 New Roof -1991 Current Property Value $639,000 (ratio of overall complex) Life Cycle Expense $10,780 per year average Ten Year Life Cycle $77,300 Twenty Year Life Cycle $226,385 Utility Expense Table 3.G. Niche Building Data Condition The Information Technology Department is currently housed in this 2 -story wood structure adjacent to the City Hall parking lot and the skateboard park. The building was originally built as a small commercial structure with parking. It has been remodeled and used as city offices for over sixteen years. While the interior spaces are comfort- able, the building itself is not up to the standards of other permanent city facilities. The facility is relatively unsecure and has no fire alarm or fire sprinkler protection. There is Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 3 'Existing Conditions LRS Architects 27 ample space with excess capacity; several unused offices and rooms. The upper level is not wheelchair accessible. The site has 36 parking spaces. Issues The facility is workable, but not entirely suitable for the IT Department. It is isolated from City Hall. Ideally, the IT Department would be located within City Hall near Finance Operations. The Niche Building, which houses a large amount of computer equipment, is alarmed, but cannot be secured to the extent it should be. Lack of secu- rity does not present an exigent situation, but does need addressing in the near future. Conclusions The Niche Building is located within the boundaries of the 2007 Urban Renewal / Downtown Plan. As a City facility it should be viewed as a temporary structure that is nearing the end of its useful life. It has no historic connection and little aesthetic value to recommend it. It has provided needed space for the Information Technology Depart- ment, but has isolated staff in something less than a desirable working environment. If space can be made available in City Hall it is recommended that IT move into that space. The Niche Building can then be demolished and the land put to better use by the City. 28 4 'Needs Analysis Demographics and Growth A Demographic Study for the City of Tigard was conducted using data from Portland State University's Population Research Center. Population figures from 2000 to 2008 show a 1.51% average annual growth rate. This growth figure was used to calculate future population counts for five year increments through 2028 as shown in table 3.A. These figures and percentages were factored into the anticipated staff growth for the different City departments and their divisions. Year 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 Population 47,420 50.350 55,088 59,374 63,994 Aggregate Growth 7.78% 16.2% 25.2% 34.9% Table 4.A. Aggregate Growth Rate A Population Study for the City of Tigard, Table 3.B, shows historical population es- timates and the yearly percentage change from the Portland State University's Popu- lation Research Center. The study indicates an aggregate growth rate since 1990 of nearly 62 %, or an average of 3.42% per year. The negative change from 2003 to 2004 was due to a data collection error. Accounting for this error, the population change was 1.31%. The average annual growth rate (AAGR), normally used in projecting population increase, is 1.51% during the period from 2000 to 2007. This figure is used to calculate future population counts as shown in the right hand column. Tigard's central location, between the 217, 1 -5 and 99W corridors with easy access to east, west and downtown of the Portland metropolitan area suggests that it will con- tinue to be a prime location for residential and commercial development. A few areas, such as the Tigard Triangle, have capacity for commercial and residential development, however city boundaries are stable with no expectation of major annexations in the foreseeable future. Population growth is expected to continue, but possibly at a slower rate than the last 20 years. This rate is projected to continue until some major transportation and planning changes, such as potential long term development of light rail along 99W corridor, start to result in increased density. The soon to be completed Westside Express Service may begin to present opportunities for increased density, though no zoning modifications are currently planned as a result of the transit line. Zoning changes may begin within the next twenty years and the resulting population increase will be beyond the plan- ning horizon of this analysis. Figures and percentages shown will be used to estimate anticipated staff growth for Tigard's city departments into the year 2028. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 'Needs Analysis LRS Architects 29 Year Population % Change Year Population % Change 1990 29,345 2011 49,601 1.51% 1991 30,910 5.01% 2012 50,350 1.51% 1992 31,350 1.42% 2013 51,110 1.51% 1993 32,145 2.54% 2014 51,882 1.51% 1994 33,730 4.93% 1995 35,021 3.83% 2015 52,666 1.51 % 1996 35,925 2.58% 2016 53,461 1.51% 1997 36,680 2.10% 2017 54,268 1.51% 1998 37,200 1.42% 2018 55,088 1.51% 1999 38,704 4.04% 2019 55,919 1.51% 2000 42,260 9.19% 2020 56,764 1.51% 2001 43,040 1.85% 2021 57,621 1.51% 2002 44,070 2.39% 2022 58,491 1.51% 2003 45,130 2.41% 2004 46,300 -1.06% 2023 59,374 1.51% 2005 45,500 1.90% 2024 62,271 1.51% 2006 46,300 1.76% 2025 61,181 1.51% 2007 46,715 0.90% 2026 62,105 1.51% 2008 47,420 1.51% 2027 63,042 1.51% 2009 48,136 1.51% 2028 63,994 1.51% 2010 48,863 1.51% Table 4.B. Population Study for the City of Tigard 30 Departmental Staff Growth In order to project future space needs, two scenarios of staff growth are projected. The first scenario, shown in tables 3.0 and 3.D, maintains the current staff to resident ratio per resident. A second scenario, shown in tables 3.E and 3.F is based upon a lower staff per resident need. The comparative analysis of both scenarios confirms that the reduced area required in the second scenario is negligible for planning purposes. It was determined to use the more conservative constant staff ratio scenario to project future space needs. Complete Needed Area Projections listing all staff positions and space needs with projections for years 2013 and 2028 begin on Table 4.1. Staff Count Projection - Constant staff to resident ratio Department 1990 1995 2000 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 Actual Actual Actual Need Need Need Need Need Administration 26.5 28 365 47 51 55 59 63 Police 47.25 57 72 94 101 109 118 127 CommunityDevelop - 32 35 50 55.5 60.5 65 70 75 ment Library 14.5 23 30 46 49 54 58 62 Public Works 27.25 45 64 64 69 75 81 86 Senior /Community 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Center Total 149.5 191 255.5 304.5 328.5 356 384 410 Population 29,435 35,021 42,260 46,715 50,350 55,088 59,374 63,042 Growth Rate 15.95% 17.13% 9.54% 7.22% 8.60% 7.22% 5.82% Ratio 0.51 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Table 4.C. Staff Level Option One - Constant Staffing Ratio Space Needs Projection - Constant staff to resident ratio Department 2013 Need 2018 Need 2023 Need 2028 Need Administration 16,369 17,874 19,759 23,375 Police 24,093 30,241 39,427 48,614 Community Development 11,064 13,300 15,061 16,784 Library 48,167 47,782 48,377 66,162 Public Works 17,697 18,173 18,501 19,935 Senior /Community Center 8,743 8,741 8,741 14,780 Total 116,648 123,496 136,716 189,650 Population 46,715 55,088 63,042 City FTE 304.50 356.00 410.00 Staff per 100 residents 0.65 0.65 0.65 Table 4.D. Staff Level Option One - Constant Staffing Ratio Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 'Needs Analysis LRS Architects 31 Staff Count Projection - Decreased staff to resident ratio Department 1990 1995 2000 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 Actual Actual Actual Need Need Need Need Need Administration 26.5 28 36.5 47 49 50 51 52 Police 47.25 57 72 94 100 105 110 115 Community Develop- 32 35 50 55.5 58 59 61 62 ment Library 14.5 23 30 46 49 51 53 55 Public Works 27.25 45 64 64 66 69 72 74 Senior /Community 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 Center Total 149.5 191 255.5 304.5 319 331 346 357 Population 29,435 35,021 42,260 46,715 50,350 55,088 59,374 63,042 Growth Rate 15.95% 17.13% 9.54% 7.22% 8.60% 7.22% 5.82% Ratio 0.51 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.63 0.60 0.58 0.57 Table 4.E. Staff Level Option Two - Slower Growth of Staffing Level Space Needs Projection - Decreased staff to resident ratio Department 2013 Need 2018 Need 2023 Need 2028 Need Administration 16,369 17,874 19,759 23,375 Police 24,935 31,130 38,814 47,497 Community Development 11,064 13,300 14,106 15,137 Library 48,167 47,782 48,377 66,104 Public Works 17,697 18,173 18,410 19,843 Senior /Community Center 8,743 8,741 8,741 14,780 Total 116,648 123,496 134,742 186,736 Population 46,715 55,088 63,042 City FTE 304.50 331.00 357.00 Staff per 100 residents 0.65 0.60 0.57 Table 4.F. Staff Level Option Two - Slower Growth of Staffing Level Police Department Analysis by City As included in the Public Works Needs Assessment, a detailed comparative analysis of Police Departments by City was conducted for this report using a dozen of cities roughly the size in population of Tigard. Information was collected from each city's Police Department web site and by telephone conversation.The cities analyzed are Albany, Corvallis, and Lake Oswego in Oregon, and Auburn, Kirkland, Olympia, and Redmond in Washington State.Tigard is on the lesser end of city area at 11.71 square miles with a high of 21.2 square miles for Auburn. Population ranges from 36,713 to 49,807 with Tigard's in the middle at 46,715. Median income levels are from $35,000 to $71,000 with Tigard at $52,000. All but one city, Albany, have a jail or holding facilities at the police station. Two, Auburn and Olympia, have larger 25 and 51 -bed jails. Six of the eight cities have gym or workout rooms that range from small spaces to larger all city facilities. Five of the eight cities also have a pistol range either on -site (four) or off -site (one). Six police depart- ments rent space for evidence storage. The City of Tigard's station building is 11,368 square feet. This is a similar size to the other city's stations. Two cities do not have square foot data available. However, all the police departments stated are extremely 32 crowded and using auxiliary facilities. Most are in the planning process to move or en- large their facilities. Growth, for this size of city, has escalated to the point that all the police departments are having trouble fitting their staff and program needs into their current facilities. None have expansion room within their facility. The findings of this comparison support the need for action to increase the available area for the Police Department. A focused long term plan for the Department should be undertaken in more detail than this report provides in order to establish program- matic and space goals for the department. A more detailed plan may use this report as a baseline, modifying these findings to further define the master plan. Information provided for Tualatin, Sherwood, Hillsboro, Woodburn and Keizer was provided by the City of Tigard and reflect newly constructed facilities, or facilities cur- rently under construction that are designed and built to serve communities for a dura- tion similar to this analysis. These facilities are more reflective of the space required to reach the operational goals and levels of service which the City of Tigard desires. Regional Police Department Analysis City Population Median Sworn Officers /per Total Staff Total sf sf per Income 1,000 Residents staff Tigard 2008 46,715 $52,000 75/ 1.61 85 15,628 166 Tigard 2028 63,042 98/ 1.55 127 50,120 395 Albany 46,213 $39,000 60/ 1.3 90 14,900 166 a Corvallis 49,807 $35,000 54/ 1.08 82 23,680 289 Lake Oswego 36,713 $71,000 43/1.17 73 11,192 153 Auburn 65,000 $39,000 120/ 1.85 143 32,000 224 5 Kirkland 46,476 $60,000 72/ 1.55 103 20,200 196 Olympia 44,645 $41,000 69/ 1.55 98 Redmond 48,739 $67,000 84/1.72 120 Tualatin 25,650 $55,760 36/1.40 44 23,000 523 .. Sherwood 16,115 $62,520 23/1.43 26 17,300 665 3 Hillsboro 88,300 $51,737 113/1.28 151 54,250 359 z Woodburn 22,044 $33,720 31/1.41 40 28,000 650 Keizer 34,880 $45,050 39/1.12 46 30,000 652 Table 4.G. Regional Police Department Analysis Note: Albany performed needs assessment 5 years ago. Need 30,000 now & 45,000 in 15 years. • Corvallis shares law enforcement building (1976) with Benton County Sherrifs Department. Spaces are mixed by type of services not separated between county & city. • Auburn has new annex to city w/ 15,000 population increase. Added 28 staff. Jail still under City Hall. New Justice Center is part courts, part police station. • Kirkland workout room in City Hall used by all city staff. City Hall: 2 -story w /ground level for police & jail, upper floor for City Hall, municipal court (11,300) Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 •Needs Analysis LRS Architects 33 • Office Space Standards Office space standards have been utilized in this study for the assignment of square footage for both individual private offices and for workstation sizes. These standards were used to determine currently needed workspace as well as future projected needs. Space standards in any organization are typically utilized to assist in managing space within that organization and to establish parity from one department to another. Work- space standards typically are based on a combination of position classification and job function. Space standards can be applied to both modular furniture and panel systems and to freestanding furniture and individual private offices. Modular systems will typi- cally yield a square footage savings over private offices or freestanding furniture. Both systems and arrangements have been utilized for Tigard. Private office space has been assigned to position classifications requiring security and privacy issues. The City of Tigard has not adopted standard workstation size requirements. However, it does have existing furniture and panel systems. LRS has assigned space standards that are in line with accepted business and government standards.These work well with Tigard's existing furniture and panel systems. The classification assignments have been verified and adjusted with departmental input. The space standards have been used to determine future staff space requirements as well as current needs. • Financial Operations — Utility Worker II • Community Development — Intern Planner • Library — Senior Library Assistant I &II •Library — Assistant Technician "'f x e • Public Works — Utility Worker II Volunteer 11(0 Figure 4.A. (WS48) Workstation — 48 sf • Financial Operations — Senior Accounting • Assist Engineering — Administration • Specialist Police — Background Investigation • Court — Administrative Specialist I • Court — Court Clerk Police — Community Services Officer • Office Sys. — Admin Specialist I & II • Police — Patrol Officer / Police Officer • Police — Property Evidence • Community Development — Administrative Assistant • Police — Records Specialist • Community Development — Admin Specialist I Figure 4.B. (WS64) Workstation — 64 sf • Public Works — Administrative Specialist I & II • Community Development — Assistant Planner • Public Works — GIS Technician • Community Development — Inspector I & II • Public Works — Senior Administrative Specialist • Community Development — Permit Technician Public Works — Senior Utility Worker • Community Development — Plans Examiner 34 • Community Development — Senior Plans Examiner • • City Administration — Graphics /Web • Engineering — Administration Assistant • City Administration — Volunteer Coordinator W • Engineering — City Surveyor • Financial Operations — Payroll Specialist • Engineering — Engineering Construction Inspector • Financial Operations — Purchasing Specialist • Engineering — Engineering Technician • Financial Operations — Senior Admin Specialist • Engineering — Senior Engineering Technician • IT — GIS Coordinator • Library — Public Information Coordinator • IT — Micro Computer Support Technician • Library — Volunteer Coordinator • IT — Network Technician Figure 4.C. (WS80) Workstation — 80 sf • Library — Supervisors • Community Development — Admin Specialist II • Police — Commercial Crimes Officer • Community Development — Associate Planner • Police — School Resources • Community Development — Code Compliance Specialist • Public Works — Engineering Technician II • Library — Cataloging Librarian • Public Works — Urban Forester • Community Development — Permits Coordinator • Public Works — Water QCP Coordinator • Community Development — Bldg. Services Coordinator • Public Works — Water WCP/ Vol. • Community Development — Senior Bldg. Inspector • Senior /Community Center — Activities Coordinator • Community Development — Senior Elec.. Inspector • Senior /Community Center — Assist Manager/ Kitchen Coordinator • Community Development — Senior Plumbing Inspector • Senior /Community Center — Clinical Services Coordina- tor • Community Development — Management Analyst • Financial Operations — Accountant • Financial Operations — Management Analyst • IT— Computer Support Coordinator • IT— Network Administrator • Office Systems — Office Services Supervisor • Office Systems — Deputy City Recorder • Office Systems — Senior Admin Specialist • HR - Assistant • Risk — Management Analyst ' I • .Risk—Technician • Community Development — Plans Examiner Supervisor • Engineering — Right of Way Administration • Library — Confidential Exec Assistant Figure 4.D. (WS100) Workstation — 100 sf • Library — Technical Services Coordinator • Police — CID Secretary • Police — Crime Analyst • Police — Sergeant • Public Works — Coordinators (Fleet, Facilities) • Public Works — Program Development Specialist • Public Works — Urban Forester • Financial Operations — Accounting Supervisor • Financial Operations — Confidential Exec Assist • Human Resource — Senior Analyst " "a: • Community Development — Confidential Exec Assistant "'" • Community Development — Inspection Supervisor • Engineering — Project Engineer • Police — Detective • Police — Lieutenant • Public Works — Project Engineer • Public Works — Supervisors: (Streets, Sanitary, Storm, Water Quality, Water Operations, Parks & Grounds) Figure 4.E. (WS120) Workstation — 120 sf Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 .Needs Analysis LRS Architects 35 • City Administration — Admin Services Manager • Courts — Judge • Office Sys. — City Recorder ^' • Community Development — Assist ° "° Community Development — Director • Community Development — Building Official Community Development — Planning Manager • Community Development — Plan /DT Redev. Manager • Engineering — Engineering • Library — Circulation Manager • Library — Reader's Services Manager • Police — Records or Investigations Figure 4.F. (PO120)PrivateOffice —Su ervisors -120sf • Police — Supervisor Investigations g p • Police — Supervisor Lieutenant • Public Works — Confidential Exec Assistant • Public Works — Management Analyst • Senior /Community Center — Director City Administration — Executive Assist to City Manager • Financial Operations — Financial Operations Manager A • IT — Manager • Engineering — Capital Construction & Trans. Engineer • Police — Business Manager • Police — Confidential Executive Assistant • Police — Public Information Officer • Police — Youth Program Manager Public Works — Assistant Public Works Director • Public Works — Parks & Facilities Manager Figure 4.G. (PO150) Private Office — Managers —150 sf • City Administration — Assistant City Manager • Financial Operations — Financial Director ` S "r • Human Resources — Director • Risk — Assistant to City Manager • Community Development — Director • Library — Director • Police — Assistant Chief • Police — Operations Captain • Public Works — Director • Figure 4.H. (PO180) Private Office — Department Heads — 180 sf • City Administration — City Manager Police — Chief of Police • Y Figure 4.1. (PO225) Private Office — Administration Officials — 225 sf 36 Needed Areas Projection Tables CITY ADMINISTRATION O N O O a N - O 0 0 N (N in a . °. ,t+ City Administratio " ,,, LL, Y >, 1- tA VI 1- O r iv , I- 1-O 1. Personnel Administration City Manager 1 1 1 P0-255 255 208 255 255 255 Assistant City Manager 1 1 1 P0-180 180 172 180 180 180 Executive Asst. to City Manager 1 I 1 I 1 P0-150 150 I 156 150 150 I 150 Admin Services Manager 1 1 1 P0-120 120 74 120 120 120 Public information Officer 0 1 1 P0-120 120 0 0 120 120 Graphic Design /Web 1 1 1 WS -80 80 60 80 80 80 Volunteer Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -80 80 52 80 80 80 Volunteers [3] [4] [6] WS -48 48 103 144 192 288 Sub Total 6 7 7 825 1009 1177 1273 Courts Judge 1 1 2 P0-120 120 56 120 120 240 Administrative Specialyst I 1 1 1 WS-64 64 56 64 64 64 Court Clerk 2 3 6 WS-64 64 112 128 192 384 Sub Total 4 5 9 224 312 376 688 Financial / Information Services Financial Director 1 1 1 P0-180 180 167 180 180 180 Confidential Executive Assistant 1 1 1 WS -120 100 52 100 100 100 Management Analyst 1 1 1 WS -100 100 0 100 100 100 Financial Operations Manager 1 1 1 P0-150 150 86 150 150 150 Accountant 1 1 2 WS -100 100 59 100 100 200 Accounting Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 100 120 120 120 Senior Administrative Specialist 2 2 3 WS -80 80 90 160 160 240 Senior Accounting Assistant 2 2 3 WS -64 64 74 128 128 192 Payroll Specialist 1 1 1 WS -80 80 55 80 80 80 Purchasing Specialist 1 1 1 WS -80 80 52 80 80 80 Utility Worker II 2 2 3 WS-48 48 42 96 96 144 Accounting Assistant I & II 3 3 5 WS -64 64 73 192 192 320 Sub Total 17 17 23 850 1,486 1486 1,906 Information Technology IT Manager 1 1 1 P0-150 150 158 150 150 150 Computer Support Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -100 100 126 100 100 100 Network Administrator 1 1 1 WS -100 100 115 100 100 100 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 'Needs Analysis LRS Architects 37 O p City Administration , a c. • N �, °•? p F i a te . . ; a te - , ,, Network Technician 2 2 3 WS -80 80 200 160 160 240 Computer Support Technician 1 2 2 WS -80 80 110 80 160 160 Graphic Info Sys. Coordinator 1 1 2 WS -80 80 116 80 80 160 Sub Total 7 8 10 825 670 750 910 Office Services Office Services Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -100 100 64 80 100 100 Administrative Specialist I & II 3 3 4 WS -64 64 64 192 192 256 Sub Total 4 4 5 128 272 292 356 Records City Recorder 1 1 1 P0-120 120 68 120 120 120 Deputy City Recorder 1 1 1 WS -100 100 62 100 100 100 Senior Administrative Specialist 1 1 2 WS -100 100 64 100 100 200 Sub -Total 3 3 4 194 320 320 420 Human Resources Human Resources Director 1 1 1 P0-180 180 162 180 180 180 Senior Human Resources Analyst 2 2 2 WS -120 120 180 240 240 240 Human Resources Assistant 1 2 3 WS -100 100 75 100 200 300 HR Volunteer [1] [2] [2] WS-48 48 12 48 24 96 Sub-Total 4 5 6 429 520 620 816 Risk Management Assistant to City Manager 1 1 1 P0-180 180 148 180 180 180 Risk Technician 1 1 1 WS -100 100 88 100 100 100 Sub Total 2 2 2 236 280 280 280 Sub Total Personnel Needs 47 51 66 3,711 4,869 5,301 6,649 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Lobby w/ Public Counter 1 1 1.5 660 660 660 990 Staff Rest rooms: Men &Women 2 2 2 312 390 390 390 Conference Room: 6 -10 4 5 6 590 590 738 885 Conference Room: 12 -24 1 2 3 355 355 710 1065 Staff Lunch & Break Room 1 1 1 355 355 355 355 City Admin Waiting Area 1 1 1 104 104 104 104 HR Waiting Area 1 2 2 78 78 156 156 Sub Total 2454 2532 3113 3945 Support Services Microfiche Processing & Storage 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 64 I 64 I 64 I 64 38 CO CO 00 Co CO CO U. , d N p O O f2 . C N NO N City Administratio b w ; - N °- ` ° _ V To To . }- O 1— 4 5 4 5 1— Mail Room &Work Room 1 1.5 2 158 158 237 316 Work Room: Copy, Fax, Print 2 2 2.5 130 130 130 163 Acct. Assist. Work Area 1 1 2 67 67 67 134 Vault 1 1.5 2 158 158 237 316 Records Storage Room 1 1.5 2 168 168 252 336 Records File Storage 2 3 4 64 64 96 128 HR Records File Storage 1 1 1.5 100 100 100 150 Courts Admin File Storage 1 1 1.5 60 60 60 90 Tele /Computer Server Room 1 1 1.5 70 70 70 105 Finance Equipment Room 1 1 1 71 71 71 71 Janitor /Mechanical Room 1 1 1 131 131 131 131 Sub Total 1241 1241 1515 2004 Court Services Town Hall / Chambers 1 1 1 1465 1465 1465 1465 Public Lobby 1 1 1 525 525 525 525 Chambers Storage Room 1 1 1 194 194 194 194 TV Room for City Council 1 1 1 152 152 152 152 Jury Room 0 1 1 0 355 355 355 Sub -Total 2336 2691 2691 2691 Information Tech Services Training Room 1 1.5 2 430 430 645 860 Storage Room W/ Racks 1 1.5 2 270 270 405 540 Server Room 1 2.5 3 180 180 450 540 Sub Total 880 880 1500 1940 Sub -Total Auxiliary Needs 6911 7344 7319 8640 Sub Totals City Administration 10622 11780 12620 15289 (Inc HR, Risk, IT) Circulation @ 30% 3187 3534 3786 4587 Net Total City Administration 13809 15314 16405 19875 Department Needs Off -Site 2560 2560 3000 3500 Total City Administration Building .II 16369 17874 19405 23375 Needs 4. Exterior Nee. r Staff Parking Existing parking is barely adequate. Public Parking Inadequate on court days Table 4.H. City Administration Space Needs Projection Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 •Needs Analysis LRS Architects 39 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Co • co v o , ry o N o — o Q v c ti CommunityDevelo • m '; L- 1.Personnel Administration Community Development 1 1 1 P0-180 180 122 180 180 180 Director Confidential Executive As- 1 1 1 WS -100 100 80 100 100 100 sistant Management Analyst 1 1 1 WS -80 80 68 80 80 80 Principal Planner / DT Rede- 1 1 1 P0-120 120 80 120 120 120 velopment Mgr Volunteers [2] [3] [4] WS-48 48 0 96 144 192 Sub Total 4 4 4 350 576 624 672 Long Range Planning Asst. Community Develop- 1 1 1 P0-120 120 112 120 120 120 ment Director Administrative Specialist II 1 1 2 WS -80 80 63 80 80 160 Associate Planner 4 4 4 WS -100 100 334 400 400 400 Assistant Planner 1 2 3 WS -80 80 62 80 160 240 Intern Planner [1] [1] [1] WS-48 48 20 48 48 48 Sub Total 7 8 10 591 728 760 920 Current Planning Planning Manager 1 1 1 P0-120 120 117 120 120 120 Administrative Assistant 1 1 2 WS -120 120 100 120 120 240 Associate Planner 2 2 3 WS -80 80 120 160 160 240 Associate Planner — Arborist 1 1 1 WS -80 80 64 80 80 80 Assistant Planner 1 1 2 WS-64 64 80 64 64 128 Permit Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -80 80 80 80 80 80 Permit Technician — Planning/ 2 3 3 WS -64 64 134 128 192 192 Engineering Code Compliance Specialist 1 1 1 WS -80 80 64 80 80 80 Sub Total 10 11 14 759 832 896 1160 Plan Review Plans Examination Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -100 100 85 100 100 100 Senior Plans Examiner 2 2 2 WS -80 80 118 160 160 160 Plans Examiner 1 1 2 WS -80 80 60 80 80 160 Sub Total 4 4 5 263 340 340 420 Building 40 ,r - pmm unity Develop_ -n 1 w a LL., . • Q ;. Building Official 1 1 1 P0-120 120 93 120 120 120 Administration Specialist I 1 1 2 WS-64 64 64 64 64 128 Sub Total 2 2 3 157 184 184 248 Permits Building Division Services 1 1 1 WS -80 80 83 80 80 80 Coordinator Permit Technician — Building 3 3 4 WS -64 64 118 192 192 256 Sub -Total 4 4 5 201 272 272 336 Inspections Inspection Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -100 100 72 100 100 100 Administrative Specialist II 1 1 2 WS-64 64 64 64 64 128 Senior Electrical Inspector 1 1 1 WS -80 80 84 80 80 80 Senior Building Inspector 1 1 1 WS -80 80 64 80 80 80 Senior Plumbing Inspector 1 1 1 WS -80 80 45 80 80 80 Inspector I & II 4 5 6 WS -64 64 232 256 320 384 Sub Total 9 10 12 561 660 724 852 Development Engineering Engineering Manager 1 1 1 P0-120 120 122 120 120 120 Senior Engineering Technician 3 3 3 WS -80 80 195 240 240 240 Engineering Technician I 1 1 2 WS -80 80 90 80 80 160 Administrative Assistant 0 0.5 1 WS -80 80 0 0 40 80 Sub Total 5 5.5 7 407 440 480 600 Capital Construction &Transportation Capital Construction &Trans- 1 1 1 P0-150 150 102 150 150 150 portation Engineer Engineering Manager 1 1 1 P0-120 120 102 120 120 120 Administrative Assistant I & II 1.5 2 3 WS -80 80 93 120 160 240 Project Engineer 2 2 2 WS -120 120 176 240 240 240 Rights of Way Administrator 1 1 1 WS -100 100 108 100 100 100 Senior Engineering Technician 2 3 4 WS -80 80 160 160 240 320 Engineering Construction 1 1 2 WS -80 80 65 80 80 160 Inspector City Surveyor 1 1 1 WS -80 80 80 80 80 80 Sub -Total 10.5 12 15 886 1050 1170 1410 Sub -Total Personnel Needs 55.5 60.5 75 4175 5082 5450 6618 2. Auxiliary Sp Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 'Needs Analysis LRS Architects 41 O r ir0 tii 4— w `� O1 • 1 ;: O o ' o .a v . c ^1 rte, w ,l , > , a. 4 w Community Developmer ; v; 0 0 Public Interface & Administration Building Entry Vestibule 1 1 1 345 345 345 345 Lobby w/ Public Counter 1 1.5 2 288 288 432 576 Public Rest rooms (not inc.) - - - - - - - Staff Rest rooms: Men & 2 2 2 329 329 329 329 Women Conference Room: 4 -6 2 2 2 190 190 190 190 Conference Room: 6 -10 1 2 2 136 136 272 272 Conference Room: 10 -14 2 2 2 390 390 390 390 Staff Lunch & Break Room 1 1 1 280 280 280 280 Sub Total 1958 1958 2238 2382 Support Services Front Desk / Admin Work 1 1 1 168 168 168 168 Work Room: Copy, Fax, Print 2 2 2 200 300 300 300 Mail Room: Forms, Docu- inc inc inc inc inc inc inc Work Room - 1 1 0 150 150 150 Vacant Workstations as stor- 2 2 2 150 150 150 150 Library - 1 1 0 120 120 120 General Supplies Storage inc inc inc inc inc inc inc Storage - 1 2 0 200 200 400 Records Storage System 2 2 2 312 312 312 312 Telephone / Data Server 1 1 2 70 70 70 140 File Room 1 1 1 343 343 343 343 Plotters 2 1 1 213 300 300 300 Electrical Room 1 1.5 2 70 70 105 140 Janitor/ HVAC Room 1 1 1 78 78 78 78 Sub Total 1604 2261 2296 2601 Sub -Total Auxiliary Needs 3562 4219 4534 4983 Sub Totals Community Develop- 7737 9301 9984 11601 ment Circulation @ 37% 3327 3999 4293 4988 Net Total Community Develop- 11064 13300 14277 16589 ment Department Needs ;xamk.;_ia.liaiii.i6 i Included with City Administration totals Total Building Needs Community Development ®■. ■ 11064 13300 14277 16589 lialitillatialataliM, MEIN 411.6 ! WI Fleet Parking (at Public Works) ._- 14 cars Staff Parking ._- Current parking is barely adequate Table 4.1. Community Development Space Needs Projection 42 POLICE DEPARTMENT cc o CO v 0 1 o r at o i o o 0 0 Cl. ! , Police Department w w Y ° ' I o, J 11 LL u o 1. Personnel Administration Chief of Police (5) 1 1 1 P0-225 225 156 225 225 225 Assistant Chief (S) 1 1 1 P0-180 180 131 180 180 180 Confidential Exec. Assist (NS) 1.5 2 2 P0-150 150 200 225 300 300 Public Information Officer (NS) 1 1 1 P0-150 150 117 150 150 150 Business Manager (NS) 1 1 1 P0-150 150 117 150 150 150 Operations Captain (S) 1 1 1 P0-180 180 133 180 180 180 Youth Program Manager (NS) 1 1 1 P0-150 150 130 150 150 150 Sub Total 7.5 8 8 984 1260 1335 1335 Investigation Services Supervisor — Investigation (S) 2 2 2 P0-120 120 128 240 240 240 Detectives(5) 10 11 13 P0-100 100 350 1000 1100 1300 Bckgnd Inv (4 pt time) (NS) 2 2 3 W5 -64 64 37 128 128 192 CID Secretary (NS) 1.5 2 2 WS -100 100 60 150 200 200 Crime Analyst (NS) 1 1 2 WS -100 100 46 100 100 200 Sub Total 165 18 22 621 1618 1768 2132 Community & Prevention Services Lieutenant (Inv) (5) 1 1 1 P0-120 120 130 120 120 120 Lieutenant (patrol) (5) 3 3 3 WS -120 120 230 360 360 360 Sergeant (2 staff share 1 7 7 9 WS -100 100 174 350 700 900 wkstn) (S) SergeantTri - Met(S) 1 1 1 W5 -80 80 64 80 80 80 Sergeant Commercial Crimes (S) 1 1 1 WS -100 100 64 100 100 100 Patrol Officer /Police Officer (3 38 49 52 WS -64 64 221 841 1045 1109 share) (5) Commercial Crimes Officer (S) 2 2 3 WS -80 80 128 160 160 240 Officer —Tri -Met (5) 3 3 4 WS-64 64 128 192 192 256 Community Service Officer (NS) 2 2 3 WS -64 64 128 128 128 192 School Resource Officer (S) 4 4 6 WS -80 80 165 320 320 480 Reserve Officers (3 share) (NS) [15] [20] [25] WS -64 64 0 320 427 533 Sub Total 61 73 83 1302 2821 3512 4251 Information & Support Services Records Supervisor (NS) 1 1 1 P0-120 120 116 120 120 120 Records Specialists (N5) 6 7 10 WS-64 64 380 384 448 640 Property / Evidence Clerk (NS) 2 2 3 WS -64 64 82 128 128 192 Volunteers, Interns [3] [4] [6] W5-48 48 95 144 192 288 Sub Total 9 10 14 578 632 696 952 Sub -Total Personnel Needs 94 109 127 3485 6407 7531 8930 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 .Needs Analysis LRS Architects 43 CD N p ro N o O 0 0 0 a v! w; w Police Departmen w w w, a 1, ro LL `.- h. � ' 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Admin Lobby w/ Public Counter 158 400 400 400 Secure Entry Vestibule 0 50 50 50 Reception Work Area 64 120 120 120 Public Toilets 312 400 400 400 Small Conference Room: 4-6 1 1 2 100 200 200 400 Med Conference Room: 6 -10 1 2 2 225 225 450 450 LrgTraining /Conf Room :20 -26 0 1 1 0 0 1200 1200 Small Training Room 1 1 1 0 120 120 120 Storage for Training Rms 0 1 1 0 0 100 100 Catering / Support Kitchen 0 1 1 0 0 200 200 Interview Rooms: Hard 2 2 2 180 180 180 180 Interview Rooms: Soft 1 2 2 93 100 200 200 Juvenile Hdg w/ supervision 0 100 200 200 Interview Stations: 1 1 2 0 80 80 160 Sub Total 1132 1975 3900 4180 Investigation Services Admin Work Area, Copy, Fax 40 80 80 160 Conference Room: 4 staff 0 120 120 120 Conference Room: 6-10 staff 80 225 225 225 Computer Forensics Room 56 120 120 240 Sub Total 176 545 545 745 Evidence / Property Storage Evidence Receiving /Transfer 0 120 120 120 Evidence Processing 0 200 200 200 Biohazard / Cleaning Room 0 80 80 80 Evidence Storage - Offsite (ex) 2820 0 0 0 Evidence Storage - General 0 2500 3000 3750 Evidence Storage - Narcotics 0 80 80 160 Evidence Storage - Marijuana 0 80 80 160 Evidence Storage - Vault 0 35 35 70 Evidence Storage - Weapons 0 100 100 200 Evidence Storage - Refrigeration 0 25 25 50 Vehicle Processing 0 600 600 600 Evidence Equipment /Supplies 0 80 80 80 Sub -Total 2820 3900 4400 5470 44 Co ao m O' . Co CO CO @ s , , 0 !- N .- R y 0 0 0 Q v 4-, N ' N Police Department w „ ,;; . Y ° v I i I o : f0 : Y LL LL. LL Community & Prevention Services Support Staff Lunch & Break Room 98 400 400 600 Officer Mud Room Entry 0 150 150 150 Officer Duty Bag Storage 0 200 300 400 Men's Locker Rms: Showers, Tits 668 1500 1500 2250 Women's Lkr Rms: Shwrs, Toilets 276 500 500 750 Non - Police Lkr / Chg Room 0 200 200 200 Exercise/Weight Rm: 6 -10 staff 0 400 400 800 Briefing Room:30+ 600 600 900 1200 Pistol Range 0 0 3200 3200 Sub Total 1642 3950 7550 9550 Shared Support Services Work Room: Copy, Fax, Print 300 300 300 300 Mail Room: Forms, Documents 65 150 150 150 Storage: Archive Records 720 900 900 1350 Storage: Records 142 200 200 300 Storage: Ammunition 80 80 80 120 Storage: Weapons 55 200 200 300 Storage: Uniforms 0 80 80 120 Storage: Secured I 89 200 200 300 Storage: Electronic Equipment 0 200 200 300 Computer & Server Room 130 200 300 400 Maintenance Room 14 80 80 80 Mechanical Room 106 200 200 400 Sub -Total 1701 2790 2990 4120 Courts Public Lobby 400 Public Toilets 250 Courtroom 1200 Witness Waiting 120 Jury Room /Toilet 480 Court Storage 200 Judge's Chambers 1 P0-250 250 250 Clerk Work Area 2 WS -100 100 200 Staff Toilet 80 Court Records 250 Sub Total 3430 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 •Needs Analysis LRS Architects 45 t w co co co O r O ` �' O O O O Q w V- VI Police Department > C. - V 1- F i -- iii Jail:Temporary Holding Vehicle Sallyport 1 1 1 395 1200 1200 1200 Sally port 1 1 1 0 120 120 120 Booking 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Mug & Fingerprint 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Single Holding Cell 3 4 4 19 180 240 240 Multiple Holding Cell: 2 -10 1 1 1 85 120 120 120 Toilet & Sink 1 1 1 24 40 40 40 Clean & Shower 1 1 1 46 60 60 60 Janitor 1 1 1 17 40 40 40 Equipment Storage 1 1 1 83 150 150 150 Sub Total 829 2070 2130 2130 Sub Total Auxiliary Needs I I I I I I 8300 I 15230 I 21515 I 29625 Sub Totals Law Enforcement 11785 21637 29046 38555 Department Circulation (Current sf = 42%, 3535 6493 8714 11565 Projected sf = 30 %) Net Total Law Enforcement 15320 28130 47760 50120 Department Needs 3. Exterior Needs: Outdoor storage — covered: motorcycles, carts, small equipment Generator room & storage tank I I 250 250 250 250 Covered police vehicle load/ 5 spaces 0 0 1000 1000 unload Outdoor Storage — Uncovered 5000 5000 5000 5000 Fleet and staff parking 18000 18000 21000 24900 Total Exterior Building Needs 23250 23250 27250 31150 Table 4J. Police Department Space Needs Projection 46 PUBLIC WORKS a m oo •• 04; a) � ® 4 . ... • 9-'1 � 4.,., 0(�T N r ry Public Works c °' -V' ° 4 ° 1. Personnel Administration Public Works Director 1 1 1 P0-180 180 197 180 180 180 Program Development Specialist 1 1 1 WS -100 100 110 100 100 100 Confidential Executive Assistant 1 1 1 P0-120 120 97 120 120 120 Management Analyst 1 1 1 P0-120 120 98 120 120 120 Assistant PW Director 1 1 1 P0-150 150 197 150 150 150 Senior Administrative Specialist 1 1 2 WS -80 80 70 80 80 160 Administrative Specialist II 2 2 3 WS -64 64 134 128 128 192 Project Engineer 1 1 1 WS -120 120 132 120 120 120 GISTechnician 1 1 2 WS -64 64 87 64 64 128 Parks & Facilities Manager 1 1 1 P0-150 150 189 150 150 150 Sub Total 11 11 14 1311 1212 1212 1420 Streets Streets Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 100 120 120 120 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I& II 5 5 6 - 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 7 7 9 100 120 120 120 Sanitary Sewer Wastewater Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 68 120 120 120 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I & II 4 4 5 - 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 6 6 8 68 120 120 120 Storm Water Storm Operations Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 68 120 120 120 Water WCPNol.. 1 1 1 WS -80 80 60 80 80 80 Senior Utility Worker 2 2 2 - 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I& II 3 4 5 - 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 7 8 9 128 200 200 200 Water Quality Water Quality Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 68 120 120 120 WaterQCPCoordinator 4 4 4 WS -100 100 283 400 400 400 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 Engineering Technician II 1 2 3 - 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 7 8 10 351 520 520 520 Water Operations Water Operations Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 68 120 120 120 Senior Utility Worker 1 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I & II 6 7 8 - 0 0 0 0 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 .Needs Analysis LRS Architects 47 co m a N x) V `' a N O O Public Works Y `� ° o H. l--- ry ° Y F - Sub Total 8 9 11 68 120 120 120 Fleet Maintenance Fleet Services Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -100 100 80 100 100 100 Mechanic 1 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 Administrative Specialist II 1 1 1 WS -64 64 60 64 64 64 Sub Total 3 3 4 140 164 164 164 Parks &Grounds Grounds Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -120 120 68 120 120 120 Urban Forester 1 1 1 WS -100 100 60 100 100 100 Senior Utility Worker 3 3 4 - 0 0 0 0 Utility Worker I & II 7 8 10 - 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 12 13 16 128 220 220 220 Facility Services Facility Services Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -100 100 68 100 100 100 Senior Building Maintenance 1 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 Technician Building Maintenance Techni- 1 2 3 - 0 0 0 0 clan II Sub Total 3 4 5 68 100 100 100 Sub Total Personnel Needs 64 69 86 2362 2776 2776 2984 2. A uxil Public Interface & Administration Building Lobby 1 1 1 350 350 350 350 Auditorium 1 1 1 1500 1500 1500 1500 Auditorium Storage 1 1 1 126 126 126 126 PW Lobby w/ Public Counter 1 1 1 170 170 170 170 Public Rest rooms: Men & 1 1 1 309 309 309 309 Women Conference Room: 6 -10 1 1 2 206 206 206 412 Conference Room: 4 -6 1 1 1 172 172 172 172 Break Room 1 1 1 398 398 398 398 Sub Total 3231 3231 3231 3437 Support Services Staff Rest rooms: Men & Women 1 1 1 100 100 100 100 Fax, copy 1 1 1.5 37 37 37 56 Files 1 1 2 55 55 55 110 48 v o v w- 7 4- O - O w :" o Q Public Wor a , O fd General Supplies Storage ® ® ®_- Inc inc inc inc Storage Room El III ©_ 130 130 130 260 Electrical Room 0 ®©_ 62 62 93 124 Mechanical Room IIII 11/1 MI _- 124 124 124 124 Janitor Room SMI. _- 67 67 67 67 Sub-Total ---_- 575 575 606 841 Crew Building Crew Room 1 1.5 2 502 502 753 1004 Crew Computer Station 1 1 2 85 85 85 170 Restroom & Lockers: Men 1 1 1 353 353 353 353 Rest room :Women 1 1 2 69 69 69 138 Laundry & Dry Room 1 1 2 196 196 196 392 Crew Entry /Vending Machines 1 1 1 170 170 170 170 Mech / Sprinkler Room 1 1 1 58 58 58 58 Generator Room 1 1 1 196 196 196 196 Sub Total 1629 1629 1880 2481 Fleet Repair Building Garage (5 Bays) 1 1 1 4800 4800 4800 4800 Fleet Repair Area 1 1 1 1917 1917 1917 1917 Lockers 1 1 1 128 128 128 128 Lounge 1 1 1 100 100 100 100 Lube Shop 1 1 1 128 128 128 128 Mezzanine 1 1 1 519 519 519 519 Sub Total 7592 7592 7592 7592 Sub -Total Auxiliary Needs 13027 13027 13309 14351 Sub Totals Public Works 15389 15803 16085 17335 Circulation @ 15% 2308 2370 2252 2600 Net Total Public Works 17697 18173 18337 19935 Department Needs 3. Storage Dead Records included with City Administration Total Public Works 17697 18173 18337 19935 Building Needs 4. Exterior Needs: Outdoor Storage — Uncovered: 6 Equipment, Pipes, Sand, Miscel- acres laneous Parking — Staff & City Fleet Cars 170 Parking — Public 42 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 •Needs Analysis LRS Architects 49 Table 4.K. Public Works Space Needs Projection LIBRARY v o CO CO _ -- CO CO CO v O N CO 4- _ 0 O O O 0 O a 0o '' 'E - �i N N V) Library Y v= — — . .ro :. O 1-- - 7' 2 a 1. Personnel Administration Library Director 1 1 1 P0-180 180 280 180 180 180 Confidential Executive Assistant 1 1 1 WS -100 100 80 100 100 100 Public Information Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -80 80 180 80 80 80 Volunteer Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -80 80 134 80 80 80 Sub Total 4 4 4 674 440 440 440 Adult Services Cataloging Librarian 1 1 1 WS -80 80 80 80 80 80 Reader's Services Manager 1 1 1 P0-120 120 138 120 120 120 Adult Services Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -80 80 80 80 80 80 Senior Librarian — Adult Services 1 1 2 inc 0 0 0 Librarian — Adult Services 1 2 3 inc 0 0 0 Librarian —Young Adult 4 4 6 inc 0 0 0 Sub-Total 9 10 14 298 280 280 280 Youth Services Youth Services Supervisor 1 1 1 WS -80 80 80 80 80 80 Librarian —Youth Services 1 1 2 inc 0 0 0 Librarian — Children &Youth 2 2 3 inc 0 0 0 Senior Library Assistant —Youth 1 1 2 inc 0 0 0 Sub -Total 5 5 8 80 80 80 80 Circulation Circulation Manager 1 1 1 P0-120 120 147 120 120 120 Circulation Supervisor 2 2 2 WS-80 80 100 80 100 80 Senior Library Asst — Circulation 1 2 3 Inc 0 0 0 Library Assistant — Circulation 16 16 17 inc 0 0 0 50 4 CO Library r., N N ' 1- H r ro r6 j Library Aide — Circulation 1 III 3 inc 0 0 0 Sub -Total 21 22 26 247 200 220 200 Technical Services Technical Services Coordinator 1 1 1 WS -100 100 122 100 100 100 Senior Library Asst.— Technician 2 2 3 WS-48 48 96 96 96 144 Senior Library Assistant — Ill 1 1 2 WS -48 48 48 48 48 96 Library Assistant — Technician 3 4 4 WS -48 48 144 144 192 192 Sub Total 7 8 10 410 388 436 532 Sub Total Personnel Needs 46 49 62 1709 1388 1456 1532 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Public Lobby 1 1 1 1474 1474 1474 1474 Community Meeting Room 1 1 1 2958 2958 2958 2958 Comm. Rm Support, toilets 1 1 1 1350 1350 1350 1350 Lobby Cafe & Support 1 1 1 396 396 396 396 Library Lobby 1 1 1 860 860 860 860 Interior Lobby 1 1 1 980 980 980 980 Circulation Desk 1 1 1 745 745 745 745 Public Rest rooms: Men & 2 2 2 1061 1061 1061 1061 Women Conference Room: 18 -24 public 1 1 1 506 506 506 506 Group Study Rooms 3 3 4 402 402 402 536 Reference Desk 1 1 1 400 400 400 400 Sub Total 11132 11132 11132 11266 Library Services New Books & AV 1 1 1.80 2290 2290 2290 4122 Language Center 1 1 1.80 149 149 149 268 Children's Area 2 2 3.10 6100 6100 6100 9455 Youth Services Work Area 1 1 1.95 596 596 596 1162 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 •■eeds Analysis LRS Architects 51 0o CO CO CO CO CO 0 N rq O O 0 O 0 0 a v '. N N N I I H r; ■r in Q N N N `�.- — 4- W W W , I— I I p. ✓ Y W LL • H I— 1— Young Adults 2 2 3.30 2080 2080 2080 3432 Public Computer Stations 2 25 5 1520 1520 1900 3800 Houghton Reading Room 1 1 1 1180 1180 1180 1180 Oregon History Room 1 1 1 450 450 450 450 Adult Reading Area 1 1 2.50 2090 2090 2090 5225 Adult Open Stacks 2 2 3.30 4800 4800 4800 7200 Sub Total 21255 21255 21635 36294 Support Services Reference Work Room 1 1 1 774 774 774 774 Training Room 1 1 1 623 623 623 623 Technical Services 1 1 1 780 780 780 780 Circulation Workroom 1 1 1 1460 1460 1460 1460 Identification 1 1 1 58 58 58 58 Staff Break Room 1 1 1 326 326 326 326 Staff Rest rooms: Men &Women 3 3 3 210 210 210 210 Admin Work Area 1 1 1 310 310 310 310 Donations 1 1 1 190 190 190 190 Storage: 4 4 4 670 670 670 670 Janitor 3 3 3 150 150 150 150 Electrical Room 1 1 1 212 212 212 212 Boiler Room 1 1 1 280 280 280 280 Sub Total 6043 6043 6043 6043 Sub Total Auxiliary Needs 38430 38430 38810 53603 Sub Totals Library 40139 39818 40266 55135 Circulation @ 20% 8028 7964 8053 11027 NetTotal Library Dept. Needs 48167 47782 48319 66162 3. Storage Dead Records Included w/ City Admin as needed Total Library Building Needs I I I I I I 48167 I 47782 I 48319 I 66162 4. Exterior Needs:_ Book Drop Provided Staff and Public Parking Adequate Table 4.L Library Space Needs Projection 52 SENIOR /COMMUNITY CENTER a, 0 ti O O a3 N ry 1 O O >? Q, a i Senior /Community Centp., N N w ° ° ' w r 1 1. Personnel Administration . Director of Senior /Community PO- 120 114 120 120 120 Center �� 120 Assistant Manager / Kitchen 111111 WS- 80 102 80 80 80 Coordinator 80 Sub-Total © © ©-- 216 200 200 200 Program Services Activities Coordinator 0.5 0.5 2 WS- 80 33 40 40 80 Clinical Services Coordinator 0.5 0.5 1 WS- 80 33 40 40 40 Sub Total 1 1 1.5 66 80 80 120 Sub Total Personnel Needs 3 3 4 282 280 280 320 2. Auxiliary Space Public Interface & Administration Entry Lobby 1 1 1 392 392 392 600 Public Rest rooms: Men & 2 2 2 486 486 486 800 Women Admin Work Area 1 1 1 113 113 113 250 Retail Area and Counter 1 1 1 215 215 215 400 Storage 1 1 1 80 80 80 200 Hallways, stairs, elevator lobby, - - - 860 860 860 860 elevator Sub Total 2146 2146 2146 3110 Programs Computers 1 1 1 331 331 331 800 Crafts 1 1 1 360 360 360 900 Craft's Storage Closet 1 1 1 34 34 34 150 Activity Room 1 1 1 2058 2058 2058 4000 Library 1 1 1 494 494 494 800 Janitor 1 1 1 39 39 39 80 Mech / Elect Room 2 2 2 148 148 148 200 Sub -Total 3464 3464 3464 6930 Dining / Loaves & Fishes Program Dining — Activity Room 1 1 1 1845 1845 1845 2500 Serving 1 1 1 213 213 213 400 Kitchen 1 1 1 351 351 351 800 Pantry 1 1 1 315 315 315 400 Utility Room 1 1 1 127 127 127 200 Sub Total 2851 2851 2851 4300 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 4 •Needs Analysis LRS Architects 53 1 I CO o Co CO Co of U O N N N Senior /Community Center w ° o n 2Y- C1 N N N v o£ Sub -Total Auxiliary Needs 8461 8461 8461 14340 Sub Totals Senior /Community 8743 8741 8741 14780 Center Circulation: included with pro- 0 0 0 0 grams Net Total Senior /Community 8743 8741 8741 14780 Center Needs 3. Dead Records Storage Not needed by the Senior /Com- munity Center Sub Total Dead Records Storage 0 0 0 0 Needs Total Senior /Community Center 8743 8741 8741 14780 Building Needs 4. Exterior Areas Provided: Outdoor Storage — Covered 508 Loading Dock & Ramp 326 Staff &Visitor Parking Current spaces are adequate Total Exterior Areas Provided 834+ Parking Table 4.M. Senior and Community Center Needs Projection 54 5 •Master Plan Concept and Planning Influences After reviewing the existing conditions and considering the remaining expected life of existing facilities and property, the planning team reviewed these criteria against the space needs projections and appropriateness of existing facilities. A single pathway to the master plan is identified in the report, but there are many ways to get to that goal. The pathway included here incorporates the following key ideas: Reuse existing facilities as long as feasible Maintain a centralized location for City operations and create a Civic Complex Support the objectives of the Tigard Downtown Implementation Plan (TDIP) One critical assumption used to start the planning process is that Public Works will be moving from their intermediate location to a consolidated location that is more appro- priate for the industrial use in support of the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. This makes the existing Ash Street Yard available for mixed use or residential development and makes the Public Works Building property available for expansion of other city functions. The Ash Street Yard may require some remediation to address environmen- tal issues and decommissioning prior to being ready for redevelopment. The key finding of the space needs projections is that the Police Department's cur- rent space has not kept pace with the growth of the department. This current shortfall drives the need for either a short term intermediate solution or the need for a replace- ment facility. This report identifies both options for consideration, though we primar- ily focus on the intermediate solution of siting the Police Facility in the Public Works Building. Should funding for a new Police Department facility be made available before Public Works relocates from the Public Works Building, a choice can be made to either retain the favorable location by scheduling to accommodate Public Works relocation, or to identify and acquire another suitable location. Upon the relocation of Police, the City Hall / Permit Center complex will have ad- equate space for growth to meet the 20 year need with minor renovations. The limita- tion of this complex will be the longevity of the structures as previously noted. This report projects that just inside of the 20 year window, a new City Hall will be required. The Master Plan identifies, with the exception of a new Public Works Yard, that the current properties north and south of SW Burnham Street along Hall Street will be adequate to accommodate City buildings. In addition, the Library property and Senior/ Community Center properties will continue to serve their functions over the 20 years. Additional property south of the Greenway may be used as interim steps for develop- ment or community support spaces but do not impact this plan. The only property acquisition will be for the Public Works facility. The parcel should be 10 -12 acres in size with either a general or light industrial zoning designation. The Tigard Downtown Implementation Strategy identifies the reconstruction of SW Burnham Street as a high priority catalyst project. The Green Street features recom- mended will fit well with, and be perceived as extensions of the Fanno Creek park urban creek corridor. Further supporting the TDIP recommendation for pedestrian character of SW Burnham Street to increase as one approaches the main Street Plaza. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 .Master Plan LRS Architects 55 The vehicular requirements of the Fire Station, Police and Civic Complex parking will be located at the opposite (west) end of SW Burnham Street. The use of these properties will allow the creation of a connected series of civic facili- ties from the Fire Station at the north end, south to the Police Station and Municipal Court, Community Room, across SW Burnham street to a new City Hall and Permit Center and ultimately end with a new Community Center and an upgraded entrance to Fanno Creek Park. This axial circulation within the Civic complex will result in reduced automobile trips between facilities with associated functions. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation standards along the Civic Complex axis and connections to farther points downtown should be included in a comprehensive design of downtown streetscape improvements. SW Hall Boulevard and Burnham Street intersect at the midpoint of the new Civic Complex axis. This intersection is identified byTDIP as an opportune loca- tion for - branding' by providing monumentation, or landmarks such as a sustainable design water feature to impart a recognizable identity for Downtown." Tigard's Urban Renewal Plan strategies include leveraging it's own property to meet redevelopment goals. The city will be able to release the Ash Street Yard and Public Works Annex for redevelopment and possibly release or redevelop the Senior /Com- munity Center property if the Community Center is provided at the Permit Center location. Development of Alternatives The following design alternatives deal with the Public Works Department, the Police Department, City Hall, the Permit Center, Human Resources, Risk, the Library, Senior/ Community Center and the City's Information and Technology Department. With the exception of the Library and Senior /Community Center all the City's departments are crowded for space and have essentially reached their maximum capacity. Future programs within existing spaces are not feasible. All the departments are meeting the challenge of space by locating programs to portable modules or rental space. Further studies can provide the City of Tigard with solutions for how to expand, reor- ganize and consolidate spaces within each of their current facilities. Public Works has recently moved to an intermediate location at the Public Works Building and has divided it's operations between the Public Works Building property and the Ash Street Yard. A 2004 Needs Analysis identified the need for a new con- solidated facility away from the SW Burnham Street corridor to replace the outgrown Ash Street Yard. In addition, the Downtown Plan views the Ash Street Yard as a prime parcel for redevelopment due to it's proximity to the downtown core and the Fanno Creek greenway.The use of this parcel as a Public Works yard is generally agreed to not be it's highest and best use. This Master Plan supports the need for Public Works to relocate to a more appropri- ately zoned property to address long term growth issues and to allow the Public Works Building and it's property to support the growth needs of other departments. The City has undertaken a process to identify appropriate properties for the Public Works Yard and is expecting that a site will be identified and purchased by 2010. Public Works Building Site The Public Works Building provides the City with a variety of options for long term use of the property. It's location at the corner of SW Burnham Street and Hall is prominent as a gateway to SW Burnham Street street and is an excellent location for the City to maintain a presence. It is also located directly adjacent the Niche Property which is 56 contiguous to the City Hall / Permit Center / Police site. After Public Works relocates to a new facility, the Public Works Building would be an appropriate location for Police to relocate on a permanent basis. The property has adequate secure parking, a strong visual presence and flexible interior spaces that will allow for a mix of administrative offices, training spaces and storage with minimal renovation. The Public Works Building currently serves as the City's Emergency Operations Center and can easily continue to serve that role as part of the Police facility. Certain functions, such as an enlarged locker room and secure areas will require significant renovation, but can be designed to serve this site for a longer period. The site has property available to support either a intermediate facility with full build out in the future or the construction of a new facility depending on the availability of funding. With proper planning, enough site is available to incorporate a Criminal Courts component either as part of the Police Station or as a renovation to the Public Works Building. A seismic analysis of the Public Works Building will be required so that seismic reha- bilitation may be performed in tandem with scheduled renovations. Oregon Revised Statute (OAR 455.400 (sec. 3)) requires police station and emergency operation center seismic rehabilitation to be completed before the year 2022. Though the Fire Station is under a different jurisdiction, it's adjacency to the Police Station will create a strong image of public safety at this facility. Niche Building and Property The Niche Building has served as an intermediate location for various City depart- ments. HR and Risk were moved from this location to the Permit Center when space became available. IT is currently the lone occupant of the building and should be relocated to be in a more secure location within the City Hall. This former residential property is not appropriate to house City functions on a long term basis and is near- ing the end of its useful life. This property is valuable to the City as it provides the link between the existing City Hall property and the Public Works Building property. Once the building is no longer required, it should be demolished and used to physically link the other City properties. In the short term, the site can provide parking support for adjacent properties. In the long term, the site is adequate to support the construction of a new and more prominent City Hall / Permit Center. City Hall / Permit Center The City Hall/ Permit Center will benefit from the relocation of the Police Depart- ment. This relocation provides almost enough expansion space to accommodate Com- munity Development and City Administration through the next 20 years. The shortfall will come in the Permit Center and can be addressed through a minor expansion if required. The immediate benefit of the Police move will be to consolidate IT from the Niche Building and HR /Risk from the Permit Center into the City Hall. This consolida- tion will provide a more secure environment for the City's servers and IT equipment. Additional conference space and storage area will come available. The consolidation of HR /Risk brings them closer to Administration and releases expansion space and conference rooms for use by the Permit Center. Library The Library, as the City's newest facility, is not facing the same growth problems as seen with the other divisions. The library, constructed in 2004, was designed to accom- modate a certain amount of growth within the building itself, and then to either build an addition along the north side of the existing facility or develop satellite facilities at other community locations. The current library facility is able to handle all of its pro - Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 .Master Plan LRS Architects 57 gram needs, and will be able to do so for quite a few years. The site is adequate for a programmed expansion if needed within the 20 year window. Senior /Community Center The Senior /Community Center is in the process of being enlarged and remodeled and should be completed in 2009. Funding is being provided from Community Develop- ment Block Grants, which include requirements time in service, typically up to 20 years. Growth potential over the next 20 years was considered during the building's remodel design phase. A small library and a new building entrance have been added. While the Senior /Community Center is not a large facility it is adequate for staff and program needs now and in the future. The multi -level plan is not ideal for serving the aging population and limits the flexibility of the structure. The role of the Senior /Community Center will change over the next twenty years, with the focus shifting from a senior oriented facility to a multi - generational Community Center. The shift will result in the need for a facility that provides both social services support such as Loaves and Fishes meals and senior classes to include youth diversion programs supported by Law Enforcement, educational classes and community meeting rooms. The roles can change within the existing Senior /Community Center, though the location is not preferable for the population is currently supports and would benefit from a higher level of visibility as the demographic it serves increases. 58 Major Steps Timeline Major Steps Key Points Timeline Cost 1 - New Public Works Yard Consolidates all staff; 0 - 5 years $15,600,000 / Decommission Ash Street Frees up Yard and Annex Yard for other use or sale 2 - Relocate Police to In- Adequate site and build- 0 - 5 years $13,042,686 termediate Facility at Public ing area. Maintains central Works Building location. Build new sup- port and training areas. 2A - New Police Facility Option to intermediate 0 - 5 years $28,150,357 step if funding source and site is available 3 - Expand City Hall into Renovation will extend 5 -10 years $3,339,500 Police Facility life of buildings ($4,065,000 - 2015) 4 - Expand Permit Center If needed, expansion will 10 -15 years $1,815,000 address growth issues ($2,690,000 - 2020) 5 - Expand Police Facility Create permanent offices 15 - 20 years $9,142,120 at Public Works Building staff areas. Reuse support ($21,666,081 - 2030 Site and training area. 6 - Build new City Hall / Replaces aging wood 20 - 25 years $19,050,000 Permit Center structures in lieu of ($38,600,000 - 2030) upgrade. 7 - New Community Cen- Replaces Senior /Commu- 20 - 25 years $7,100,000 ter @ City Hall site nity Center ($14,350,000 - 2030) 8 - Expand Library Provides growth on site 20 - 25 years $2,550,000 ($5,200,000 - 2030) Table 5.A. Major Steps Timeline Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 •Master Plan LRS Architects 59 i 4 *� � ' r y ia 1 r» 4 8A, , O r .r a q Y o -5 Years % .4% :q( 1. New Police Station with 9,000 SF Addition 2. New Parking r - 3. New Secure Parking' 1 * r%+ 4. Existing Parking '%. ,�4 1,M. y lit ii 't q 5 Existing Fire Station "° ` 6. Existing Skate Park f'•:'' ml t ' �x 7. Existing Public Works a Yard & Annex �; 8. New Pedestrian Connections and Plaza N 9. Existing Civic Building (Police Vacate) O* Pheis If $ Va IR t 60 0 -5 Year Illustration Figure5.A. 0 -5 Years � 'k " - - a . - 1 4 X • rj r �4 e rr ti J- , t „. ' 7 , d ° 0 y ' el a µy ' f , , x, if s I. ,ti it It II t I - - ' I y qq > i A `I gib' .. r t Y' S = 1 �� ,,, ■ e • • Nt '•a .� fi y Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 5 .Master Plan LRS Architects 61 • 1 l I i r t O I R , ' a i4 i A , t'A ice , Oft 5 -10 Yea rs ty 1. Overflow Parking or Lease • ' Building , N., N g,"' 2. IT, HP and Finance ti „ '°, 1 .....-"'-,' . 3. Administration 4. Community Development . it 5.5 year Expansion + . t a` (3,000 SF) N � r 6. Skate Park 7. Public Works Yard and Annex ew con t io del this Phase this Phil* .. 62 1 5 -10 Year Illustration Figure 5.B. 5- 10Years er g !. II s� � � .i. r r r 1.6 ,- .- _ f ±, , . .:,:, ys . \ , r _ . IA \ Y k � . 1 / i sue';, ;. 4 i 1 , . . , / , / at ki) P P L i tt's s; r 47 , �"" Lr P A. , \ a 8� !y • - - it,e.: , ,..i., • , • : : : i, t , ., M r_ II ' r . F. O d B :____EH . . 2 rte , c ff k -q ` �� , sr ., • - i , 0 ,, 4 - ,'alt._ Tigard's Draft 20 Year City Facility Plan 5 .Master Plan LRS Architects 63 0,,:0',/\, J n \ f \\ \� N . ' 4— \ - 1, \ \ \\\ e ra 9 .* ,+' j . \ \ ., % --c-fr • ,.: „ it ,,,,,, t: ' - - Irk, o il.. 0 , , , ..., o< , 10 -20 Years ,`� �� ' �. 1. New City Hall, Administration •, ° - and Community Development s r i 2. Police Expansion, Court ti �• 3. New Community Center 4f i ,,, ii ,. . 3a. New Community Center Alternate Location Aillr 4. Structured Parking .. , it ,$ 5. New Landscaped Plazas ' , 1 d 6. Existing Skate Park $ • _ ' $ 4 7. Future Street ' 1=1 t:itt1=1titt { 1 8. Civic Complex Pedestrian "- 1r " ' '- r. Illt '41. AXIS s•t No me sSf..el..tlo+ �! (ty r 9. Fanno Creek Park " , . `Vi N. , 10. Future Developmentr+► 11. Fire Station r ew Construction this Phase 4 , A l 4 x 4 t 4 ? t sw / ' 4* - ' i . 3 . 1.** . > . a 64 10-20 Year Illustration Figure 5.C. 10- 20Years -A' i -.- , { ni, R i . 6-, \\ % ti - - - / I: - . \ ` 7 CO o t S '11 f • ' . ' wr '' 11 %1 -. 1: ' 31 - i 0 lTf/ i ` ' '.r ^-t �Ilifll 'Fi -�11 .r—r- L t mo' 4, ,,,,. rz a r - Fp o n o a ED == r=o c' r ` tiil • , - I F-71 -----' ih T1 .- 5 r Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 Master Plan LRS Architects 65 - - -- ■ * , `-.1,11k ..... ' ' /..,,'. '..... ‘74 1 4 °Ii 4 ". • ,' .- ,s -- ,... ,..'`84.; -. ,... , 9 / , P * '■ 1 . -5 - \‘''''' 111)- .,- \ - pesi 4 - ....... _ • s ,„,,,,,,,.. s , ... 60 s • </\ . i,. ,.... . • \ . < 0 \\ \ \ \ \ 3 14 / \ . . \ / \ 4- \./ . 0 .• 11,_ — \ ). \ . A ,' '1,0 iipr,, 0° - # 4,,... , 0 10-20 Years cti p 1. New City Hall, Administration `-' 0 \i ,.., '".) 0 and Community Development . 0 IP 0 2. Police Expansion, Court ,t 0 3. Future Development / 4 4. Structured Parking / 0 0 / 5. New Landscaped Plazas 4, • - 0 0 0 6. Existing Skate Park / -4 *r. ; 7. Fir e Station - -,„ 8. Civic Complex Pedestrian Axis 3.1 aift •., Sot Sot Oft to* N New Construction ® this Phase A ,... 66 NORTH DETAIL ILLUSTRATION Figure S.D. 1 0-20Years (North Detail) .. ,,,, ,,.,.. /. , - -_ -r, .44 f 'p y ' / / .a '� - � � E ye : rirloilio4) .. . , 1 .. .• , .z ... • ...,e. ..,,,,,,,,.- C y t• l_ 1iZ f s •Z •• a°# - �� r R S tr r a ,` . I I" ! .7. ,,,, __., ..1...4 _# l ` ^Y t 8a k - 4 JS •. . i , zt � at'a, r.- - s ,� ° -.. --� ,- ., , � j f 8 Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 •Master Plan LRS Architects 67 ir :„. 1 Fjl r i S. k r 10 -20 Years 1. New City Nall, Administration and Community Development + t '� 2. Future Development ' r'f,'�i 3. New Community Center 1 1 j 1 1 3a. New Community Center .. 4 ,_" Alternate Location 1 ► r � 1. 4. Structured Parking lilt so - 5. New Landscaped Plazas '. '" - 6. Existing Skate Park ., 7. Future Street I t r= t:H= t:ib1=1* 8. Civic Complex Pedestrian t Axis ss ms so ma., 9. Fenno Creek Park f ,4 " • ., N a - this a s Phs. N' s it *, IP 68 SOUTH DETAIL_ ILLUSTRATION Figure S.E. 10-20Years (South Detail) r x Di 1 s , 11 1 1 � r— . 1 . 1. '' \ f W 1 .y t-- .: , , , - 1 ,, „. Q • 0 ,,,t- lilt , ... , --. . ,, 1 ,....\ , _ ,ii , N Or_J Om ClC]C]CJOCZ] 6 uI ) i-• c .,„ 1 I i l - -- I' s i i 1/41,.01r., t: 1 I� o on le 9 L1 r O O O r=> 1 O D CO O O O O O O O CC O O O C7 •ter D I� I 1 I = O 144 , d. `r .. _ _ 1: L .J x 11 1 " ,,`' r T _ ` y ¢ s ` r .e� = ;" r0 g "'A`.. _.. 't ' , a , , J%9 p 0 n iF > t L a i ' q+ .1r�, .1. ,k � ,+ L J b y, 5 ,�' V i Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 .Master Plan L. 1 t I1:;,,.:::,::..; 69 Cost Information The following project cost information is based upon 2008 - 2010 cost data. For projects beyond the five year window, an escalation factor of 4 % per year has been included. The costs are divided up into land acquisition cost, construction cost and soft costs and should provide a reasonable starting point for budgeting. Land acquisition costs are based on general market rates and are not applicable to any specific site or parcel of land. NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILI1Y Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 348,480 sf $6.50 $2,265,120 New Construction - Offices 12,600 sf $150.00 $1,890,000 New Construction - Shops / Sup- 16,300 sf $120.00 $1,956,000 port Decommission Ash Street Property 142,432 sf $4.00 $569,728 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $6,680,848 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $3,666,672 Total Construction Cost $10,347,520 Site Acquisition 348,480 sf $8.50 $2,962,080 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction + $2,276,454 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost 2010 $1 5,586,054 Table 5.B. New Public Works Facility Project Cost POLICE RELOCATION (2008 NEED) TO PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 166,911 sf $3.50 $584,189 New Construction 18,634 sf $250.00 $4,658,500 Renovation 9,496 sf $75.00 $712,200 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $5,954,889 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $3,572,933 Total Construction Cost $9,527,822 Site Acquisition 348,480 sf $8.50 $1,418,744 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction + $2,096,120 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost 2010 $13,042,686 Table 5.C. Police Relocation to Public Works Building 70 NEW POLICE STATION (20 YEAR) - REMOTE SITE Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 174,240 sf $6.50 $1,132,560 New Construction 50,120 sf $250.00 $12,530,000 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $13,662,560 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $8,197,536 Total Construction Cost $21,860,096 Site Acquisition 174,240 sf $8.50 $1,481,040 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction + $4,809,221 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost 2010 $28,150,357 Table 5.D. New Police Station - Remote Site EXPAND / CONSOLIDATE CITY HALL Site Improvements 343,959 sf $0.50 $171,980 Renovation 21,983 sf $70.00 $1,538,810 Demolish Niche Building 28,262 sf $4.00 $113,048 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $1,710,790 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $1,026,474 Total Construction Cost $2,737,263 Site Acquisition 0 $0.00 $0 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction + $602,198 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost $3,339,461 Table 5.E. Expand / Consolidate City Hall EXPAND / RENOVATE PERMIT CENTER Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 343,959 sf $0.20 $68,792 Renovation 12,437 sf $15.00 $186,555 New Construction 3,000 sf $225.00 $675,000 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $930,347 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $558,208 Total Construction Cost $1,488,555 Site Acquisition 0 $0.00 $0 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction + $327,483 Indirect Cost Total Project Cost - 2010 $1,816,037 Total Project Cost - 2020 4% escalation per year $2,688,178 Table 5.F. Expand / Renovate Permit Center Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 •Master Plan LRS Architects 71 EXPAND POLICE FACILITY Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 166,911 sf $2.00 $333,822 Renovation 12,437 sf $25.00 $310,925 New Construction 21,990 sf $250.00 $5,497,500 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $6,142,247 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $1,351,294 Total Construction Cost $7,493,541 Site Acquisition 0 $0.00 $0 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction Cost $1,648,579 Total Project Cost - 2010 $9,142,120 Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $21,666,081 Table 5.G. Expand Police Facility NEW CITY HALL / PERMIT CENTER Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 343,959 sf $1.50 $515,939 New Construction 40,000 sf $225.00 $9,000,000 Demolish Existing Structures 37,450 sf $6.50 $243,425 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $9,759,364 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $5,855,618 Total Construction Cost $15,614,982 Site Acquisition 0 $0.00 $0 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction Cost $3,435,296 Total Project Cost -2010 $19,050,278 Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $38,592,368 Table 5.H. New City Hall / Permit Center NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Site Improvements 65,000 sf $5.00 $325,000 New Construction 15,864 sf $225.00 $3,569,400 Demolish Senior /Community 9,000 sf $15.00 $135,000 Center Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $4,029,400 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $2,417,640 Total Construction Cost $6,447,040 Site Acquisition 0 $0.00 $0 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction Cost $1,278,746 Total Project Cost - 2010 $7,091,726 Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $14,365,523 Table Si. New Community Center 72 EXPAND LIBRARY Area Cost per unit Cost Site Improvements 343,959 sf $0.25 $86,000 New Construction 15,000 sf $225.00 $3,375,000 Subtotal Direct Construction Cost $3,461,000 Indirect Cost* 60% of Construction Cost $2,076,600 Total Construction Cost $5,537,600 Site Acquisition 0 $0.00 $0 Soft Costs ** 22% of Construction Cost $742,500 Total Project Cost - 2010 $6,280,100 Total Project Cost - 2030 4% escalation per year $13,760472 Table 5J. Expand Library Note: * Indirect Cost includes cost incurred by the contractor that are not directly related to construction including profit, overhead, escalation to 2010, contingency and special requirements * *Soft Costs include cost incurred by the project at the expense of the Owner including architectural and engineeringfees, inspectionsandtesting ,duediligence,permitting, furniture ,fixturesandequipmentand other related costs. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 •Master Plan LRS Architects 73 CAPITAL BUDGET OUTLINE Facility Site Soft Cost Projected Construction Maintenance Acquisition (22%Construction Budget Funding 2008 $258,782 $258,782 2009 $60,487 $2,962,080 $3,022,567 2010 $184,587 $1,418,744 $1,138,227 $2,741,558 $10,347,520 New Public Works 2011 $26,245 $3,234,347 $3,260,592 $9,527,822 Police relocate to Water 2012 $30,071 $327,483 $357,554 $2,737,263 Renovate City Hall 2013 $139,059 $139,059 2014 $37,056 $37,056 2015 $405,329 $405,329 2016 $97,348 $97,348 2017 $160,802 $160,802 2018 $329,210 $329,210 2019 $141,618 $141,618 2020 $361,717 $361,717 2021 $250,398 $250,398 2022 $38,905 $163,741 $202,646 2023 $581,519 $163,741 $745,260! $1,488,555 Expand Permit Center 2024 $97,134 $1,169,475 $1,266,609 2025 $1,458,397 $1,169,475 $2,627,872 $10,631,595 Expand Police 2026 $102,287 $ 102,287 2027 $218,112 $230,663 $448,775 2028 $349,720 $1,717,648 $2,067,368 $2,096,938 Expand library 2029 $2,357,021 $2,357,021 $15,614,982 New City Hall/ Permit Center 2030 $639,373 $639,373 $5,812,480 New Community Center Table S.K. Capital Budget Outline The above outline is compiled from anticipated maintenance costs, site acquisition costs and soft project costs. A detailed maintenance schedule and associated costs were provided by the City of Tigard and are attached in the appendix. Tigard's Draft 20 -Year City Facility Plan 5 .Master Plan LRS Architects 75 � III ARCHITECTS 720 NW Davis Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97209 Room 1808 Tower A Eton Place No. 69 Dong Fang Road, Shanghai, China 200120 I))� 503.221.1121 6 503.221.2077 0136.21.6888.2922 :0' 21.6888.3106 I • (///r/7-do eDG'n / Tigard High School Student Envoy: Alexa Kanbergs Arts • Today was the Pac -6 band festival • Thursday, April 16 is the Pac -6 choir festival • The Spring play, Ramona Quimby, will be showing April 30 and May 1 at 7:00pm and May 2 at 3:00 and 7:00pm Academics • Rotary Awards Sunday, May 3rd • Wednesday, April 22 grades 9 -11 will be taking the EXPLORE /PLAN /ACT and seniors will have the day off. Athletics • Wednesday, April 15 the girl's and boy's varsity tennis teams will take on Forest Grove high school. The girls will be home while the boys play away. Matches start at 4:00 pm. • Thursday, April 16 there will be a track meet against Tualatin at home. • Friday, April 17 girl's varsity softball will play Tualatin High School at home while boy's varsity baseball will play Tualatin at Tualatin. Both games start at 5:00 pm. Activities • Thursday, April 16 Tigard Idol will be held in the main gym starting at 7:00pm. • Next week is Teacher Appreciation Week. AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: APRIL 14, 2009 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is apublic record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION inoO Nurnii uo6ai0 so!dwAlO iaiaads Jo salaiqud ay1 iv: . r, O ' r MOM •,, 1 � 1 A r •• . 7gn5 ,. r. . _ , 1 ' y a�► ... i . a , ,_. rte. . ‘ 'min Special Olympics a M Eivcnf sp _,, ,_10! ro leec'd_ 4,:e '1401 ..fi - I o p � E RS � �a�rs t o N f (�(� R O M E "N T Go o R C` C i] 'RUN Oregon F O R S P E C I A L OLYMPICS "Tip a Cop" - lW. for Special Olympics Oregon "Tip -A -Cop" is an official fundraiser for the Law Enforcement Torch Run (LETR) program which is the largest grassroots fundraising effort for Special Olympics. Law enforcement personnel organize a variety of community events to raise money and awareness for Special Olympics Oregon athletes. Proceeds go directly to local, a _ '" i s / regional and state -wide programs in Oregon. r%- It �`. - -- Please help law enforcement representatives and Red Robin raise money for Special ‘---11, 1 �M - Olympics Oregon by making a tax - deductible donation and placing it in this � envelope. Cash, checks and credit cards accepted. i Your donation will help "Inspire Greatness" in Special Olympics Oregon athletes! Please find enclosed my donation of $ in support of the Law Enforcement Torch Run benefiting Special Olympics Oregon. First Name Last Name Phone Number Address City State Zip Email For credit card donations: ❑ Visa ❑ Mastercard ❑ Discover Credit Card Number Expiration Date Signature Please make checks payable to Special Olympics Oregon. Thank you for supporting the Law Enforcement Torch Run and Special Olympics Oregon! For more information and to get involved visit www.soor.org Agenda Item No. 3. For Agenda of April 14, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder C,„ �� Y Y� �' —(1(\)L/ RE: Three -Month Council Meeting Calendar DA'Z'E: April 7, 2009 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk ( *). April 7 Tuesday Special Council Meeting - Joint Meeting with Beaverton City Council - 6:30 p.m., Town Hall 14" Tuesday .Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 21* . Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 27 Monday. Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 28" Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall May 4 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 11 Monday Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 12" Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 18 Monday (if needed) Budget Committee Meeting - 6:30 pm, Library Community Room 19" Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego City Council - 6:30 pm, Town Hall June 9'" Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting -- 6:30 pm, Town Hall 23 " Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall I: \ADM\ City Council \Council Calendar \3 -month calendar for 0900414 cc mtg.doc Agenda Item No. 3 ' D. 4 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting of '/ - Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Meeting Date: April 14, 2009 Meeting Date: April 21, 2009 Meeting Type /Time: Joint Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6 pm & 6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: March 24, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: March 31, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: April 7, 2009 Joint Meeting with Beaverton City Council Study Session - Time Sched. 45 min. - 0 Avail. Workshop Agenda Traffic Control on shared facilities (Scholls Ferry Road Discussion on Terminating the - City's Membership in the Executive Session Starts at 6:00 pm and Hall Bvd.) Joint Water Commission and Participation in the Tualatin Exec. Session - Labor ^J ,, nn ' *.nn' - Sandy - 25 min.* Barrows Road Bridge Repair Basin Water Supply Protect - Dennis - 10 mm. Downtown Urban Renewal - Tigard's Experience Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 min. Workshop Meeting Starts at 6:30 pm WCCLS Strategic Funding Plan for Library Services Review Tigard's 20 -Year Facilities Plan - Dennis - 20 min. Joint Meeting w /Planning Commission SI - Ron 45 min. Urbanization Issues Consent Agenda Discussion on Development Code Amendment - Tigard Community Aspirations and Growth Expectations Approve App Byrne Justice Asst. Grant - Chief D. Tree Removal Criteria (DCA 2009 - 00001) - John F. - - West Bull Mountain (63 & 64) Traffic Analysis Auth. Work Order - Amec - Burnham St. - Kim 15 min. CG #1 Urbanization Issues including Urban Rural Reserves Discuss Washington County Urbanization Resolution - and Services to Unincorporated Areas Ron - 30 min. CG #1 Tigard Aspirations for the Washington Square Regional Business Meeting Briefing on Designation of Hwy 99W as a Regional /State Center Cub Scout Troop 735 will lead the flag salute - Cathy W. - 0 Mobility Corridor - Mike M. - 20 min. THS Student Envoy Elected Officials Emergency Mgmt Training - Legis. Briefing by Sen. Burdick & Rep. Galizio - 20 min. CG#4 Dennis K. - 70 min - Red Rock Creek Conf. Room Consider Res. Supporting SJR 29 - Liz N. - RES -10 min. Presentation of Tree Stewardship Awards - Marissa -15 min. PPT QJPH- Jackson Business Center & Durham Elementary Plan Amendment (CPA 2008- 00013, Zone Change 2008- 00007, Minor Modification MMD 2008 - 00026, Lot Line Adjustment MIS 2008 -00016 - Gary P. -15 min. Rec. and File - Buildable Lands Inventory and Land Use Trends Report - PPT - Darren - 30 min. CG #1 Briefing on Highway 99W Transit Supportive Land Use and Design Vision - Sean - 5 min. Briefing on Downtown Circulation Plan - Sean - 10 min CG #2 Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 110 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 180 min. Time Left: 0 min. Time Left: 0 min. Page 1 of 6 Color Key: Admin - Green HR - 'agenta Finance /IT - CD - - Library - Aqua Risk - Purple PW - Police - .niue CG = Council Goal 4/6/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: April 27, 2009 Meeting Date: April 28, 2009 Meeting Date: May 4, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Budget Committee /6:3 Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Budget Committee Location: TVF &R Comm. Room Location: City Hall Location: TVF &R Community Room Greeter: 12617 SW Walnut St. Greeter: Greeter: 12617 SW Walnut Street Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due © 5: April 14, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: Budget Committee Hearing Study Session - Time Sched. 45 min. 0 Avail. Budget Committee CODA Budget Committee Exec. Session - Labor Negotiations - Sandy - 20 min. Police Community Development Status Report on the Arsenic Contamination at the library - Dennis -10 mm . Library Capital Improvement Program Status Update on Urban Forestry Master Plan - Marissa/Todd -15 min. CG1 Issue Papers Policy and Administration Consent Agenda Public Works Annual Volunteer Program Report - SI - Bob R. Approve 2009 Homeland Security Grant Application - Chief D. Approve Appl. for COPS Hiring Recovery Program Grant - Chief D. Appoint Park & Rec. Board Members - Dennis - RES Authorize Appl. for OPRD Grant to Purchase Summer Cr. Property - Dennis Dedicate $1 million from Open Spaces Bond for Summer Cr. Puch.- Dennis -RES Approve Grant Appl. For Byrne Justice Assistance Recovery Program - Chief D. Approve Grant Appl. For Recovery Act Youth Mentoring Initiative - Chief D. Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 8 min. Proclamation: Silver Star Banner Day - Joanne 2 min_ Council Goal Update - Admin. SI -15 min. Consideration of Fields Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments - Cheryl C. -15 man. - ORD Downtown Development Code Update on Design Standards and Associated Land Use Regs and Ping & Zoning Map Regs.- Senn -15 min. CG #2 Dispassion of a Community Development Code Amendment to Establish Minor and Major Conditional Use Req. - Ron iii Jet F. -.30 Milt Urban/Rural ReservesPiannWig & Growth Mgmt ins- Ran-20 mM. Consider Ordinance Amending Chapter 11.04 of TMC re: Business Recycling - Dennis 5. min. -ORD Consider Ordinance to Allow Use of Police ATVs on, City Streets - Sgt. Fisher - 15 min. - ORD Time Avail: 110 min. -Time Scheduled: 125 min. Time Left -15 min. Page 2 of 6 4/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: May 11, 2009 Meeting Date: May 12, 2009 Meeting Date: May 18, 2009 Meeting Type /Time: Budget Committee Meeting Type /Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type /Time: Budget/6:30 Location: TVF &R Community Room Location: City Hall Location: TVF &R Community Roc Greeter: 12617 SW Walnut Street Greeter: Greeter: 12617 SW Walnut Ste( Materials Due @ 5: Materials Due @ 5: April 28, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: May 4, 2009 Budget Committee Study Session - Time Sched. 40 min. - 0 Avail. Budget Committee (if Needed) .,. ;ssue- Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 mir Renaming Schaltz property - Dennis - 15 min. West Bull Mountain (Areas 63 & 64) Concept Planning for Future Development Update - Ron and Mike M 10 min. Consent Agenda Consider Authorizing the Mayor to Sign Letters Terminating the City's Membership in the Joint Water Commission and Participation in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project - Dennis Business Meeting THS Student Envoy - 5 min. Update from Senator Burdick & Rep. Galizio - 30 min. CG#4 Youth Advisory Council Update - PD - SI - 15 min. Info PH - Adopt Tigard's 20 - Yr. Facilities Plan - Dennis - 15 min PH -Amend Development Code - Tree Removal CG #1 Criteria (DCA 2009 - 00001. CDC 18.790) - John F. - 40 min. Legis. PH - Code Amendment re Sensitive Lands Permit Requirements (Sec 18 775.070.B.5) - Gary P. - 15 min Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 120 min. Time Left: -10 min. Page 3 of 6 4/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: May 19, 2009 Meeting Date: May 26, 2009 Meeting Date: June 9, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Joint Meeting with L016:30 p. Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: May 5, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: May 12, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: May 26, 2009 Workshop Agenda Joint Meeting with Lake Oswego Study Session - Time Sched. 45 min. - 0 Avail. Library Board Annual Meeting SI - Margaret - 30 min. Lake Oswego City Council will be touring areas in Exec Sess - Burnham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 20 min. Municipal Court Annual Report - Nadine - 25 min. - SI Lake Oswego prior to arriving @ COT Review Alternatives to Fifth Tuesday Meetings - Cathy - Discuss Ordinance Modifying TMC 7.70 - Secondhand 6:30 - Dinner and Mingle at Tigard Town Hall 10 min. Dealers and Transient Merchants to Update and Clarify Tour Library Follow -up to City Attorney Review - Tim Ramis - 15 min. Procedures and Definitions - Chief D.& Lt. de Sully - 10 min. Tour Tigard Triangle /Downtown/WES Briefing #1 on Tigard Transportation System Plan Water System Status (where are we, where are we Consent Agenda Update - Darren - 15 min. CG #1 going ?) Consider Agreement with DEQ re Arsenic Contamination Briefing on DLCD Approved Periodic Review Work Transit/Transportation /Growth Aspirations /UGB at Tigard Public Library - Dennis K. Program - Darren - 20 min. Issues Receive & File - Police Dept. Annual Report - Chief D. Briefing on Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan =finance Challenges /Solutions - Darren - 45 min. Street Maintenance Fee Future Land Use Briefing (Hwy 99W, Downtown, Tigard State Transportation Package Business Meeting Triangle & Employment Lands) Ron B. - 40 min. CG#1 THS Student Envoy - 5 min. Update from Senator Burdick & Rep. Galizio - 30 min. CG#4 Certify City provides Services Qualifying for State Shared Revs - RES - Toby - 5 min. Declare City's Election to Receive State Revenues - PH - RES - Toby - 5 min. Approve 2009 -2014 CIP - PH - Toby - 10 min. Adopt Citywide Master Fees & Charges Schedule Toby - RES - 10 min. Adopt FY 2008 -09 Budget - PH - RES- Toby- 25 min CCDA Budget Adoption - PH - Toby- 5 min. Consider Ordinance Modifying TMC 7.70 - Secondhand Dealers and Transient Merchants to Update and Clarify Procedures and Definitions - Chief D.- 10 min.ORD Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 185 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 105 min. Time Left: -5 mins. Time Left: 5 min. Page 4 of 6 4/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: June 16, 2009 Meeting Date: June 23, 2009 Meeting Date: June 30, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: 5th Tuesday /7 -9 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: Water Building Aud. Greeter: Greeter: Facilitator: Materials Due @ 5: June 2, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: June 9, 2009 Workshop Agenda Study Session - Time Sched. 0 min. - 45 Avail. Fifth Tuesday Meeting Review City of Tigard's Park System Master Plan - Dennis - 30 min. CG #3 Neighborhood Trail Study Results Presentation - Duane - 30 min. Consent Agenda Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep. - 10 min. If I were Mayor, I would..." Contest Winners Presentation Joanne - 15 min. Urban /Rural Reserves Committee Discussion - Ron - 20 min Legis. PH - CPA 2008 -00011 - Tigard 99W Improvement and Management Plan - Darren - 45 min. Development Code Amendment to modify Collector Street Standards to Allow on- street Parking within the downtown - (DCA 2009 - 00002) -Cheryl - 20 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 60 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 100min. Time Left: 120 mins. Time Left: 10 min. Page 5 of 6 4/7/2009 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 2009 Meeting Date: July 14, 2009 Meeting Date: July 21, 2009 Meeting Date: July 28, 2009 Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Meeting Type/Time: Workshop /6:30 Meeting Type/Time: Business /6:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Location: City Hall Greeter: Greeter: Greeter: Materials Due @ 5: June 30, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: July 7, 2009 Materials Due @ 5: July 14, 2009 Study Session - Time Sched. 15 min. - 30 Avail. Workshop Meeting Study Session - Time Sched. 0 min. - 45 Avail. Exec Sess - Bumham St. Briefing - Kim Mc - 15 min. Review Council groundrules - Admin. SI - 20 min. Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Business Meeting Chamber of Commerce Rep.- 10 min. Business Meeting Council Goal Update - Admin. - 15 min. Adopt City of Tigard's Park System Master Plan - Urban /Rural Reserves Planning & Growth Mgmt. Aspirations Dennis - 20 min. - RES Discussion - Ron - 20 min. Time Avail: '110 min. - Time Scheduled: 20 min. Time Avail: 180 min. - Time Scheduled: 20 min. Time Avail: 110 min. - Time Scheduled: 45 min. Time Left: 90 min. Time Left: 160 min. Time Left: 65 min. Page 6 of 6 4/7/2009 Agenda Item # 2, 3 Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Approve Application to the Department of Justice for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Formula Grant GAG) under the FY 09 Recovery Act Prepared By: Chief Bill Dickinson Dept Head Approval" ' ' W City Mgr Approval: ey ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a grant application to the Department of Justice for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "Recovery Act" of 2009 and receive $86,099 for the Tigard Police Depatttuent. The grant does not require the commitment of any local matching funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the intent to apply for the grant. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In February, the "Recovery Act" was signed into law that provides the Department of Justice funding for grants to assist local law enforcement efforts. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program received additional funding under the Recovery Act and is one of the primary providers of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. There is both a competitive and formula grant under this program. The Tigard Police Department intends to apply for both types of grants. Under the conditions of the grant, the governing body must approve the intent to apply and determine if any member of the public has input as to how the funds should be used. This condition can be fulfilled by the City Council inquiring whether anyone attending the City Council meeting has any comments on the consent agenda items. The Police Department proposes to use the funds under the formula grant to acquire E- ticketing software to be used primarily by the motor officers. This would provide greater efficiencies in the field and enhanced coordination between the Police Department and the City's Municipal Court. This would also provide greater coordination of data with such other agencies as the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The costs associated with this project are estimated to be approximately $53,000. The balance of $33,099 would be used to acquire some new mobile data computers that would be used to replace older models in the patrol vehicles. The new units would provide greater operating capacity as well as having additional features such as GPS technology and provide wireless connectivity to the 911 system rather than using radio frequencies. The grant application deadline is May 18, 2009 but the application cannot be submitted without first gaining approval of the local governing body. This action would approve the City's intent to apply for the grant and fulfill the public input requirement of the grant. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS N /A ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES The City would receive $86,099 in federal funds to be used for funding projects in the Tigard Police Department. No City funds are required for the matching of federal funds. • Agenda Item # J Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon - Issue /Agenda Title Authorization to issue work order agreements to Amec Earth & Environmental • Prepared By: Kim McMillan Dept Head Approval: . f/ City Mgr Approval: G �" ' L ( Cv r• ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council authorize the City Manager to approve the requested work orders to Amec for two areas on the Burnham project: 1) Zuber Property Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment; and 2)Storm sewer cleanout and temporary sediment capping associated with the cleanup of the UPRR contamination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That City Council authorize the City Manager to approve the requested work orders. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The requested work order to Amec, when added to previous work orders will exceed $50,000. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Not applicable CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal # 2a 2. Implement Downtown Urban Renewal a. Move forward with Burnham Street Project ATTACHMENT LIST Proposal for Limited Storm Sewer Cleanout Proposal for Phase I & II Environmental Assessments for Zuber property FISCAL NOTES The Phase I & II Environmental Assessment work order is in the amount of $9,860.00. The work order for the UPRR storm sewer pipe cleanup is in the amount of $15,310.00. Upon completion of the storm water cleanup work the City will be negotiating with UPRR for reimbursement up to $8,650.00. I: \Citywide \Council Packets \Packet '09 \090414 \AIS - Amec Zuber UPRR Pipe cleaning.doc amec ,„„/ March 11, 2009 8 -61 M- 116393 Ms. Kim McMillan City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ms. McMillan: Re: Proposal for Limited Storm Sewer Cleanout and Temporary Sediment Capping Stevens Marine Drainage Ditch Outfall SW Burnham Street Improvement Project Tigard, Oregon In accordance with your request, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) is pleased to provide the City of Tigard (City) with this proposal to: a) clean out approximately 50 feet of line segment of the storm sewer pipe from a manhole in SW Burnham to the Stevens Marine Drainage Ditch outfall, and b) place a temporary soil cap over pesticide- impacted sediment located at the Stevens Marine Drainage Ditch outfall. This work was requested by the City as a result of several meetings and discussions with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding how to temporarily address a hotspot of sediment affected by pesticides accumulated over time in the drainage ditch outfall area. Based on conversations w ith the City and with the DEQ, it is our understanding that the temporary sediment cap will be put into place after the drain pipe has been capped and drainage redirected. We understand this work is planned between Fall 2009 and Spring 2010. BACKGROUND AMEC has been retained by the City to provide environmental consulting services for the City's planned SW Burnham Street Improvement Project. The project area includes the section of SW Burnham Street from SW Main Street to SW Hall Boulevard and the proposed extension from SW Ash Avenue to the Union Pacific Railway (UPRR) tracks. Sediments affected by elevated concentrations of pesticides have been identified in the Stevens Marine drainage ditch and pond located on the southwest side of Burnham Street. Specifically, pesticide and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination extends to a depth of approximately 1 foot in the drainage ditch near the Burnham Street outfall, and to about 6 inches in the downstream pond. The conveyance piping suspected to contain contaminated sediment is a roughly 1,200 -foot section that extends from the former Farmcraft Facility to the aforementioned outfall. This conveyance was cleaned by UPRR on December 26, 2008. Pesticides detected in drainage ditch sediments adjacent to the outfall at levels exceeding ecological screening levels include: Aldrin, chlordane, 4, 4- dichloro - diphenyl- dichloroethane (4,4 -DDD), 4,4- dichloro - diphenyl- ethane (4,4 -DDE), 4, 4- dichloro - diphenyl - trichloroethane (4,4 -DDT), dieldrin, edrin and heptachlor. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon USA 97224 Tel +1 (503) 639 - 3400 K: \11000 \11600 \11639 \116393 Capping of Fax +1 (503) 620 - 7892 www.amec.com outfall\RemediationProposal (4).doc City of Tigard SW Burnham Street Improvement Project erne, Proposal for Limited Storm Sewer Cleanout and Temporary Sediment Capping PAHs in ditch sediments exceeding ecological screening levels include: Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)fluoranthrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3,- cd)pyrene, phenanthrene, and py rene. SCOPE OF WORK AMEC has prepared the following scope of work to construct a protective cover (Cap) over the affected ditch sediments and adjacent soils located at the Burnham Street Outfall. Task 1 - Planning AMEC will prepare a letter work plan summarizing the design and installation requirements for the Cap. The letter work plan will be provided to the City and DEQ for review and comment. AMEC will prepare a final letter work plan that incorporates review comments. The existing site - specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP), which is required by the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OR -OSHA) Safety and Health Act, will be updated to cover the remedial field activities. Task 2 - Storm Sewer Cleanout AMEC's scope of work for cleanout would involve subcontracting the cleanout activities to West Coast Marine Cleaning, with AMEC serving in a project management and oversight role. AMEC has utilized West Coast Marine Cleaning for this type of service on several other sites. For this project, it is anticipated that approximately 50 feet of 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe will require cleaning, and that the manhole access point in SW Burnham Street would be accessed to complete the cleaning activities. The wash -water and sediment generated from the cleanout will be containerized. AMEC does not expect that run ning a camera through the length of the lines will be required, but rather effectiveness of the cleanout will be determined by the relative clarity of the recovered wash - water. It is estimated that a one -lane right -of -way closure, over a 4 -hour duration is sufficient to complete the line cleaning activities. Following the cleanout activities, the outfall will be permanently capped, as described below. Following cleanout, the generated sediments and wash -water will be stored on -site pending the receipt of expedited laboratory results within a 5 -day turn - around time. Once results are available, the materials will be transported off -site to an appropriate disposal facility. Wash -water and sediments from the concrete pipe cleaning will be collected at the base of the outfall at the Stevens Marine Drainage Ditch. In order to collect this material, it will be necessary to dig down into the ditch to locate the outfall pipe and fit that area with a collection sump to collect the wash -water and sediment cleaned from the pipe. Task 3 - Pipe Decommissioning and Capping of Contaminated Ditch Sediments AMEC will construct a Cap to cover the identified affected sediments at and around the ou tfall. Before the CAP is installed, AMEC will locate the lower end of the outfall discharge pipe and will remove sediments that have accumulated in the pipe. It has been assumed that up to 2 tons of Project No.: 8-61M-116393 K: \11000 \11600 \11639 \116393 Capping Of 3/11/09 Page 2 Outfall\Remediationproposal (4).Doc City of Tigard a lto a .. SW Burnham Street Improvement Project Proposal for Limited Storm Sewer Cleanout and Temporary Sediment Capping sediment may be removed from the end of the outfall. Following sediment removal, AMEC will . decommission the outfall discharge pipe by infilling the lower end of the outfall with a grouted concrete plug. Currently, the conceptual design for the Cap includes placement of a soil cover, approximately a 1- foot -thick layer of clean soil, over the impacted sediments at the lower end of the decommissioned outfall. The total area of the Cap is anticipated to be a maximum of 50 feet in length by 15 feet in width (750 square feet). Since less than 50 cubic yards of fill material will be utilized, we do not anticipate that a wetland fill permit will be required. After the area is graded, the area would be seeded using an erosion control native grass seed mix suitable for the site conditions. Task 4 - Reporting Following completion of construction activities, AMEC will prepare a summary letter. The letter will document the construction activities, include an as -built construction diagram showing the extent of the Capped area, and provide recommendations for monitoring and maintaining the seeded Cap for a period of 5 years. SCHEDULE AMEC will begin preparation of the letter work plan summarizing the Cap design and storm sewer line segment cleanout immediately upon receiving authorization to proceed. AM EC understands that the City has a schedule to consider regarding the SW Burnham Street improvements, and we will work closely with the City regarding overall project objectives. COST ESTIMATE All work will be conducted on a time - and - materials basis in accordance with AMEC's existing contract with the City. While estimated costs for individual tasks could vary, AMEC's total cost to perform the entire proposed scope of work described above is estimated to be $15,310.00. A breakdown of our estimated costs is provided below. Total Estimated City of Tigard Oregon DEQ Scope of Work Cost Apportioned Apportioned Costs Costs Task 1 - Planning $3,670.00 $2,570.00 $1,100.00 Task 2 - Storm Sewer Cleanout $4,460.00 $0.00 $4,460.00 Task 3 - Pipe Decommissioning $4,680.00 $1,920.00 $2,760.00 and Capping of Contaminated Ditch Sediments Task 4 - Reporting $2,500.00 $2,170.00 $330.00 Subtotals $15,310.00 $6,660.00 $8,650.00 Project No.: 8-61M- 116393 K: \11000 \11600 \11639 \116393 Capping Of 3/11/09 Page 3 Outfall\Remediationproposal (4).Doc City of Tigard SW Burnham Street Improvement Project Proposal for Limited Storm Sewer Cleanout and aMe Temporary Sediment Capping If services above and beyond those described in this proposal are requested, these would be carried out on a time - and - materials basis. No work would be performed outside this scope of work without your verbal or written authorization. If special circumstances or delays (not attributed to AMEC or its subcontractors) are encountered, you would be notified immediately; any perceived change orders would be communicated to you quickly. It has been estimated that $8,650.00 (56 %) of the estimated costs are outside of the routine cost for decommissioning the line and are associated with the presence of Farmcraft contamination at the Site. These costs consist of piping clean out, capping of contaminated ditch sediments, additional health and safety planning, and waste sampling analysis. ASSUMPTIONS In addition to the description of the scope of work described in this proposal, our costs are based on the following assumptions: • The City will arrange for access to the Site. • The right -of -way use permit would be exempt because the work is being done for the City. • All generated sediment and wash -water will be characterized as non - hazardous, within two • weeks of the date generated. • AMEC anticipates that there will be little to no runoff from the street to affect the placed cap. Runoff currently captured by the existing drain lines will be redirected prior to installing the sediment cap. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (503) 639 -3400. Sincerely, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. I e Jennifer Kuiper, RG, CHMM John L. Kuiper, RG Senior Geologist Vice President Attachment JCK/jlm Project No.: 8-61M-116393 K: \11000 \11600 \11639 \116393 Capping Of 3/11/09 Page 4 Outfall\Remediationproposal (4).Doc ame - AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL RATE SCHEDULE The hourly labor rates set forth below are valid through December 31, 2009 and are subject to annual revision thereafter. AMEC will provide CLIENT thirty days advance written notice of any such revisions. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CLIENT agrees to reimburse AMEC for all hours worked by professionals at the following classifications and associated hourly labor rates. For expert witness testimony and related services in connection with litigation, CLIENT agrees to reimburse AMEC for all hours worked by professionals at the following classifications, but at one and one half times the associated hourly labor rates. Classification Rate /Hour Classification Rate /Hour Professional Level 4 $70.00 Professional Level 16 $145.00 Professional Level 5 $80.00 Professional Level 17 $150.00 Professional Level 6 $85.00 Professional Level 18 $150.00 Professional Level 7 $90.00 Professional Level 19 $155.00 Professional Level 8 $95.00 Professional Level 20 $155.00 Professional Level 9 $100.00 Professional Level 21 $160.00 Professional Level 10 $105.00 Professional Level 22 $165.00 Professional Level 11 $110.00 Professional Level 23 $170.00 Professional Level 12 $115.00 Professional Level 24 $185.00 Professional Level 13 $120.00 Professional Level 25 $210.00 Professional Level 14 $130.00 Professional Level 26 $240.00 Professional Level 15 $135.00 TECHNICIAN SERVICES CLIENT agrees to reimburse AMEC for all hours worked by technicians at the following classifications and associated hourly labor rates. Overtime rates will apply for time over 8 hours per day or for work on weekends and holidays. Classification Rate /Hour Overtime Classification Rate /Hour Overtime Technician Level 8 $45.00 $67.50 Technician Level 16 $90.00 $135.00 Technician Level 9 $55.00 $71.25 Technician Level 17 $95.00 $142.50 Technician Level 10 $60.00 $90.00 Technician Level 11 $65.00 $97.50 Technician Level 12 $70.00 $105.00 Technician Level 13 $75.00 $112.50 Technician Level 14 $80.00 $120.00 Technician Level 15 $85.00 $127.50 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CLIENT agrees to reimburse AMEC for all hours worked by administrative staff at the following classifications and associated hourly labor rates. Overtime rates will apply for time over 8 hours per day or for work on weekends and holidays. Classification Rate /Hour Overtime Classification Rate /Hour Overtime Administrative Level 4 $45.00 $67.50 Administrative Level 9 $75.00 $112.50 Administrative Level 5 $50.00 $75.00 Administrative Level 10 $80.00 $120.00 Administrative Level 6 $55.00 $82.50 Administrative Level 7 $60.00 $90.00 Administrative Level 8 $65.00 $97.50 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES- 6% of Labor Charges CLIENT agrees to reimburse AMEC for miscellaneous office equipment expenses incurred, such as consumable supplies, telephone & facsimile charges, and computer and software costs, etc., not otherwise invoiced as other direct expenses, at the rate of 6% of labor. OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES CLIENT agrees to reimburse AMEC for all other direct expenses incurred at the following rates, except as otherwise specified by AMEC in its proposal: Travel Expenses: Transportation (air travel, car rental, etc.), lodging, meals, & incidental expenses Cost plus 15% Mileage - Subject to Change $0.67 per mile Subcontract Expenses: Supplies or services furnished to AMEC in support of project activities by any supplier or firm, except temporary agency or consultant staff charged at above hourly rates Cost plus 15% Direct Expenses: Other expenses in support of project Cost Plus 15% amec , March 3, 2009 09 038 Mr. Tim Ramis Jordan Schrader Ramis 2 Centerpointe Drive, 6 Floor Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Dear Mr. Ramis: Re: Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Zuber Construction Property 9025 SW Burnham Street, Tigard, Oregon INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) is pleased to provide you and your client, the City of Tigard (City), with this proposal to perform Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) for the above - referenced property located in Tigard, Oregon (Site). BACKGROUND AMEC understands that the City plans to acquire the Site as part of the SW Burnham Street Improvement Project. The improvement project area includes the section of SW Burnham Street from SW Main Street to SW Hall Boulevard and the proposed extension from SW Ash Avenue to the Union Pacific Railway (UPRR) tracks. In 2007, AMEC was retained by the City to conduct a Phase I ESA of the project's proposed right -of -way corridor and a follow -up focused Phase II ESA on portions of the Stevens Marine and B & B Print Source properties located at 9180 and 9040 SW Burnham Street, respectively. AMEC also was retained by the City in 2007 to conduct Phase I and Phase II E SAs on the Stevens Marine and B & B Print Source properties to support the City's planned expansion of Fanno Creek Park. In our previous Phase II ESAs, ethylene dichloride (EDC) was identified in groundwater at locations in the Site vicinity along SW Burnham Street. In 1993, concentrations of EDC up to 117 micrograms per liter (pg /L) were reportedly detected in groundwater at the B & B Print Source property. In August 2007, AM EC detected EDC at concentrations up to 83 N g/L in two groundwater samples collected on north and south sides of SW Burnham Street, near the north corner of the B & B Print Source property. Properties identified as potential sources of the groundwater contamination include: (1) the former Farmcraft property located across the UPRR right -of -way to the northeast; (2) Tigard Radiator, formerly located at 9037 SW Burnham Street (currently the location of DeAngelos Catering); and (3) the former Modern Plumbing Company property located north of SW Burnham Street. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon USA 97224 K:\Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tel +1 (503) 639 - 3400 Tigard\Zuber Property Phase I and II ESA Fax +1 (503) 620 -7892 www.amec.com proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis City of Tigard Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon amecl Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments SCOPE OF WORK AMEC has prepared the following scope of work to support the City's pre- acquisition due diligence for the Site. Task 1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment The general purpose of a Phase I ESA is to evaluate the presence or potential presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) as a result of present or past activities at the Site or its vicinity. AMEC will complete the Phase I ESA for the Site according to the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Rule (40 CFR Part 312) and conforming to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527 -05. The AAI Rule establishes specific regulatory requirements and standards for meeting one of the provisions necessary to qualify for certain landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). AMEC has completed a Phase I ESA for the Burnham Street corridor, and other nearby properties. Information collected during the corn pletion of these Phase I ESAs will be utilized in preparing the Zuber Construction property Phase I ESA. The following scope of work has been prepared so that the completed Phase I ESA meets the requirements of the EPA AAI Rule and ASTM Standard E1527 -05. • Review of available historical documentation: A review of historical documentation will be performed to evaluate the Site and adjoining properties for potential RECs. The review may include aerial photographs, tax assessment records, historical maps, available building /water permits, and previous environm ental reports prepared for the project area. AMEC intends to review property uses dating back to 1940 or to the first developed use, whichever is earlier. • Interviews: AMEC will attempt to interview key Site managers and other individuals, as available and practicable, including past and present owners and operators who are likely to have material information regarding the potential for contamination at the Site. • Site and vicinity reconnaissance: A physical reconnaissance of the Site and observation of surrounding properties for unusual land colorations, physical irregularities, noticeable refuse piles, evidence of aboveground and underground fuel or chemical storage tanks, and an evaluation of current land use on the Site and in the immediate vicinity will be performed. The reconnaissance of the Site will be conducted on foot and will include observations within the Site and on adjoining properties. . Review of federal, state, tribal, and local environmental records: A review of federal, state, tribal, and local environmental records listed below will be conducted. Search radii stipulated in ASTM 1527 -05 will be utilized. o EPA Resource Conservation and R ecovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generators o RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities o RCRA non- CORRACTS TSD facilities list Proposal No. 09 038 K: \Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 2 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis m 1111 City of Tigard Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon e, Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments o Comprehensive Environmental Resource Conservation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) listing o CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Plan (NFRAP) list o National Priority List (NPL) o Delisted NPL o Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list o DEQ Environmental Cleanup Site Information System (ECSIS) and tribal equivalent o DEQ equivalent to NPL and tribal equivalent o DEQ Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) and Underground Storage Tank (UST) Cleanup lists and tribal equivalents o DEQ Registered UST and AST lists and tribal equivalents o DEQ State Landfill and /or solid waste disposal Site lists and tribal equivalents o DEQ Voluntary Cleanup List and tribal equivalent o Federal and state and tribal institutional controls, engineering controls, and land use restrictions o Other state and local environmental lists, as appropriate • User provided information: As part of completing a Phase I ESA according to the EPA's AAI Rule and ASTM Standard E1527 -05, the City will have certain responsibilities as identified in Section 312.22 of the AAI Rule. Specifically, the City will need to provide (if possible or applicable) the following information to AMEC: o Title reports identifying environmental liens associated with the Site o Purchase price vs. fair market value of the Site o Specialized knowledge of the Site o Commonly known information about the Site o The degree of obviousness of conta mination • Review of published literature on the soils, geology, and hydrogeology in the vicinity of the Site. • Phase I ESA report: The Phase I ESA report will include vicinity and site - specific maps, discussion, findings, opinion, and conclusi ons. The report also will include a statement on the EP qualifications of the individuals at AM EC who performed the Phase I ESA and a statement that AAI was performed in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. AM EC anticipates submitting one electronic version and up to three paper copies of the draft report to the City and Jordan Schrader Ramis for review and comment. Based on review comments, AMEC will prepare one electron is copy and up to five paper copies of the final report for the City. Proposal No. 09 038 K: \Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 3 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis City of Tigard k Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon ame_ Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Task 2: Phase ll Environmental Site Assessment AMEC will perform a Phase II ESA to further evaluate any RECs identified in the Phase I ESA (Task 1). The following preliminary work scope has been prepared for the purpose of cost estimation by AMEC prior to completion of the Phase I ESA. It should be noted that the work scope may need to be revised after AMEC completes the Phase I ESA. At this time, we anticipate that the Phase II ESA would consist of collecting groundwater samples at up to three direct -push borings locations on the Si to to evaluate for the presence of EDC and related volatile organic compounds (VOCs). If any additional investigation activities were warranted by the results of the Phase I ESA, AMEC would provide the City with a revised Phase II ESA scope of work and cost estimate under separate cover, prior to initiating Phase II ESA activities. Task 2a: Health and Safety Plan Preparation A site - specific Health and Safety Plan, as required by the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration Safety and Health Act, will be prepared to cover field safety protocol for all AMEC employees active on the job. Task 2b: Soil and Groundwater Sampling AMEC personnel will contact local public utilities using the Oregon Utility Notification Center to field -mark any underground utility lines prior to performing the subsurface exploration. AM EC will subcontract with a private utility locating service to locate utilities in the vicinity of sampling locations prior to subsurface work. AMEC anticipates collecting up to one soil and three groundwater samples on the Site. A direct -push drilling method will be employed in collecting the groundwater samples in an effort to minimize disturbance to the Site and to minimize generation of soil cuttings. The direct -push sampling technique involves advancing a 2 -inch diameter hollow rod using a vehicle- mounted percussion hammer. Soil samples are collected continuously, soil conditions permitting, within disposable plastic sleeves. Soil will be logged continuously and classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. In order to characterize shallow soils in the portion of the Site that will be affected by Burnham Street improvements, a single soil sample will be submitted for laboratory testing. This soil sample will evaluate whether any special soil handling will be required during the portion of the Burnham Street improvement project located within the boundaries of the Zuber Construction property. Once groundwater is encountered, the driller will advance new tubing down the encased boring, and purge the groundwater to assure that the groundwater sample collected is representative. Once the purge water clears, indicating that the water is from outside the boring itself, AMEC will collect a groundwater sample from the boring. Following the completion of groundwater sampling activities, each boring will be permanently backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips. Drilling equipment will be decontaminated prior to completion of the boring, and prior to mobilizing off -site. Proposal No. 09 038 K: \Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 4 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis City of Tigard z ° rCe Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Task 2c: Sample Analysis A single soil sample will be analyzed for: • Petroleum hydrocarbons by method NWTPH -HCID; • Gasoline -range petroleum hydrocarbons by method NWTPH -Gx (if warranted by NWTRH- HCID results); • Diesel- and oil -range petroleum hydrocarbons by method NWTPH-Dx Gx (if warranted by NWTRH -HCID results); and • VOCs by EPA Method 8260B. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method 8260B. For cost estimation, we have assumed that the samples would be analyzed by Apex Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon with a standard 10- business day turn - around -time. Task 2d: Investigation- Derived Waste Disposal Soil cuttings and purge water generated as a result of AMEC's field explorations will be placed into 55- gallon capacity steel drums, labeled, and staged on -Site pending receipt of laboratory testing results. U pon receipt of testing results indicating that investigati on- derived wastes are not a RCRA hazardous waste, AMEC will facilitate their disposal. For cost estimation, we have assumed that one drum of soil cuttings and one drum of purge /decontamination water would be disposed as non - hazardous waste by a certified waste disposal contractor. If analytical testing indicates that the soil cuttings or purge water are RCRA hazardous waste, AMEC could provide options and estimated costs for their disposal under separate cover. Task 2e: Data Analysis and Reporting AMEC will prepare a letter report summarizing laboratory testing results. The report also will document activities associated with sample collection, sample handling, and chemical and physical analysis. The report will include: • A brief discussion of sampling activities and site conditions; • A summary table and description of the analytical results and comparison with potentially applicable risk -based screening level s; • A map showing sample locations; and • Recommendations for any additional investigation, if warranted. AMEC anticipates submitting one electronic vers ion and up to three paper copies of the draft report to the City and Jordan Schrader Ramis for review and comment. Based on review comments, AMEC will prepare one electronic copy and up to five paper copies of the final report for the City. Proposal No. 09 038 K: \Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 5 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis City of Tigard jot Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon amcgte Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments COST ESTIMATE All work will be conducted on a time - and - materials basis in accordance with AMEC's existing contract with the City. AMEC's total cost to perform the proposed scope of work described above is estimated to be $9,860.00. A breakdown of our estimated costs is provided below. Scope of Work Estimated Cost Task 1: Phase I ESA $3,400.00 Task 2: Phase II ESA Task 2a: Health and Safety Plan Preparation $350.00 Task 2b: Soil and Groundwater Sampling $2,800.00 Task 2c: Sample Analysis $910.00 Task 2d: Investigation- Derived Waste Disposal $300.00 Task 2e: Data Analysis and Reporting $2,100.00 Phase II ESA Subtotal $6,460.00 Total $9,860.00 If services above and beyond those described in this proposal are reque sted, these would be carried out on a time - and - materials basis. No work would be performed outside this scope of work without your written authorization. If special circumstances or delays (not attributed to AMEC or its subcontractors) are encountered, you would be notified immediately; any perceived change orders would be communicated to you quickly. ASSUMPTIONS In addition to the scope of work described in this proposal, our costs are based on the following assumptions: • The City will arrange for access to the Site. • Level D personal protective equipment will be adequate during planned field activities. • The Phase I ESA site reconnaissance will be completed within one visit to the Site. • The City will provide User Provided Information for the Phase I ESA at least one week prior to completion of the draft Phase I ESA report. • The proposed preliminary Phase II ESA scope of work and cost estimate was prepared prior to completion of the Phase I ESA for the Site. The Phase II ESA scope of work and associated cost estimates may need to be revised based on the findings of the Phase I ESA. • Field work for the Phase II ESA will be completed in one day. Proposal No. 09 038 K:\Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 6 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis City of Tigard = Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon Proposal for Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments . Project- derived waste disposal cost estimate assumes disposal of one drum of soil cuttings and one drum of purge /decontamination water, and that all wastes are not RCRA hazardous wastes. If analytical testing indicates that the soil cuttings or purge water are RCRA hazardous waste, AMEC could provide options and estimated costs for their disposal under separate cover. LIMITATIONS The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions as defined by the ASTM at a site through documentation of current and historical site and vicinity usage, and evaluation of the risk of adverse environmental impact to the site based upon those uses. The Phase I ESA will be completed in accordance with ASTM E 1527 -05, the current standard for "all appropriate inquiry" stipulated by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 312. The scope of services executed for this project will not include: 1) an audit for regulatory compliance; 2) evaluation of ecological resources, endangered species or cultural resources; 3) indoor air quality, industrial hygiene, health and safety, or high voltage power line surveys; 4) a survey of hazardous building materials such as asbestos, lead -based paint , or PCB - containing equipment; 5) an evaluation for radon or lead in drinking water; 6) wetlands evaluation or delineation; 7) evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion; or 8) other items not explicitly outlined in AM EC's scope of services description provided herein. Environmental impairment of a property may result from activities such as illegal or unreported dumping, or the spilling of hazardous wastes or materials. AMEC cannot and does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities as the presence of contaminants at a particular property may not always be apparent. The corn pletion of a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E 1527 -05 cannot provide a guarantee that hazardous wastes or materials are not present at the site. The purpose of a Phase II ESA is to reasonably evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impact to a property, based on past practices at the property or adjacent properties. In performing any Phase II ESA, a reasonable balance is sought betw een a cursory inquiry into the environmental issues and an exhaustive analysis of each conceivable issue of potential concern. AM EC's proposal has been prepared with this concept in mind. SCHEDULE AMEC will begin work on the project immediately upon receipt of a task order from the City. We anticipate that the draft Phase I ESA report will be completed within 3 to 4 weeks of receipt of a fully executed task order. Copies of the Final Phase I ESA report will be distributed within one week of receipt of City comments on the draft report. Pending subcontractor availability, AMEC anticipates performing the Phase II ESA field work within 1 to 2 weeks after submittal of the Final Phase I ESA report. AMEC will submit a draft Phase II ESA report to the City within 1 week of receipt of final analytical results. AMEC will issue a final Phase II ESA report approximately 3 to 5 days after receipt of City comments on the draft report. Proposal No. 09 038 K: \Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 7 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc Jordan Schrader Ramis City of Tigard Zuber Construction Property, Tigard, Oregon ame Proposal for Phase I and Phase I I Environmental Site Assessments CLOSING If this proposal is acceptable, please have the City provide us with a task order for our signature. We will return the task order with signature and a project specific certificate of insurance promptly so that the City can finalize the task order. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to provide environmental services to the City. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at (503) 639 -3400 if you have any questions. Sincerely, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Jennifer C. Kuiper, RG, CHMM Senior Geologist e G- Leonard C. Farr, Jr., RG Senior Associate JE /jm Proposal No. 09 038 K:\Proposal\2009 \Portland \09 038 City of Tigard\Zuber 3/3/09 Page 8 Property Phase I and II ESA proposal.doc • Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title: Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Oregon Department of Trans ortation ODO f the .2:vaerican Recovery and Re_ vestment Act (ARRA) Pavement Overlay Project Prepared By: A. P. Duenas Dept Head Okay / City Mgr Okay _ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will consider a resolution approving an agreement with ODOT for the ARRA Project funding and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement documents and any other documents needed for use of the funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council pass the attached resolution approving the agreement with ODOT and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement documents and all other documents needed for use of the ARRA funds. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The City applied for and received funding in the amount of $1,116,000 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for a single -lift overlay project that covers portions of Bonita Road, Durham Road and 72n Avenue. For the funding to be made available to the City, an agreement between the City and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) must be approved by both parties before any activities can be initiated to implement the project. ODOT will approve all contracts for the project, advertise the project for bid, pay all project bills, and monitor the project from initiation to completion to ensure compliance with all State and Federal requirements. No local funds are required as long as the project costs do not exceed the amount allocated. The text of the agreement documents transmitted by ODOT is the same for all ARRA projects. ODOT has requested that no changes be made to the documents unless there are errors specific to the jurisdiction or project identification. Other than a change to the phone number for the City Manager, there are no other changes made to the agreement. The signed agreement will be sent to ODOT in four copies as requested in the confirmation letter (attached). A checklist required by ODOT (also attached) will be completed and transmitted also in four copies to ODOT. Council will be requested to consider a resolution approving the agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents needed for use of the funds. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS Long term Council goal: "Pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." This project protects the City's investment in street infrastructure and improves rideability on the segments of street receiving pavement overlay. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution approving the agreement with ODOT and authorizing the City Manager to sign all documents needed for use of the ARRA funds. 2. Agreement with ODOT (attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution) to make the funding allocated through the ARRA available for the pavement overlay project covering three street segments in Tigard. 3. Confirmation letter dated April 6, 2009 transmitting the agreement documents and checklist 4. ARRA checklist to be completed and transmitted to ODOT with the signed agreement FISCAL NOTES There are no costs associated with the approval of this agreement. The agreement will make available $1,116,000 for a single -lift overlay project covering portions of Bonita Road, Durham Road and 72n Avenue. \eng \gus \council agenda summaries \2009 \41409 iga with odot for the arra project ais.doc t ; I � of re gon Transportation Enhancement Program ZI 355 Capitol St. NE, Room 326 `.. \•_ 5 ; j Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Salem, OR 97301 -3871 April 6, 2009 City of Tigard Craig Prosser 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Economic Stimulus Project - Confirmation and Agreement Bonita, Durham & 72nd Ave Overlay (Tigard) Agreement No. 25475 The above -named project has been accepted for funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The funds will come from the portion of Oregon's ARRA funds sub - allocated to cities, counties, and metropolitan areas. The amount identified for this Project is $1,116,000. The ARRA program has specific goals, deadlines and reporting requirements different from those of other federal or state programs. One critical difference is that ARRA funds are available only until March 1, 2010. If a project is not ready for bid at that time, the ARRA funds will be withdrawn for redistribution to other projects in Oregon, or may be lost to other states. To avoid losing any of Oregon's ARRA funds, it is important to start your project promptly and advance it to contract on time. Several actions must occur before the project can begin: • Complete the ODOT Project Prospectus and Environmental Classification. • Sign the Local Agency Agreement and ARRA Checklist. • Secure a qualified consultant (if needed) and obtain Notice to Proceed from ODOT. Local Agency Agreement - The Agreement for your project is enclosed. This Agreement contains provisions specific to the ARRA, and Standard Provisions that apply to all federal - aid transportation projects in Oregon. For priority treatment, you must sign and return all four copies to the ODOT Agreement Unit, ARRA Program, 455 Airport Road, SE, Bldg. K, Salem, OR 97301 -5348 no later than April 24, 2009. The Agreement text is the same for all ARRA projects. Do not request changes unless there are errors specific to your agency or project identification. If you return the agreement late, the project may be delayed several weeks as it will miss being included in expedited STIP and environmental approvals ODOT has planned. 25475, 1R - Pg. 1 ARRA Checklist - The enclosed checklist is provided for all ARRA projects awarded to local government agencies to clarify their responsibility for timely completion of ARRA projects. The Agency official signing the Agreement must complete and return this checklist with the four copies of the Agreement before ODOT will execute the Agreement, or give Notice to Proceed. Prospectus, STIP Amendment and Notice to Proceed - When you return the signed Agreement and Checklist your project will be assigned to a Local Agency Liaison in the ODOT Region 1 office. This person will work with ODOT Highway Program staff (Salem) to complete the actions needed before giving your project a Notice to Proceed for the ARRA- funded portion of the project. 1R Resurfacing Projects - This project appears to fit the definition of 1R Resurfacing. ODOT intends to process all the 1R "overlay" projects as a group, and pursue an expedited environmental approval for the group from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If the project is later modified and no longer fits the 1R guidelines, incorporated by reference in the Agreement, your agency must request an amendment of the Agreement and reinitiate the environmental approvals. For general information about the ARRA program you may contact me at (503) 986 -3640. If you have specific questions about the next steps for your project or changes in your project information, please contact Dave Galati, ODOT Local Government Section, attention: David .A.Galati(cr)odot.state.or.us. If you have specific questions regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement, please contact the ODOT Procurement office attention: Karin Jorgensen via email at: Karin.L.Jorgensen cx odot.state.or.us. Sincerely, 7 Martin E. Andersen, PE ODOT Local Government Section Manager cc: Michele Thom, ODOT Region 1, Local Program Enclosures (4) original agreements (1) Checklist (1) Envelope 25475, 1R - Pg. 2 5 nos . f . l i '� g a a y �Amenca ct r R ;, .. •,,.. ,., ..: ... ,..,..;� „�c. ,� ``�.. _r`$.. �..� .,.r2;+� ,,.n; „�:, •... _., .. _ ,.. .:a, a ` ::arc K s .,,.. This checklist is required for all ARRA- funded projects awarded to local government agencies, as a condition of ODOT signing the attached Local Agency Agreement for the Project. Instructions: (1) Read the referenced sections of the Local Agency Agreement; (2) Initial each box below; (3) Sign at the bottom of the page. Bonita, Durham & 72nd Ave Overlay (Tigard) City of Tigard, Agreement No. 25475 .I ,a_,,rstantl - that the' foil it provisions apply to4the funds appro ed for£thi s Project ❑ ARRA funds are not a grant. They are paid as reimbursement for actual Project costs based on invoices approved by ODOT or a certified local agency. ❑ Project approval by ODOT, and inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), do not constitute formal authorization to begin work. Any costs incurred prior to FHWA Authorization and ODOT Notice to Proceed will not be reimbursed. (Terms of Agreement #3) ❑ ARRA funds are available only until March 3, 2010. State may withdraw funds not obligated for construction by that date, and will not replace the withdrawn ARRA funds. (Terms of Agreement #10) ❑ There is no match required for the ARRA funds but the Local Agency is responsible for non - participating Project costs. (Terms of Agreement #2; Standard Provisions #23 and #24) ❑ The Local Agency has responsibility for long -term maintenance of the Project. (Special Provision #7; Standard Provision #47) ❑ The Local Agency will have to repay ARRA and other federal funds under conditions described in Terms of Agreement #8 and Standard Provision #32. f understa that thefollowingsect f isigKdaki Provisions applyaothis�Prolectr ❑ Project Administration (1, 2) ❑ Preliminary and Construction Engineering (3, 4) ❑ USDOT Assistance Agreement (5 -9) ❑ State Obligations including: Project Funding Request (10), Finance (11), Project Activities (12 -16), Right -of -way (17 -22) ❑ Agency Obligations including: Finance (23 -33), Railroads (34), Utilities (35, 36), Standards (37 -41), Grade Change Liability (42 -44), Contractor Claims (45, 46), Maintenance Responsibilities (47), Workers Compensation Coverage (48), Lobbying Restrictions (49A -49E) Authorized Agency Official Date 25475 Agenda Item # �J Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide 2009 Legislative Briefing by Senator Ginny Burdick and Representative Larry Galizio Prepared By: Joanne Bengtson Dept Head Approval: l (/ City Mgr Approval: V[ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council and legislative representative will discuss issues affecting the City of Tigard. State Senator Ginny Burdick and Representative Larry Galizio will provide an update on progress in the 2009 Legislative session. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Identify issues of interest or concern to Senator Burdick or Representative Galizio. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Senator Burdick and Representative Galizio will meet with the City Council to provide an update on the 2009 Legislative Session. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal #4: Continue supporting the Legislature in addressing the financial needs of Oregon state and local governments. ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A l: \ADM \City Council \Council Agenda Item Summaries \AIS for 13urdick- Galizio090414.doc Agenda Item # 1 • b Meeting Date April 14, 2009 • COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Consideration of a Resolution to Support SJR 29 Prepared By: Liz Newton 1.47/ Dept Head Approval: ce City Mgr Approval: el ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council issue a Resolution in support of the Oregon Legislature's Senate Joint Resolution 29 (SJR 29)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Task Force on Comprehensive Revenue Restructuring met during the legislative interim to develop recommendations to the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee on Revenue Restructuring. A recommendation from the Task Force proposes an Oregon Rainy Day Fund /Forecast methodology change to establish mandated savings from surplus revenues. SJR 29 as introduced, establishes a mandated savings rate from excess revenues, and adjusts the total amount of excess required to activate a return to corporations or personal income taxpayers. If adopted, SJR 29 would provide a more stable reserve fund for the State of Oregon to provide funding for state services to all citizens of Oregon during periods of projected or actual economic decline. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not issue a Resolution CITY COUNCIL GOALS Council Goal #4: Continue supporting the Legislature in addressing the financial needs of Oregon state and local governments. ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution No. 09 - Draft of Senate Joint Resolution 29 FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \ADM \City Council \Council Agenda Item Summaries \AIS for S1R29 04- 14- 09.doc fi • LC 1319 2/26/09 (CMT /ps) .DRAFT SUMMARY Establishes reserve fund intended to provide funding in response, to eco- nomic decline. Establishes mandated savings rate from surplus revenues. Transfers 'surplus revenue above estimate for biennium to reserve fund. Re- turns surplus revenue that exceeds certain thresholds to taxpayers. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at special election held on date 'specified in chapter , Oregon Laws 2009 (Enrolled - Bill. - ) (LC 3364). 1 • JOINT RESOLUTION 2 Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the 'State of Oregon: 3 PARAGRAPH' 1. Section 14, Article IX of the Constitution .of the State 4 of Oregon, is amended to read: 5 Sec. 14. (1) There is hereby created a reserve fund intended to pro- • 6 vide funding in response to a projected or an actual economic decline. 7 [(1)] (2) As soon as is practicable after adjournment sine die of a regular 8 session of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall cause an estimate to . 9 be prepared of revenues that will be received by the General Fund for the 10 biennium beginning July 1. The estimated revenues from corporate income 11 and excise taxes shall be separately stated from the estimated revenues from 12 other General Fund sources. 13 [(2)] (3) As soon as is practicable _after the end of the biennium, the 14 Governor shall cause actual collections of revenues received by the General 15 Fund for that biennium to be determined. The revenues received from cor- 16 porate income and excise taxes shall be determined separately from the rev - 17 enues received from other General Fund sources. 18 (4) As soon as is practicable after the end of the biennium, the NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 1319 2/26/09 1 1 Legislative Assembly shall transfer to the fund created in subsection 2 (1) of this section an amount equal to the General Fund ending bal- 3 ance for the biennium or one percent of General Fund appropriations 4 for the biennium, whichever is less. 5 (5) To establish a mandated savings rate from excess revenues and 6 to provide funding for the reserve fund created in subsection (1) of this 7 section, surplus revenue funds shall be transferred to the reserve fund 8 or returned to taxpayers as follows: 9 (a) If the revenues received by the General Fund from corporate 10 income and excise taxes during the biennium exceed the amount esti- mated to be received from corporate income and excise taxes for the 12 biennium, to the extent that the excess does not exceed 36 percent of 13 the estimate, the excess shall be transferred to the reserve fund cre- 14 ated in subsection (1) of this section. 15 (b) If the revenues received from General Fund revenue sources, 16 exclusive of those described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, during 17 the biennium exceed the amount estimated to be received from such 18 sources for the biennium, to the extent that the excess does not exceed 19 six percent of the estimate, the excess shall be transferred to the re- 20 serve fund created in subsection (1) of this section. 21 [(3)] (c) If the revenues received by the General Fund from corporate in- 22 come and excise taxes during the biennium exceed the amount estimated to 23 be received from corporate income and excise taxes for the biennium, by 24 [two] 36 percent or more, the total amount of the excess above 36 percent 25 shall be returned to corporate income and excise taxpayers. 26 [(4)] (d) If the revenues received from General Fund revenue sources, ex- 27 clusive of those described in [subsection (3) of this section] paragraph (b) 28 of this subsection, during the biennium exceed the amount estimated to be 29 received from such sources for the biennium, by [two] six percent or more, 30 the total amount of the excess above six percent shall be returned to per - 31 sonal income taxpayers. [2] LC 1319 2/26/09 (6) During the 12 -month period ending each June 30, the Legislative 2 Assembly may not appropriate more than two - thirds of the balance, 3 as of the preceding July 1, of the reserve fund created in subsection 4 (1) of this section. The Legislative Assembly may by law appropriate, 5 allocate or transfer the principal of the reserve fund created under 6 subsection (1) of this section only if the proposed appropriation, allo- 7 cation or transfer is approved by three- fifths of the members serving 8 in each house of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assem- 9 bly finds one of the following: 10 (a) That the last quarterly economic and revenue forecast for a 11 biennium indicates that moneys available to the state's General Fund 12 for the next biennium will be at least three percent less than appro- 13 priations from the state's General Fund for the current biennium; 14 (b) That there has been a decline for two or more consecutive 15 quarters in the last 12 months in seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll 16 employment; or 17 (c) That a quarterly economic and revenue forecast projects that 18 revenues in the state's General Fund in the current biennium will be 19 at least two percent less than what the revenues were projected to be 20 in the revenue forecast on which the legislatively adopted budget for 21 the current biennium was based. 22 (7) If the balance in the reserve fund created in subsection (1) of 23 this section equals 10 percent or more of the legislatively approved 24 budget from General Fund sources for the prior biennium, and the 25 revenues received by the General Fund from corporate income and 26 excise taxes during the biennium . exceed the amount estimated to be 27 received from corporate income and excise taxes for the biennium by 28 two percent or more, the total amount of the excess shall be returned 29 to corporate income and excise taxpayers. 30 (8) If the balance in the reserve fund created in subsection (1) of 31 this section equals 10 percent or more of the legislatively approved [3] LC 1319 2/26/09 1 budget from General Fund sources for the prior biennium, and the 2 revenues received from General Fund revenue sources, exclusive of 3 those described in subsection (5)(b) of this section, during the 4 biennium exceed the amount estimated to be received from such 5 sources for the biennium by two percent or more, the total amount 6 of the excess shall be returned to personal income taxpayers. 7 [(5)] (9) The Legislative Assembly may enact laws: 8 (a) Establishing a tax credit, refund payment or other mechanism by 9 which the excess revenues are returned to taxpayers, and establishing ad- 10 ministrative procedures connected therewith. 11 (b) Allowing the excess revenues to be reduced by administrative costs 12 associated with returning the excess revenues. 13 (c) Permitting a taxpayer's share of the excess revenues not to be re- 14 turned to the taxpayer if the taxpayer's share is less than a de minimis 15 amount identified by the Legislative Assembly. 16 (d) Permitting a taxpayer's share of excess revenues to be offset by any 17 liability of the taxpayer for which the state is authorized to undertake col- 18 lection efforts. 19 [(6)(a)] (10)(a) Prior to the close of a biennium for which an estimate 20 described in subsection [(1)] (2) of this section has been made, the Legislative 21 Assembly, by a two- thirds majority vote of all members elected to each 22 House, may enact legislation declaring an emergency and increasing the 23 amount of the estimate prepared pursuant to subsection [(1)] (2) of this sec- 24 tion. 25 (b) The prohibition against declaring an emergency in an act regulating 26 taxation or exemption in section la[, Article IX of this Constitution,] of this 27 Article does not apply to legislation enacted pursuant to this subsection. 28 [(7)] (11) This section does not apply: 29 (a) If, for a biennium or any portion of a biennium, a state tax is not 30 imposed on or measured by the income of individuals. 31 (b) To revenues derived from any minimum tax imposed on corporations [4] LC 1319 2/26/09 i for the privilege of carrying on or doing business in this state that is im- 2 posed as a fixed amount and that is nonapportioned (except for changes of 3 accounting periods). 4 (c) To biennia beginning before July 1, 2001. 5 6 PARAGRAPH 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall 7 be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special 8 election held throughout this state as provided in chapter 9 Oregon Laws 2009 (Enrolled Bill ) (LC 3364). 10 [5] L r�" Agenda Item # v Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Presentation of Tree Stewardship Awards Prepared By: Marissa Daniels Dept Head Approval: '"- — ir City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive information about trees in Tigard in 2008 and present tree stewardship awards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY J. Sterling Morton first proposed a tree planting holiday, Arbor Day, which was celebrated on April 10, 1872, in Nebraska. Today, many communities across the nation celebrate trees on Arbor Day. Oregon is the only state to declare an entire week as Arbor Week, instead of a single day. Here in Tigard, there are many ways for residents and business owners to get involved and help the City celebrate Arbor Day. Events are planned all month long. Highlights include: • The Giving Tree Revisited with Dave the Earthsinger - Dave Orleans will retell the classic Shel Silverstein story The Giving Tree by interweaving songs and participation into the tale, followed by a fun nature sing -along (All Ages ** Library Community Room ** 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 21). • Tree Care Workshop - Tuesday, April 7, 2009, from 2 -3:30 p.m. in the Library Community Room with Master Arborist Terrence P. Flanagan, Director of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. • Derry Dell Creek Planting - Saturday, April 18, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Meet at the corner of Pathfinder Way and 107th Court. Mayor Dirksen will celebrate Arbor Day on April 7, 2008, planting trees with the second grade class at Alberta Rider Elementary School. The students are preparing a special presentation to share with the Mayor during the celebration. All Council members, the Tree Board, and School Board members are invited to attend. For the first time, Tigard is the recipient of a Tree City USA Growth Award for demonstrating progress in its community forestry program. To celebrate Arbor Day and earning the Growth Award, the city and the Tigard - Tualatin School District (TTSD) will join forces to plant over 100 trees on the Alberta Rider Elementary School campus. An Oregon Department of Forestry representative will present the 2008 Tree City USA Growth Award to Mayor Craig Dirksen during the Arbor Day celebration, where the Mayor and students will plant the last five trees on the Alberta Rider campus. Tigard also received its eighth consecutive award as a Tree City USA Community by the Arbor Day Foundation. This national recognition honors Tigard's commitment to community forestry. The Tree City USA program is sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the 1: \1..RPLN \Arbor Day 2009 \Council Materials \ AIS_Awards.docx 1 USDA Forest Service. This year, the City planted 6,878 trees in the City's vegetated corridors, parks, and other properties. We also continued our annual free street tree giveaway program for eligible property owners. To further celebrate Tree canopy accomplishments in Tigard during 2008, the following residents and organizations have been nominated for a Tigard Tree Stewardship Award: ➢ Tigard Friends Church /Phil Thornberg: The success of Tigard's Healthy Streams program depends on the work of volunteers throughout the planting season, many of whom return year after year to assist in restoration efforts. Of particular note is the work of Phil Thornburg and his fellow congregants at Tigard Friend's Church. Each planting season Mr. Thornberg and fellow church members prepare color coded flags to mark the installation location of particular plant species. Over the past two years, the Tigard Friends Church has cut, glued, and prepped over 6,400 flags. Through their work, people of all ages and physical abilities have been able to participate in the restoration of local stream corridors. ➢ Sue Manning: Sue Manning is a native Portlander and has lived in Tigard for the past 6 years. She works as a science teacher at Fowler Middle School in Tigard and serves on the Board of Tualatin River Keepers. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, Ms. Manning serves as the restoration coordinator for the Fowler Woods Project and works with students and Clean Water Services to improve the riparian areas of Summer and Fanno Creek through hands -on environmental education projects. She has also guided her students through the design, planting, and maintenance of a rain garden and bioswale in the Fowler Middle School parking as a model project for other schools and public facilities. These projects have resulted in the planting of trees and other • native plants that the city now benefits from. • ➢ Michael O'Loughlin: Co- founder of Blue Ocean Events, Mr. O'Loughlin produces the Energy Trust Better Living Show, consults with other event producers, and assists in the reinvention of existing lifestyle shows. In his spare time he builds sustainable school gardens, participates in Oregon Green Schools, and chairs the sustainability sector of the Foundation for Tigard Tualatin Schools. Mr. O'Loughlin has been instrumental in the building and operation of environmental literacy projects such as Woodward Gardens at Mary Woodward Elementary School in Tigard. Through these, students are inspired and informed about the elements of science through hands on projects that reinforce classroom lessons and introduce new paths of learning. Mr. O'Loughlin also played an integral role in the City's tree planting at Alberta Rider Elementary School. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Arbor Day PowerPoint Presentation FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \L,RPLN \Arbor Day 2009 \Council Materials \ AIS_Awards.docx 2 3/31/2009 ATTACHMENT 1 • r ` Help Us Celebrate! i . ARBQK DAY Here in Tigard there are many ways to help celebrate Arbor Da} A complete list of events is available at wwwtigard -oegov /trees or • f xv)' J 2 Q � ^� in the April edition of Cityscape Newsletter. • The Giving Tree Revisited with Dave the Faethsinger - All Ages Library Community Room 7 pm. Tuesday, April 21 • ` !Y - T. be City USA .: . x4 tY Growth Award • Tree Care Workshop - Tuesday, April 7, 2009, from 2 -3:30 pm. in Arbor Da Celebratia+ the Library Community Room with Master Arborist Terrence P. ' ti Flanagan, Director of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the r ,,. Celebration Planting International Society of Arboriculture. Tree Stewanishin Awards • Derry Dell Creek Planting - Saturday, April 18, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Meet at the corner of Pathfinder Way and 107th Court. Tree City USA Growth Award • We met the four ' u o •'- P • Tigard is the redpient of a requirements to become t Tree City USA growth award a Tree City USA th e Y for expanded urban forestry ty r efforts including: 8th consecutive year. - - - Publishing tree articles in 8 of 12 Cityscape newsletters i — Recognizing citizens through • We planted 6,878 trees program 41P Awards it r this year in the City's - Adding an urban forest V fated corridors, i" section to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan parka and other - Creating partnerships with C��i design and landscape firms to properties. 7 \, funds d plantin using tree e Arbor Day Celebration 4 Celebration Planting i a `r\ 1 .: ,,..,4 Thank you to the A _ a ` • To celebrate Arbor Day Templeton second grade class who helped and earning the Gro p r�. Award, the City and the s,... v ,,a ".,• Tigard- Tualatin School us plant trees last year I �• District (TT SD) joined on Arbor Day. ? rel. forces to plant over 100 trees on the Alberta Rider Elementary School °• • This year, the second -a . .t . N campus t j, graders at Alberta Rider � +s ". t" • Mayor Dirksen and s. . , � ; Elementary School EE students planted the last `u y helped us plant trees on Day tCelebratioon the Arbor their campus. 1 3/31/2009 Tree Stewardship Tigard Community Friends Church • Thank you to Tigar 'Co.., Community Friends Church for their To further celebrate Tree canopy volunteer toilful) urioils accomplishments in Tigard during 2008, - to tree planting and stream restoration: we would like to recognize the hard work • The assembly of over of Tigard Community Friends Church, - 6,400 flags in the last Michael O'Loughlin, and Sue Manning. two years % • Enabling the participation of all ages and physical abilities Michael O'Loughlin `, Sue Manning v) • Thank you to Michael A • Thank you to Sue ril O'Loughlin for his ° i Manning for her many contributions to the contributions to Tigard's Urban Forest environmental literacy — The restoration of • of Tigard's students Summer and Fowler through: Creeks — The Boding& ardens n, — The environmental ', of Woodward Gardens education of her — Securing funding and students at Fowler partnerships to construct a hr a School garden at Alberta Rider through hands on ,� learning Thank you! ow To all of our volunteers and residents who have planted and cared for trees over the past year. 2 Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Jackson Business Center & Durham Elementary School Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2008- 00013), Zone Map Amendment (ZON2008- 00007), Lot Line Adjustment (MIS2008- 00016), and Minor Modification (MMD2008- 00026). Prepared By: Gary Pagenstecher Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: C C Y I ( 1 ' 9 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map (CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008- 00007) and the associated Lot Line Adjustment (MIS2008- 00016) and Minor Modification (MMD2008- 00026)? No Council Goals are applicable to the subject request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map and approve the associated Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. Specifically, the applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium- Density Residential (R -12) zone to Industrial Park (I -P). The current Comprehensive Plan Designation is Public Institution. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation is Light Industrial. The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces and associated landscaping and screening for the new Business Center parking. The Planning Commission unanimously approved (7 -0) the proposed map amendments, lot line adjustment, and minor modification and recommended approval to the City Council. The City received no public comment on the proposed amendments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A • CITY COUNCIL GOALS Neither the 2009 Tigard City Council Goals nor the Council's 5 -year Goals are applicable to the proposed amendments. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A: February 27, 2009 Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Vicinity Map & Site Plan Exhibit B: "DRAFT" Minutes for March 16, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit C: Applicant's Material FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact associated with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: April 14, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before the City Council on: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00013 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 - 00007 /LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008- 00016 /MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008 -00026 - JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment, and a Minor Modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R-12) zone to Industrial Park (I -P). The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. LOCATION: The property is located at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded by SW Durham Road on the north and Fanno Creek on the south; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S113BA, Tax Lots 200 and 401, respectively. ZONES: R-12: Medium - Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally, and I -P: Industrial Park District. The I -P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small -scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus - like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off -site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I -P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I -P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well- integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian- friendly. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium-Density Residential to Industrial Park APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.740, Historic Overlay, 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off- Street Parking and Loading Requirements; Comprehensive Plan Goal # 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal # 2, Land Use Planning; and Goal # 9, Economic Development; and Goal # 10, Housing. I:\ ADM\ CATHY\ COUNCIL \ CCSignup \PH Testimony QJ COMMUNITY PARTNERS.doc AGENDA ITEM No. 6 April 14, 2009 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address &Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. • Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. • Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Agenda Item No. 6 Jackson Business Center & Durham School Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification April 14, 2009 Statement by City Attorney — Quasi - Judicial Land Use Hearing Procedures A copy of the rules of procedure for today's hearing is available at the entrance. The staff report on this hearing has been available for viewing and downloading on the City's website and a paper copy of the staff report has been available in the Tigard Public Library for the last seven days. The Council's role in this hearing is to make a land use decision under existing laws. The Council cannot change the law for the land use application now under consideration. Any person may offer testimony. Please wait until you are asked to speak by the Mayor and try to limit your remarks to the application standards for the application. Members of the City Council will be asked whether they have any conflicts of interest. If a Council member has an actual conflict, the Council member will not participate. Council members must declare any contacts about this case with a member of the public. Council members must also declare if they have independent knowledge of relevant facts, such as from a visit to the site in question. A Council member who describes ex parte contacts or independent information may still participate in the decision. After the discussion of conflicts and ex parte contacts, any person may challenge the participation of a Council member or rebut any statements made. The Council member in question may respond to such a challenge. Tonight, City staff will summarize the written staff report. Then the parties requesting the application and those in favor of the proposal testify. Next witnesses who oppose the application or who have questions or concerns testify. If there is opposition or if there are questions, the proponents can respond to them. The Council members also may ask the staff and the witnesses questions throughout the hearing until the record closes. After all testimony is taken, including any rebuttal, the proponents can make a closing statement. After the record is closed, the City Council will deliberate about what to do with the application. During deliberations, the City Council may re -open the public portion of the hearing if necessary to receive additional evidence before making a decision. You must testify orally or in writing before the close of the public record to preserve your right to appeal the Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. You should raise an issue clearly enough so that Council understands and can address the issue. Failure to do so precludes an appeal on that issue. Please do not repeat testimony offered by yourself or earlier witnesses. If you agree with the statement of an earlier witness, please just state that fact and add any additional points of your own. (over) Please refrain from disruptive demonstrations. Comments from the audience will not be part of the record. The point is, come to the microphone to get your comments on the tape, otherwise, they won't be preserved for appeal. When you are called to testify, please come forward to the table. Please begin your testimony by giving your name, spelling your last name, and give your full mailing address including zip code. If you represent someone else, please say so. If you have any exhibits you want us to consider, such as a copy of your testimony, photographs, petitions, or other documents. or physical evidence, at the close of your comments you must hand all new exhibits to the City Recorder who will mark these exhibits as part of the record. The City staff will keep exhibits until appeal opportunities expire, and then you can ask for their return. I: \ADM\CATHY\CCA \quasi judicial rules of procedure \Rules of Procedure - City Attorney QJ Statement # 6 - JacksonBusiness Center- Durham School- 2009.doc • EXHIBIT A Agenda Item: 5 r 1 Hearing Date: March 16, 2009 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE aA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON , 120 DAYS = NA SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: C PLAN AND ZONE DURHAM SCHOOL MAP AM DM NT FILE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) CPA2008 -00013 Zone Change (ZON) ZON2008 -00007 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) MIS2008 -00016 Minor Modification (MMD) MMD2008 -00026 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parkin to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site -for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R-12) zone to Industrial Park (I -P). The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces and associated landscaping and screening for the Business Center. Pursuant to the Oregon Cirvuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case Na C074583CV), the School District obtained an aaess easenent across Tax Lot 200 for a new across dri*e to Durham Elementary sdxoL A cr s had l 2 from SW Shaffer Lane under an easement agent Water Clean ter Ser dons (07/52 p � for a period oft Metzger a l an f renerud A settlement agrtenrrn baleen the School District Mr 7quat in this application APPLICANT / Rob Saxton OWNER: David Metzger OWNER Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J Metzger Ventures, LLC 6960 SW Sandburg Street PO Box 400 Tigard, OR 97223 Sherwood, OR 97140 APPLICANT'S WRG Design REP: 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 LOCATION: The property is located at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded yyCounty Durham Map 2S113BA, Tax Lots 2 0 and 401, the espect south; respectively. Assessor's CURRENT ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: R 12(HD): Medium - Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing, types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The purpose of the Historic District overlay is to facilitate the STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008. 00007 /MIS2008- 00016/MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 1 OF 17 • protection enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of such districts which represent or reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. The current Comprehensive Plan Designation is Public Institution. PROPOSED ZONE/ COMP PLAN DESIGNATION: I -P: Industrial Park District. The I -P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small -scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus -like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off -site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I -P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I -P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well- integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian- friendly. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation is Light Industrial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; 18.410 Lot Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review, 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts; • 18.530, Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.740 Historic Overlay, 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off- Street Parking and Hi Loading Requirements; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement; Comprehensive Plan Goals, # 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal # 2, Land Use Planning; Goal # 9, Economic Development); and Goal # 10, Housing. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MINOR MODIFICATION AND SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and /or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 1. Upon approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City to be incorporated into the record. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot fine adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any site permits on the re- configured lots. 2. The applicant shall either apply for a variance to the buffer standards or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening in Table 18.745.2 and Section 18.745.050.B.4, subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008- 00007 /M1S2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 2 OF 17 3. The applicant shall adhere to the tree protection guidelines 1 -7 in the project arborist report dated 11/10/08 before, during, and after construction. As each step is completed, the project arborist shall prepare a documenting report that shall be submitted to the City. 4. The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of tie tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and /or civil citations can be processed. 5. The applicant shall have an on -going responsibility to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (l'PZ) fencing installation through the construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub - contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED MINOR MODIFICATION AND SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL SITE INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and /or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503-639-4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 6. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 7. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall contact the Planning Division (Gary Pagenstecher, 503 -718 -2434) for a final site review to ensure consistency with this land use decision. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History Tax Lot 401 is mostly vacant land, improved with a playground and access to Tax Lot 300 to the west, which is the site of the Durham Elementary School and the historic Durham Center. Staff found the followin g land use decisions applicable to Tax Lot 401: CUP91 -00001 allowed the placement and use of a 2 ortable classroom structure; CUP95 -00006 allowed addition of 39,135 square feet to an existing school of 3,830 square feet; SLR2001 -00001 allowed the use of a 1/3 -acre parcel between Fanno Creek and Durham School as an outdoor nature investigation and observation site; MMD95 -00001 allowed the portable classroom relocation; MMD2000 -00011 allowed an educational structure; MMD2007 -00019 allowed the construction of a replacement playground. Tax Lot 200 to the east of the school site has been improved under the following permits: SDR98 -00004 approved the construction of a 21,000 square foot office /warehouse /manufacturing building (Metzger Building). SDR2000 -00016 approved new construction of a 10,320 square foot addition to the Metzger building (Jackson Business Center). STAFF REPORT TO'1'I F,, PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013 /ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 3 OF 17 Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the School District obtained an access easement across Tax Lot 200 for an access drive permitted under CUP2007- 00004. An agreement between the parties resulted in this application to compensate the owners of Tax Lot 200 for the loss of 11 parking spaces. Vicinity Information The subject site is bounded by Clean Water Services facilities on the south and west, R -12 residential development to the north across SW Durham Road, and commercial /industrial uses on property zoned industrial park adjacent to ODOT railroad right -of -way and Fanno Creek on the east and south. Access to the site is limited to SW Durham Road. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject site is zoned R -12 and I -P, has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Public Institution and Light Industrial, respectively, and is located south of Durham Road between SW Hall and SW 79th Avenue. The site contains the Durham Elementary School built in 1989 and the historic Durham Center. Since 1989, the access to the school was provided by SW Shaffer Lane under an easement agreement across CWS property for a period of 20 years without an opportunity for renewal. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the Medium Density Residential (R -12) zone to Industrial Park (I -P). The zone change also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment from Public Institution to Light Industrial. The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces and associated landscaping and screening for the Business Center. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.380: 18.380.030 Quasi - Judicial Amendments and Procedures to this Title and Map Quasi - judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III -PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection B below. A. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.390. The proposed zone change application to change the zoning on the subject lots from R -12 to I -P also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment from Public Institution to Light Industrial (the Light Industrial designation serves both the I -P and I -L zones). Therefore, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to Council on the proposed zone change application and comprehensive plan map amendment. B. Standards for making quasi- judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi - judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 18.380.030. 13.1 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCFI 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 4 OF 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. The applicant's representative sent out notices to surrounding property owners and neighborhood representatives, posted a sign on the property, and held a neighborhood meeting on October 24, 2008 in accordance with the City of Tigard s neighborhood meeting notification process. According to the minutes of the neighborhood meeting, no people attended. In addition, the City has mailed notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, interested citizens, and agencies, published notice of the hearing in the newspaper, and posted the site pursuant to TDC 18.390.050 for Type III Procedures. With these public involvement provisions and the applicant's documented participation, the proposed zone change is consistent with applicable Citizen Involvement policies. LAND USE PLANNING Goal 2.1 To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and action related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures for reviewing and evaluating land use requests. The comprehensive plan amendment and zone change will be reviewed through the City's Type IV process and will be reviewed in relation to the methodology and intent of the plan, its applicable goals, policies, and the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Amendment criteria. ECONOMY Goal 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Policy 3: The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes adjusting the common lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center anc changing the Medium Density Residential (R -12) zone to Industrial Park (I -P). The area will be developed with 10 parking spaces for the Business Center. Approving the request . through this comprehensive plan amendment application demonstrates the flexibility of the City's land use practices to sustain the existing economic development activity in the Jackson Business Center. HOUSING Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Policy 5: The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in the areas such as town centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square) and along transit corridors where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the future. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013 /ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 5 OF 17 Y ) The subject site is designated medium density and is located adjacent to SW Durham Road, an arterial street on the City's Transportation System Plan. However, historically the subject site has been used for schools as a conditional use in the residential zone. Recent improvements, including the new driveway access, playground, and parking lot improvements demonstrate continued use of the subject site for school purposes. In addition, the amount of land (3,153 square feet) proposed to be rezoned from R -12 to I -P is minimal, representing an area that would support only one single - family dwelling under the R -12 zone. Goal 10.2 Maintain a high level of residential livability. Policy 8: The City shall require measures to mitigate the adverse impacts from differing or more intense Iand uses on residential living environments, such as: A. orderly transitions from one residential density to another; B. protection of existing vegetation, natural resources and provision of open space areas; and C. installation of landscaping and effective buffering and screening. The existing development on Tax Lot 200 (Jackson Business Center) provides a D -2 buffer between the parking lot and the school field to the west in excess of the required C level buffer. The applicant proposes to replace this buffer and screening to the west of the proposed parking spaces. FINDING: As demonstrated above, the proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The change in the Comprehensive Plan Designation from Public Institution to Light Industrial would ensure consistency with the amended zone. 18.380.030.B.2 Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance: The applicant proposes to adjust the lot line between Tax Lots 200 and 401 and to improve the lot line - adjusted area with 10 parking spaces and landscaping as a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center development. The following development standards of the Tigard Development Code apply to these proposed improvements. TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE SITE DEVELOPMENT REIVEW (18.360) Minor modifications of an approved plan or existing developments, as defined in Section 18.360.060, shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.060. Section 18.360.060 of the Tigard Development Code Site Development Review chapter, states; "any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in section 18.360.050 shall be considered a minor modification." Section 18.360.050 states that the Director shall determine that a major modification(s) has resulted if one (1) or more of the changes listed below have been proposed: An increase in dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. The proposed change would replace ten parking spaces to the lot line adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The change would not involve any residential uses. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. The change would not involve any residential uses. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765. STAFF REPORT TO'TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC 1-TEARING CPA2008-00013/ ZON2008-00007/MIS2008-00016/MMD 2008 -00026 PAGE 6 OF 17 l l The proposed change of 10 parking spaces replaces eleven parking spaces removed as a consequence of the District's condemnation proceeding. No additional on -site parking is otherwise required. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The proposed parking does not affect any commercial or industrial structures. This criterion for a major modification is not met. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. The proposed parking does not affect any commercial or industrial structures. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off -site traffic would be affected. Ten parking spaces are proposed for the western edge of the Jackson Business Center property located south of the new driveway to the Durham Elementary School. Construction of these spaces will not affect off -site traffic. This criterion for a major modification is not met. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 100 vehicles per day. The proposed parking is replacement parking. No increase in vehicular traffic is expected as a result of the parking improvement. This criterion for a major modification is not met. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non - residential use by more than ten percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. No floor area is proposed. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and /or usable open space that reduces the open space area below the minimum required by the code or reduces the open space areas by more than ten percent. The previous approval for expansion of the Jackson Business Center (SDR2000- 00016) approved a reduction of the landscaping requirement from 25% to 20 %. The site plan submitted for that expansion included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent modification to the Durham Elementary School access approved through CUP2007-00004 increased the landscaping by an additional 108 square feet for a final landscape percentage of approximately 24 %. This Minor Modification application further increases the amount of the landscaping on the Jackson Business Center property by 593 square feet. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A reduction of project amenities (recreational facilities, screening; and /or, landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by the code or by more than ten percent where specified in the site plan. As discussed in the previous finding, no reduction in open space would occur with the proposed lot line adjustment and parking im rovements. In addition, the applicant proposes to reconstruct the required parking lot landscaped buffer and screening in the lot adjusted area west of the parking lot expansion maintaining the existing landscaping improvement. This criterion for a major modification is not met. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of Site Development Review approval that is not the subject of criteria B1 through 10 above. On review of the original permits (SDR98 -00004 and SDR2000- 00016), the proposed improvements do not modify any of the conditions of approval that are not the subject of above criteria. This criterion for a major modification is not met. STAFF REPORT TO TI -IE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008-00007 /MIS2008- 00016/MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 7 OF 17 A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Director's review based on the finding that 1) The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title, and 2) The modification is not a major modification. FINDING: Pursuant to section 18.360.050 and the analysis above, the proposed parking improvement is a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center development. As reviewed below in this staff report the proposed development is in compliance with all the applicable requirements of this title and maybe approved. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS (18.410) The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; The applicant is a requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between Tax Lot 200 (Jackson Business Center property) and Tax Lot 401(School District property) on tax map 2S113BA. The area of the adjustment is 3,135 square feet. Tax Lot 200 is 2.5 acres and would be 2.57 acres after the adjustment. Tax Lot 401 is 2.79 acres and would be 2.72 acres after the adjustment. An additional parcel is not created by the proposed adjustment. The minimum lot size in the R -12 zone is 3,050 square feet. Therefore, the proposed reduction is consistent with this standard. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; Playground equipment is present in the vicinity of the proposed lot line adjustment on Tax Lot 401. The equipment would be approximately 28 feet from the adjusted line, consistent with the ten foot side yard setback requirement in the R -12 zone. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: a) The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; b) The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation; c) Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right -of -way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15 -foot wide access easement; and d) Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. The width, area, and setbacks of the subject lots are consistent with the standards of their respective zoning districts as described below in the findings for Zoning Districts. Both lots front on SW Durham Road: Tax Lot 401 for approximately 240 lineal feet and Tax Lot 200 for approximately 380 lineal feet, consistent with this standard. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire- fighting capabilities. The applicant does not propose additional access with the existing parking lot layout. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. A common drive is not proposed with this lot line adjustment. The common drive for Tax Lots 200 and 401, approved under CUP2007- 00004, is consistent with this standard. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI -I 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/L0N2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016/MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 8 OF 17 Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress, and Circulation. The common drive for Tax Lots 200 and 401, approved under CUP2007- 00004, is consistent with the Access, Egress, and Circulation standards. 18.410.050 Recording Lot Line Adjustments A. Recording requirements. Upon the Director's approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to adjustment incorporated into the record. B. Time limit. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on the re- configured lots. A condition of approval will ensure the applicant records the lot line adjustment with the County and provides the City with a copy of the survey map in a timely manner. FINDING: As described above, the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the applicable lot line adjustments standards, subject to the following condition of approval. CONDITION: Upon approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to be incorporated into the record. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any .wilding permits on the re- configured lots. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) The list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones presented in Table 18.510.1, includes "non- accessory parking" as a conditional use when associated with transit - related facilities. The proposed use is replacement parking for the existing industrial development caused by the condemnation of a portion of Lot 401 for access to the Durham school. Non - accessory parking is not an allowed use in the R -12 zone; therefore, a lot line adjustment and zone change is sought with this application. All development must Comply with 1) all of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2, and 2) all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. This table is combined with Table 18.530.2, below to show compliance with the applicable development standards. INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.530) A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in industrial zones is presented in Table 18.530.1. Upon approval of the rezoning of the subject site from R -12 to I - the proposed arking lot expansion would be permitted outright in the I -P zone as an accessory use to the existing industrial development. 18.530.040 Development Standards All development must comply with: 1) all of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2, and 2) all other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008- 00007/M1S2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 9 OF 17 STANDARD I -P R -12 PROPOSED MP /SP I- P /R -12 Minimum Lot Size None 3,050 sq. ft. na / 2.72 acres Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. None na Minimum Setbacks Front yard 35 20/15 ft na Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 20/10 ft na Side yard 0/50 10 /5 ft na /28 Rear yard 0/50 20/15 ft na Maximum Height 45 ft. 35 ft. na Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75% [5[ 80% 76 %/<80% Minimum Landscape Requirement 25% [6] 20% 24 %/a 20% [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increasedto 80% if the provisions of Section 1 8.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20% of the site may be approved through the site development review process. The R -12 zoned property is not currently used for multi - family or single- family housing, but includes the access drive and playground equipment for Durham Elementary ScLiool. The proposed adjustment of 3,153 feet does not alter the lot's compliance with the above criteria. The resulting parcel is 2.72 acres in size. Structures on the lot consists of playground equipment, which is located approximately 28 feet from the re- located property line, in compliance with the applicable side yard setback requirement. A majority of the site is used as a field for the elementary school Therefore, the lot remains in compliance with the maximum lot coverage of 80% and the landscape requirements of 20 %. The I -P zoned property is increasing in size with this lot line adjustment to be 2.57 acres. There is no minimum lot size requirement; therefore, this lot is in compliance with the zone. The adjustment does not modify the width of the lot at the street. Therefore the lot remains in compliance with the minimum lot width standard. The structure on the lot remains consistent with the setback requirements of the zone as the adjustment moves the western lot line away from the building increasing the side yard setback. The previous approval for expansion of the Jackson Business Center (SDR2000- 00016) approved a reduction of the landscaping requirement from 25% to 20 %. The site plan submitted for that expansion included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent modification to the Durham Elementary School access approved through CUP2007 -00004 increased the landscaping by an additional 108 square feet for a final landscape ercentage of approximately 24 %. This Minor Modification application further increases the amount of the landscaping on the. Jackson Business center property by 593 square feet. FINDING: As described in analysis above, the proposed project meets the applicable requirements of the respective zoning districts. Other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title are addressed further in this report. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705) No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant submitted a plan set (Exhibit A) and narrative that addresses the access and egress standards, consistent with this standard. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1) Satisfactory legal • evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to estabhsh the joint use; and 2) Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013 /ZON2008- 00007 /M1S2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 10 OF 17 The applicant provided a joint use and maintenance agreement between the School District and Mr. Metzger for the access over the Jackson Business Center property as a condition of approval of CUP2007- 00004. Therefore, this standard has been met. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I 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 site has frontage on SW Durham Road, a public street. The existing access provided through the condemnation proceeding, pursuant to CUP2007- 00004, connects directly with this street at the intersection of SW 79th Avenue, consistent with this standard. FINDING: The proposed parking lot expansion and associated buffer and landscaped screening are consistent with the applicable access, egress and circulation standards. HISTORIC OVERLAY (18.740) 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions Designated areas. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following sites and areas: Historic sites and areas; Cultural sites and areas; and Landmarks A portion of the subject site, Tax Lot 401, is designated R -12 with a Historic Overlay (HD) zone. The Historic District contains the historic Durham Elementary School on an adjacent tax lot approximately 400 lineal feet from the proposed parking lot improvements. Designated activities. The provisions of this chapter apply to the demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; and the exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. FINDING: The proposed lot line adjustment would not affect the historic overlay zone. Upon approval_ -of - the -- lot .- line - adjustment - the - ovelay - zone - would -- continue to apply to— the - -- -- -- - property subsequently zoned I -P. The proposed improvements to the newly zoned site include the expanded parking lot and associated buffer and landscaped screening. Due to the distance from the historic resource and the nature of the improvements, as indicated in the applicant's plan set and narrative, the proposed new construction would not affect the architectural character of the resource, consistent with the purposes and standards of this chapter. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (18.745) Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. Pursuant to the Buffer Matrix in Table 18.745.1, the proposed parking requires C- Level buffering between parking lots and land zoned for residential use. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering_ screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by. the City; The applicant's Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0) shows the proposed berm and landscape area within a 15- foot buffer, in excess of the 6 to 10 foot buffer requirement. A note on the plan states the applicant's intention to conform to the applicable landscape planting, standards. However, the applicant's narrative states that required screening rees would not be planted within the buffer because of a perceived conflict with the existing sequoias. The City's Arborist has commented that the applicant apply for a variance to the buffer standards pursuant to Section 18.745.050.F.2. In addition the City Arborist expressed concern that raising the gr ade behind the trees with a rock wall planter will be cjetrimental to the health of the already heavily impacted sequoias and suggests that the final landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the project arborist and himself. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MA1tCI -I 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA 2008-00013/ZON2008-00007 /MIS2008-00016/ M MD2008-00026 PAGE 11 OF 17 Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features, which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters. The applicant proposes to screen the ten additional parking spaces using a berm and raised planters by moving the existing walls and plantings 20 feet to the west of their current location. By protecting the existing sequoias er the project arborist's recommendations (Tree Care and Landscapes Unlimited, 'Tree Protection Plan, dated November 10, 2008) and incorporating them into the parking lot design as shown in the Grading Plan (Sheet C4.0) and Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0), these standards are met. FINDING: The proposal does not meet all of the requirements of the landscaping and screening chapter. With the following conditions of approval these standards can be met. CONDITIONS: • The applicant shall either apply for a variance to the buffer standards, or submit a revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for buffering and screening in Table 18.745.2 and Section 18.745.050.B.4. subject to review and approval by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. ♦ The applicant shall adhere to the tree protection guidelines 1 -7 in the project arborist report dated 11/10/08 before, during, and after construction. As each step is completed, the project arborist shall prepare a documenting report that shall be submitted to the City. ♦ The applicant shall position fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or , maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and /or civil citations can be processed. ♦ The applicant shall have an on -going responsibili ty to ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Arborist, at least once every two weeks, as the Project Arborist monitors the construction activities from initial tree protection zone (PZ) fencing installation through the construction phases. The reports shall evaluate the condition and location of the tree protection fencing, determine if any changes occurred to the TPZ, and if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. If the reports are not submitted to the City Arborist at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub - contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Arborist and the Project Arborist. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City Arborist. OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements ate to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant has submitted a narrative and site plan (Sheet C3.0) showing how access, egress, and circulation requirements are fulfilled, consistent with this standard. Location of vehicle parking: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008= 00013/ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 12 OF 17 Off - street parking spaces for single - family and duplex dwellings and single - family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off- street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve; measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled - accessible spaces; 2) Short -term spaces; 3) Long -term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long -term spaces. The proposed parking is replacement parking resulting from the School District's condemnation proceeding. The parking is proposed south and adjacent to where the original eleven spaces were removed for the school driveway. Upon adjustment of the proposed lot line, the location for the replacement parking will be on the Jackson Business Center site, consistent with this standard. 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 applicant's narrative, the existing parking lot includes adequate ADA spaces. Pursuant to SDR2000- 00016, a minimum of 41 parking spaces are required. Two existing ADA parking spaces are provided as indicated on the site plan (Sheet C.30), consistent with this standard. DEQ indirect source construction permit: All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; or 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators According to the applicant's narrative, the proposed parking lot will contain a total of 102 spaces. Therefore, standard is not applicable. Excluding single- family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, 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 parking spaces are serviced by a two -way private access drive. The proposed design allows room for vehicles to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required, consistent with this standard. Parking lot landscaping: Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirement of Chapter 18.745 This standard is addressed above in the Landscaping and Screening section of this report. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off - street parking 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's narrative states all areas and parking spaces are marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety, consistent with this standard. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI -I 16, 2009 PUBLIC I- IEARING CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 13 OP 17 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 applicants site plan (Sheet C3.0) does not show any wheel stops in the proposed parking areas. According to the applicant's narrative, proposed parking spaces contain an area 3 -feet deep to be landscaped beyond the curb. The plan set shows the space depth is 18.5 feet to the curb. Therefore, this standard has been met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. The applicant's plans dimension the proposed parking spaces to show that 10 spaces will conform to standard sized spaces. The applicant's site plan shows a 24 -foot wide isle, consistent with this standard. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on -site buildings and /or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi -story residential building. The proposal does not change the size of the floor area on which the number of bicycle spaces is determined. Therefore, this standard is not applicable. 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. The applicant states that, pursuant to SDR2000- 00016, 41 parking spaces are required with no maximum limit for light manufactur uses. The applicant states that the site has 101 parking spaces, consistent with this standard. FINDING: As described above, the off - street parking and loading standards have been met. TREE REMOVAL (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. As required, the applicant submitted a tree plan conducted by Kay Kinyon, a certified arborist. The report contains the four required components, and is therefore acceptable. The applicant identifies six sequoias in the vicinity of the proposed parking area. All six are proposed to be retained and protected under the terms set out in the applicant's arborist report. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 0001 3 /ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016/MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 14 OF 17 Pursuant to 18.790.040, any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. FINDING: Not all of the standards of the Tree Removal Chapter have been met. However, with the following condition of approval, the standards can be met. CONDITION: Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS (18.810) Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 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). The submitted drainage report shows that the existing drainage facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the increased impermeable surface which would result from the proposed additional parking. 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 proposed additional impermeable surface is adjacent to Fanno Creek, so the storm water runoff should be permitted to discharge without detention. STAFF REPORT TO TI -Il E PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC I IEARING CPA2008- 00013 /Z0N2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 15 OF 17 Storm Water Quality: 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. 07 -20) 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. The submitted drainage reports shows that the existing water quality facility was installed with adequate capacity to accommodate the additional impermeable surface. NO additional treatment is required. FINDING: As discussed above, the applicable street and utility standards have been met As reviewed above, the proposed lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 200 and 401, 10 -space parking lot expansion, and landscaping and screening as a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center development is consistent with the applicable Tigard Development Code standards, consistent with Section 18.380.030.B.2. 18.380.030.B.3 Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. FINDING: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, lot line adjustment, and a minor modification to the existing Jackson Business Center site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center when the School District condemned a portion of the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. Pursuant to the Oregon Circuit Court Immediate Possession Order (Case No. C074583CV), the School District obtained an access easement across Tax Lot 2400 for a new access drive to Durham Elementary school. Access had been provided from SW Shaffer Lane under an easement agreement across CWS property for a period of 20 years without an opportunity for • renewal. A settlement agreement between the District and Mr. Metzger included the proposed request in this application. The condemnation proceeding represents a change in the neighborhood, consistent with this standard. C. Conditions of approval. A quasi- judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved or denied. FINDING: The land use action requested is quasi - judicial as it is limited to specific parcels and does not apply generally across the City. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommendation to Council may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions. SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF AND OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Arborist reviewed the proposal and provided comments that have been incorporated in the findings of this report. Clean Water Services reviewed the proposal and determined that the project will not significantly impact the existing or potentially 'existing sensitive areas found near the site. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCI-I 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013 /ZON2008- 00007 /MIS2008- 00016 /MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 16 OF 17 SECTION VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCLUSION: Based on the foregoing findings, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment is consistent wit_z applicable provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, statewide planning goals, Tigard Development Code, and provides evidence of change in the neighborhood as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application and may be approved. In addition, based on the foregoing findings, staff finds that the proposed lot line adjustment and minor modification are consistent with the applicable standards of the Tigard Development Code and may be approved, subject to recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the lot line adjustment and minor modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. c - February 27.2009 PREPARED BY: liGary Pa nstecher DATE Associate Planner ----), , 6 II{JL) .0, V 2------------- _._ February 27, 2009 APPROVED BY: Dick Bewers DATE Planning Ma is \cuipin \gary\ CPA \jacksonDurham Elem(CPA2O08- 00013) staff report STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING CPA2008- 00013/Z ON2008- 00007/M1S2008- 00016/MMD2008 -00026 PAGE 17 OF 17 I #! /11111111111 - -1 11:11±1( VICINITY MAP LANOTI EE ..ST MII6 ill -7 d ttentisssnce Woods y , - - - - - - - - -. ---- II ZS VI 41111 11111V CPA2008- 0001320N2008 -00007 L egg --I' j Rims IN ,� JACKSON BUSINESS CTR. & IMI -� a r i�� ' ' � i� DURHAM ELEM. SCHOOL ii, it ;Z rl i� i� > Il1 PLAN &MAP AMENDMENT >t M - 'e WAY = PATTI 'Mil . � — p A o MMM111111111 ■ I - 11111 , 411111 SOHO s �� ■ �� Subject Site MI f ! Pr! 11111111111111111 IIMP - i INL Ill illioni.• CAROL ANN eT immi ALDER ST__ Lr. . JEW 6 = 1111 p t....„ Illir DURHAM RD 4 4 ___., lir _ 11 ( , .,..I.. 13 Bf 44200 . a 1 2S1t33A44401.T_ ___ - >. STAFFER IN / ou e,a Otis ` G'i :.y -a0 4 - R I vn this map is (or general location 1 Serv .7:".„..„,„-7.--7',..- only and should be verified with the Development ices Division. I �' Seale ante 1:5,066 2 -1 in = 4 22 R �� t Map pd at 8-Jan-09 0:44 AM N' ''' Q&tA IS OERNEO flcOM MUUIPIE SOURCES .TNECn'/OF TIG MANE NO WARRA REpnPS aN OROUA AS TO THE C ONTENf.ACCURAC/. TMElWE550RCOMN.ETENg50FANV DI T14 ' WTA PRONOtD NEREIN. YNECM OF TIGARD SNNLASSUME NO 1 LA8IUTYFORANY ERROPS .OMiS90N5, cR R4NcCuePOiEae THE i NFORfaernNPROO1Oe RnPnRrtE55OFNOWCNISED. f ..:11., st - - -- - --- "' City of T igaM r - - 1 3g 5 S OR 97223 503 6394171 a • �.! _ . .. _ 2ft uv ww.egardcr.gov TIGARD flurttent City t P t - a �� lk i . ¢ • ° r x -_ .► —�� -- j ib • • DURHAM RD. . • :". - -.. : • • • • as • - ) E %I BONO C_ V DSCAPE „A To O REMAIN . _ p I I I) . \\--- EXISTING UNOSCAPE TO REMAIN • ® _ 1 „/ % i' 4 . , • • * ( / F y / METZGER PROPERTY • ?NO SW DURHOM ROAD ( / . r-t.< • ANTIOPATED LIMIT . / 4`••. C ry ' i; OFOISTUR&tCE • DURHAM • V • AT DEFINED BY AREA ELEMENTARY w i } ?•: -'4! OF PROP05£D SVLLS SCHOOL fso ;'... <:.rgr / . . - PROPERTY _ : - %ISTIN EVERGREEN • • O \�"T .• TREE TO R1 $ •• II i :•.::.:}: EEO,W . / • C: PROTEGTTREED I 1OH 4 r-} ;- :.';j: DURING CONSTRUCT" / /, % / / / / / / / /. // / // / / / // /Y /// p� rj;_n•:Z • ACTIVRE9 • PROPOSED FENCE �, - 1 � L /r • • RELOCATED ROOTS PLANTER: •':;<y ) - % ISi LNG DECIDUOUS REPLACE ROCK WALL PLANTERANO I -• : ••` TREE TO REAWN (TYPI IRIUEE EXISTING PUMS TOOTS - • • GREATESTEXTENTPOSSIBLE. `• " T REMAIN NG LANDSCAPE INFILL AS NECESSARY :ATM LIKE TO REMNN ITYPI • PLANTINGS TO PROVIDE COER LETE NOT . • • SCREENING REGUIREMTMTS ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN AREAS RED. OTED OY HATCH ANO ADDITIONAL AREAS DIST URGED. SY EL O CAT UCTIOOACIIYID ES • • . .; j .;, ++ SNAIL SE TOFTI - UWTO P TO THE GONGS IO ROfH PLANER . ...:. AREA WEST OF THE PRO POSED PPTOONG 5rAT15. • • • . [ -- x - - r• r • • ry EXISTING • EXISTING FENCE II SOCCER z ... FlEIA 7 . • y P . • CPA2008- 00013/ZON2008 -00007 JACKSON BUSINESS CTR. & DURHAM ELEM. SCHOOL PLAN & MAP AMENDMENT • EXHIBIT B CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 16, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL , . . Commissioners Present: President Inman; Cormissioners Anderson, Ddherty, Fishel, Hasman, Muldoon, Vermilyea, and AlternateCoissioner \Gaschke Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Caffall, and Walsh Staff Present: Ron Bunch, Community Develo merit , h ector• Dick Bewersdorff ' Planning p g Manager; Todd Prager, City Arborist John Floyd, Assoc Planner; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Doreen Laughlin, Planning CommissioriSecretary 3. COMMUNICATIONS — None. 4. CONSIDERMEETING MINUTES 2 -23 -09 Meeting Minutes: There was a motionby Commissioner Muldoon, seconded by Commissioner Hasman to approv e�the 2 -23 -09 Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted: The motionto :approve the minutes as "submitted passed unanimously on a recorded vote, �F. the Commissioners voted as follows: AYES: :Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Doherty, Commissioner Hasman, Commissioner Inman, Commissioner Vermilyea, and Commissioner Muldoon (5) NAYS: None (0) ABSTAINERS: Commissioner Fishel (1) ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall, and Commissioner Walsh (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 1 of 3 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2008 - 00013 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 - 00007/ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008 - 00016 /MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008 -00026 - JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT- \. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED President Inman read from the Quasi Judicial HearingUG de.'Were were no abstentions or conflicts of interest from the Commissioners. No ex- parte, contacts�w-re reported. No one challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission. Cornmissioner Muldooreported a site visit. Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report onibehalf of the City. [Staff reportsare available for review at the City one week prior to public bearings.] Staff recommends that the Planning C sssion recon rend APPROVAL to City Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Ameri and Zone'Change. Also recommended for APPROVAL are the Lot Line Adjustment andMinor Modification, subject to proposed conditions of approval. QUESTIONS BYtOMMISSI ?ONERS There was a question about` condi tionnumber 2 which states the applicant shall apply for a variance tot he` b uffe standards, revised landscape plan that shows landscaping consistent with the standards for`b%ffering and screening, subject to review and approval by �Y p the Q‘0 :Arborist and the Arb®rist, Pagenstecher referred the question to the applicant!: PRESENTATION I Michelle Symant, a pl'annerSor WRG Design, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She addressed the question about condrti'on number two. She said they had spoken with the project arborist regarding the question and he'd recommended two particular types of trees that will work within the space constraints given. She said they would submit the revised landscape plan to the City Arborist for his review. She anticipates it will work out fine and they probably won't require seeking the variance but they'd like to leave that in should the City Arborist decide those trees won't work. It would leave the option to apply for a variance in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 2 of 3 She noted the area is essentially a 3000 sq ft strip that requires this Comprehensive Plan zone change /lot land adjustment /Minor Modification — a whole series of things for the replacement of 10 parking spaces. She noted some of the conditions applied to requirements to save the Sequoia trees with placement of the parking spaces. She said that will happen. QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT — None President Inman noted that no one had signed up to speak. She asked if anyone present would like to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one present who wished to do either. ,, PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED , k. DELIBERATION \ After short deliberation, there was a motion °by Commissioner Vermilyea, sc e nd by Commissioner Fishel, as follows: `'`' ` "I vote the Planning Commission forward�a recommendation of approval to the City Council of application CPA2008 -00013 /Z ®N 2008 -00007 asset forth in the staff report, as well as Lot Line Adjustment 2008- 00016 the conditionsof approval set forth in the staff report; and Minor Mo fication 2008 "00026 also subject to subject conditions of approval set forth in the sta0eport." ;ate e ". The motion passed unanimously mousl on a recorded vote, the Council voted as follows: AYES: , - , :,Commissioner A C Doherty, Commissioner Fishel, Commissioner H Commissioner Inman, Commissioner o � . Mul and ommissioner Vermilyea (7) NAYS: ' S t. None (0) ; ABSTAINERS: None ( 0f z )y ABSENT: Commissioner Caffall and Commissioner Walsh (2) ; e , try PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — March 16, 2009 — Page 3 of 3 r • ,COMMUNITY NEWSPAPEkS . , . •. • 0805 SE Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • PO Box 22109 Portland OR 97289 -2109 , Phone: 503.884 -0380 Fax: 503- 820.3433 • . . E -mail: legals @sammaewspapers.sam PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: TIGARD . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION . State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council o n I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, I Tuesday April 14, 2009 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center • depose and say that I am the Accounting - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Manager of The Times (serving Tigard, Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing Tualatin & Sherwood), a newspaper of on this matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure general circulation, published at Beaverton, adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Council will in the aforesaid county and state, as defined receive the Planning Commission's recommendation and hold a by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, that public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. I Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard City of Tigard Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at Notice of Public Hearing /CPA 2008 -00013 13125,SW Hall Blvd:, Tigard, Oregon 97223' or by calling 503 - ; TT11273 639 -4171. . A copy of which is hereto annexed, was COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) - published in the entire issue of said 2008- 00013 /ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2008 - 00007/ for LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 2008 - 00016/ newspaper MINOR MODIFICATION (MMD) 2008 -00026 JACKSON 1 BUSINESS CENTER & DURHAM ELEMENTARY week in the following issue I SCHOOL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN March 26, 2009. & ZONING MAP AMENDMENT- elk-R- 1)(76-C I I I REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive . Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment, and Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manage a Minor Modification to the existing Jackson Business Center I site to accommodate the loss of parking to the Business Center Subscribed and sworn to before me this when the School District condemned a portion of`the site for a new access to Durham Elementary. The applicant proposes • March 26, 2009. adjusting the lot line to transfer 3,153 square feet from the School District to the Business Center and changing the 2v.4 � Medium Density Residential (R -12) zone to Industrial Park (I- P). The area dlopi pak spaces f th NOTARY PUBLIC FOR O GON 'Jackson Business will Cen ter eve LOCATI w N: 10 The prope ing is located or e at 7800 and 7950 SW Durham Road. The site is bounded by: My commission expires SW Durham Road on the north and Fanno Creek on the south; Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 2S1 Tax Lots Acct #10093001 200 and 401, respectively. ZONES: R -12: Medium- Density Attn: Patty Lunsford Residential District: • The R -12 zoning district is designed to City of Tigard accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot 13125 SW Hall Blvd size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional Tigard, OR 97223 uses. are also permitted conditionally; and I -P: Industrial Park Ti 9 District. The 'I -P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small -scale Size: 2 x 13.25 commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness Amount Due $221.28* centers,' in a campus -like setting. Only those light industrial *Please remit to address above. uses with no off -site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I . -P zone. In addition' to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the - I =P - zone have been adopted to insure; that developments will he well - integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian- friendly. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium - Density Residential to Industrial Park. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380.020 Zoning Map and Text Amendments, 18.390.050/.060 Decision Making Procedures; ' 18.410 Lot • Line Adjustments; 18.360 Site Development Review; 18.705 ' Access, Egress and, Circulation; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.745 Landscaping and Screening; 18.765, Off - Street Parking and Loading Requirements; Comprehensive Plan. Goal #1, Citizen Involvement; Goal #2, Land Use Planning; and Goal #9, Economic Development; and Goal #10, Housing. • i ' I I I I -1 VICINITY MAP ' ! inMC l_ V 7 ' 1:1 . 11 [ _ l ; -, CPAI00.00.1 0N2300A04G _. y � , ._ r ) t JACIISOdeVSWE --. ' i _a�J ., e ---• -- i,AM 1WAP MEt3DMF.NT 1E L 'GMtCJ x,1.1 s T o �l - - - � i � . - `:cl d B tuuuui CI[Il ,.. 4,`' � i , 1 i rez, IMiMA au r �U� ! ,r) z.i.;_. \r ,, , • ...... i,7.,:-. a ::.:,<,/ gg �' jj jj �� S E` S' / // / w.va�w , ;;,<Xlittr ----- 1 l ,, ` fit � & , wmio . ' RP Publish 03/26/2009. TT11273 JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER DURHAM ELEMENTARY Tigard, Oregon A Land Use Application for: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Zone Change • Property Line Adjustment • Minor Modification to Site Development Review Submitted: November 2008 Applicant: Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Prepared by: WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 503- 419 -2500 503- 419 -2600 TSD6701 This page intentionally left blank. nnvnnne.A 7w1cAO 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT TEAM 3 SUMMARY 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 4 SITE INFORMATION 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 6 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS 6 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 6 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 7 Goal 3: Agricultural Lands 7 Goal 4: Forest Lands 7 Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources 7 Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality 8 Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards 8 Goal 8: Recreation Needs 8 Goal 9: Economy of the State 8 Goal 10: Housing 8 Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services 9 Goal 12: Transportation 9 Goal13: Energy 9 Goal 14: Urbanization 9 Goal 15: Willamette Greenway 9 Goal 16: Estuarine Resources 9 CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10 GOAL 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 10 GOAL 2 LAND USE PLANNING 11 GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES, AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES 16 GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 17 18. 380.030 QUASI - JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS AND PROCEDURES TO THIS TITLE AND MAP 17 18.390.060 TYPE IV PROCEDURE 18 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 20 18.420 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS 20 Request 20 18.410.020 Approval Process 21 18.410.030 Application Submission Requirements. 21 18.410.040 Approval Criteria 22 18.410.050 Recording Lot Line Adjustments 23 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONINGDISTRICTS 24 18.510.050 Development Standards 24 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 25 18.530.040 Development Standards 25 MINOR MODIFICATION TO SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 26 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 26 18.360.060 Minor Modifrcation(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development 26 18.360.050 Major Modification(s) to Approved Plans or Existing Development..._ 26 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 29 18.705.030 General Provisions 29 18.740 HISTORIC OVERLAY 31 18.740.020 Applicability of Provisions 31 Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 1 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 31 18.745.030 General Provisions 31 18.745.040 Street Trees 33 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening 33 18.745.060 Re- vegetation 38 18.765 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 38 18.765.030 General Provisions 38 18.765.040 General Design Standards 40 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 43 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements 43 18.765.080 Off - Street Loading Requirements 45 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 46 18.810.100 Storm Drainage 46 CONCLUSION 47 EXHIBITS A. Plan Set B. Application Form C. Property Deed D. Impact Study E. Neighborhood Meeting Documentation F. Pre - Application Conference Notes G. Site Photos H. Clean Water Services Sensitive Area Pre - Screen I. Arborist Report J. Stormwater report K. Decision for Casefile SDR 2000 -00016 L. Decision for Casefile CUP 2007 -00004 Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 2 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 PROJECT TEAM Applicant Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Owner Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Road Tigard, OR 97223 Metzger Ventures, LLC P.O. Box 40 Sherwood, OR 97140 Planning, Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture WRG Design, Inc. 5415 SW Westgate Dr, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 (503) 419 -2500 (ph) (503) 419 -2600 (fax) Contact: Michele Simantel Legal Counsel Kelly Hossaini Miller Nash, LLP 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Tigard — Tualatin School District 211 3 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 SUMMARY This application requests approval of applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review Approval. The applications are requested in order to provide an additional ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. An application was approved by the City of Tigard in March of 2008 to relocate the access drive for Durham Elementary School from SW Shaffer Lane to SW Durham Road at SW 79' Ave.. (Casefile CUP 2007- 00004) This plan routed the entrance drive into the Elementary School through the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Metzger Ventures, LLC. The placement of this access drive eliminated eleven (11) parking spaces on the Metzger property. As a part of the condemnation settlement for the new access way, the School District agreed to reconstruct ten (10) of the parking spaces that were to be removed. Following is a summary of the requested land use applications: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change: This application seeks to change the comprehensive plan designation and zone on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial Park (IP). This will allow the 3,153 square foot area to be transferred via the requested lot line adjustment from the Durham Elementary School property to the Metzger property to be used as replacement parking for the business park. Lot Line Adjustment: The requested lot line adjustment between the Residential (R -12) zoned Durham Elementary School property and the Industrial Park (IP) zoned Metzger property seeks to transfer 3,153 square feet from the Durham Elementary School property to the Metzger property. This will allow for the construction of ten (10) replacement parking spaces and associated Iandscaping and buffering on the Metzger property. Minor Modification to a Site Development Review: This application seeks to modify the plan approved for the Jackson Business Center addition (City Casefile SDR2000- 00016) through the addition of the ten (10) replacement parking spaces. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The purpose of the proposed applications is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the access drive to Durham Elementary School. The applicant is proposing to construct these ten (10) parking spaces between the existing Giant Sequoia trees along the western boundary of the Jackson Business Center property. An arborist report is provided with the application materials to provide details about the trees and guidance on construction techniques required for the construction of the parking spaces adjacent to the trees. The proposed parking spaces will take access off of the existing 24 -foot access drive located along the western side of the building. There is currently a buffer built to the D -2 buffer standard along the western property line of the Jackson Business Center. Prior approval (Casefile SDR2000- 00016) required the development of a minimum Type C buffer in this location, therefore the existing D -2 buffer exceeds that standard. The applications propose to move the existing raised landscape island and associated landscaping 20 -feet to the west to the new property line. The existing raised landscape islands will be spread out to create a solid berm. The existing landscaping will also be relocated to the property line. If the plants cannot be relocated, new plants will be used. The D -2 buffer, then, will be retained under the new parking configuration. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 4 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Development of the parking spaces will create approximately 2,149 square feet of new impervious area. Runoff from the new proposed impervious area will be conveyed to the water quality facility on the School District's property for treatment. This facility was designed and built to provide treatment for runoff from the Durham Elementary School property, as well as the western one -third of the Metzger property, as required by Casefile 2007 - 00004. This facility was designed with excess capacity. An update to the storm water report prepared for this facility is included with this application demonstrating that the facility has excess capacity to handle the additional impervious area. SITE INFORMATION GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION 7950 SW Durham Road (Durham Elementary Property) 7800 SW Durham Road (Metzger Property) _ TAX LOT 2S113BA TL 401 (Durham Elementary Property) 2S 113BA TL 200 (Metzger Property) SIZE TL 404: 2.79 Acres TL 200: 2.50 Acres Area of Comprehensive /Zone Change: 3,153 ft CURRENT COMP. PLAN AND Residential -12 w/ Historic District Overlay (R- 12(HD)) ZONING (TL 401) CURRENT COMP. PLAN AND Industrial Park (IP) ZONING (TL 200) EXISTING USE (TL 401) Durham Elementary School Campus EXISTING USE (TL 200) Jackson Business Park SURROUNDING USES NORTH Residential Subdivision (Across SW Durham Road) EAST Office /Industrial Buildings SOUTH Clean Water Services Facility WEST Clean Water Services Facility ADJACENT STREETS SW DURHAM ROAD Arterial UTILITIES _ ELECTRIC Portland General Electric WATER City of Tigard GAS Northwest Natural STORM WATER/SANITARY CWS SEWER Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 5 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 t .;, Sr -� - , f, = , 1) Y t - Pit 'tt,' 611 1 rr . ■ - i r �. � ` n. IFn Krr ✓ - .* 9 e • � I l i l _ I f I L i 4 y .l st[ ,is Supine ' II`I Dinh mI�esrat1r11 r , y a { ■ --, .r is rA k r ar.J,a -� st. • I .te+, I ' "b. w + �IC`' ' 44 S r`. ♦ t om • + -* * 1 - .71� - �, �:"'`' • '.4, ' � Vicinity Map N. Tigard Tualatin School Distract jJ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process Response: A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this application on November 12, 2008. There were no neighbors in attendance at this meeting. This meeting was held in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by the City. Attendees were invited via a mailed notice which was sent out to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This meeting gave interested neighbors an Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 6 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 opportunity to offer comments on the plan and to be involved in the project prior to submittal to the City. After submittal of the application to the city, surrounding property owners will receive written notice of the application and will have another opportunity to submit comments to the City as well as an opportunity to provide testimony at the required public hearings. This process meets the requirements for citizen involvement in the land use planning process. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures for reviewing and evaluating land use requests. This Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change will be reviewed through the city's Type IV review process and will be reviewed in relation to the methodology and intent of the Plan, its applicable goals and policies, the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Amendment criteria and any other applicable State statute or administrative rule. GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LANDS To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Response: The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City of Tigard City Limits. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change only effects land currently anticipated to be used for urban uses. Therefore, this amendment will not have an effect on any Goal 3 agricultural lands; therefore this goal is not applicable. GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. Response: The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City of Tigard City Limits. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change only effects land currently anticipated to be used for urban uses. Therefore, this amendment will not have an effect on any Goal 4 forest lands; therefore this goal is not applicable. GOAL 5: OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS AND NATURAL RESOURCES To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Response: The property subject to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is currently zoned Residential R -12 with a historic district overlay. This overlay was placed on the site to recognize the historic Durham Elementary School building which is located at 8040 SW Durham Road, west of the area subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. This building was constructed in 1920 and is significant due to its association with early Oregon pioneer and businessman Albert Durham. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is located approximately 350 feet from the historic building and the minimal nature of the change will have Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 7 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 no effect on the historic elementary school building. There are no Goal 5 designated open spaces or natural areas located on the subject property. GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures preserving the quality of the air, water and land resources within the City. The proposed amendment is a de minimis change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zone on 3,153 square feet of property and will have no effect on the air, water or land resources of the City. GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS To protect people and property from natural hazards. Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and provides goals, policies and procedures as it relates to protection from natural disasters and hazards such as floods and landslides. A review of City mapping shows that there are no designated hazard areas on the subject property. GOAL 8: RECREATION NEEDS To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Response: The City of Tigard has over 300 acres of parks, greenways and natural areas, providing a variety of options for recreation, while protecting the area's natural beauty and providing valuable wildlife habitat. This de minimis Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change proposal will not alter the provision of park spaces or the need for park spaces within the City. GOAL 9: ECONOMY OF THE STATE To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change will allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. These parking spaces will help ensure the continued functioning of the business center as a viable industrial park use, as they are requested in order to replace ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School entrance. The de minimis nature of the propose change will not affect the City's overall inventory of commercial and industrial lands, but will help with the business operations of the Jackson Business Center. GOAL 10: HOUSING To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change seeks to change the designation of 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial Park (IP). The change will not affect the City's provision of land for necessary housing due to the fact the residentially zoned Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 8 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 property is used for an elementary school campus. Additionally, the de minimis nature of the change will not affect the overall provision of residentially zoned property within the City. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Response: The City maintains an infrastructure of public facilities and services to support urban development. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan addresses the provision of Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Community Facilities. The de minimis nature of the proposed change will not affect the provision of or need for public facilities within the City. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Response: The City's Transportation System Plan has been adopted and found to be in compliance with this goal. The de minimis nature of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change will not affect compliance with this goal. GOAL 13: ENERGY To conserve energy. Response: The City has adopted Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures to ensure compliance with this statewide planning goal. This de minimis change to the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zone on 3,153 square feet of property will not affect the City's compliance with this goal. GOAL 14: URBANIZATION To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Response: The site is located within the City of Tigard UGB. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change will not affect the size or location of the UGB. The de minimis change proposed to the Comprehensive Plan and Zone will not affect the City's compliance with this Goal. GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE GREENWAY To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. Response: The subject site is not located within the Willamette River Greenway; therefore this goal is not applicable. GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long -term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. Tigard Tualatin School District 23J 9 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The subject site does not include any estuarine resources; therefore this goal is not applicable. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Goal: 1.1 Provide citizens, affected agencies and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Response: A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this application on November 12, 2008. There were no neighbors in attendance at this meeting. This meeting was held in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by the City. Attendees were invited via a mailed notice which was sent out to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. This meeting gave interested neighbors an opportunity to offer comments on the plan and to be involved in the project prior to submittal to the City. After submittal of the application to the city, surrounding property owners will receive written notice of the application and will have another opportunity to submit comments to the City as well as an opportunity to provide testimony at the required public hearings. This process meets the requirements for citizen involvement in the land use planning process. Policies: 1. The City shall maintain a Committee for Citizen Involvement representative of a broad cross - section of the Community to: 2. The City shall define and publicize an appropriate role for citizens in each phase of the land use planning process. 3. The City shall establish special citizen advisory boards and committees to provide input to the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff. 4. The City shall provide staff and financial support to the Committee for Citizen Involvement and any other appointed board or committee. 5. The opportunities for citizen involvement provided by the City shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and shall involve a broad cross- section of the community. Response: The proposal set forth by the applicant to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning on 3,153 square feet of property does not alter the City's initiatives to maintain and involve a Committee for Citizen Involvement. The proposed application has followed the City's prescribed process for citizen involvement. Goal: 1.2 Ensure all citizens have access to: A. opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. information on issues in an understandable form. Response: The neighborhood meeting held on November 12 gave citizens an opportunity to hear about the proposal and ask questions of the applicant. The City will send a notice to these same Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 10 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS :1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 neighbors who were invited to the neighborhood meeting. This notice will provide the citizens an opportunity to comment directly to the city regarding their comments on the application. Policies: 1. The City shall ensure pertinent information is readily accessible to the community and presented in such a manner that even technical information is easy to understand. 2. The City shall utilize such communication methods as mailings, posters, newsletters, the internet, and any other available media to promote citizen involvement and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used. 3. The City shall work to maximize citizen involvement through education and accessibility. 4. The City shall ensure citizens receive a timely response from policymakers regarding recommendations made through the citizen involvement program. 5. The City shall seek citizen participation and input through collaboration with community organizations, interest groups, and individuals in addition to City sponsored boards and committees. 6. The City shall provide opportunities for citizens to communicate to Council, boards and commissions, and staff regarding issues that concern them. Response: This proposal does not alter the City's efforts to provide clear and accessible information to the citizens. This application has followed the City's established citizen involvement program including holding a neighborhood meeting, posting the site, and will be followed by mailed notice to the neighbors. The citizen involvement tools utilized with this application help to ensure clear communication with the neighbors and interested parties. GOAL 2 LAND USE PLANNING Goal: 2.1 Maintain an up -to -date Comprehensive Plan, implementing regulations and action plans as the legislative foundation of Tigard's land use planning program. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). This is a de minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's Comprehensive Plan as a whole, it's implementing regulations or action plans. Policies: 1. The City's land use program shall establish a clear policy direction, comply with state and regional requirements, and serve its citizens' own interests. 2. The City's land use regulations, related plans, and implementing actions shall be consistent with and implement its Comprehensive Plan. 3. The City shall coordinate the adoption, amendment, and implementation of its land use program with other potentially affected jurisdictions and agencies. 4. The City's land use program shall promote the efficient use of land through the creation of incentives and redevelopment programs. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 11 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 5. The City shall promote intense urban level development in Metro - designated Centers and Corridors, and employment and industrial areas. 6. The City shall promote the development and maintenance of a range of land use types which are of sufficient economic value to fund needed services and advance the community's social and fiscal stability. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). This is a de minimis change that does not alter the plan's compliance with state or regional requirements. 7. The City's regulatory land use maps and development code shall implement the Comprehensive Plan by providing for needed urban land uses including: A. Residential; B. Commercial and office employment including business parks; C. Mixed use; D. Industrial; E. Overlay districts where natural resource protections or special planning and regulatory tools are warranted; and F. Public services. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). Overall, the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the zoning map and will not alter the zoning or land uses in the area in any significant way. The purpose of the zone change is simply to re- establish the parking that was present on the IP property prior to construction of the new school access. 8. The City shall require appropriate public facilities are made available, or committed, prior to development approval and are constructed prior to, or concurrently with, development occupancy. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change is requested so that ten (10) replacement parking spaces can be constructed for the Jackson Business Center. A Minor Modification application is submitted concurrently for development of these parking spaces. Public facilities have been constructed providing access to the proposed parking spaces. Runoff from the new proposed impervious area will be conveyed to the water quality facility on the School District's property for treatment. This facility was designed and built to provide treatment for runoff from the Durham Elementary School property, as well as the western one -third of the Metzger property, as required by Casefile 2007 - 00004. This facility was designed with excess capacity. An update to the storm water report prepared for this facility is included with this application in Exhibit J demonstrating that the facility has excess capacity to handle the additional impervious area. 9. The City may, upon determining it is in the public interest, enter into development agreements to phase the provision of required public facilities and services and /or payment of impact fees and /or other arrangements that assure the integrity of the infrastructure system and public safety. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 12 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: There is no public infrastructure necessary to serve the 3,153 square foot area subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change. The subject area will be used for development of 10 replacement parking spaces for the Jackson Business Center. A development agreement will not be necessary. 10. The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other public facility systems. Response: The applicant will pay all related fees as established by the City's fee schedule. 14. Applicants shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that land use applications are consistent with applicable criteria and requirements of the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan and, when necessary, those of the state and other agencies. Response: This narrative document provides findings demonstrating compliance with the applicable provisions of the City of Tigard Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and the State of Oregon Land Use Goals. 15. In addition to other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies deemed applicable, amendments to Tigard's Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map shall be subject to the following specific criteria: A. Transportation and other public facilities and services shall be available, or committed to be made available, and of sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed map designation; Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. Overall, the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the comprehensive plan and zoning map and will have no impact on the transportation or other public facility and service needs of the area. B. Development of land uses allowed by the new designation shall not negatively affect existing or planned transportation or other public facilities and services; Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. Overall, the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the comprehensive plan and zoning map and will have no impact 011 the transportation or other public facility and service needs of the area. C. The new land use designation shall fulfill a proven community need such as provision of needed commercial goods and services, employment, housing, public and community services, etc. in the particular location, versus other appropriately designated and developable properties; Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. An application was approved by the City of Tigard in March of 2008 to relocate the access drive into Durham Elementary School. This plan routed the entrance drive into the Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 13 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Elementary School through the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Metzger Ventures, LLC. The placement of this access drive eliminated eleven (11) parking spaces on the Metzger property. As a part of the condemnation settlement for the new access way, the School District agreed to reconstruct ten (10) of the parking spaces that were to be removed. This Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change would serve the need of the business center to have these parking spaces replaced and ensure the continued viability of the Industrial Park use of the site. D. Demonstration that there is an inadequate amount of developable, appropriately designated, land for the land uses that would be allowed by the new designation; Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change applies to 3,153 square feet of property. This is a de minimis change to the plan, is particular to the unique circumstances of the two involved properties, and therefore will have no effect upon the availability of residential or industrial land. E. Demonstration that land uses allowed in the proposed designation could be developed in compliance with all applicable regulations and the purposes of any overlay district would be fulfilled; Response: A site plan showing the layout of the proposed parking spaces, landscaping and screening and buffering in compliance with the provisions of the development code, has been submitted with this application. F. Land uses permitted by the proposed designation would be compatible, or capable of being made compatible, with environmental conditions and surrounding land uses; and Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. The existing land uses will not change and have already been made compatible with the existing environmental conditions and surrounding land uses. The de minimis increase in square footage of the Industrial Park property and attendant decrease in square footage of the residential property will have no measurable affect on existing environmental conditions or surrounding land uses. G. Demonstration that the amendment does not detract from the viability of the City's natural systems. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change applies to 3,153 square feet of property. This is a de minimis change to the plan, therefore will have no effect upon the viability of the City's natural systems. 16. The City may condition the approval of a Plan /Zoning map amendment to assure the development of a definite land use(s) and per specific design /development requirements. Response: The applicant understands that conditions of approval may be attached to the Plan/Zone map amendment decision. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 14 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 17. The City may allow concurrent applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Map(s) and for development plan approval of a specific land use. Response: The application requests approval of concurrent applications for a comprehensive Plan amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review, as allowed by this policy. 18. The Council may at any time, upon finding it is in the overall public interest, initiate legislative amendments to change the Comprehensive Plan text, Plan/Zoning Map(s) and /or the Community Development Code. 19. The Planning Commission may at any time recommend to the City Council that it consider initiating legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan /Zoning Maps, and /or Community Development Code. 20. The City shall periodically review and, if necessary, update its Comprehensive Plan and regulatory maps and implementing measures to ensure they are current and responsive to community needs, provide reliable information, and conform to applicable state law, administrative rules, and regional requirements. Response: This Comprehensive Plan and Zone Amendment is initiated by the property owner. 21. The City shall require all development to conform to site design/development regulations. Response: The applicant is requesting a Minor Modification to a Site Development Review application concurrent with the requested Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change application. The findings relating to this application will ensure that the parking spaces and landscaping to be built conform to the applicable site design/development regulations. 23. The City shall require new development, including public infrastructure, to minimize conflicts by addressing the need for compatibility between it and adjacent existing and future land uses. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is requested to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P) to allow the redevelopment of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center lot. The use adjacent to the area proposed for the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change is zoned R -12 and is developed with Durham Elementary School. According to the decision for casefile SDR200O -00016 located in Exhibit K, a Type C buffer is required between residential and industrial zoned properties; however the residential zoned property is used for an institutional use. The buffer at this property line is currently built to a D -2 standard including 15 feet of landscaping and a 4.5 foot decorative rock wall and fence. The development plan included with this application shows that the applicant will relocate the current 15 -foot buffer to the west of the proposed parking spaces. This will maintain the current buffer configuration. Goal: 2.2 To enlarge, improve and sustain a diverse urban forest to maximize the economic, ecological, and social benefits of trees. Goal : Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 15 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 2.3 To balance the diverse and changing needs of the City through well designed urban development that minimizes the loss of existing trees to create a living legacy for future generations. Response: The 3,153 square foot area proposed for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change does not include any trees. The amendment is requested so that ten (10) parking spaces can be replaced on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The parking spaces will be placed between existing Giant Sequoia trees. An arborist report has been obtained to ensure that these trees can remain with the addition of the parking spaces. GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES, AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES Goal: 5.2 Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant resources. Policies: 1. The City shall actively promote the protection and preservation of historic and cultural resources and consider the development and implementation of new culturally significant resources, and cooperate with organizations involved in their protection. Response: The property subject to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is currently zoned Residential R -12 with a historic district overlay. This overlay was placed on the site to recognize the historic Durham Elementary School building which is located at 8040 SW Durham Road, west of the area subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. This building was constructed in 1920 and is significant due to its association with early Oregon pioneer and businessman Albert Durham. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change area is located approximately 350 feet from the historic building and the minimal nature of the change will have no effect on the historic elementary school building. GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal : 9.1 Develop and maintain a strong, diversified, and sustainable local economy. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). This is a de minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's economy or the overall provision of Industrial or Residential zoned property. The change will allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These spaces are necessitated to replace parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive, which was aligned through the Jackson Business Center property. The re- establishment of these spaces will assist with the function of the business center, as parking is a key component to making such a use successful. Policies : 3. The City's land use and other regulatory practices shall be flexible and adaptive to promote economic development opportunities, provided that required infrastructure is made available. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). This is a de Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 16 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's economy or the overall provision of Industrial or Residential zoned property. 6. The City shall promote actions that result in greater, more efficient, utilization of its Metro - designated Employment and Industrial Areas. Response: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change will allow for the replacement of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These spaces are necessitated to replace parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive, which was aligned through the Jackson Business Center property. The re- establishment of these spaces will assist with the function of the business center, as parking is a key component to making such a use successful. Goal: 9.3 Make Tigard a prosperous and desirable place to live and do business. Policies: 2. The City shall adopt land use regulations and standards to ensure a well designed and attractive urban environment that supports /protects public and private sector investments. 4. The City shall allow opportunities for home based businesses that are compatible with existing and planned residential living environments. Response: The proposed application seeks to amend the City's comprehensive plan to change the designation on 3,153 square feet of property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial (I -P). This is a de minimis change and will not have an effect on the City's economy or the overall provision of Industrial or Residential zoned property. The change will allow for the development of ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These spaces are necessitated to replace parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive, which was aligned through the Jackson Business Center property. The re- establishment of these spaces will assist with the function of the business center, as parking is a key component to making such a use successful. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.380.030 QUASI - JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS AND PROCEDURES TO THIS TITLE AND MAP A. Quasi - judicial amendments. Quasi - judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III -PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection D below. The approval authority shall be as follows: 1. The Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan map amendments; 2. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a comprehensive plan map amendment; and 3. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.390. Tigard — Tualatin School District23J 17 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The proposal includes a zone change with concurrent application for a comprehensive plan amendment, therefore the council will be the decision making body for the application. B. Standards for making quasi - judicial decisions. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi - judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; Response: The applicable policies of the comprehensive plan are addressed herein. 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and Response: The applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code are addressed herein. 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. Response: There has been a change in the neighborhood due to the relocation of the elementary school's access from Shaffer Lane to Durham Road at 79th. This relocation required removing eleven (11) parking spaces from the IP property. The purpose of this Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Change request is to add enough land to the Industrial property to replace ten (10) of those eleven (11) parking spaces This will ensure that the Industrial property remains viable for the established Industrial Park use. As a part of the condemnation agreement between the School District and Mr. Metzger for the access relocation, the School District is required to replace these parking spaces. The proposed location is the only viable location for replacement of these spaces, therefore this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is required. Additionally, if the lot line adjustment is approved and the comprehensive plan and zone is not changed on the 3,153 square foot area, there would be an inconsistency on the zoning map as it relates to the Jackson Business Center property in that it would be split- zoned. Overall, the zone change request is a de minimis revision to the zoning map and will not alter the zoning or land uses in the area in any significant way. The purpose of the zone change is simply to re- establish the parking that was present on the IP property prior to construction of the new school access. C. Conditions of approval. A quasi - judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by Section 18.390.050. A legislative decision may be approved or denied. Response: The applicant understands that the proposed quasi-judicial application may be denied, approved, or approved with conditions. 18.390.060 TYPE IV PROCEDURE A. Pre- Application conference. A pre - application conference is required for all Type IV actions. The requirements and procedures for a preapplication conference are described in Section 18.390.080C. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 18 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: A pre - application conference was held on October 16, 2008. B. Timing of requests. The Director shall receive proposed Type IV actions twice yearly. A completed application shall be submitted not more than 75 days and not less than 45 days before the first commission meeting in April and October. The Director may waive any of the above periods. Response: In conversations with the Tigard Planning Department, it is understood that the application will go to the planning commission after staff review and notice and then to the City Council for decision. C. Application requirements. 1. Application forms. Application forms. Type IV applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director as provided by Section 18.390.080 El; Response: The appropriate application forms were submitted with this application. 2. Submittal Information. The application shall: a. Contain the information requested on the form; b. Address the appropriate criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; and d. Be accompanied by 18 copies of the narrative. Response: The application package submitted included all of the required information. D. Notice of hearing. 1. Required hearings. Two hearings, one before the Commission and one before the Council, are required for all Type IV actions, except annexations where only a hearing by the City Council is required. Response: The applicant understands that a hearing before the Commission and one before the City Council is required for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone change application. 2. Notification requirements. Notice of the public hearings for the request shall be given by the Director in the following manner: a. At least ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date, notice shall be sent to: (1) The applicant; (2) Any affected governmental agency; (3) The individual recognized by the affected CIT as the official contact person; and (4) Any person who requests notice in writing and pays a fee established by Council resolution. b. At least ten business days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 19 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 c. The Director shall: (1) For each mailing of notice, cause an affidavit of mailing to be filed and made a part of the record as provided by Subsection a; and (2) For each published notice, cause an affidavit of publication to be filed and made part of the record as provided by Subsection b. 3. Content of notice. The notice given to persons entitled to mailed or published notice pursuant to this section shall include the following information: Response: The applicant understands that the Director will mail notice to the appropriate parties as required by this Code. G. Decision - making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 5. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. Response: This narrative includes findings addressing the applicable regulations and policies listed above to assist in the decision making of the Commission and Council. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 18.420 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS REQUEST The Applicant is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between Tax Lots 200 and 401 on Map 2S113BA. The area of the adjustment is 3,153 feet. The following narrative demonstrates compliance with the applicable provisions within the City of Tigard Community Development code. The following table depicts the existing and proposed lot sizes of the two involved tax lots: Table 1: Existing and Adjusted Lot Sizes Existing Adjusted Tax Lot 200 109,081 ft 2.50 Acres 112,234 ft / 2.57 Acres Tax Lot 401 121,786 ft 2.79 Acres 118,633 ft / 2.72 Acres This lot line adjustment is requested concurrent with applications for a Minor Modification to a Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 20 WRG Design, Inc, PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Site Development Review and is subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change submitted for the subject property. 18.410.020 APPROVAL PROCESS A. Decision - making process. Lot line adjustments shall be reviewed by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.410.040. Response: The proposed lot line adjustment has been submitted meeting the requirements for the Type I procedure. The applicable approval criteria of Section 18.410.040 are addressed below. B. Time limit on approval. The lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1 -1/2 years from the date of approval. Response: The applicant will record the property line adjustment with the County within one and a half years after the date of approval. C. Lapsing of approval. The lot line adjustment approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. The lot line adjustment has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; or 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. Response: The applicant will record the lot line adjustment with Washington County meeting all of the conditions attached to the approval. The recorded adjustment will substantially match the approved plan. D. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: Response: If an extension is necessary, the applicant shall follow the appropriate procedure for applying for such an extension. 18.410.030 APPLICATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS A. General submission requirements. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall include information required for a Type I application, as governed by Chapter 18.390. Response: The City's lot line adjustment application form has been completed and submitted with this application. This application package includes all of the information required for a Type I application. B. Specific submission requirements. All applications shall include the preliminary lot line map and necessary data or narrative, detailed information for which shall be obtained from the Director. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 21 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The lot line adjustment application package includes the preliminary lot line adjustment map and the narrative, as required. 18.410.040 APPROVAL CRITERIA A. Approval criteria. The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; Response: The following table depicts the existing and proposed areas of the two parcels involved with the proposed lot line adjustment application: Table 2: Existing and Adjusted Lot Sizes Existing Adjusted — Tax Lot 200 109,081 ft 2.50 Acres 112,234 ft / 2.57 Acres Tax Lot 401 121,786 ft 2.79 Acres 118,633 ft / 2.72 Acres As shown in the table above, Tax Lot 401 is proposed to be reduced in size by 3,152 square feet, for a resulting size of 2.72 acres. The minimum lot size for the Residential R -12 zone, within which this parcel is located, is 3,050 square feet. The resulting parcel size remains well above the minimum acreage, in compliance with this standard. 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; Response: The only structures located on Tax Lot 401, which is decreasing in size, is the playground equipment for Durham Elementary School. These structures are located over 20 feet from the proposed lot line, meeting the requirements for setbacks in the Residential R -12 zone. Compliance with the applicable standards of the R -12 zone are addressed below in Sections 18.510 and 18.530. 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: a. The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district; b. The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation; c. Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right -of -way by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15 -foot wide access easement; and d. Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Tigard Tualatin School District 23J 22 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The resulting dimensions of the lots as proposed meet the requirements of the respective zones. Compliance with these standards is demonstrated in response to Sections 18.510 and 18.530, below. 4. With regard to flag lots: Response: There are no flag lots proposed or affected by the proposed lot line adjustment. 5. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire - fighting capabilities. Response: There are no new accessways proposed with this lot line adjustment. 6. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. Response: There are no common drives proposed with this lot line adjustment application. 7. Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress, and Circulation. Response: There are no new accessways proposed with this lot line adjustment application. B. Exemptions from dedications. A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right -of -way dedication is required Response: There are no floodplain, greenway or right -of -way dedications required. C. Variances to development standards. An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. Response: There are no variances to development standards proposed with this lot line adjustment application. 18.410.050 RECORDING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS A. Recording requirements. Upon the Director's approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, the applicant shall record the lot line adjustment with Washington County and submit a copy of the recorded survey map to the City, to be incorporated into the record. Response: The applicant will record the lot line adjustment with Washington County after approval by the City of Tigard. A copy of the recorded survey will be provided to the City for incorporation into the record. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 23 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 B. Time limit. The applicant shall submit the copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey map to the City within 15 days of recording and shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits on the re- configured lots. Response: The applicant will provide a copy of the recorded lot line adjustment survey to the City within 15 days of recording at Washington County. 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.510.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: The proposed lot line adjustment application will not alter either lot's ability to meet the development standards of the underlying zone. The development standards applicable to the R -12 and the I -P zone are addressed below. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. 18.510.2 Development Standards in Residential Zones R -12 STANDARD MF DU* SF DU ** Minimum Lot Size 3,050 3,050 sq.ft. - Detached unit sq.ft. per unit ' per unit - Attached unit - Duplexes - Boarding, lodging, rooming house Average Lot Width None None Minimum Setbacks 20 ft 15 ft. - Front yard 20 ft. 10 ft. - Side facing street on corner & through lots 10 ft. 5 ft. [1] - Side yard- Rear yard 20 ft. 15 ft. - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning 30 ft. 30 ft. district 20 ft. 20 ft. - Distance between property line and garage entrance Maximum Height 35 ft. 35 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage {21 _ _ 80% 80% Minimum Landscape Requirement 20% 20 % [ 1 ] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. * Multiple - family dwelling unit ** Single - family dwelling unit Response: The R -12 zoned property is not currently used for multi - family or single family housing, but includes the access drive and playground equipment for Durham Elementary School. The proposed adjustment of 3,153 feet does not alter the lot's compliance with the above criteria. The resulting parcel Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 24 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 is 2.72 acres in size. Structures on the lot consist of playground equipment. This equipment is placed approximately 28 feet from the re- located property line, in compliance with the setback requirements. A majority of the site is used as a field for the elementary school; therefore the lot remains in compliance with the maximum lot coverage of 80% and the landscape requirement of 20 %. 18.530 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.530.040 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Compliance required. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370. Response: The applicable standards of the I -P zone are addressed below. 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. Response: All applicable provisions relating to a the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to Site Development Review are contained herein. B. Development Standards. Development standards in industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: 18.530.2 Development Standards in Industrial Zones STANDARD I -P Minimum Lot Size _ None _ Minimum Lot Width _ 50 ft. Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 35 ft. - Side facing street on corner &through lots [1] 20 ft. - Side yard 0 /50 ft [3] - Rear yard 0/50 ft. [3][4] - Distance between front of garage& property -- line abutting a public or private street Maximum Height 45 ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 % [5] Minimum Landscape Requirement 25 % [6] [ 1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied. [2] Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3] No setback shall be required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. [4] Development in industrial zones abutting the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80% if the provisions of Section 18.530.050.B are satisfied. [6] Except that a reduction to 20% of the site may be approved through the site development review process. Response: The I -P zoned property is increasing in size with this lot line adjustment to be 2.57 acres in size. There is no minimum lot size requirement; therefore this lot is in compliance with the zone. The adjustment does not modify the width of the lot at the street; therefore the lot remains in compliance with the minimum lot width standard. The structure on the lot remains consistent with the setback requirements of the zone, as the adjustment moves the western lot line away from the building, increasing the side yard setback. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 25 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 The previous approval for expansion of the Jackson Business Center, City Casefile SDR 2000 -00016 decision located in Exhibit K, approved a reduction to the landscaping requirement from 25% to 20 %, and an increase to the maximum site coverage requirement from 75% to 80 %. The site plan submitted for that expansion included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent modification to the Durham Elementary School access approved through Casefile 2007 -00004 (decision located in Exhibit L) increased the landscaping by an additional 108 square feet, for a final landscape percentage of approximately 24 %. This Minor Modification application further increases the amount of landscaping on the Jackson Business center property by 593 square feet. MINOR MODIFICATION TO SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.060 MINOR MODIFICATION(S) TO APPROVED PLANS OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT A. Minor modification defined. Any modification which is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 18.360.050 shall be considered a minor - modification. Response: The evaluation criteria for a major modification are addressed below. This change does not meet the threshold for a major modification, per the criteria; therefore a minor modification is requested. B. Process. An applicant may request approval of a minor modification in accordance with Section 18.360.030B and as follows: 1. Providing the Director with three copies of the proposed modified site development plan; and 2. A narrative which indicates the rationale for the proposed modification addressing the changes listed in Section 18.360.050B. Response: The application package includes copies of the proposed modified site development plan as well as this narrative which addresses the rationale for the modification and the evaluation criteria located in Section 18.360.050B. C. Approval criteria. A minor modification shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied following the Director's review based on the finding that: 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title; and 2. The modification is not a major modification. Response: This narrative addressed the applicable requirement of the City of Tigard Development Code as well as the evaluation criteria for a major modification. 18.360.050 MAJOR MODIFICATION(S) TO APPROVED PLANS OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT B. Evaluation criteria. The Director shall determine that a major modification(s) will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 26 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 1. An increase in dwelling unit density, or lot coverage for residential development; Response: The proposed change would replace ten (10) parking spaces to the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The changed does not involve any residential uses. This criterion for a major modification is not met. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units; Response: The proposed modification does not include any residential dwelling units; therefore, this criterion for a major modification is not met. 3. A change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.765; Response: The proposed modification seeks to add ten (10) parking spaces on the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. These parking spaces are requested in order to replace eleven (11) spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the Durham Elementary School access. The proposed modification itself does not require any additional on -site parking, but is the replacement of on -site parking previously removed; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code; Response: The proposed modification does not alter the existing industrial structure; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 %; Response: The proposed modification does not alter the existing structure; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off -site traffic would be affected; Response: The requested modification seeks to replace ten (10) parking spaces along the western edge of the adjusted Jackson Business Center property. The replacement area for the parking spaces is located south of the new elementary school driveway and will not interfere or alter on or off -site traffic in any way; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 100 vehicles per day; Response: The additional parking spaces are requested in order to replace parking for the existing traffic that comes to the site and will not generate any additional vehicular traffic to and from the site; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a nonresidential use by more than 10% excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet; Tigard — Tualatin School District23J 27 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The proposed modification does not alter the existing structure; therefore this criterion for a major modification is not met. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and /or usable open space which reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than 10 %; Response: Casefile 2000 -00016 (decision located in Exhibit K), the Jackson Business Center Addition, reduced the landscaping requirement on the site to 20 %. The findings for that application indicate that the landscaping plan for the development included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding the modified requirement. The subsequent application filed for modification of the access to Durham Elementary School, Casefile 2007 -00004 (decision located in Exhibit L), increased the landscaped area on the Jackson Business Center property by 108 square feet, for a final landscape percentage of 24 %. This proposal includes a concurrent application to adjust the property line between the Jackson Business Center property and the Durham Elementary School property. The total area of this adjustment is 3,153 square feet. 2,742 square feet of this adjusted area will be developed with landscaping, while 412 square feet of the adjusted area and 1,737 square feet of the current Jackson Business Center property (for a total of 2,149 square feet) will be developed with the ten (10) requested parking spaces. This results in a net gain of 593 square feet of landscaping on the Jackson Business Center property. Therefore, there is no reduction to the minimum common open space requirement for this parcel. This criterion for a Major Modification is not met. 10. A reduction of project amenities below the minimum established by this code or by more than 10% where specified in the site plan: a. Recreational facilities; b. Screening; and /or c. Landscaping provisions. Response: There are no recreational facilities currently provided on the Jackson Business Center property, therefore there is no change to any recreational facilities. There is currently a 15 -foot landscaped buffer built to the D -2 standard. This buffer will be moved to the west and will continue to be at least 15 -feet in width. The relocated buffer will include all of the landscape elements that are currently provided; therefore there will be no reduction in the provided screening. Casefile 2000 -00016 (decision located in Exhibit K), the Jackson Business Center additions, reduced the landscaping requirement on the site to 20 %. The findings for that application indicate that the landscaping plan for the development included 23% landscaping, thereby exceeding this modified requirement. The subsequent application filed for modification of the access to Durham Elementary School, Casefile 2007 -00004 (decision located in Exhibit L), increased the landscaped area on the Jackson Business Center property by 108 square feet, for a final landscape percentage of 24 %. This proposal includes a concurrent application to adjust the property line between the Jackson Business Center property and the Durham Elementary School property. The total area of this adjustment is 3,153 square feet. 2,742 square feet of this adjusted area will be developed with landscaping, while 412 square feet of the adjusted area and 1,737 square feet of the current Jackson Business Center property (for a total of 2,149 square feet) will be developed with the ten (10) requested parking spaces. This results in a net gain of 593 square feet of landscaping on the Jackson Business Center property. Therefore, there is no Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 28 WRG Design, Inc. PDXD0CS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 reduction to the minimum common open space requirement for this parcel. This criterion for a Major Modification is not met. 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of site development review approval which are not the subject of B1 through 10 above of this subsection. Response: A review of the conditions of approval from Casefile SDR98 -00004 and SDR2000- 00016, included in the pre - application meeting notes, found that the proposed modification to allow for ten (10) replacement parking spaces will not require modification to any existing conditions of approval. All conditions of approval will continue to be met. Therefore, this criterion for a major modification is not met. C. When the determination is made. Upon determining that the proposed modification to the site development plan is a major modification, the applicant shall submit a new application in accordance with Sections 18.360.030 and 18.360.070 for site development review prior to any issuance of building permits. Response: The findings to the eleven (11) major modification evaluation criteria demonstrate that the proposal does not meet the threshold for a major modification and can therefore be processed as a minor modification. 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Continuing obligation of property owner. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. Response: The Applicant will continue to provide maintenance of access and egress stipulated in this title on a continuing basis. B. Access plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: A site plan is included in the Development Plan Set in Exhibit A. The ten (10) replacement parking spaces proposed along the western boundary of the adjusted lot will be accessed off of the existing 24' access drive which provides access to existing parking spaces located along the western side of the building. C. Joint access. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and 2. Copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 29 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City or Tigard November 2008 Response: A joint access agreement was completed between the School District and Mr. Metzger. See Casefile 2007 -00004 (decision located in Exhibit L). This Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Property Line Adjustment and Minor Modification do not alter this agreement in any way. D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.030I 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. Response: The proposed parking spaces will be accessed off of a 24 -foot access drive. This access drive leads directly to Durham Road, a Public Street. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N. Response: There are no new curb cuts proposed with this application. F. Required walkway location. On -site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Response: The proposed parking spaces will not affect any of the existing on -site pedestrian walkways. H. Access Management 1. An access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO (depending on jurisdiction of facility.) Response: There are no new driveways or streets proposed with this application; therefore an access report is not required. The new parking spaces will take access off of an existing 24 -foot access way. J. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use. 1. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for commercial and industrial use shall not be less than 21 as provided in Table 18.705.3; Response: The Industrial /Office Site is an industrial use and has two driveway access points that are a minimum 30 feet wide as prescribed by Table 18.705.3. This application does not propose any changes to the accessways. K. One -way vehicular access points. Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one - way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. Response: The access way from which the proposed parking spaces will be accessed is a 24 -foot, two -way travel lane. There are no one -way vehicular access points proposed. L. Director's authority to restrict access. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: Response: There will be no increase in traffic produced by the proposed additional parking spaces. No causes or increases to existing hazardous traffic conditions are anticipated. Adequate access for emergency vehicles exists. There are no revisions proposed to any of the existing access locations. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 30 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 18.740 HISTORIC OVERLAY 18.740.020 APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS A. Designated areas. The historic overlay district shall apply to the following sites and areas: 1. Historic sites and areas; 2. Cultural sites and areas; and 3. Landmarks. B. Designated activities. The provisions of this chapter apply to: 1. The demolition of structures within an historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030; and 2. The exterior alteration or new construction within the historic overlay zone area, as governed by Section 18.740.030. Response: The School Site is an elementary school campus comprised of a total of four taxlots, which includes the historic overlay on the two school campus lots zoned R -12. The historic structure on -site is not being altered or impacted by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Property Line Adjustment or parking improvements. The Historic Overlay criteria are not applicable. 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Obligation to maintain. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and his agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which shall be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, shall be replaced or repaired as necessary, and shall be kept free from refuse and debris. Response: The owner will provide for the maintenance of all landscaping and screening which will be maintained in good condition so as to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance, and will be replaced or repaired as necessary, and will be kept free from refuse and debris. B. Pruning required. All plant growth in landscaped areas of developments shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that: 1. It will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; 2. It will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and 3. It will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. Response: The owner understands that all plant growth in landscaped areas of the development shall be controlled by pruning, trimming or otherwise so that; it will not interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; it will not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access; and it will not constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. C. Installation requirements. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures; Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 31 WRG Design, inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 2. The plant materials shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z60, 1 -1986, and any future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. Response: All landscaping will meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock, and will be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. D. Certificate of Occupancy. Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirements have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the City such as the posting of a bond. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. E. Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around individual trees). Response: All precautions will be undertaken to ensure the health and survival of existing vegetation to be saved. Fencing will be installed around the areas that will be undisturbed by the addition of the parking spaces. Please refer to the Development Plans in Exhibit A. F. Care of landscaping along public rights -of -way. Appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials shall be provided by the owner of the property abutting the rights -of -way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. Response: The Owner will and has been utilizing the appropriate methods for the care and maintenance of street trees and landscaping materials abutting the rights -of -way unless otherwise required for emergency conditions and the safety of the general public. G. Conditions of approval of existing vegetation. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. Response: This application is for a Minor Modification to Site Development Review. The Applicant understands that standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. II. Height restrictions abutting public rights -of -way. No trees, shrubs or plantings more than 18 inches in height shall be planted in the public right -of -way abutting roadways having no established curb and gutter. Response: There is no additional landscaping proposed adjacent to the right -of -way. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 32 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543 1 City of Tigard November 2008 18.745.040 STREET TREES A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. Response: The proposed modification to replace ten (10) parking spaces along the western boundary of the adjusted Jackson Business Center property will not affect any existing street trees, nor are any additional street trees required due to the addition of the parking spaces. 18.745.050 BUFFERING AND SCREENING A. General provisions. 1. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a development site, without unduly interfering with the view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians and vehicles; 2. Buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this chapter (Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right -of -way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix; 3. In lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. Response: According to a review of previous approvals (specifically casefile 2000 - 00016, decision located in Exhibit K), a Type C buffer is required to be maintained along the western boundary of the Jackson Business Center and Durham Elementary. The current buffer is built to a D -2 standard being 15 -feet in with a row of mature Giant Sequoia trees, raised landscape islands between the trees and a fence. This buffer will be reconstructed along the new property line. The concurrent Property Line Adjustment application requests adjustment of a portion of the western boundary of the Jackson Business Center property to the west 20 feet. This adjustment allows for replacement ten (10) parking spaces between the existing Giant Sequoia trees. The raised planter islands and the fence will be moved out and reconstructed between the proposed parking spaces and the property line. The raised planter beds that are currently 4 feet in height between the Sequoia trees and associated vegetation will be moved 20 -feet back and reconstructed into a solid berm with landscaping. In essence, the existing buffer configuration will remain, which is greater than is otherwise required. B. Buffering and screening requirements. 1. A buffer consists of an area within a required setback adjacent to a property line and having a depth equal to the amount specified in the buffering and Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 33 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 screening matrix and containing a length equal to the length of the property line of the abutting use or uses; Response: According to Table 18.745.2 of the Tigard Development Code, a Type C buffer provides three (3) options. The first option is a ten (10) foot wide buffer with shrubs and four (4) foot hedges. The second option requires an eight (8) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a five (5) foot fence. The third option requires a six (6) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a six (6) foot wall. All of the options require trees to be planted with minimum spacing of 15 feet and maximum spacing of 30 feet. The requested property line adjustment proposed to move the western property line of the Jackson Business Center to the west 20 feet. This would provide 15 feet of buffer width between the parking spaces and the property line. This area will be planted with shrubs and other plantings as is currently provided in raised planter beds. The existing 6 foot fence along the property line will be relocated to the new property line. There will be no additional trees planted within the 15 -foot buffer, as the existing Giant Sequoia trees prevent the success of trees planted within such close proximity. The Giant Sequoia trees will continue to act as a screen, although not located directly within the 15- foot buffer area. 2. A buffer area may only be occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City; Response: The 15 foot buffer between the proposed parking spaces and school district property will include landscaping and a fence. The parking spaces are located outside of the 15 foot buffer area. 3. A fence, hedge or wall, or any combination of such elements, which are located in any yard is subject to the conditions and requirements of Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D; Response: A chain link fence is provided around the School Site. This fence is necessary for the security of the school and the safety of the students. The chain link fence is provided in accordance with Sections 18.745.050.B.8 and 18.745.050.D. Please see the site plan in Exhibit A for the exact location of the relocated fencing. 4. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of combinations for landscaping and screening as specified in Table 18.745.1. In addition, improvements shall meet the following specifications: a. At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall have a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height above grade for deciduous trees and a minimum height of five feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing for trees shall be as follows: (1) Small or narrow - stature trees, under 25 feet tall or less than 16 feet wide at maturity shall be spaced no further than 15 feet apart; (2) Medium -sized trees between 25 feet to 40 feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 34 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 (3) Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity, shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart. b. In addition, at least 10 five- gallon shrubs or 20 one - gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; c. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. Response: The buffer provided between the new parking spaces and the adjusted property line is 15 feet in width, exceeding the requirement of 6 -10 feet for a Type C buffer which is required. There are existing Giant Sequoia between the proposed parking spaces. These trees are large enough as to prevent successful planting of additional trees within the new 15 foot buffer. The Giant Sequoia trees are large enough to provide screening, although they will no longer be located directly within the buffer area. 5. Where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering: a. A hedge of narrow or broad leaf evergreen shrubs shall be planted which will form a four -foot continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years of planting; or b. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials shall be provided which will form a continuous screen of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 within two years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover; or c. A fence or wall of the height specified in Table 18.745.2 shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. Response: The existing raised planters and evergreen planting that serve as the current Type C buffer will be moved west to serve as the new buffer. This will provide an earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials, per option b above. 6. Buffering and screening provisions shall be superseded by the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.795; Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. 7. When the use to be screened is downhill from the adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot height at the discretion of the director as a condition of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the required height impractical, a detailed landscape /screening plan shall be submitted for approval; Response: There are no grade issues to take into consideration in measurement of the screening elements. 8. Fences and walls a. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls such as wood, stone, rock or brick, or otherwise acceptable by the Director; b. Such fence or wall construction shall be in compliance with other City regulations; Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 35 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543 1 City of Tigard November 2008 c. Walls shall be a minimum of six inches thick; and d. Chain link fences with slats shall qualify for screening. However, chain link fences without slats shall require the planting of a continuous evergreen hedge to be considered screening. Response: A chain link fence is provided around the perimeter of the Durham Elementary School campus and will be moved to the adjusted property line. This is a 6 -foot chain link fence and is not used as screening but as a necessary securing measure for the school. 9. Hedges a. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight- obscuring fence where required subject to the height requirement in Sections 18.745.050.C.2.a and 18.745.050.C.2.b; b. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping, or a fence when it ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring view; and c. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by these regulations for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as set forth in Chapter 18.795. Response: There are currently berms or raised planters between each of the Giant Sequoia trees along the western property line of the Jackson Business Center. These berms will be moved west to the new property line and will be planted with evergreen shrubs. C. Setbacks for fences or walls. 1. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the standards in Section 18.745.050.C.2 except when the approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater than otherwise permitted to mitigate against potential adverse effects; 2. Fences or walls: a. May not exceed three feet in height in a required front yard along local streets or eight feet in all other locations and, in all other cases, shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; b. Are permitted up to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated arterial or collector street. For any fence over three feet in height in the required front yard area, permission shall be subject to administrative review of the location of the fence or wall. 3. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area requirements in Chapter 18.795; 4. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall be subject to building permit approval. Response: A 3 -foot high chain link fence is currently located on the property line between Durham Elementary School and the Jackson Business Center. This fence will be relocated to the new property line, as it is required for security purposes for the school. D. Height restrictions. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 36 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 1. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade, except that where parking, loading, storage or similar areas are located above finished grade, the height of fences, walls or landscaping required to screen such areas or space shall be measured from the level of such improvements; 2. An earthen berm and fence or wall combination shall not exceed the six -foot height limitation for screening. Response: The earthen berms proposed do not exceed the six -foot height limitation. E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: (1) Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planters; (2) Landscape planters may be used to define or screen the appearance of off - street parking areas from the public right -of -way; (3) Materials to be installed should achieve a balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees; (4) Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and (5) The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Response; The proposed parking spaces will be located between the existing Giant Sequoia trees. These trees and the re- located berm and plantings serve as a screening between the proposed parking area and the R -12 zoned school district property. 2. Screening of service facilities. Except for one - family and two - family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Response; The existing screening for the service facilities will not be affected by this modification. 4. Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two - family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 37 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:17825411 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: Existing screening for the refuse containers will not be affected by this modification. F. Buffer Matrix. 1. The Buffer Matrices contained in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2 shall be used in calculating widths of buffering /screening and required improvements to be installed between proposed uses and abutting uses or zoning districts; 2. An application for a variance to the standards required in Tables 18.745.1 and 18.745.2, shall be processed as a Type II procedure, as regulated by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.010. Response: According to Table 18.745.2 of the Tigard Development Code, a Type C buffer provides three (3) options. The first option is a ten (10) foot wide buffer with shrubs and four (4) foot hedges. The second option requires an eight (8) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a five (5) foot fence. The third option requires a six (6) foot wide buffer with shrubs and a six (6) foot wall. All of the options require trees to be planted with minimum spacing of 15 feet and maximum spacing of 30 feet. The requested property line adjustment proposed to move the western property line of the Jackson Business Center to the west 20 feet. This would provide 15 feet of buffer width between the parking spaces and the property line. This area will be planted with shrubs and other plantings as is currently provided in raised planter beds. The existing 6- foot fence along the property line will be relocated to the new property line. There are existing Giant Sequoia between the proposed parking spaces. These trees are large enough as to prevent successful planting of additional trees within the new 15 foot buffer. The Giant Sequoia trees are large enough to provide screening, although they will no longer be located directly within the buffer area. 18.745.060 RE- VEGETATION A. When re- vegetation is required. Where natural vegetation has been removed... Response: No natural vegetation will be removed. This criterion is not applicable. B. Preparation for re- vegetation. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction... Response: No topsoil will be removed in preparation for re- vegetation since no natural vegetation will be removed. This criterion is not applicable. C. Methods of re- vegetation.... Response: Re- vegetation is not required. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Vehicle parking plan requirements. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. Response: The Applicant understands this criterion. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 38 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 B. Location of vehicle parking. The location of off - street parking will be as follows: 2. Off - street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 500 feet from the property line that they are required to serve, measured along the most direct, publicly accessible pedestrian route from the property line with the following exceptions: a. Commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 500 feet from the primary site; b. The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled - accessible spaces; 2) Short -term spaces; 3) Long -term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long -term spaces. Response: The parking already exists on -site. The removal of the eleven (11) spaces left the Jackson Business Center with 91 spaces on site, which meets code requirements. However, the replacement parking must be provided on the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Mr. Metzger, through the condemnation agreement between Mr. Metzger and the School District. The proposed and existing parking is located upon the same property that it will serve. This criterion is met. C. Joint parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1. The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. Response: The replacement parking will serve the Jackson Business Center and will be located on the same lot. No joint parking areas are proposed. This criterion does not apply. D. Parking in mixed -use projects... Response: This is not a mixed -use project. This criterion does not apply. E. Visitor parking in multi - family residential... Response: This is not a multi - family residential project. This criterion does not apply. F. Preferential long -term carpool/vanpool parking... Response: No long -term parking is proposed. This criterion does not apply. G. 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. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 39 WRG Design, Inc. PDXD0CS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: Sufficient ADA Parking for this site already exists on -site, and no additional ADA spaces are requested with this application. H. DEQ indirect source construction permit. All parking lots containing 250 spaces or parking structures containing two or more levels shall require review by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to: 1. Acquire an Indirect Source Construction Permit; 2. Investigate the feasibility of installing oil and grease separators. Response: A total of 102 parking spaces will be available on this site. This criterion is not applicable. 18.765.040 GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS A. Maintenance of parking areas. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. Response: The owner will maintain the parking lot in good repair at all times. B. Access drives. With regard to access to public streets from off - street parking: 1. 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; 2. The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 3. 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; 4. Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; 5. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and 6. Excluding single - family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, 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. Response: There are no modifications to accessways proposed with this application. The proposed parking spaces will take access off of an existing 24 -foot drive isle. C. Loading /unloading driveways. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place... Response: This site does not include a school. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. D. On -site vehicle stacking for drive -in use... Response: No drive -in uses exist or are proposed at this time. This criterion does not apply. E. Curb cuts. Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. Response: No new curb cuts are required as a part of this minor modification. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 40 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 F. Pedestrian access. Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop -off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow- moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop -off edges. Response: No drop -off grade separation exists. This criterion does not apply. G. Parking lot landscaping. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745. Response: The ten (10) replacement parking stalls will be located between the existing Giant Sequoia trees. Additional landscaping will be provided in the area west of the parking spaces in the foam of the buffer and screening area. This area provides 15 -feet of buffering between the business park and the elementary school. All other parking lot landscaping will remain. H. Parking space surfacing. 1. Except for single - family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in 18.765.040.H.3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; 2. Off - street parking spaces for single and two - family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; 3. Parking areas to be used primarily for the storage of fleet vehicles or construction equipment may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the site development approval is given. The Director may require that the property owner enter into an agreement to pave the parking area: a) within a specified period of time after establishment of the parking area; or b) if there is a change in the types or weights of vehicles utilizing the parking area; or c) if there is evidence of adverse effects upon adjacent roadways, water courses, or properties. Such an agreement shall be executed as a condition of approval of the plan to establish the gravel parking area. Gravel- surfaced parking areas may only be permitted consistent with the following: a. Gravel parking areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any residentially -zoned or residentially - developed area; b. Gravel access and /or parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any water course; c. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any public right -of -way; and d. A driveway which connects a gravel parking area with any public street shall be paved. 4. Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a temporary use may be surfaced in gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel- surfaced parking is warranted: Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 41 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 a. The request for consideration to allow a parking area in conjunction with the temporary use shall be made in writing concurrently with the Temporary Use application per the requirements of Section 18.385.050; b. The applicant shall provide documentation that the type of temporary use requested will not be financially viable if the parking space surface area requirement is imposed; and c. Approval of the gravel- surfaced parking area will not create adverse conditions affecting safe ingress and egress when combined with other uses of the property. Response: All parking areas are currently surfaced with asphalt, or will be surfaced with asphalt. This criterion has been met. I. Parking lot striping. 1. Except for single - family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off - street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Response: All interior drives, parking spaces, and access aisles are clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The new parking spaces will be striped. This criterion is met. J. 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. Response: The proposed parking spaces are located along the boundary of the parking lot adjacent to the landscape buffer. The front three feet of the parking stall will be planted with low - lying landscaping, in accordance with this standard. K. Drainage. Off - street parking and loading areas shall be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur except for single - family and duplex residences, off - street parking and loading facilities shall be drained to avoid flow of water across public sidewalks. Response: The new off - street parking and loading areas will be drained in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer to ensure that ponds do not occur. This criterion is met. L. Lighting. A lights providing to illuminate any public or private parking area or vehicle sales area shall be arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. Response: Lighting already exists on site and is arranged to direct the light away from any adjacent residential district. No new lighting is proposed with this modification. M. Signs. Signs which are placed on parking lots shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 18.780, Signs. Response: There is no new signage proposed with this modification. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 42 WRG Design, Inc. PDXD0CS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 N. Space and aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) 1. Except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2, the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: a. 8.5' x 18.5' for a standard space; b. 7.5' x 16.5' for a compact space; and c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces; d. The width of each parking space includes a stripe which separates each space. 2. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width; 3. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall's length and width, aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined as noted in Figure 18.765.2. Response: The proposed parking spaces measure 8.5'wide by 18.5 feet long, per the requirements for standard parking spaces. Each space will be demarcated with striping. The aisle serving the new parking spaces allows two direction traffic and is 24 feet in width. 18.765.050 BICYCLE PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS A. Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 1. Bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; 2. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on -site buildings and /or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; 4. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi -story residential building. Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect bicycle parking; therefore this criterion is not applicable. 18.765.070 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF - STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS B. Choice of parking requirements. When a building or use is planned or constructed in such a manner that a choice of parking requirements could be made, the use which requires the greater number of parking spaces shall govern. Response: A total of 91 parking spaces are currently provided on the site. This is less the eleven (11) parking spaces that had to be removed due to the relocation of the driveway for Durham Elementary School. The applicant is requesting this modification to replace ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were removed, for a total of 101 parking spaces. A total of 41 parking spaces minimum are required per the approved SDR2000- Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 43 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 00016 (decision located in Exhibit K). There exists no maximum parking requirement for the Light Industrial Zone according to Table 18.765.2. This criterion is met. C. Measurements. The following measurements shall be used in calculating the total minimum number of vehicle parking spaces required in Section 18.765.070.11: 1. Fractions. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space; 2. Employees. Where employees are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the employees counted are those who work on the premises during the largest shift at the peak season; 3. Students. When students are specified for the purpose of determining the minimum vehicle parking spaces required, the students counted are those who are on the campus during the peak period of the day during a typical school term; 4. Space. Unless otherwise specified, where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. Response: A minimum of 41 parking spaces are required per the approved SDR2000 -00016 (decision located in Exhibit K). There exists no maximum parking requirement for the Light Industrial Zone according to Table 18.765.2. This criterion is met. D. Exclusions to minimum vehicle parking requirements. The following shall not be counted towards the computation of the minimum parking spaces as required in Section 18.765.070.H: 1. On- street parking. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement except; Religious Institutions may count on- street parking around the perimeter of the use provided that the following criteria have been satisfied: a. The on- street parking is on a street that is designed and physically improved to accommodate parking within the right -of -way; b. The street where on- street parking is proposed is not located on local residential streets. Response: No exclusions to the minimum vehicle parking requirements are proposed. This criterion does not apply. 2. Fleet parking. Required vehicle parking spaces may not be used for storage of fleet vehicles... Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. E. Exceptions to maximum parking standards. When calculating the maximum vehicle parking allowed as regulated by Section 18.765.080.H, the following exception shall apply: 1. The following types of parking shall not be included: a. Parking contained in a parking structure either incorporated into a building or freestanding; b. Market -rate paid parking; Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 44 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 c. Designated carpool and/or vanpool spaces; d. Designated disabled - accessible parking spaces; e. Fleet parking. 2. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than six parking spaces for a development with less than 1,000 gross square feet of floor area, the development shall be allowed up to six parking spaces. If application of the maximum parking standard would result in less than 10 vehicle parking spaces for a development between 1,000 and 2,000 gross square feet, the development will be allowed up to 10 vehicle parking spaces. Response: There is no maximum parking standards for light industrial uses, per Table 18.765.2, therefore no exceptions are sought. This criterion does not apply. F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking... Response: No reductions are sought. This criterion is not applicable. G. Increases in maximum required vehicle parking. The Director may increase the total maximum number of vehicle spaces allowed in Section 18.765.070.H by means of a parking adjustment to be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in section 18.370.020.C.5.d. Response: No increases in maximum required parking have been proposed. This criterion does not apply. 18.765.080 OFF - STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS A. 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. Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not applicable. B. 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 turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; 3. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at 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. Response: No changes are proposed to this site that would affect this criterion. This criterion is not Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 45 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 applicable. 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS 18.810.100 STORM DRAINAGE A. General provisions. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: 1. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; 2. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to flood any street; and 3. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every development proposal plan. Response: Runoff from the new proposed impervious area will be conveyed to the water quality facility on the School District's property for treatment. This facility was designed and built to provide treatment for runoff from the Durham Elementary School property, as well as for the western one -third of the Metzger property, per Casefile 2007 -00004 (decision located in Exhibit K). This facility was designed with excess capacity. An update to the storm water report prepared for this facility is included with this application in Exhibit 3 demonstrating that the facility has excess capacity to handle the additional impervious area. B. Easements. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right -of -way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance. Response: Fanno Creek is located southeast of the site. The site is not traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel or stream. This criterion does not apply. C. Accommodation of upstream drainage. 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, and: 1. 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Response: All accommodations for upstream drainage have already been designed and constructed. The proposed parking spaces will not adversely affect any upstream drainage. D. Effect on downstream drainage. 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments). Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 46 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard November 2008 Response: The downstream drainage capacity will not be affected. The run -off from the proposed parking spaces will be treated before outfall into Fanno Creek in the southeastern portion of the site. CONCLUSION The Applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Property Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review. The above narrative and the attached exhibits set forth evidence meeting all applicable criteria and standards set forth in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Development Code as well as applicable goals set forth by the State of Oregon. The applicant respectfully requests approval of the proposed applications, as development of the proposed parking spaces will allow development of ten (10) parking spaces required to replace those removed with the access relocation for Durham Elementary School. Tigard — Tualatin School District 23J 47 WRG Design, Inc. PDXDOCS:1782543.1 City of Tigard No ember 2008 CD II I ij i VI 5 1 1 METZGER PARKING RECONSTRUCTION _ 8. • r., d I 1 - ig 1 „ ... 1 . DURHAM ELEMENTARY . cgz g o g o .. Tigard Oregon F • • • • ROSS RD. I 11 • ES a a GENT . • E • g r _� _ SHEET INDEX y.1)1 I,. • tlC I \ �" CO.D COVER SHEET' ,. a., • • DST. FORD . PROJECT ".. = °�— °° c�.o EXISTING CONDmONS/D +no PLAN t.tiauN li. G D. :- •.a m . HAMLET ' x " - 18 .- _ $T. • - W • 0 --- -_- ._.�.�� , - . , C2.0 - BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT . N. VICINITY --�- . ,. A c3.0 SITE PLAN Z '� • ry O1 UR DURHAM RD. C4.0 • GRADING PLAN 0 WN5T P . a $ a El LP _� ..'....,1;.::,,c- I� 11.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN I DURHAM'''. .�rj / -_._..__.-; f' ' 1fht a ... , iI' '2 c2 " 1 "Er, -N 1111,:,' ,9 , IlIGHScHotx a SEWAGE Fauna ? FIGARD TREA : f i - N 0 FLAW Pg , °p[i) .i' Cj 2 0.4aiellf . DURHAM ,� Z U Er VIC MAP • �i / / � N NOT TO SCALE /r : , • 1 CC i -, — Z = �. . r 0 A ...... Y U ra oo . CC • DATUM:' �•# g Z ELEVATION DATUM: NGSV 1929 BENCHMARK: 2" BRASS DISK & _ 1 el: rrs • • LOCATION: CL MON BOX DURHAM 85TH AVE. AVE 1 - LOCATION MAP ;% _ _ _ W D C3 ELEVATION: 179.155 FEET CITY BM TY OF TIGARD /66 - - • - - - s CC WASHINGTON COUNTY OM$178 • SCALE N.T.S. N UTILITY STATEMENT: • . . SURVEYOR MA NO THE UUNDERG OUND UTILf11ES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH�U � - - - - ] r Q � - EITHER 1N SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER ODES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND ES SHOWN - "'"""• l..J Q ARE IN 510 EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOE5 CERTIFY THAT THEY. ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS UTIUTI - � � O • I I"' POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSGALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROU UI1UI1 ND ES. UNDERGROUND ACCURACY STATEMENT: DUE W THE HAZARDOUS NATURE AND APPUCABLE OSHA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CONFINED SPACES, IT IS MG POLICY TO F- NOT SEND OUR FIELD STAFF INTO UTIUTY MANHOLES TO RETRIEVE DEPTH AND SIZE INFORMATION. THEREFORE, ANY ' ELEVATION INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS SUBJECT TO AN UNCERTAINTY IN ACCURACY OF PLUS OR MINUS 5.2' OR GREATER (DEPENDING OK DEPTH, SIZE, FLOW, AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLE). PIPE SIZES ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO AN . - UNCERTAINTY OF SIX INCHES OR MORE (DEPENDING ON DEPTH, SIZE, FLOW,• AND CONSTRUCTION OF MANHOLE). ,F A HIGHER • OREGON UTILITY - • ACCURACY IS NEEDED, THEN ADDITIONAL TIME, EQUIPMENT. AND PERSONNEL WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO INTO THE MANHOLE - - AND RETRIEVE THIS INFORMATION. - NOTIFICATION CENTER. - , 1-800.332.2344 BASIS OF BEARINGS: -• s w THE BEARING OF SOUTH 86'42'31' EAST ALONG THE CENTERUNE OF SW DURHAM ROAD (COUNTY ROAD #23) AS SHOWN ON Il dPp08B 'I ' ' RECORD OF SURVEY 26,866 AND 26.194 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. - • . PROECT N0 TSDBTOL00 g DATE 11107!06 i I • PROJECT TEAM DESx TIED [3Y: GBM DRAWN BY: GSM OWNER LAND USE PLANNER/CONTACT CIVIL EN R SURVEYOR ARBORIST LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - • CHEMED BY AMR Tigard Tualatin School District 23J • WRG Design, Inc WRG Design, Inc - - WRG Design, Inc. • Tree Care &Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. WRG Design, Inc 6960 SW Sandberg Road 5015 SW Westgate Drive, Sul*e 100 - 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 5415 SW Wes(gato Ddvo, Sulte 100 PO Box 1566 5415 SW Westgate Drive, SuI1e 100 • - _ Tigard, Oregon 97223 Portland, Oregon 97221 Portland, Oregon 07221. Portland, Oregon 97221 - - Lake Oswego, Oregon 970.5 Portland, Oregon 97221 COVER ' - (503) 431 - (503) 419 - 2500 (503) 419 - 2500 (503) 419.2500 (503) 535 - 3185' . (503) 419 - 2500 (503) 431 .4047 fax (503) 419 -2600 fax (503) 419-2600 fax (503) 419.2600 fax Contact Raymond Myer. (503) 419 -2690 fax • Contact Rob Saxton Contact Michele Slmantel - Contact Tony Roos, PE • Contact: Samantha Blanco, PL$ Contact: Mike Andrews, RLA - . COO , I • " c a e i CO CONSTRUCTION NOTES a z v. I I a' 7 ///// '///// O REMOVE Da IN GE S T AND FR D C AO JOINT 1 � / ©2 PROTECT EXISTING STORM INLET . 4 Z g $ 15 I a' . J ! El REMOVAL UMITS OF EXISTING FENCE, WEST OF NEW PROPERTY BOUNDARY '. 3$ 4 Q RELOCATE EXISTING RAISED ROCKERY PLANTER ISLAND BEHIND PROPOSED PARKING STALLS G r 1 / TO BE DESIGN/BUILD BY OWNERS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR / © PROTECT EXISTING TREES SCALE f =f0 - „, }�1, , 0 PROTECT EXISTING GATE POST rp p 7 0 m xx • s `✓,it1V� ! / W TA 6 , GIANT SEQUOIA 2 w 1 til x e' o / 7A* TREE SURVEY TABLE _ mss I .L / �f,'� If '. / Q SPECIES DBH F ' , � • 0 1 III I� / 1 GIANT SEWOIA 24" f j p a / 2 GIANT SEQUOIA 22 r r 3 GIANT SEQUOIA 22" - ( / - F / ,,,.. ..—•---- © i ` I [ IQi 5 GIANT SE r / A GIANT SEQUOIA 22" - 1.. ..----.- K it I ( SEQUOIA 22" • 11f I)` ! 2• r le: / _0 �✓ / SITE TREE PROTECTION , • ® 0 0 41, a s / • WRAP TREE TRUNKS WITH 1/2• THICK PLYWOOD. DO NOT FASTEN PLYWOOD DIRECTLY TO TREE BY - • 0 (. 4 _/ METHODS THAT WILL PENETRATE ANY PART OF THE TREE OR OTHERWISE DAMAGE THE TREE. THE • \ J / PLYWOOD WWLL BE USED IN LIEU OF STANDARD WARE TREE PROTECTION FENCFNC. ^�� • © v e IT WILL BE NECESSARY 70 PRUNE AWAY ANY LOWER TREE LIMBS SO AS TO PROVIDE 10' OF VERTICAL m 154 / CLEARANCE ABOVE FINISH GRADE. PRUNING SHALL BE SUPERVISED BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND r a "4 . 4 // SHALL BE DONE TO ANSI STANDARDS. . iE� _ - / • ANY OTHER CLIMBS THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE SHALL OE TIED I / ' D W IN A MANNER THAT PROVIDES ACCESS FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND PROTECTS THE LIMB FRO 1/— • f / BEXlEEN SIINC PLACED BOULDTO CR RETAtN W THE PUNTERS PLANTER S SHALL AFTER BE THE REMOVED GIANT SE rO J ORIfl NAL HAD GRADE REACHED A CLAY THEIR SOIL FILL CURRENT HAS Z V ' I l{ © • II I(II �1� "c / MATURITY. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS THAT EAST AT ORIGINAL GRADE. HAND WRK O 0 1� - / WILL BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE DUSTING SOIL THAT IS WITHIN SIX VERTICAL INCHES OF EXISTING L e / J • TREE ROOTS. HAND LABORERS SHALL BE INSTRUCTED TO GENTRY SCRAPE AWAY THE LAST LAYERS OF (� r^ �� SOIL ABOVE THE ROOTS WORKING IN RADIAL DIRECTION OUTWARD FROM THE TREE'S TRUNK. THIS WORK CI- �/ VJ © L / . / WILL REQUIRE ON SITE SUPERVISION BY AN SSA CERTIFIED ARBORIST. _ -- 1 1 1 Q , MAY �� • , — © 6 . / / - • PRUNING OF ROOTS 2' IN DIAMETER OR GREATER SHALL BE AVOIDED. . - i-_1 • - • � ._1 $' "' / // / /// • FINAL DESIGN OF THE PARKING LOT SYSTEM SHALL' BE REVIEWED AND APPROVE) BY AN ISA CERTIFIED W - O • • • `h � _ .� e _ ARBORIST. r,„, 0 1111111) GENERAL TREE PROTECTION PLAN Z Z 0 \\ © - I - se // // / // / / / // PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION - O ��ye . CO ` . - .� 0 - ) • IDENTIFY AND NUMBER THE TREES TO BE PROTECTED. VERIFY BY MAPPING AND /OR TAGGING AND NOTE • _ ^"'� 7, • ' � , • a 1 S D.B.H. (DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT). VARIETY, HEALTH AND STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS. l'''''' Z_ • f © �� , ? • CHECK WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES 5 " • �e Q l III © _ • REMOVE ANY LOW UMBS THAT MAY BF IN THE WAY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND PRUNE AS - 1 Z W t` e - , NEEDED TO ADHERE NA S TANDARDS - - ( 0 CC < O • • /�\ �' O - `-' • NOTIFY ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS THAT THESE TREES ARE TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED. r W 3 W "S / � ` � - • IDENTIFY ANY INSECT OR DISEASE PROBLEMS THAT MAY REQUIRE TREATMENT - 0 I 1 © "� �� 0 • DESIGN LANDSCAPE ISLAND AND PLANTING AREAS LARGE. ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE TREES AT L A I Q O MATURITY 1 V I _ • HAVE AN EXPERIENCED ARBORIST RENEW LANDSCAPE PLAN TO ASSURE THE RIGHT TREE IS PLANTED IN ' 'q CC i fI I I _ THE RIGHT PLACE AND PROPOSED CHANGES DON'T TOLL RETAINED MATURE TREES. ` , - 1 1 1 �` �1 -1I _ • CHECK FOR PAST AND PROPOSED GRADE AND DRAINAGE CHANGES, CONSIDER THE EFFECTS L.,1,.A £ X CU • ti ~ MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES - / \ i +] ("1„ D URING CONST ✓ 1` °v I - 5 1 • KEEP EQUIPMENT OFF OF THE ROOT SYSTEM TO AVOID COMPA - - l KEEP EQUIPMENT AWAY FROM STRUCTURE TO PREVENT DAMAGE 70 TRUNK AND UMBS _ y - _ • DON'T ALLOW CHEMICALS TO RE DUMPED ON THE GROUND NEAR THE TREE, LE., GASD DIESEL, • ' �� PAINT HERBICIDE • CLEANER , THINNERS,. ETC. - g • LF t 1 - PROVIDE MEAN OF TEMPORARY IRRIGATION IF THE PROJECT RUNS THROUGH THE SUMMER - { �` I` f$B • IF ROOTS OR LIMBS ARE CUT OR DAMAGED, HAVE THEM INSPECTED BY. AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBOR1ST AND TREATED REPAIRED OR TREAT ACCORDING TO HIS/HER RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1 - I . 4I © • PROTECT THE TREES FROM EXCESSIVE HEAT, LE, EQUIPMENT PAVING AND /OR. BURNING. r• 11. . • R O TRENCHING THROUGH THE ROOT SYSTEMS, BORING UNDER THEM OR HAND COMING CAN SAVE PROJECT NO. T8087'0100 • © fi �_ x :' �i — � X ~^ �� CONTACT THE [SA CERTIFIED ARBDRIST FAMIUAR WITH THE SITE PRIOR TO .AND DURING ANY ACI7IITY OA 1 i E E) WITHIN THE DRIP ZONE OR TREE PROTECTION FENCING. FOR CONSULTATION. - 1 � � a AFTER CONSTRUCTION CHECKED eY AMR • © I wj s • CAREFULLY LANDSCAPE THE AREA UNDER THE TREE, BEING CAREFUL OF THE ROOTS AND STRUCTURE. f • }� USE PLANTING THAT WILL LIVE UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THAT OF THE TREE • 1 f 7� �1 - - • AVOID DIRECT IRRIGATION SPRAYING ONTO THE TRUNK. THE AMOUNT OF. IRRIGATION NEEDED TO KEEP - EXIST /DEMO r, l FT NEW PLANTINGS ALIVE CAN OMEN BE ENOUGH TO KILL MATURE TREES. /�J� I - 'l 1 1 V _ • • DO NOT COVER EXISTING ROOT SYSTEMS WITH MORE THAN 2 OF SOIL. THE MORE SOIL YOU ADD, THE - - TU11∎ 1 . GREATER THE CHANCES OF DAMAGING THE ROOT SYSTEM. i C1.� i -,, tec'' a Il Z o : j ‘"*....,_ 2 7 1 1 1 . / ..\ i 22+00 22+00 LP < I > rg z . VW . SW DURHAM ROAD 1 . . SCAM "1' tin "1 o : _ - 1 0 t I 1 1 x „... ,u . ! g 7____________.____, a g 4 S87i7-58"E ± ___ ___________ 7_____ i 1 / - • OPItl . // • ..........rommi • • 1 1 1 . . . • 1 1 • • . I I • ."/". ,.. \ • Z • 0 \— ACCESS EAMT -Ise Z 0 1 1 . i ! . co 1 1 I . . CC cv I 1 1 1 - • , . 1 i i . 1 I • 7550 SIN DURHAM RD i 1 LN 0o 1 ] r LLJ 5 8048 SHAFFER • TAX LOT #: 2S113BA00401 r FLI, 7800 SW DURHAM RD TAX LOT 11 2G1t3BA00200 TAX LOT e 2 . • -. ' • CC ,.j 1 i i e L I t4 . I ' 0 Z 0 1 I ER' . I w Z i i • . • 1 I • . 1.— 0 z 1 1 1 1 s ...,,-..v.IE cn ir z 1 i 1 211001 . D < n 1 1 i ; 0 - 1 - < . -J Z I CC < 0 I ! . ›- Lll D E • 1 cc , i 1 . .. • . z H . . e cc Eg 1 . 1 I • . . CO • P. P 1 Par'' I 1 9 1 . , . . 1 1 . 1 r • . 1 • i i • I _ 1 1 P O: ROJECT N 18D870LCO oA-re WOMB . DESIGNED : CB I L 24187' ___________L__________, BYM I • • 1 I I pRavo4DY: CBM I : i I 1 • CFECNED B 1 Y: AMR BNIEMII i I . • 1 1 • BOUNDARY r 1 • ADJUST- • 1 1 C20 • , • L d w ." 1 a • z arc' �a I / CO — yz I gm I ' ' SCALE 1 2 1 5 q+1 k d& \,`l 10 5 O 70 W a ...---- /- ' AM , X I / x / 1. / . / EROSION CONTROL LEGEND 1 54.14 1 154.66 I'M ° Cl- d / SEDIMENT vice -- x�r — we — xrc y 1/ Y - fKl + 3 % f11E RIM = 153.90 �� Imo) • .I --- r ( a INLET PRCTEC"RON , • 154.62 154.23 Z lid .. o , 5. 1� � �° a U � 154.19 / � i j J � l \ i r kJ 1 54.84 154.45 CO �-- I Z . lid + 3 % o !J1 1`15Q�� 154.63 U E . - 1 w a , 111 a i J -� /, /��JJ 154.45 I # 154.96 154.57 - Z O n I ' lk�f - _ _ r a \ 3% 54.90 d , , ////////// U II �� / 154.51 a Q Z S4 I �, T 54.41 Z n�� RIM = 154.41 Q ## IIII J z I I I ] • --4 8 ..41 ,.._ a- W D 0 , Il ?1 Ni \ ,_, i r o 0 IT "r2 . ia 154.68 Z ^ I Q A° '�V / \ 1i3� I 3% ` ry 155.11 ' ' ' ' Q ! 155.1 �. r ' I II_ � V 1 lil 155.17. I� ;� 55.95 155.56 1 } >: I 3: 156.60 I 156.93 156 s, _ 1 11 I XX _.XX I , ----"- • • PROJECT NO: TSPB70L00 1 X ---- X • PATE TV07108 ) i .� DES£GNED BY: CBM I I I PRAWN BY: CBM f CkECKED 8N AMR w ■ 1 I i r , f GRADING • ! L PLAN C4.0 I' II a al . ' ? p STS 4 • SW DURHAM ROAD - __ - a - - __-- -_ -- -- , °i) I * . WI Di EXISNNG _ LANDSCAPE _ z ' TO REMAIN — ) . ` I. U I - T , BJUSTING -, i 1 . LANDSCAPE CC 70 REMAIN - - V11 ® ® z I rU ® / / / / „ / / / / / / /: / / / / / / / / //� . 0 J Z W Q i. * r� A G C E x �. J / • r ti > . } a (3 p ; ;> C7z f GENERA, NOTES: LANDSCAPE PLAN Z U 1 1. LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDSESTABUSHED UNDER CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING .. Z CC / o METZGER PROPERTY DEPT i rie C.—__. 7800 SW DURHAM ROAD Z ALL DEPTH PLANT BEDS SHALL HAVE A3• DEP OF BARK MULCH �_ -' - 3 LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH FULL n r . r • . . ANTICIPATFR LIMIT - HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE /� F.�.. DURHAM ? A ; :.. 4y `} ; } � : ag. ; OFOISTURBAIDE, -_ LL L ^•''a ^�' . e DEFINED By AREA 4. ALL PLANT MATERIAL DELIVERED TO THIS SITE SHAf1. MEET THE AMERICAN NURSERYMAN'S ASSOCIATION . ELEMENTARY r•,.:; fi y :• .f : ': . :� z , ; `r::}; F OF PROPOSED STALLB STANDARDS.' W v :_ < SCHOOL PROPERTY ' ti; 5. CONTRACTOR SHAD. OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAA SUBSTITURONS FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN Lu Iii. 11.1...;31611. • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT NO COST 70 THE OWNER. THESE ITEMS MAYBE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED WITH ` J APPROVAL THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE DRAWINGS ANDS SPECIFICATIONS MAY BE REJECTED BY THE 1 1 � �� AE ' a (STING EVERGREEN r 1 1 °•�'"'� TREE TO REM 5 ��.. ; . ' •• : • " :i PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS Q O G PR DURINGC OTE CT ONSTRUcTIoN TREE DRI - © � A } {x stir •:• TI�I _ ///////////////////////�////// , MM 6 g? �: ACTIVTTES ,• r ; ) < LPL PROPOSED FENCE �, ' - Z . W < £ REPLACE ROC WK ALL PLANTER PAID ............ >} 0 EXISTING DECIDUOUS - - RTIL A E ROCK AL PTA PLANTER A v r r • : > ��,,..// TREE TO REMAIN (FYPy : r—r . GREATEST EXTEPR POSSIBLE ''''"'"""'•:::.:,: rr • EXISTING LAN0.5CAPE — �"" 7 _ % w �y ,01'gT 1 • ENFILL ASNECESSARY VMfTItLKE ' r4 TO REMAIN RYPI _ ■ j ti PLANTINGS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE NOTE T pp Y ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN AREAS DENCTEA BY HATLH ANO HNY ES �� !' , ADDITIONA DISTURBED BENYFE TRUCA ACTNTR � • 1aCH1ffi. r�....iti. ✓• 6HALL BE TRANSPLANTED TO THE RELOCATED ROCK PLAIVTER �g /l� t � •r -�. 6 SCREENING REQUIREMENTS 'c•.•..?: ?: }i E.1 AREA WEST OF THE PROPOSED ?AMONG STALLS _ �.. - � • Y yr . I }t�` ':: r 1 .1.. ON ar ,;.c • rr ` L n PROJECT NO. nom= -; - - _ DATE tVN /2WB DESIGNED BY PEG '1 + 0 ,+ SITE REFERENCE MAP. DRAWN BY - PEG • EXISTING EXISTING FENCE —1 - CHECKED BY MPA - 1 F ER 1 j - 11 4 '; l E111 111111/11111 I III I II PLANTING PLAN , X - x I' Rim 11111 ■1111 ■III �IIIIIIIf 4 I 1 EXHIBIT B - Application Form • t/18/2002 13:12 5034192600 WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 02/05 Ill LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT n TYPE I APPLICATION • nfTigard I'ermii Center 13125.i'i.r".11ul /T31rrd., Tigard, OR 27223 .P bomr 503. 0.9.4171 r x.c 503,598.9.9,,p LEJvERAL INFORM$fPli 11 , !!, Property Address /Location(A): 7800 SW Durham Road Tax Map & Tax Lot #(c): 2S113BA X 0 0 OR STAFF ON L'i' tike Sing; 2 50 A Yes gm Case No.( Property Owner /Decd Holder(a)'": (much (lot if mwrn than One) Other C;tisc Nn. (s): Addresc: PO BOX 400 Receipt No.: City /Sate: Sherwood, OR 7 9714.0 Application Acccptcd Tiy: • Prirnaaycnnrrrt: David Metzger, Metzger Ventures, L..LC Dare: Phooe: Fax: Dare Determined Cnrn 1.CtC: ..• . arv. 7/1/07 P roperty Address /Locntion(a):.795 0 SW Durham Road � En S,f ret \1,n iinc ndjI rmrne slfl, ltrc r T:,x .tvlap & "!'•arc Lnt. #(s): 2S113BA 400 Site Sic: 2.79 Ac re B Property Owner /Deed I *: (Attach ti #t if more tir,a: one) • 6960 SW San.dbur Street ` ° u_ u Address: g (Note: appIicationa will *tot be nccepted Cary /State: Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 without the requited submittal elemcnrta) Primary Rob Saxton, Tigard Tua1acin School rl 9 001 DisCrict Phone: S03- 431 -4007 fix: ❑ Appliutjol7 Form �m Owner's 5ignartv:c /]Vsj[ te 1]urhnrirzrinn Applicant * /.Agent: .1<lclra q ❑ Tide Transrer .InsnTmetil or Deed 6960 SW Sandburq Street City/Sim Tigard , OR 9'/223 Prersi urla.ry ACT (2 copies) 7 Ro.b .Sa xton, Ti gard Tu<']1aL:f.n School Di ❑ httc /PEe r Pion (2 copies) • PFirn:u}' Contact: phn „c. 503 - 4 31 - 4 0 0 7 tax' ❑ Sire /Plot: I;'latn (reducer{ R'lt x 1 I ") ❑ ;lhpl.ic:tnt's .Srntemr.l7t. (2 copies) Miler) the rnvnet and rite applicator ;ire differcnr people, r.lroc. slpplicant must he r% 0(1 in 'fUf; IH,4in!Ials) the pttrchascr of record or a. lessee in pcisiscc.ann w.i,r,h written stuthnrir.,rinn from the owner of :to agent of the owner. Th.c Owoer(s) nusr Sign rhi.c ❑ 111157 Fee $478.00 x(tpli.rnnnta 111 the spitcc provided on •.ltc l.tacl: mF this Foi :rn 01: sul)rtair writrcn aurhon7arion with this applicrition, P.E_OJ?OSAL SUMMYIAa The owner. !, of record of the anhjOer p.raperi7 sequc.i Lot Lin.e. Adjliatm.cnt 1.SCS'l1ti iot} • t'j i dj L1F t: 2 puc Cis r,f 2 .50 and 2 (number) ) (acresgc nr ct)tla.t:C (oulagr) into 2 pn''c.e); of 2: 57 and 2 (number) (acreage nr$q„a.'e tonne). .d/2002 13:12 50341926130 WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 03/05 K1 - List any 'VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER .LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: This app1ication is requested together with applications fora Comprehensive Plan, Amendment, Zone Change and Minor Modification to Site Development Review. Separate application forms are provided for those applications. • } APPLT,,CANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit .ALL of the REQUILLED SUUMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application is the "Required Submittal ElementR" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement IRftitsxtadon sheets e:an, he obtained, upon .a:cqucar, Fni: all CyPt:;, *Jf Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CE.RT[FY THAT: • The above ie_qucst does not violotcprgtlerdressdcdons that tnnyja attacbed.to or imposed upon tbe_subjcct propc t,y • lf, the applicadon is granted, Ole applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with nce terms and subject to st1l the conditions and limitations of the approval, E Y • AU of the above 5 aternenl's and the st trcrncnrs in die plot flute actachmcnts, and exhibits rra.nsmitte.d herewith, tut Iriic: and ncc apptica,urs o acknowledge that any permit issued, hagcd on this application, may be .revoked if it is Found that: qtly 'Such sttrtcmcnrs arc falac. • The applicant has read the e+trirc contents of the application, including rlre policies and criteria, and. understands nce reclniDCrneltts for approving nr dcnvittg The application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. CC DAThD this _ Y clay of 9'20— .Applicant /Authorized Agett'A Signature Owner's Signature ' Owner's Signature Owncr.'R Signature • d2 13:12 5034192690 WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 94/05 n • il t r, s MINOR MODIFICATION V. TYPE I APPLICATION City of Tigard Permit Center 13126 S V Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 aT IG A Ka None; 503.839.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 11. A modification t.o thc conditions, imposed at the •PEN.ERAL INFORMATION time of Site Development Review approval that are ■ ant the suh of Criteria 1 through is above. Property A ddress /Lncation(s): 7800 SW .Durham Road .. 1 Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s); 2S113.DA00200 i Site Sint 2.50 Acres FOR STA Ft SSE ONLY Applicant *: Tigard - Tualatin School District 233 Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street: Case No,( s): t C :ity /State: Tigard l ip; 47223 Other Case 190,(s); . r Primary Contact: Rob Saxton .Receipt No.: Phone: 503 431 - 4007 r : NA Application Accepted 13y. a f. Property Owner/Dcedf!oldcr(s)'r (Attach list if more than one) Rate: Metzger Ventures, LLC AddreF�: FO fox 400 Phone: Pare Determined Complete: - City /stalc: Sherwood, OR Zip: 97140 Rev. vrsroe * Whcn the owner and the applicant arc different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record nr a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner • 1 or an agent 1 owner. The owncr(s) must sign this npplienlion in the space pnivided on the hack. of this form or submit a written authorize rinn Kith Shin application. RTOi)11t,ED SUBMITTAL ELEI J. Pl'1'S t (Nntc: applications will not hc accepted i PRODOSAt. 51J.MMARV without the required submittal elements) The owners rlf record of the subject property request permission ror a Minor Modification. To revlcw 11 rodifreutinn as a Minor Modifientinn, the Director must first Find that the expansion does not invoke one or More of the 11 criteria discussed CEI Application Form within Section 13.3(50.050(8)0f the Tigard Development Codc, if the modification §. exceeds the maximum altovvcd under any are or more Or the fnllowing ilCfln.a ® Owner's Signature /Written Authorization Major Modification review in required. Major Modifications arc processed in the . . same manner ass new Site Development: Review. Ina separate letter, please address 14 Title Transfer Instrument or .Deed the criteria below contained in Section 18.360.050(B) including a detailed response to ® Site Oevefopmenm Plan (3 copies) each criteria. C/ Site /Plot Plan (reduced 8 3/2'- 111 1. An Increase m dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. s 2. A. change in the rntin or number of different types of dwelling units. El Applicant's Statement (3 copies) :1. A change that requires additional nn -site parking in accordance with Chapter (Addressing Criteria Under Section 1e.36o.osolnl 18,765, El Filing rt:c.1451)2,00 4. A change in the type of commercial or inihnsrrinl structures as defined by the Uniform Building Codc. • 5. An increase in the height of the buil by more titan 20 %. 6. A change in the type and location of aceesswnys and parking areas where off -site In addition, thc [Director must find that the proposed , traffic would be affected change complies with the underlying standards ii f the 7. An rrrerectsv in vehicular traffic to A.nd from the site and increase can hc expected applicable zoning district. To complete this review, to exceed 100 vehicles per day. the Applicant's proposal mu..id include n discussion 8. An increase in the floor Or area proposed for a non - residential use by more than indicating how the site expansion will continue to 10% excluding expansions under 5.000 square feet. comply with the mjnimu t sotback, building height, 9, A reduction in the area reserved. fur common open space and /or usable open parking land I(tnd:tenpins standards- Other applicable space that reduces thc open space area helms the min imum required by this code requirements such as minimum Clear Vision area. or reduces the open space area by more than ten percent, near driveways and street intersections may also be 10. A reslust.ien of project amenities (recreational facilities screening. and/or, tt.ppl ica.hle depending on where the building landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more expansion is proposed IA be constructed on the sire. Than 10% where specified in the site plan. ss 412 13:12 5634192680 WRG DESIGN INC PAGE 05105 —— APPLICANTS: To To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the UQUIRE.D SUAKTTAL ELFNtF�NTS 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 APP.LICANT(S) SHALL CER,TIFY THAT: • + The 0 v re u a does not vi I e an deed rec 'etians tl at m . be attached. t r ' Decd. v. n th ub 'cct ro it If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance v, ith the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations dike 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 1hsra,•any permit issued, based on this application, and inay he 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 die requirements for approving or denying die application. SIGNATU.RES of cash owner of the Subject property. DATED this / day of 17. 7 -- .2( • - - Owncr Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature g } f 6 k 6 F - MINOR MODIFICATION I IN o Ns • '" TYPE I APPLICATION City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 S V Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 A `T !GARS' None: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the GENERAL INFORMATION time of Site Development Review approval that are not the subject of Criteria 1 through 10 above. Property Address/Location(s): 7800 SW Durham Road Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s); 2S113BA00200 1 Site Size: 2.50 Acres FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant *: Tigard - Tualatin School District 237 Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street Case No.(s): Tigard 97223 Other Case No.(s); CitylState: g zip: Primary Contact: Rob Saxton Receipt No.: Phone: 503 - 431 -4007 Fax: NA Application Accepted By: Property Owner/DeedHolder(s) *: (Attach list it' more than one) Date: Metzger Ventures, LLC Address: PO Box 400 Phone: Date Determined Complete: City /State: Sherwood, OR Zip: 97140 Rey. 7/5l06 * 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. REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted • PROPOSAL SUMMARY without the required submittal elements) . The owners of record of the subject property request permission for a Minor Modification. To review a modification as a Minor Modification, the Director must • first find that the expansion does not invoke one or more of the 11 criteria discussed ® Application Form within Section 18.360.050(B) of the Tigard Development Code. If the modification exceeds the maximum allowed under any one or more of the following criteria, a ® O Signature /Written Authorization • Major Modification review is required. Major Modifications are processed in the ® Title Transfer Instrument or Deed same manner as a new Site Development Review. In a separate letter, please address € the criteria below contained in Section 18.360.050(B) including a detailed response to ® . Site Development Plan (3 copies) each criteria. ® Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8 1/2 "- 11") 1. An Increase in dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. ® Applicant's Statement (3 copies) 3. A change that requires additional on -site parking in accordance with Chapter (Addressing Criteria Under Section 19.350.050(6) ] 18.765. ® Filing Fee $562.00 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the , Uniform Building Code. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 %. • 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off -site In addition, the Director must find that the proposed traffic would be affected. change complies with the underlying standards of the % 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and increase can be expected applicable zoning district. To complete this review, to exceed 100 vehicles per day. the Applicant's proposal must include a discussion 8. An increase in the floor or area proposed for a non - residential use by more than indicating how the site expansion will continue to 10% excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. comply with the minimum setback, building height, 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open parking land landscaping standards. Other applicable • space that reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code requirements such as minimum Clear Vision areas or reduces the open space area by more than ten percent. near driveways and street intersections may also be 10. A reduction of project amenities (recreational facilities, screening, and/or, applicable depending on where the building landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more expansion is proposed to be constructed on the site. € than 10% where specified in the site plan. ■ • i r . L ?PLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on 1 1 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 any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. + 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. i + 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, and may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. a The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands dte requirements for approving or denying die application. . SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this / I' A - day of IV o U e ws. 6 e -v 20 0 Fr l e.4. —le1 2(1 14 4------ II Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature s i 6 r F . ( 4 • . 1 ■ ', il H G lig .. . LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TYPE I APPLICATION 1 City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SIV Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 T I GA.RD Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 • GENERAL INFORMATION Property Address /Location(s): 7800 SW Durham Road Tax Map &Tax Lot #(s): 2 S 113 BA 200 FOR STAFF USE ONLY l Site Size: 2.50 Acres Case No.(s): Other Case No.(s): Property Owner /Deed Holder(s) *: (Attach list if more than one) Address: PO Box 400 Receipt No.: City /State: Sherwood, OR Zi 97140 Application Accepted By: Primary Contact: David Metzger, Metzger Ventures, LLC Date: Phone: Fax: r, -, ; y ,� g, Date Determined Complete: Rev. 7/1/07 Property Address /Location(s): 7950 SW Durham Road i : \curpin \masters \land use applications \lot line adjustment app.doc , . Tax Map &Tax Lot #(s): 2S113BA 400 . Site Size: 2.79 Ac re s Property Owner /Deed Holder(s) *: (Attach list if more than one) REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Stree (Note: applications will not be accepted a City/State: Tigard, OR zi 97223 without the required submittal elements) Primary Contact: Rob Saxton, Tigard Tualatin School District ❑ 5 0 3- 4 31- 4 0 0 7 Application Form Phone: Fax: ❑ Owner's Signature /Written Authorization • Applicant* /Agent: ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed Address: 6960 SW Sandburg Street ❑ Preliminary Map (2 copies) > City/State: Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 ❑ Site /Plot Plan (2 copies) Primary Contact: Rob Saxton, Tigard Tualatin School District 503 ❑ Site /Plot Plan (reduced 81" x 11") Phone: Fax: . ❑ Applicant's Statement (2 copies) *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be (Address Criteria in TDC 18.410.040) 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 El Filing Fee $478.00 application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. s PROPOSAL SUMMARY i The owners of record of the subject property request Lot Line Adjustment ` permission to adjust: 2 parcels of 2.50 and 2.79 (number) (acreage or square footage) - 3 into 2 parcels of 2 and 2.72 & (number) (acreage or square footage) } : 1 i List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: li This application is requested together with applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Minor Modification. to Site Development Review. Separate application forms are provided for those applications. , 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.) 0 THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: € l ♦ The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. i 's. ♦ If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the condidons 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. 1 DATED this ! 9 ft • day of , 20 0 g /1 1 l J /1 j Applicant /Authorize+ Agent's Signature Owner's Signature ' t .111 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature l . . i t PRE -APP HELD BY CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION .:_ ° LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION 1 City of Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR. 97223 < T I GARD Phone: 503.639.4171 Fax: 503.598.1960 g File 41 I Other Case # 1 t Date I I By 1 Receipt # 1 Feel Date Complete I I ! TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR Ad ustment/Variance 1 or II ❑ J ) ❑Minor Land Partition (IC) ®Zone Change (III) ® Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) 1=1 Zone Change Annexation (IV) l ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review (I, Il or III) [] Zone Ordinance Amendment (IV) ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) ❑ Site Development Review (II) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR (Address if available) • 7950 SW Durham Road t TOTAL SI FF SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION . • . 2.8 Acres R -I2 HD APPLICANT' Tigauan o District MA LINlr rd- T A! )UKlati t S Sch J ! r Y /S LALE/L11 23J 6960 SW Sandbur Street, Tigard, OR 97223 PHONE NO. . FAX NO . s 503- 4314007 NA PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. Rob Saxton 503 -431 -4007 PNUYENI Y UWNhN/UEhlt HULl3bx (Attach list of more than one) L Tigard- Tualatin School District 23J m61 16, IN G ADDRESS /CITYISTATFJZ F 0 SW Sandburg s��a Oregon 97223 PHONE NO. lAX N0, 503-431-4007 NA *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 owners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form # or submit a written authorization with this application. • NUP aA aUMMANY �Ptease be speCiIic) l he Applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change on 3,153 square feet of property from the Residential R -12 zone to the industrial I -P zone. This will allow the 3,153 square foot area to be transferred via the requested lot line adjustment from the Durham . elementary school to the Metzger property to be used for parking for the business park. i : APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. i:lcurpinlmasterslland use applicationslIand use permit app.doc i i alE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All 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(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. j‘ 1t 4/or Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date { Owner's Signature J Date 1 1 AC Applicant/. gent/Representative's Signature Date , Applicant /Agent/ Representative's Signature Date • - Q4 f s F1 .... .:s t;xaexl r; ...vim _ .xnh�H +Am. . vw.vw.xwu lam...,... �.... a. ... ,.._ ..,.....�>b, w ..., *..�.,. ww.... ,�.w ....<, .....a. a.. .w....., ....,.��d �.,.... �..,..�., e,.,.. ,,.....� .............. ..P..... ..., r.�.d ,,........e„�...�,.�,...w -. -� «.. ..:. . . .. ., EXHIBIT C - Property Deed • R till LAI Fidelity National Title Com p �' an , e Prepared For: Prepared By: Nima Patel Information Services Department 1001 SW Filth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland, Oregon 97204 • • Phone: (503) 227 -LIST (5478) Fax: (503) 274 -5472 l E -mail: csrequestRtfcom , t OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner : Tigard - tualatin School RefParcel Number : 2S113BA 00401 CoOwner : District 4233 T: 02S R: 01W S: 13 Q: NW QQ: NE Site Address : 7950 SW Durham Rd Tigard 97224 Parcel Number : R1497428 Mail Address : 6960 SW Sandburg St Tigard Or 97223 Telephone County : Washington (OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 10/06/2003 Loan Amount Document # : Cff754 Lender Sale Price Loan Type Deed Type Interest Rate i % Owned Vesting Type t PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page Grid : 655 F7 Mkt Land s Census Tract : 308.04 Block: 2 Mkt Structure Neighborhood : DMTG Mkt Total • Subdivision /Plat : %Improved • School District : Tigard M50AssdTotal € Class Code Zoning : R12 Land Use : 9202 Ins,Public School District Levy Code : 02374 Legal : ACRES 2.80, NON - ASSESSABLE 07- O8Taxes Millage Rate : 16.4706 s PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres : 2.80 Year Built . Bathrooms Lot SqFt : 121,968 EilYearBlt . Heat Method BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : Pool BsmUnfinSF: Foundation : G Appliances Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape : Dishwasher lstFlrSF RoofMatl . Hood Fan Upper FISF : InteriorMat : Deck Porch SqFt : Paving Matl : Garage Type Attic SqFt : Ext Finish . Garage SF • Deck SqFt : Const Type : i This title information has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oreg on Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Diusion cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said seruces may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. . e i , ii f rq :B IIHI Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon .iv N T e e W E rE Map # 2S11313A 00401 s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions, g. area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. g 1yn —m -- - t5ti "5�t5Lyti w. L144 :0VAX4k4514k1'..V.V1RANikkyAl.\ 44`A l �i Yrt !•.. .. ".. l.. y d o 4 . - y Ell lls I r r ' 1.4 . o S r" .. ' YLL ii 1 r t . .. . r " , y " f �__' � - ill k I I't' r S r .f L "'e 5 rr r '/. •'ir LSlr '}..' 5 L 40 'S r� • rr r�r"rY. L L ;r 41 I.% • r< '. r r, ; . r . r I _ I 1 . 4, � ' r k r J1 :e rr" , 'ir ti • r I "t A f . • - '+r r' "' : + LrC * I _ . r , � }y , r - ; M5 • • . ; r rr * ' r S - a�� 1 • r ''r4,r } r Y ` ', .. le . 'q. .):: r' •, r 1 f I ��yq J .::-/t, r t " l}E 1 }oaf ' TJi " ;4 + {' 1 in.‹.: YI r'� rL' ,S ir ° ..t.% .r . _ MHO I I 6 r r 55 ae S' . {L • ,K r :l., ` I l A, 1:r. ti 1 . .'- ` �ti y. n r .� S r rl r . r. \r1r .... + r \ ;r . L r ,, „ii r .' S5 L '.11 4 ! f'LI + 5 ' .;16, / F'yL 1 } } �.�j h E r + ` s t _ I "7. I + 'eL r 4 r .A. ....< . 0.11. 't W 1--- 07419 1117441$tCIAG L S 75 r ') y iy t Y r 4 + 11:4418 I I ,,'r " r L 4 L t Irr /„1,. S , ' —4 ' -' 1 . r 4 y f • ' r r ;4 rk , 3„)r„:<, }. c. ; 4+ ;k . 1'}, • r1 % �`! 4 r r P'.. S I Lr Yy ,or, L , Y. ,"..,...K.. r; .....es .. + 6 2 ,X *” 5 110 / ,A,-- r • . r ^ , 5 ' , r + r r 5r X, Y. 111* / / Y ., 4 V . i 5 i '---. _j e t tr........... • S + R . r r L 1. . i , ) % r it r r� , I. . r 1 ,� ' .:":: :(i1: ':' ,.... J C k ' ir " err L \ Vie • y ' ?y ` ;:o. � .; r . r'' a +54 +". 'K r .� \ am, ` fi r + "y.. S pi +� ; ' , r 1 r 3 +X . �..). J r rr+Sl + )4 1 r . I I /� + ,.\ fi t. r :.. r ' - ...P. 1. r 'r' ` f F r l J r L " + ' ....C.: r 5 f }f i 5 N • r1 X . „:4.. }.! + jc 5 X. } i r " i r r r• aS ./I „,, . ,/, r r 1lI , fF . r r _ 5e °S ;S '`� I l ' I r..� ._ vf h;;: -fib -y a'�y'ti .,�+ - - _ - - _ - r._ .;x'• - .. {: "'!f. rt .. - --= r li Mli 14 n 4 , ."1• �yyr�k,rp, l S1 ,'/.. ± 4.5 . ( tbSi rt ' �7;-7 _ rz .mss ru> �! r , �f�' T• .. �.a.- ... c } !!asveMe l 0 ti V ± . .14 ra tf u W t ,, -. K ,— • .1 a k �F4 o k 9, �i /5 i! ' r 'N.CS O V=1 tV TICOFI TITLE 74. • IN TICOR TITLE INSURANCE 88-35795 . ==- - . . Washington County STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED tl'•. HAROLD HAMaACH and MILDtik 7 HAH43ACH k ':o conveys and warrants to Clamor, F ;,.c - . . c . rte TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J ' ; " { +� tii.1 Grantee, the following described root property tree of encumbrances except as specifically act forth herein situated In "' :, (n WASHINGTON CauntY, Oregon. to wit: z.,: '_ See Attached Legal Description ::rk= 1'P. r H l/ •; 1 k THISI NST RUMENT WILL NOTALLOW USEOFTHE PROPERT YDESCRIBEDINTHISINSTRUMENT IOLATIONOFAPPLI - " .' .:• CABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING ORACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSONACQUIR- ltfitin: :' INC; FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE cITYJOAR,Q0uNTY PLANNING DEPARTM£NT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. The sold property is free from encumbrances cxeept 19Sidid9 real property taxes, a !w` ..ti lien not yet payable; statutory powers of Unified Sewerage Ageney of Washington =,w `:1 County; as disclosed by tax rolls, premises herein described have been classified fo € .yf • fern use and may be subject to additional taxes or penalties and interest if jr "" "M � agricultural services liens or financing SEE MOIST A p' � disqualified; t } :: � � . Ii The true consideration far this conveyance Is S 265,000.00 (Here comply with the requirements of ORS 43A3d) ' ? � = -- s Y tinted this 12th day of August 39 88 " l = 5. HA' OLD Y = MUCH 4 / - -__ AtI -6-d-d -Z. - /1L��/ r / I �� MILDRED }MACH '� `.: 1 ' .r S tate of Oregon, County o ! 8 Y hlashirtt . State of Orego County of _'° The fore instru was acknowledged be me this The foregoing instr was acknowledg befo me this :: ; y, 12,1/1._ day at AUftUBY, t9� by __ day of -- 19_ _ b y ` °' Hai .3. Harnba•ch and Mildred H ?mbach President and —.� -- ' Secretary of -° •It. -' . ' , • <. iri . -t is r ` 1 corporation, :'.• 1 \ on behalf of the corporation. __ �v '' kit . f lb .i• =''c1 NotArf+,Pu O , M y catt ex8f ,-o: -6./9/90 Notary Public for Oregon • ; a . r • 'i' ( it' My c ommission expires: - _ • •„ae WARRANTY DEEP Thi Spac Reserved for Recorder's Use t . ` HAROLD itAMHACH MIT_DRED HAMBACH t. , :'- CM AN InR J , ;g TIGARD SCHOOL DISLTIICT NO. 237 nRA�lrr _ t { Until a change is requested, all tux statements shall be scut to the following address: __. E ?r TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J -_- 13157 SW PACIFIC Moe. _ TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Escrow No. 3.39595 Thin No. 34-1,39595 _ After recording return to: , _'1 TICrARD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 23J ■ 13157 SW PACIFIC HHY. TI..GARD, OREGON 97223 -- [ I Ttcor Form No. 137 Statutory Warranty Deed BIBS / 9 ! �J i �1 fY '` + ` 2 , r te ; t � `l�'t rL � fi? � 4r 1 ' ry:� ' ; 4 i 1 'i r � ' „ „ p ?4 f -^... . i '( 1 r w ti , S cite t�v� 4rt r40). l r � ! .i ?:;.!''? - .: r : r. Cf..: ., r r i, ' y ii. ' • � ' ' 1 1 i wmr.f •1 Z! rar , -L ” r= __ . _ us r L,I rkr "Z:11' .1 t,. !A J'111 l/ t• V:444, „1 r 1 i r r , r ,ry , r s � r r,3 - -- _ —. .. _... � - A v '�1.,f 1:',1%." t - tl '', .. y j 1 - : 'i. I fs r• vi4w t !( ,. 7 r.Fr :;:41.`',7,:i n�/V, 'L U ?''a'Z �-Fw+ : •L i. PQAA'1 r ,.,� r ,$r r r l ',rik -at r t l,l r ( ' t - i a ! P +r g' .'. � ° -� 1�i iyr : xu {[- §� r ,. r 7ir �- ..,:1,..J1' 4 Ali, ` � a I '11' h l 4 111 4�, i:; lY'�t�i.SYt i �f�� pLz t r :,; i w j'�'I ; F.c�'6 t 16'jr � , f:5 s ,� 1 1 r 1 1 -y_ I r S i 11" (7.' 7 ir�tiit�}F•I'''+ ' ir , f�f r -- r l n 1 l i .{ c f S t k r ; } ��n ' I 4 ip*: r � 5 ,` �n p ` { 0 .',, �5'� t ltv f l y i- ; t I , I a k f l x ,iN, L 141? 11. � .._�.. - i;� J , d �d8+f ��,, 1 7? V F - ,, Y s , , L �r1 rCl a _ : "�� r g� t . � r t , S � I � � f y rc! �3 z7 . � . r ' � ), ' i J . v , � yZ � �i, :� t :h �+tri :�{ ��, r-. �,avr.;_ ::- -� - -- ; - ----- - - Till t' L ! 'vl'i g15 1^fh ?, g . 1,�, s s t r x ie.''l - • - t zip 't v Y I , I i icld' S I l�- i •tit. r a r f 4'- ..rte . ,KT,?to pf,: 04- OK r f:s! I ry � ,4 E a [, ! r,..+1) EY * v v1 µ : 1, 1 .5 J.r'h -f f ! t t,,Vn'1T'c+T�-r _ c _ ' 1 - ti niaj S i r5 s nR }.I fp Y ,rlf q rr {Wtis tf 1 9, SO it 1 � s �'�1 i1�t * kt - 4.#.,g r i.. ... '} 1 ��it,.ty t i rt 15 7, f t 5 �, ,fXe:1 5' 7iL : rs i I ts > , x i Y a �r�11v } , O(f" { 4 ` 5. 44 ". � S "e iS r .:,r _ — 4-,,..T.; s,. s {'H ry n, ;1;1; . ;,:r 1 . 1 . 'r � � . li' -1 J r y : It s � � { �r - ;+ 1 131, 1 . ,'„ yy .. _frwc i .o�a..: �u. , , ., -- .f, f i•aF,,,YIu . ... _ +zt7`Y �fi_t - - =.._ -- • _•avy' T. -- — k.. — ,:' !.? fs1'. _ .. : . �. 4. L`t t:R 2 _ - ..:� ., �` .,..fir :i li �'~� : r: : i1, ".i � ' N ix �,.. - . a, ? �a: 1r.�'rS .. T .t ! v .iu :Ir G:,�;%;1;t,��..�,rr, s,1 t 1 .naz %4i1+i „ � ! , ;4vF` �. , ^ .iJ ^ � u..,. + .. .:,.s :! "! 11 ...._..._.. • LI T :. .r. . i k wow rc e 'e r ,, 111 r + 1` r i' L Y ' .nl:; - 4 , 4 ;r --.. •_• • 3 : ; � � F � , SV .4J� �r l rltr�l4 fij•1 r 'i r',1 + - . a �I 1 tin / - __ x� uHl .`Jllr � ,tu �l't' , �c'�ISYw Q ' � '1'.' 1 y } e ' - : , qv y v ' 1 II1 � �rtrs.>ranvru �, ' y :,, .., . x i . Stl "'∎ f ' �A O. ' ,a " . :7!. ' .. ? , ! a _. F 4 2 . ' i "'l,, , R I r rnE __. .,3� it A tract of land in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township Z :;e: South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County , `Iw s 1 cj1 Oregon and being more particularly described as follows: i;_ = _ +; r t: Vfir ,, i 'df Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 13: thence l �' ; u.. ''$' North 89 °37'47" East along the north line of said Section a -'' distance of 1584.67 feet to the Northwest corner of that parcel of . :4 land conveyed to Ralph D. Durkee et ux, by Deed recorded di- s ..w,t September 8, 1959 in Book 422, Page 100, Washington County Deed tai,•-_:, j • _ Records, said point being the Point of Be of the tract T - '� herein to be described; thence South 0 '22'13" East along the west , line of said Durkee tract, 519.50 feet to a point in the North line ss ;!4.:.4 , . of that tract conveyed to Portland General Electric, an Oregon F,' :',.::'.'..'i. ; Corporation, and described as Tract II in deed Book 967, Page 562 • • r and recorded March 22, 1974; thence South 89 °37'47" West along said , ,- , w.�. North line of said 'tract II a distance of 242.67 feet to the ', ;,l southeast corner of that parcel of land described as Tract I in s=Y<_._ . ^, ^ •.,said Book 967. Page 562; thence North 0 °22' 13 West 519.50 feet to ;?.;..” . •Ai Section the North line of said 13; thence along said north line .,: North 89 °37'47" East 242.67 feet to the Point of Beginning. }- • ra s Said tract is SUBJTaCT to the rights of the public lying within the s ii 4: right- of-way of S.W. Durham Road. r . s : 'A' r oa _ i 1�1TBIT A -- .'1' c -- T DIED aCEPI.PIONS — All A ,.. ii statements covering crops, if any; rights• of utilities to service existing lines; ._ unrecorded easement for water main - t ` K � IN l i, 1 .r,Tii STATE OF OREGON . J S5 111 County of Washington _._ ; ,:,14 1, Donald W. Minn. Diraetor at Assessment w 1 • and Taxation and Ix- OIfIclo Recorder of Can ':�^V voyancas for said county, do hereby certify that . • the within Instrument at willing was racolved _ cr and recorded In book of retards of said county. '3 '� Donald W. Meson. T DIrester of -; r;� Assessment end Ex• , 7: OUIcio County Clerk -__., 6 s _ ___. 1988AUG 15 AM 9:48 == .:•ae I� -.� j I ,l 4 , 1 ,. 1 1 P 1 .-',,',','W',,:.'.',:•',' 1 L 1 • A "' '.0-4,,,,11?..;.,-'. eti.. }Y., ! - .- . ,. ,,,,,, l b - -" i • _ s 1 ri 1 V II I [�4 n 4 -? 3 Pil ,r PI o ∎-- , r 4 rA � t 1 1 ,:-:,,,A. r , lr, 1 i +li�rjfra i 1� S1ys a ra +jl - N; 1 5 0 1 Ir I 1 r l 1 ' l l '� iiK4 l' a - -- W '1 "; .nt ` S I s ' I �� S�J F,1 - 1 r t '- 4 l , , 7 � �7'Yf+w..;,P Yf ��... 1 1K yl,1,s , rff! ✓<:F 1.':'1.;.....,..•:..•'' : 4 it 1 1 Ir 4 1y L I 1 ,, ar -]alri • L _SU+. �,14. s I/,r11[ + r t 1.� r :':,Vi:.` r - n SLi . I^t t +k `1Ek 4. -, -. • a r + .l �7,f �1 he „ 1 S .. 1 1 r 4 . , -;`1 � 1 4 Vat + - L ,Y M I 1 I . 11 4f. 5 0 f x r x l l 1 nt :� i 1 1 1.7 1 V I J +•- � t t Y 1 1 I�r t 1� - 4 J Itk _ T . . r '-, .ir , ! 1 ... HRH d JL L ..t, 1 ( - 1 ' 1 4l 1 Y 7 [ S b y f 1� ` • `>" r f ! '1 ' 7Pti . 1 3 7 h O 1i Y7Yl��irirw'L� -.. , r ily 1t 1 ( ( rf n I Y ‘.11t....,';:::•'•,,,. - 14 r .,',0.1W...; _ 1 t,} ? _ ,1 1 ".. §. X 19 $ sti N y „1 t I + 1Z, 3 l.1 1' , t ' y - l a { { �Yi11 '1111 �fi F, f ^ �`- 1,`l.. r r i; T} I a 1l7 F 1 s � 1 rr !1 r� !+I y 1 7 {�r y „ ! - r IrlL k � l y � I .6777.. .. . N r . - -, d a I , u fh t F fl Q. a t ¢ t i 1 -:,� . r t f � ! � ty i l':'r+ti 1` r 1. ,, tie .. ` _�. ! ' - ... - - �.�, 7666- ........_ 7 777. it Mil Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon Al en N W E Map # 2S113BA 00401 s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions, t area or location of the prem ises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 251138A *. - .444*, -* . 44 it4 '. Syr V ' ' ' ii--.^.. a oe *' + '� #' e t #� " i•- :: � Wirtil - • . * I.-AAA* • 4 4444e++.4-4.54444"--&+-40,444-: , 4 � �F 1 � j T f .� 4 t f r_�rtar__ * i + i - � - - yr oral -; 410 . ,3 . 4,449ii .....,...,',,,, ' :T IFS • n # 010 - � ..,,, 44 *" a �* : , , .... '1.7' INN.U4 I 41:11. e ll. 4 ,00.****1 ,.,. : Ir i cit A 9e. WON 4 - 4 *- V 11. 0 W+ . :?: 4. - • . v ' . ' Area.' 44: + .'-d i - : $.4: r"N - 7-01aNAMM . 0-*/# 7 1 0. V.4*".. - k HO, #0 i, * A . itiii klt ...pyr 4:4 .,.."5 - . : dte --, xi. iiii 4 i'l-r - . _ 4 y '` Irl,t 4 r ar il. s. 4 ' e. ,. , ..*.4.c.,now.......07...4sy - edditimsx-co.....o , • 1 ,;,, T A „. 111111 Fidelity National Title Cornpany i i Prepared For: Prepared 13y: Nima Patel Information Services Department ; 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone: (503) 227 -LIST (5478) Fax: (503) 274 -5472 _E -mail: csrequestntnfcom OWNERSHIP INFORMATION • Owner : Metzger Ventures Llc RefParcel Number : 2S113BA 00200 CoOwner T: 02S R: 01W S: 13 Q: NW QQ: NE Site Address : 7800 SW Durham Rd Tigard 97224 Parcel Number : R0514054 Mail Address : PO Box 400 Sherwood Or 97140 Telephone County : Washington (OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred : 06/08/2000 Loan Amount : $1,325,000 Document # : 45176 Multi - parcel Lender : Safeco Life Sale Price Loan Type : Blanket Deed Type : Bargain & Sale Interest Rate : Fixed 4 % Owned : 100 Vesting Type PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page Grid : 655 G7 Mkt Land : $855,860 Census Tract : 308.04 Block: 2 Mkt Structure : $2,296,180 Neighborhood : YI5 Mkt Total - : $3,152,040 Subdivision /Plat : %Improved : 73 1 School District : Tigard M50AssdTotal : $1,981,590 Class Code Zoning : Ip Land Use : 2312 Misc,Non- mfg,Improvement,Ind Zone Levy Code : 02374 , Legal : ACRES 2.50 07- 08Taxes : $32,637.99 • . Millage Rate : 16.4706 . • i- PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS f Bedrooms Lot Acres : 2.50 Year Built Bathrooms Lot SgEt : 108,900 EflYearBlt Heat Method BsmFin SF : Floor Cover : i Pool BsmUniInSF: Foundation Appliances Bldg SqFt : Roof Shape Dishwasher lstFlrSF RoofMatl Hood Fan UpperFISF : InteriorMat : • Deck Porch SqFt : Paving Matl : • Garage Type Attic SqFt . Ext Finish . Garage SF g Deck SqFt Const Type F . This title information has been furnished, without charg e, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oreg on Insurance i Commissioner. The Insurance Dhision cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability's assumed for any errors in this report. t i i 1 VIII Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon N en W E 6 Map # 2S113BA 00200 s l The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions, I • area or location of the premises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey. 2. ��1��, 777ryryry ¢ — __ — �� • � — � 55 4L L .i545 11.u1ie�-lI I I \ 4 \ * 1 , k r L r e r r \r L .. f r L •37i,.. } I r h } 1 } L / 4 } 1 L^ Or 1 k } i + r ' \ + \ 5 r f f \ v s rr \ \r� \ f' \ \rr \ % `' I I x ti } , • (E { - 4 . i „+yIJ�L{. \ 4 .r�ti Y r 4 }1 r 4 �r ` L y L. 1 L %, dL \ } 5 r 4 } \4 ' r.s L r } + • \ ti r rl f „ e , } 4 r L 4 . ' 1 1 + : 11 I X64 I AO AC i 1 m g lag 57111€ I I t . I l t 1 { 400 I LIL. f 11.22 AC PIXO ti 1 i .4., ,,,-- 1l 11� 7 1 7 , . 60,, , Le1 AC 23- / ,,, . _. 1 k II rj 3 1_ .- -__ ttltf W1E1mStJNM15irYaO m. mama EIIIIM e M ... let MRt�ger_ 6 Dialtg� S E _ M }; STATE Or 011100N Pt? Sox 275 -. AMY of 4YashIrg on ? David _C. Sherwood OR 97 t 1 D L J+ Address mint PDtJoxr Clerk i+oy - ; was T. Sherwood OR 97140 and .' tit" �► ` s • d b E �.u.« r , . n ' i 6 PnnM�ti Nose p I .... D aV �eMUn leMontinMlM. ' SPADE RESERVE! � . ,i..•:', LIr,'i Y>fJl'r I • said NJ= ` O Metzger FOR PO Sox 2 75 RCCOnDEagtml N,,... ,,2 s Sherwood OR 97140 iJ` ; : *tr axatlon x. , T .. �� war. •ow d in at w r (Now Mrr.M, no: • ~ t � 3:�+ , UeVi M t e zger. Doc 2000045176 — Metzger Ventures, LLC Rent: 256263 , PO Box 275 Sherwood OR 97140 0 6/08/2000 10 ;27 :17 27.00 NaY BARGAIN AND SALE DEED- STATUTORY FORM t (INDIVIDUAL GRANTOR) ' i David G. Metzger and Dianne S. Metzger conve to Metzler Ventures, LLC an OTre &4rllimited _ , Grantor, i W iak1J ty _o the following real property situated in __ WrikhPg llSLri , Grantee, i County. OTCgaa, to wit CC See Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. 1. V ma .• CC . IIF SPACE INSUFFICIENT. CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE} The true consideration for this conveyance is $_,O._ ** . (Here, comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030.) ** and._ other _ g ood __on.d__Yalualzla_conei.dsratiO ..- -----•------- DATED - \LANA - (.D THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN �mme.m ~_ L �� • THIS INSTRUMENT IN VWUTt0N OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REG � tt LATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON t • ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO- III G �/, ge r -.*: • • • AHD TODETTERMf NEANYLIMTSONL4WSUITSAGAINSTFARMINGOREFDOREST Metzger Dianne S. Metz PRACTICES AS OEHNEO IN ORS 30 -930, , STATE OF OREGON, County of . atkY - Karl'to.. fit. -_) ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on .._..... �t-r.x. Cr by __Dav_ iii_ D..- kletzger _,and_ .D#.snne._S.._14et ages . _ZDJ20__, : , :ti. CFFICIAL ` LORALI R. SINNEN ( 4 , /us/- • NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGC}N ` ° � CUA9Ml551DN N0.3D7940 Notary public for Oregon ��yy ' —�� MY COMMISSION WIRES JAN. 30, 2002 '" My commission expires 01' 0003- i . 2 } t t , ,, t 4 / T1COR TITLE INSURANCE W 4 EXHIBIT 'A' • r « LEGAL DESCRIPTION •;`.., A tract of land in Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron in the center of County Road No. 23, said beginning point being 1871.4 feet South 89° 58' East and 89.14 feet South 58° 48' East from the corner of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 2 South, Range I West of the Willamette Meridian, being also the Northwest confer of a tract heretofore deeded by John Oche and Magdelane Oche to Harry and Elizabeth Hembach by Deed recorded in Book 118 page 158, Deed Records of Washington County; running thence South along the West line of said Hembach Tract 4.30 chains; thence South 84° 50' West along the South line of the Mike F. Oche Tract as described in Deed recorded in Book 150 page 454, said Deed Records, 5.50 chains; thence North 5.50 chains to center of said County Road; thence Easterly following center of said road, 5.50 chains, more or less, , to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT the East 10 feet as described in Deed to Robert F. Swain, et ux, recorded in Book 150 page 453, said Deed Records, and the West 120 feet as described in Deed to Ralph D. • Durkee, et ux, recorded in Book 422 page 100, said Deed Records. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described in Dedication Deed recorded July 5, 1995, Recorders Fee No. 95. 046429. I n „ 0 rs iilii Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon e N W E Map # 2S113BA 00200 s The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations, if any, in dimensions, € area or location of the prem ises or the location of improvements ascertained by actual survey . • 4 -• ..� ,, e ft ' • r r - II . 4 41 . r ' ''' . ..,,,,,,,,, • � t , 4/0 _. . _raw-- — --, , ._ l' ..... ,. ...,..,.: .,.. .. ..,,,e$ . . 4p. ,-' .... ,40 *044 Y 52r--erelibtefrAiNiEi vil 1 • T i , 1. �� . �. 1 23-74 .3 ..,,o ::::e•ii : ..„ , F. 44i i • ) ' .. " --'. I 004 . .i eel ! ., , A ,. , .:., . A x.r.-.0 m • ' t vp I V lihl MA. f WEIN • • 1 y f f LFRM 4' ✓ S h { fir. #: 5 •ANIP - 41,- • : 1 ....:.. 41 , 111 ; y: r r ' 40,414,011'r 4 Flt ,y .44..** : .-:.... iir i ... , .,,._ ....Aire --iv ..-,.- . - - ' ' " Yft." 1 .: li. .....0.- -4r- . i . .0. _ P4rw .: • 4. it. .4-41,70".• .. x „ s t ` ,-,.; -- _ ' e ,,,,..,,,...e... . 0 i ., a 01>wi, • l . . EXHIBIT D - Impact Study • • • • ii G D E S I G N I N C. Ii November 24, 2008 Gary Pagenstacher City of Tigard - Planning Department . 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 1 RE: Impact Study — Metzger Parking Replacement r - -- Dear Gary, • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ` WRG Design has prepared an analysis of the impact the proposed development will have upon public S ` - facilities and services. As discussed in this letter, the proposed development will have little if any impact on the public facilities and services in the area. The subject property is located at 7950 SW I Durham Road. Vie; l This application requests approval of applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone , LAND Change, Lot Line Adjustment and Minor Modification to a Site Development Review Approval. The PLANNING applications are requested in order to provide an additional ten (10) parking spaces on the Jackson Business Center property. FRA An application was approved by the City of Tigard in March of 2008 to relocate the access drive into ° Durham Elementary School. This plan routed the entrance drive into the Elementary School through � ::. the Jackson Business Center property, owned by Metzger Ventures, LLC. The placement of this Gin., access drive eliminated eleven (11) parking spaces on the Metzger property. As a part of the u ENGINEERING condemnation settlement for the new access way, the School District agreed to reconstruct ten (10) of the parking spaces that were to be removed. r - 71„ : Transportation The proposed application will result in the construction of ten (10) additional parking spaces. These parking spaces are requested to replace ten (10) of the eleven (11) parking spaces that were LANDSCAPC S ARCHITECTURE removed due to relocation of the Durham Elementary School access drive. The replacement of these parking spaces will no produce any new daily trips. There are no improvements proposed to any . • transportation facilities. The request will not alter any of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements in 1 the area. l Drainage LAND The parking spaces will create 2,515 square feet of additional impervious area.. The run -off from this SURVEY new access area will be treated to in the water quality facility located on the Durham Elementary School property. The runoff will be treated to Clean Water Services standards prior to discharge into • Fenno Creek. Please refer to the site plan in Exhibit A and the Storm Water Analysis Memo in Exhibit J of the application materials for detailed information. No drainage impacts will be produced. Park The site is not adjacent to any park lands. There are no additional area residents produced due to the proposal, therefore there will be no measurable park impact. Water 541554UwestgaleDr, The access relocation will not impact the water system. The water capacity necessary for the Smile 10(3 Porllfi[ltf, operation of the Jackson Business Center is currently available. No additional water demands will be 97221 created as part of the proposed development. PH 5031419 -2500 FX 503119 -2600 wwv.wrgd,com Sewer The sewer system already exists and sufficiently handles the current demand. No additional sewer capacity is necessary. No changes to the current sewer system are proposed. No sewer impacts will • occur due to the access relocation proposed. Noise There will be no additional noise generated by the proposed parking spaces. The ten (10) proposed spaces are replacing eleven (11) spaces that were removed due to the relocation of the accessway for Durham Elementary school. The parking spaces will not generate any additional traffic, but will serve the patrons and employees of the Business Center that were coming previously. The parking spaces will be closer to the elementary school property than they were previously, however the 15- foot buffer between the Jackson Business Center and the elementary school will remain to buffer any noise from cars parking in the new spaces. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. Michele Simantel, Planner W D E S 1 G N 1 N C. _ r- �F2r:!iti'I:t..s...... &..,:rY.:. i!P i:F ^.r.x�.aa... .,.. ,.....uawn..,.w.^,.vx .ate >xe. .,.�..u�s...em._.,^. e...� ^ . a+-..,.,. xv.. �u.» u:», �w.....,. u,......< m.. ssx.....,,.., ns,.< y., u._ .................- vrs,. s�» a,...,..».:,; o.<..<.,.-.... Y..«„.<.,...,^ x ..a,...,_...v...�..._..++.w�w.. ,.a,�.,..w......,..v.U,u..,<. ,. 5....^- s.<..,, e«,_, ..a.a.....:..,..�k.,_.._.�... «w «..... .,,,»... .......,......,.,..,_ < .. ..,. EXHIBIT E - Neighborhood Meeting Documentation AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING /POSTING g NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE 1 IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD A COPY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE, TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 -8189 s IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT & COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I, 1 f 1 t `, -e,1,€ t) \ 111.6kil*t, \ , being duly sworn, depose and say that on the _�— day of r) CAOOQ ( , 20_, 1 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) - 16 - 1 ( 5 VII n, )(1\(-A VY\ t(Z /� • , a copy of which notice so mailed ' is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plain* addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at ) vv •in6\-1-t. )0( , with postage prepaid thereon. . t ( t . 1 11 1 . ' t Signature ' (In the presence of a- NotaryPublic) t POSTING: 1, V\ C � 1 �-k J 1 M� �, , do affirm that I am (represent) the parry initiating interest in a proposed land use application for In i S� \i �ni\v 9 lftirn v\.6, q t>K LQ C;h(A,I' affecting the land located at (state the ap roximate f location(s) IF no address(s) and all tax lot(s) currently registered) — I CI RO \A/ C) ( \ ( -v •Q..0 CL , and did on the 7.'-- day of l - - - . ) L . V , 20 tc -, personallypost notice indicating that the site maybe proposed for a m , LC,,- _ , r' , ' land use application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. , The sign was posted at -- 0(\),, n IN ` Y 1 u (v d1 Ci- ` i-'(.. Gi\ c i cL Lt V t `1 CV i -}' 1 rY P.A)a 'k,Y\ <AV\ - \-- U\ [An"' V \ `i 0 --4-0( -1-pk, -- znr_ diu . (state location you posted notice on property) , . • \ I\ J 1. \ C INL S)?ncird( . Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE /NOTARIZE) 1 STATE OF Q¢ darn ) County of 1..A } ss. Subscribed and sworn /affirmed beforr me on the ( i day of QC 1 , 20 0 . OFFICIAL SEAL . MiSn CRIPPEN IV NOTARY PtJBUC-OREGO COMMISSIDN ND. 409583 .. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVA, 2010 s k .._J .if � ' A......-1 I NOT ' Y PUBL' OF • r GON My .mmission Expires: f 1- j _O 0 • i;\curpin1mastes1neighborhood meetings 1 affidavit of mail posting neighborhood meeting.doc Page 5 . F i W '111 1 = lii == ` 1 �� CITY of TIGARU . _ �� GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 111 11 p� TLN OM r�M ,,� 11 . 51111t1 AREA NOT�F1ED 6 Am , 11 1!1 � � MI® ''log (500 7 ) el nomad lain DURHAM Rrt f ° ° i i T ull �, R d3iroflww I I 7 .�9 r1 ' ' R!�T^78o l818Ce0flOQ . ' 4 ,r : m11W0t$0 FOR: ]ERG DesI n t �\ ti i \ \ � .1,.2, MOM >z,i>eeo�Q 117uQal, , �� - RE: 2S113BA 200/401 di S 231131000300 \ 410131110111110 � 0 � � y 1M R o 1111A00100 1, Property owner information 1e50° *� is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. g � 4 O O \ 01I331A0M0 IIIIIIII 111111 JP'! AWL orr LA = o 1 6U ` !X 0 200 400 600 Feet 1 "= 452 feet di 1 , 1 1 1 a 4 1GARD Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 • 4.11111, 4.11111, iga rd , Hall O R 97223 d Tiga, O } (503) 639 -4171 /- J http:rlwww.c.i.ligard,or.es Community Development Plot date: Oct 21, 2008: C :ImagicWIAGICO3.APR 251 D -05000 2S112CC -05200 AITKEN KC BENNETT TONY R 7915 SW BOND ST 8070 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 • TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 11800 25112CD - 00701 ALEXANDER DANA BLACKWELL JAY M & TRACI N 7635 SW ALDER ST 15950 SW 76TH TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 25112C0 25112CD - 13400 ARTHUR MALTA A BONANOMI ROBIN A 7704 SW CYPRESS LN 7770 SW CYPRESS LN TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 25112CD - 10000 25112CD - 02600 BALDWIN SURVIVOR'S TRUST BOND STREET REAL ESTATE LLC 4632 SW VERMONT ST 17841 WESTVIEW RD PORTLAND, OR 97219 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 2 S 112C D - 09700 25112C D - 04100 BALDWIN'S SURVIVOR'S TRUST BOYCE RICHARD R BY BALDWIN JAY K TR 7800 SW BOND ST 4632 SW VERMONT ST PORTLAND, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97219 2" 12CD - 09900 2S112CD - 01300 BALD 4. IN'S S „' EVOR'S TRUST BUCHANAN MICHAEL R & SHEILA M BY BALI/ . 1 JAY K TR 10525 SW TIGARD ST 463 + VE i ONT ST TIGARD, OR 97223 • •RTLAND, 0" ,97219 25112CD 09600 2S112CD - 12900 BA. IP WIN' URVIVOR'S TRUST CHAN SORITHEA BY B IN JAY K TR 7718 SW CYPRESS LN 463 - ERMONT ST TIGARD, OR 97224 - / RTLAND, •R 97219 2S112CC - 14500 25112CD - 04200 BARKER BRUCE D & SUSAN L CHARLES LARRY & MARILYN L 20700 COUGAR HILLS LN 7850 SW BOND ST HILLSBORO, OR 97123 TIGARD, OR 97224 25112CD - 13900 28112CC 05900 BEARD GRETA & PHILIP E CHENEY MICHELLE A & 7864 ALDER ST SCHOLZ MARK H TIGARD, OR 97224 15954 SW 81ST CT TIGARD, OR 97224 291135A - 00400 2S112CC - 05800 BEHRINGER HARVARD WESTERN CHILTON DAVE S & PORTFOLIO LP SUFFIAN- CHILTON MICHELLE BY EASLEY MCCALEB & ASSOCIATES I 15932 SW 81ST CT PO BOX 190700 TIGARD, OR 97224 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94119 251,138A -00000 25112CD- 14000 CLEAN WATER SERVICES DIEC TOAN P & TRAN M 2550 SW HILLSBORO HWY 7882 SW ALDER ST HILLSBORO, OR 97123 TIGARD, OR 97224 11360 - 00601 25113AB - 00600 CL AN ., ATER SERVICES DUNCAN JOHN A & JANICE LEE 255' , W HILLSBORO HWY 9929 NW UPTON CT LSB• -0, OR 97123 PORTLAND, OR 97229 2S 112C D -05500 2511380 -00400 • COLLIER DAVID & TERRY DURHAM I LLC 5116 NE 72ND AVE 8100 SW DURHAM RD VANCOUVER, WA 98661 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 12400 2 1380 - 00500 COOK ANDREA P DUR ' LC 16032 SW 77TH TER 8100 RHAM RD TIGARD, OR 97224 ARD, OR 97244 g � 2511200 112CC - 1630 COOPER MARK BRANDON & D A CHOOL PARK OWNERS OF PATRICIA ELAINE LOT 0 7855 SW ALDER ST 0 TIGARD, OR 97224 25112CD - 10600 2S112CC - 16400 f COURT SUSAN G DU AM OOL PARK OWNERS OF 7817 SW ALDER ST LOT -16 TIGARD, OR 97224 • gy, 25112CD -04500 2S112CC -04800 • COUTURE ROBERT E & TRISH S DUSKIN GREG A & CAROL A PO BOX 3273 7998 SW BOND ARLINGTON, WA 98223 TIGARD, OR 97224 p A 2S 112C D -12800 2S112C0-12300 COWLEY DANIEL & ALEXIS FASOLINO GABRIEL V & 7706 SW CYPRESS LN VANHOUTEN LUCILLE TIGARD, OR 97224 16018 SW 77TH TER TIGARD, OR 97224 25 112C D - 11400 25112C D - 10900 CRONN ANNA 2000 LIVING TRUST FAST DARRYL M & BY ANNA CRONN TR FAST STEPHANIE A & 7711 SW ALDER ST JOHNSON CHARLES M JR TIGARD, OR 97224 22691 SW 55TH TUALATIN, OR 97062 25 112C D - 10700 2S 112CD - 14400 DAVIS LORI J FEGLES JOSHUA J & BETHANY J 7797 SW ALDER ST 13128 SE LINDEN PL #14 TIGARD, OR 97224 MILWAUKIE, OR 97222 • 2S112CD -04800 25112CD -11300 RACANELLI ROCKY AND DENISE SALISBURY BEN 7964 SW BOND ST 7727 SW ALDER ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 13000 2S112CC - 06000 RAMIREZ REUBEN & SAYLER DEBORAH A CORTEZ -PEREZ ANACELINA 15976 SW 81ST AVE 3113 TEDDINGTON DR TIGARD, OR 97224 SAN JOSE, CA 95148 2S112CD -05201 2811200-12000 RAY MICHAEL D & SCAFIDI JOE & JOANNE P RAY DIANA L 15984 SW 77TH TER 7979 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112C0 2S112CD - 10800 RDQ PROPERTIES LLC SCHACHT GEORG E & LYA 2105 PEREGRINE CT 7791 SW ALDER ST WEST LINN, OR 97068 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD 2S 112CD - 05100 REID EILEEN M & HARRY H J SCHEFTER ANDREW R & ABBE 7751 SW ALDER ST 7995 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S112CC - 05700 2S112CC - 05400 RICHARDSON ROBIN J SCHMIDT DONALD E & 15910 SW 81ST CT SCHMIDT ANGELA CLAYTON TIGARD, OR 97224 8110 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 112CD - 00900 2S 112C D - 12500 RIVAS ROSE LIFE ESTATE & SINGER DENA RIVAS IRREVOCABLE TRUST • 16050 SW 77TH TER 16060 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 10300 2S112CD - 02500 ROBINSON JOHN C SJORDAL SUSAN J 7871 SW ALDER ST 7785 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 10500 2S112CD - 04600 ROCKER ANDREW D & MARYJANE SMITH JOHN WILLIAM • 7833 SW ALDER ST 7932 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 05000 28112CD - 02200 ROGERS SHAWN & GWENDOLYN SNIDER JASON B & JODI J 7996 SW BOND ST 15588 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 {9E 2S112C D -03800 25112CC -14600 GIRTMAN LOUIE F /OPAL B TRUST H6 RT FA ' Y BY OPAL B GIRTMAN TR PROP LLC 22 GRAVATT DR 4632 I V' ;MONT ST BERKELEY, CA 94705 P, LAND, 0" 97219 25112CD -05300 2S112CC -15000 GOLDBERG LAURA D H• FART FAMI Y 7151 PINTAIL DR PR• • ERT - : LC CARLSBAD, CA 92011 4632 ° ^+ VERMONT ST Pr • TLA ►, OR 97219 • 28112CC -05000 2S112CC -14100 HAGAN ELIZABETH R TRUSTEE HO" . ' RT FA Y 8020 SW BOND ST PROPE° LLC TIGARD, OR 97224 4632 ' + V ` ONT ST. Pg•TLAND, OR 97219 z 112C0-14216 2S112C D -09400 HA :A . CROSSING OWNERS He FART FA r Y ASS • TION PRO' R LLC 463 z f► ERMONT ST R' RTLAND, OR 97219 S 112C D -14100 28 112CC -16100 H AC ROSSING OWNERS HO' ART FA s' ASSO TION PRO • ...0 S LLC 463 = J c. FMONT ST • •RTLAND, OR 97219 112CD -14300 2S112CC -16000 H' BAC CROSSING OWNERS Hs ART F' ILY TION PRO • ; ES LLC 4632 7 ft RMONT ST PI; • TLAND, OR 97219 2S 112C D -13800 25112CC -15800 HARANATH SAI P H• FART F' . LY 7844 SW ALDER ST PRO • .: ES LLC TIGARD, OR 97224 463, • .VERMONT ST p • RTLAN ► OR 97219 2S112C0 -00800 2S112CC -13900 HAVERY JOHN W MADELON HO ART F ILY 15970 SW 76TH AVE PROP ES LLC • TIGARD, OR 97224 463 W ONT ST RTLAND, OR 97219 • 2S112CD -04700 25112CD -10100 HEIDER RICHARD R AND HO ART FAMI LAURELEI M PROP = : LLC 7948 SW BOND ST 4632 S ? ' ,, RMQNT ST TIGARD, OR 97224 PO. LAND," 97219 2S112CC -15100 2S112 C -14000 HOFFART FAMILY HOFFART Fy. * ILY -- PROPERTIES LLC . PROPE• . ` E S LLC 4632 SW VERMONT ST 463 : V ° MONT ST PORTLAND, OR 97219 PB'•TLAND, OR 97219 2S 1.12CC -15700 2 S 112C D -02300 HOFFART HERBERT J HOFFMAN JUDITH A 4632 SW VERMONT ST 7865 SW BOND ST MI PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 12CC - 16200 2S112CD - 13600 HO ART • "BERT J HOLLAN ANGELA E 4632 }.', ERMONT ST 15486 BRIANNE CT P,''TLA 4 , OR 97219 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 23112CC - 14700 2S112CD - 04900 H ART H ERT J HORAN MARY CHRIS 4632 S ERMONT ST 7980 SW BOND ST P LAN OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 12CC - 15300 2S112CC - 04900 HO R ERBERT J JOHNSON BRADLEY NPAULA C 4632 ERMONT ST 8000 SW BOND P TLAND, R 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S - 12CC - 15600 2S113BA - 00100 HO ART BERT J JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST THE 4632 ERMONT ST BY CARL H JOHNSON TR P LAN R 97219 8965 SW BURNHAM ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1120C 2S112CD - 12600 H • FAR ' ERBERT J JONES DAWN E & 4632 VERMONT ST CIMINSKI JOHN A T • B, OR 97219 16068 SW 77TH TER TIGARD, OR 97224 • 25112CC - 1540 P 2S112CD - 04400 H • FA' ERBERTJ KAESS JENNA L & 4632 VERMONT SCHNEPF 7ACHARIAH Pr, ' TLA : OR 97219 15880 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC 14201.. 2S112CC - 05100 HO • R - 'ERBERT J KIRKPATRICK DEAN L & 4632 I' VERMONT ST CHRISTINA L a 'TLAND OR 97219 8050 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CC - 1590 2S112CD - 11600 HO ERBERT J KNAPP CHRISTOPHER & IOLANDA 463 ERMONT ST 7701 SW ALDER ST RTLAN , OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2 112CC - 14 25112C D - 03600 HO HERBERT J LEBEDA VLASTIMIL /SHARON 463 - ERMONT ST 15607 SW HIGHPOINT DR P RTLAND, OR 97219 SHERWOOD, OR 97140 2S,112C0 -1 ^8500 2S 112C D -12200 LUCHAU COURTNEY NGUYEN PHU THANH & THUY 7794 SW ALDER ST 16092 SW 77TH TER TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 09800 2S112CC - 14400 MANNEH BASSI & OLSON DENNIS M & CALVIN - MANNEH CARMELLE MARILYN J 7955 SW CAROL ANN CT 18820 SW TUALATA AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 2S112CC 2S11 2CC - 14300 MAY GLADYS M & OLSON RONALD D & SIKORSKI MICHAEL LINDAA 8090 SW BOND ST 3297 SW LAKE GROVE AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 2S112CC - 15500 2S 112C D - o5400 MCCLURE ELISE ONTHANK SONJA R 4632 SW VERMONT ST 7947 SW BOND ST PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C0 23112CD - 14700 MCGREGOR SUSAN J OTIS BRIAN & LORRAINE 4632 SW VERMONT ST 12244 SW AMES LN PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97224 o- 2S 1138A - 00200 28112C0 METZGER VENTURES LLC OT1 & LORRAINE PO BOX 400 122 AMES LN SHERWOOD, OR 97140 ARD, 0 97224 2S112C0 2S112CD - 13300 MILLER ROGER J PALACIOS ALEJANDRO 7750 SW CYPRESS LN 7764 SW CYPRESS LN TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 112C D - 14800 2S112C0 MIRZAALI FARHAD PEARSALL CHARLES A & SHERYL T 7952 SW CAROL ANN CT 7765 SW ALDER ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112C0 - 02400 2S112CD - 13700 MUDD MICHAEL J & WENDY W POAGE STEPHEN D & LINDA K 7845 SW BOND ST 7826 SW ALDER ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S 112C D - 11500 23112CC - 04700 NEWBERRY ROBERT E & MARY A POWELL ROBERT J & 7707 SW ALDER ST POWELL ANNE C TIGARD, OR 97224 15860 SW 80TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 6 I 25412CC -14900 25 112C D -13100 SOTELO JORGE A & VANDERHEIDEN JOHN P & MARITA A VERONICA L 2167 NW TWILIGHT DR 16029 SW 80TH PL BEND, OR 97701 TIGARD, OR 97224 25112CD - 12100 25112C0 STEVENSON SARA R WAGNER ERNST J s 15996 SW 77TH TER 7680 SW BOND TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 , 3 25112CD -11700 2S112CD -02100 4 STRUCK MICHAEL & DENA WALLIS MICHAEL E & 7683 SW ALDER ST WALLIS ROBIN R . TIGARD, OR 97224 7895 SW BOND ST . TIGARD, OR 97224 I I 25112CD - 03700 2S112CD - 04000 TAUTFEST DONALD D WALLS CHARLOTTE 7720 SW BOND ST 7780 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2 112CD 14900 2S112C D - 11900 TI 'RD OF WHEELER DOTTIE FIELDS • 131 HALL BLVD 15976 SW 77TH TER . ARD, •R 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 , 2S112CD - 10200 2S112CD - 03400 s TIG ' RD • OF WHITE KENDALL C & 1312 . HALL BLVD BARRETO CECILIE M , T, - • R • •R 97223 7660 SW BOND ST TIGARD, OR 97224 • 25113BA - 00401 26112CD - 04300 TIGARD- TUALATIN SCHOOL WINSTON MARK & ZSUZSANNA DISTRICT #23J 17576 LAKE HAVEN DR 6960 SW SANDBURG ST LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S113BA 2S 112CD - 03300 TI RD -T TIN SCHOOL ZELL TROY A & MAEGAN M DIST #23J 15895 SW 76TH AVE 69 S SANDBURG ST TIGARD, OR 97224 . . GARD, 97223 E � E 2S113130.00300 2S112C0-11200 Tic • RD -TU: •TIN SCHOOL ZIEGLER THEODORE A & MARY L LIV DIS • I " #23J BY THEODORE A & MARY L ZIEGLER TRS 6960 ' SANDBURG ST 7737 SW ALDER ST T GARD, o - 97223 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S112CD - 14500 TITTERINGTON PETER K & ROSE 7925 SW CAROL ANN CT TIGARD, OR 97224 a i . • Josh Thomas Susan Beilke 10395 SW Bonanza 11755 SW 114th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 • Gretchen Buehner David Walsh 13249 SW 136th Place 10236 SW Stuart Court • Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, QR 97223 Paul Owen 10335 SW Highland Drive Tigard, OR 97224 Tim Esau PO Box 230695 Tigard, OR 97281 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 Ross Sundberg 16382 SW 104th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Brian Wegener 9830 SW Kimberly Drive Tigard, OR 97224 • Joseph Dyar 10285 SW Highland Drive Tigard, OR 97224 -4668 Rex Caffall 13205 SW Village Glenn Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - SOUTH INTERESTED PARTIES foil. I of 11 (i:lcurnlnlsetunllabels \CIT South.doc) UPDATED: 4- Mav -07 • ! W G R D E 5 I G N I N G. .. k 1 October 24, 2008 RE: Neighborhood Review Meeting for Proposed Development I Dear Neighbor: WRG Design is representing Durham Elementary School, located at 7980 SW Durham Road, in their application to change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation on 3,153 square feet of _ ' property from Residential (R -12) to Industrial Park (IP). This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and DEVELOPMENT Zone change application is required so that the School District may construct ten (10) parking spaces SERVICES for the adjacent Jackson Business Center property. These parking spaces will replace spaces that had to be removed due to relocation of the access drive into Durham Elementary School i • Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for necessary land use approvals, we would like to discuss the i proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend I a meeting on: LANG PLANNING • • Wednesday, November 12 at 6:30 PM ;Y, Durham Elementary School Library i 7980 SW Durham Rd. Tigard, OR 97224 cJvIL i ENGINEERING Please note this meeting will be an informational meeting on preliminary development plans. These plans may be altered prior to submittal of the application to the City. ,,,\__._ . We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please feel free to call me at - I 503 -419 -2500 if you have questions. LANOSCAPC • ARC {TCTURE • Sincerely, • * ' -.): ,', ..4,.2.-- A c.,, ,,,, .,. . ...k, \,)V\klU 6 0 \NIA 1 LANG - Michele Simantel SURVEY Planner 1 Attachments • G.I.S. Map • Neighborhood Meeting Information Sheet • Questions to Ask Sheet • s. 5415 SW Westgate Dr, Suite 1(10 Portland, OR : 97221 , PH 503/419 -2520 FX 503/419 -2600 www,w rod .con) r . i4 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INFORMATION f i As part of the development review process for most land use applications, the City of Tigard II IIII II M r.. requires that developers hold a neighborhood meeting to notify and discuss with property k ‘4 ° owners in the area, their proposed development. Below are some frequently asked questions 7VAR SO P P P q Y q ?!pL` . d about the neighborhood meeting process. i WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? The purpose of the meeting is to allow the prospective developer to share with you what they are planning to do. This is your opportunity to become informed of their proposed development and to let them know what issues or concerns you have in regard to their proposal. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? After the neighborhood meeting, the prospective developer finalizes their submittal package (often taking into account citizen concerns) and submits an application to the City. Sometimes it takes a while before the developer's application is ready to submit, so there could be several months between the neighborhood meeting and the submittal of an application. Once an application is submitted to the City, Staff reviews it for completeness. Once an application has been deemed complete, the formal application review begins. It takes approximately 6 -8 weeks from the time the application is accepted for a decision to be made. Many types of applications require a public hearing at which citizens are given the opportunity to provide comments or concerns. Property owners within 500 feet will be notified after a complete application is submitted. They will be provided an opportunity to comment. Any appeals are decided based on the provisions of applicable laws and the development code. WHAT IF THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED? Applicants are not required to submit exactly what was presented at the neighborhood meeting if it generally follows the type of development proposed. This provides for the opportunity to address the neighborhood issues and address other changes necessitated by the development or staff. If the project is significantly different, a new neighborhood meeting would be required as determined by staff. HOW DO I KNOW WHAT ISSUES ARE VALID? A decision is reviewed based on compliance with the Tigard Development Code. Review the city's development code to familiarheyourself with what is permitted and what may not be permitted A copy of the development code is available for viewing at the Tigard City Library, on the City's web site at www.ci.tigard.or.us, or a copy may be purchased at the Community Development Services counter. You may also contact city planning staff and ask what the standards .. are for a specific issue. Be prepared, however, that you may not LIKE all the standards, but at least you know what they are. If a development meets the code standards, it can proceed. For your assistance, attached is a list compiled of helpful questions to ask that may assist you in determining your position on a particular proposal. Page 3 z s i r QUESTIONS TO ASK OF TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 11 1 ni CONCERNS, TO MAKE SURE YOUR CONCERNS ARE • mi w' ,'• CONSIDERED , h.A V , :_f �, r The following is a list of questions intended to aid you in formulating your own questions for �" l ;,;; proposed development in your area Feel free to ask more or alter the questions to address your _ .g : ::kk` ,,i.. own unique concerns and interests. PROCESS • 1 What applications are you (the developer) applying for? When do you expect to submit the application(s) so that neighbors can review it? What changes or additions are expected prior to submittal? 1 Will the decision on the application be made by City Staff, Hearings Officer, Planning Commission or City Council? How long is the process? (timing) 1 At what point in the process are citizens given notice and the opportunity to provide input? ► Has a pre - application conference been held with City of Tigard staff? , • Have any preliminary requirements been addressed or have any critical issues been identified? • What city planner did you speak with regarding this project? (This person is generally the planner assigned to the land use case and the one to contact for additional information). ,, i STREETS 1 Will there be a traffic study done? What is the preliminary traffic impacts anticipated as a result of the development and how do you propose to mitigate the impacts if necessary? 1 What street improvements (including sidewalks) are proposed? What connections to existing streets are proposed? 1 Are streets proposed to be public or private? What are the proposed street and sidewalk widths? 1 What are the emergency access requirements and what is proposed to meet those requirements? ZONING AND DENSITY t ► What is the current zoning? What uses are allowed under this zoning? ► Will there be a re -zone requested by the developer? If yes, to what zone? ► How many units are proposed for the development and what is the minimum and maximum number of units allowed in the zone? DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY 1 What is your erosion control and drainage plan? What is the natural slope of the property? What are the grading plans? ► Is there a water quality facility planned within the development and where will it be located? Who will own and maintain the facility? TREES AND LANDSCAPING / What are the tree removal plans and what is proposed to mitigate for trees removed? 1 What are the landscaping plans? What buffering or fencing is required and /or proposed? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ► How do I request more information or a follow -up meeting from /with the applicant? s` if ∎eurpin \master \neighborhood meetings \neighborhood meeting information_questions.doc Page 4 F Durham Elementary / Jackson Business Center Parking Replacement Neighborhood Meeting SIGN -IN SHEET November 12, 2008 Name `; Address. Street, Zip Phone Number E -Mai[ Address CD Ck EXHIBIT F - Pre - Application Conference Notes f � PRE- APPLICATION NOTES FOR TIGARD- TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW October 16, 2008 STAFF PRESENT: Gary Pagenstecher APPLICANT: Tigard - Tualatin School District 23J PROPERTY LOCATION: 7950 SW Durham Road TAX MAP/ LOT #'s: 2S113BA -00401 and 2S113BA -00200 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning Map Classifications of a 3,153 square foot tract from Medium Density • Residential (R -12) to Industrial Park (I -P); Lot Line Adjustment between TL 2S113BA -00401 and TL 2S113BA- 00200, reducing the former and enlarging the latter by 3,153 square feet; Site Development Review (potentially a Minor Modification) to TL 2S113BA -00200 for the creation of 10 additional parking spaces and landscaping. COMP PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Medium Density Residential with Historic District Overlay; Industrial Park ZONING: R -12 D ; I -P NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A neighborhood meeting is required for a quasi - judicial comprehensive plan map and zoning map amendment. • NARRATIVE o- Include a narrative that responds to the applicable review criteria. Provide background and findings of fact as to why the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning map amendment are necessary, or what public benefit is being promoted. Note: The list of specific goals and standards below is intended to provide guidance in preparation of your application, and that additional criteria may be identified dependant upon the nature of the specific application, or as other issues are raised. This is not an exhaustive list of all criteria. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all applicable standards are met. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Standards for making quasi - judicial decisions apply to the proposed zoning map amendment. A recomrnendation to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi - judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations (Goal #1, Citizen Involvement; Goal #2, Land Use Planning; and Goal #9, Economic Development). } 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of the Tigard Development Code or other applicable implementing ordinance (including but not limited to 18. : :" i o ' g • a.. - • ext ' men. ents, 18390:050t0 im M'alcinereeedures; f. : ' 1 .;r e • •lustmen s; 18.360 Site Development Review 18.705_Access, E ess and Circulation; 18.740, ; 18.745 Landsca i n and Screeni 8.765 O££ Street arkin and Lo. • ements . The proposed site development proposal may be a minor modification depending on how it relates to the Evaluation Criteria (9, 10, and 11, in particular) in 18.360.050. See attached Conditions of Approval for SDR98 -00004 and SDR2000- 00016; and 3. Evidence of change in the neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the • comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application. In addition, the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 3. Any applicable METRO regulations; APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Address the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of pre - stamped, pre - addressed envelopes for all persons who are property owners of record as specified in Section 18.390.050C. e. 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 s` 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; and • f. Number of application copies to be determined upon application. PROCESS The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Council shall decide the application on the record as provided by Section 18.390, with a Type IV review. DECISION The decision timeline is generally about 4 months from receipt of a complete application. The 120 -day rule is not applicable to legislative changes. 2 APPLICATION FEES: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: $8,886.00 Quasi - Judicial Zoning Map Amendment (3,200 x 1 /2): 1,600.00 Lot Line Adjustment ($478 x' /z) 239.00 Minor Modification ($574 x' /z) * 287.00 Total Fees: $11,012.00 *May require SDR ($4,405 x' /a) PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner p 3 Irri CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ii TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 Conditions Associated With Case #: SDR98 -00004 0, Project Name: METZGER BUILDING CURRENT STATIJS UPDA1LD # DESCR11;'TION STATUS* I DAT1 BY DTI BY 1 STR. OPENING PERMIT (STRM. DRAIN) M 9/16/1998 9/16/1998 BDR Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permits, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the storm drain line tap and water line work in SW Durham Road. The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed ` public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the i Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. i 2 COMP AGRMNT /$ ASSURANCE INFO REQD M 9/16/1998 9/16/1998 BDR As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3 1 -YR MAINT. FOR SAN. SEWER LINE M 8/31/1998 8/31/1998 BDR c Prior to issuance of the site and/or building permits, the applicant shall take the necessary steps to place the existing public sanitary line work that was completed for this site by the applicant, onto a one (1) -year maintenance period. The applicant will need to work with the Engineering Department to clarify what steps should be taken. 4 H2O QUAL FAC INSTALLED ON SITE M 8/27/1998 8/27/1998 BDR The applicant shall provide an on -site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction = Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96 -44). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager)for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 5 GOETECH. SOIL ANAL. REPORT REQ'R M 8/27/1998 8/27/1998 BDR If the applicant wishes to pursue a "buried pipe trench" infiltration facility to meet the water quality requirement, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review, a report prepared by a geoteclmical engineer which analyzes the soil on the site and whether or not the soil is suitable for an infiltration facility. 6 REV. SITE /LANDSCAPE PLAN REQ'R M 7/22/1998 2/1/2000 DST Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, (639- 4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A) the minimum 25% landscape area or a plan that satisfies the criteria of Section 18.68.050.A.6 to allow a reduction to this percentage; B) location of alI roof mounted equipment and an elevation demonstrating screening in compliance with Section 18.120.108.4(B); C) three (3) disabled parking spaces; D) four (4) bicycle parking spaces at a location within 50 feet of primary entrances to the structure; and E) written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility. : 7 LIGHTING PLAN REQ'R M 9/2/1998 9/2/1998 MJR A lighting plan shall be submitted to be reviewed and approved by the Tigard Police Department. Staff Contact: Jim Wolf . (639 -6168 x220). 8 BLDG FINAL INSP REQ UNDERGRNDING M 2/22/2000 BDR 2/22/2000 BDR Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in -lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $6,600. 9 SITE IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED M 2/22/2000 JPH 2/22/2000 JPH ; All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plans. 10 PARKING REQUIREMENTS M 2/22/2000 JPH 2/22/2000 JPH Before the City authorizes use of the buildings on the site for any purpose or changes in the approved uses of the buildings on the site, the applicant shall show that the site contains adequate off - street parking for the proposed uses in combination with other existing uses on the site, consistent with CDC Section 18.106. The applicant shall also demonstrate that the proposed ; tenant is classified as a permitted use. Pluo CaseConditions.rlrt 1 of 2 M il CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 10/15/2008 •, 12:42:22PM TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 >9 • Conditions Associated With Case #: SDR2000 -00016 Project Name: JACKSON BUSINESS CENTE g # DCSCRIPTIOI`1 STATUS* DATE BY' I DA E PDATI D BY • 1 STREET TREES M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 1. Submit a plan showing street trees at a minimum 3 -inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. 2 CROSSOVER EASEMENT M MS 1/23/2001 MAS 2. Record a crossover easement for the access and walkways for both Tax Lots. 3 PARKING LOT TREES M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 3. Submit a plan showing parking lot trees to be at least 2- inches in caliper. 4 WASTE MANAGEMENT M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 4. Submit a narrative addressing one of the four methods of waste management that will be used according to the Mixed Solid Waste and Recycling Design Standards. 5 FRANCHISE HAULER M MS 11/30/2000 MAS • 1 5. Submit a verification letter that the franchise hauler approves the refuse container and location. 6 PARKING STALLS/WHEEL STOPS M MS 11/30/2000 MAS ; 6. Submit a plan showing all parking stalls to the north and west of the proposed addition that abut pedestrian walkways and . the stalls that abut the boundary of the site will have wheel stops at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of the parking stall. 7 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR BICYCLES M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 7. Provide directional signs for bicycle parking from the front of the building. • 8 BIKE RACK M MS 11/30/2000 MAS 8. Submit a detail of the bike rack to be used. l 9 STREET OPENING PERMIT/P -IMP PLANS M 6/4/2001 BDR 6/5/2001 BDR • 9. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the old driveway € closure, new driveway construction, signal modification (if necessary), and any other work in the public right -of -way. The # applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: These i plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. This permit shall be obtained by the applicant prior to approval of the final plat. 10 COMP AGRMNT /$ ASSURANCE INFO REQD M 6/4/2001 BDR 6/5/2001 BDR 10. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing 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. . 11 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS M 12/1/2000 BDR 12/1/2000 BDR 11. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction s vehicle parking shall be provided on -site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be pemlitted to park on the adjoining residential pubic streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 12 SUITE LAYOUT MAP M BR 1/9/2002 SS 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, Engineering Department. s Suite numbers will then be assigned by the City and the address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the 5 applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. E 13 REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY M 5/31/2001 BDR 5/31/2001 BDR s • Plno CaseConditions.rpt 1 of 2 1` • ' c u R • RENT DATE US BY UPDATED DATI� BY 13. The applicant's construction plans shall show that they will physically remove the existing driveway at the western x boundary of the site and replace it with concrete curb and sidewalk to match existing. The plan shall also show that the a applicant will install street trees along the frontage of this site. a 14 ONSITE DETENTION M 1/30/2001 BDR 1/30/2001 BDR i 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a plans that shows how they will provide onsite detention to meet USA's Design and Construction Standards. 15 ONSITE WATER QUALITY FACILITY M 1/30/2001 BDR 1/30/2001 BDR 15. The applicant shall provide an on -site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00 -7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the t Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a i proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 16 ADDITIONAL ROW M 5/31/2001 BDR 5/31/2001 BDR 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the frontage of SW Durham Road to increase the right -of -way to 35 feet from the centerline. The decription shall be tied to the existing right -of -way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. [NOTE: Staff confirmed that existing ROW measures at least 35 feet from centerline, and as shown by Record ' of Survey #28,405, by Weddle & Associates, Inc.] 17 COMPLETE WORK IN PUBLIC ROW M 10/17/2001 BDR 10/17/2001 BDR 17. Prior to a fmal building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right -of -way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. . 18 PRIVATE WATER QUALITY FACILITY M 4/24/2002 HAP 4/24/2002 HAP 18. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency 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 bulding 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. • l , 4 Condition Status Index: • M =Met N =Not Met a . 5 x E { i t f 2 , f t E . Phug CaseConditions.rpt 2 of 2 a PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ). ENGINEERING SECTION Q } C ity oMart Oregon Community Deve(opment Saiapingi Better Community PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Mapfsl: 2S113BA Tax Lotfsl: 401 Use Type: Residential The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be y no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. • Right -of -way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights -of -way to the ultimate functional street classification right -of -way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right -of -way dedication for ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet { Street improvements: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: 1 ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk 7 street trees • ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two -year streetlight fee. • ❑ Other: CITY OF TIGARD Are - Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 F.nsIneering Department Section • 3f ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two -year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two -year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two -year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: Ou it;i . ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. C1TY OF TIGARII Pre - Ap Conference Notes Page 2 016 Engineering Department5eetien ❑ Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: in some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: ( (2 Overhead Utility Lines: n Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in -lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in -lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW Prior to the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in- lieu described above. y Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to Water Supply: The (Phone:(503) ) provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612 -7010] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm CITY OF TIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 0 Engineering Department Section • ti drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub -basin drainage analysis to ensure.- that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. !` Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00 -7) which requires 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 impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in -lieu of constructing an on- site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in -lieu will be offered. if the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious .: surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: /1 Construction of an on -site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in -lieu. Show new impervious area Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county -wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. CITY 6FTIGABQ Pre -Application Page 4 of 6 Gaa[erence Notes Engineering DepartmentSectien 1 .PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right -of -way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFi permit application is available at the Planning /Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases • where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design - related assistance provided to a Permiftee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permiftee must execute a Developer /Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public s improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: i The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi- family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all an -site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi- family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub - trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. CITY OF TIGARII Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 Engineering Department Section if GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which Tots have natural slopes between 10% and 20 %, as well as Tots that have natural slopes in excess of 20 %. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the Tots develop. The design engineer !. will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each • homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: 11>u 1 i O C. f6 0 e ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: (503) 639 -417 Fax: 15031 624-0152 dacument2 Revised: September 2, 2003 CITY OFTIGARD Pre - Application Conference Notes Page 6 016 Engineering Depar'tinentSection f H 1 y z E C CD 0 r--f 0 LID • x `5 € Y y � • • • • • y � 6 f 4 E 6 d 6 r -JO 4. . ...". " X 1 • b. •. l +s • w' ? v it 'i 042'. . It. tilt ' 11 i i rt 1 �' no-444 -444 era . ., . tel c , I no _ .', ellik - ,P .r • •; . *.. ` . '.. (fi t r „1 •-. h'i .. r , 1 iiiii _ f tit '4 ; s r �,, �' .i � t I • \ i § i § ! . 4, 4� y ^ 3 I 1 • r i \-111 . !,6- S- l T F. ..., .4. . 4 . r • EXHIBIT H - Clean Water Services Sensitive Area Pre-Screen 04/2002 11 :47 5034192600 11T1= TM] PAGE 01/02 ;c rr jNOV13ZOQ8U NOV 1 f� - TT F U 14- V 0 6 ZOO$ s y. er Services File Number By Clea».Water. �`` Scrvices 1 0 �'�-o©35z) , Sensitive Area Pre - Screenin • Site As essment err�- v ��` �- ,� Cr q 1. Jurisdiction: City of Tigard in ' 2. Property Information (example 1,5230SO1400) 3. O e Info anon Tax lot ID(s): 2$113BA00200 and 401 Name: ,.. ti ' U A ' 11A .V" " i company: Tigard - Tualatin chool District Address: $048 SW Schaeffer Ln. , 7950 and 7800 SW Durham Road City, State, Zip; Tigard, OR 97224 , • Site Address: City, State, zip: Tigard, OR 97224 Phone/Fax: . S - 6 2 o - — ? -L-ku lia 1 Nearest Cross Street: 79th E -Mail: • 3 4. Development Activity (check all the! apply) 5. Applicant Information #1 Addition to Single Family Residence (rooms. deck, garage} N ame: Michele Simantel O Lot Line Adjustment Cl Minor Land Partition Company: WRG Design O Residential Condominium © Commercial Condominium Address: 5415 SW Westgate Dr. Suite 100 O Residential Subdivision 0 Commercial Subdivision ® Single Lot Commercial city, State, zip: Portland. OR 87221 Multi Lot Commercial 503 -419 -2500 Other Minor Modification to Sits Development Review Phone/Fax: i E -mail: 503 -419 -2600 , G. Will the protect involve any off-site work? 0Yes pi No 0 Unknown Location and description of off -site work , 7. Additional comments or information that may be needed to understand your project Requesting a PLA of 3,163 sf. & minor modification to build 10 parking spaces along west property line of TL 200 This application does NOT replace Grading and Erosion Control Permits, Connection Permits, Building Permits, Site Development Permits, DEO l 1204 -C Permit or other permits as issued by the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of State Lands and/or Department of the Army COE. All required peMtits and approvals must be obtained and completed udder applicable Iota[, state, and Federal law. By signing this form, the Owner or Owner's authorized agent or representative, acknowledges and agrees that employees of Clean Water Services have authority to enter the project site at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting project site conditions and gathering information related to the project site. I certify i that I em famlilar shah the information contained in this document and to the best of my knowledge and belief, this information is true, complete, and accurate, Print/Type Name Mic ele eS Simmantel �j , . Print)Type Title Planner, WRG Design ! Signature t -\•• ; il 1 1 Date 11/6/2008 _ , _ AI FOR DISTRICT USE ONLY 0 Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site, THE APPLICANT MIDST PERFORM A SITE ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE.OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. - l [ [..] Based on review of the submitted materials and best available Information Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site, This Sensitive Area Pre- Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas If they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter es required by Resolution and Order 07 -20, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, State, and federal law. 'W aged on review of the submitted materials and best available information the above referenced project wit not significantly impact the existing or potentially sensitive areas) found near the site. This Sensitive Area Pre - Screening Site Assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect addltjonal water quality sensitive areas if They are subsequently discovered, This document will serve es your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 07 -20, Section 3,02.1, All required permils and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state and federal taw, This Service Provider Letter is not valid unless 1 CWS approved site plants) are attached. ID The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development or the lot was platted after 919195 OILS 92.040(2), NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER TER IS REQUiREr. Reviewed by ...� < < Date !/ TO/4k I . 2550 Sl^J Hillsburo Highway • I liif Ortigan 9112:', . Pnone: (50:3) 031-51Q11 '. Fax: (503) i:,3 x-44 n) • , www,clennwakri- .31 ;.erg 1 i i .-- ::::.,u �,:M i..N ��, � >,.- ��.� -:�e�i <a��, a w,.�.v...�n .w .,.... ...,.w.., .........:..........,, ..:.�.,,....�..•.u... v,,..._....,.-., a,.......,.=,,.. w.. �-.: �, „- �.,.�Y,...a...,..:...,.,,..F W y�„,..�.::.�.�: .�u._.._w.....,. ,.....:... �....W.....,,.n -.4:,, ..�..»....�...,,:....�,,:.,.K., ..,,,.... ..�..- _:.,m...�..•......,...�.. ».....,,.�,,,.., 4.a..�.,.w„k... e.. .� ....�........ _ ...,... -. �,:�. �, -'13 , r I -'a4 f”" ` I `'_ D isq 1. Cy - •� � 1 `ti3 -'-- !... ski [ = '' ' c 1 I CD i / r `x - - a � e • W _ �I PROJECT r VICINITY J — rte _ -, �_ �.. — • 1 . :. ... ------___ . . ll c I o I P nQ►rm r M ' ti:� , � L - -- it e ra[ � `' x y '•-rd. . lr ,. r 7 ..• i C ' r. •, 'o .. i {n VKMY h4AP �R r' Z CO MY IU /40 : -EXISTING 5 . K_ a_ U Z LINE V ' ' IV . — z E ` - 0 STALL COUNT i _ c � � 1 .. `Z I I H Io r _- . d A STALL REMOVED 8Y . / Cr ACCESS DRIVE _ 11 1 /` V • [1 § f �, d r IJJ PROPOSED STALLS ._ _ .10 - • Q'- / f � � BUILDING l + li T f�f� .i�4 r r � X x I— , r° PARK} STALLS (TfP) .) �� • PRDPO D `; t • '+� v ......---:-.% l / ,/,./40.1 t-, PROP L /LlhlE A RE1 TO BE t � .. d +� �� ■ iRArISF RRED .- 31 53.4�S�F � � Kx • O C] -Eft- `. - ., � � - i ce ' 18 [-O IF -'� / f CO SCALE. 1 =40 t� v j ,�; ,� CD f N 1 1 0 tFi' . f� �� R EXISTING CURS U p O v i in . 40 ..E. s, , ...40 20 0 )-....; • PLAYGROUND h ,-1 E a co co] cN m m S'1 . .:::nr.:nln:.stlrcml•�.yy tt3 s•. sgfYlnYr .os.+4 ..,:.. wwwr�..«.,., Mw.::. �w....,.,.. e. uw., m .. v,. n. ss...., ama .............+.; w» s. �w..,.. T. wx.»„ w�. w... i .<..e...ww.ee.:.cvaa:.�.:.:.... ��..:._ �w.-,«...., Y., f.... m.:.,. .u,,...,..ew...,:.N,..w..�.,..m ..i,,.._...u,...,......� ___._..... n....«..: sw. m.»,,..,...:.a.,.�».....u..,... .....«.«. ..d.., _�....... -sss EXHIBIT I - Arborist Report CNI > 6 . 1 7iirn ' 10 7800 SW DURHAM RD. PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT TREE PROTECTION PLAN Prepared For Tigard - Tualatin School District 23J 6960 Sandburg Rd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)431 -4000 Residential and Commercial Spraying •Fertilizing•Pruning•Landscape Installation•Landscape Maintenance•Consultation MEMBER: Tree Care Industry Association•International Society of Arboriculture•Oregon Landscape Contractors Assoc. State Licensed Tree Service #62635•Landscape Contractor #5659•Chemical Application @000231•Insured P.O. Box 1566•Lake Oswego, OR 97035.503- 635- 3165•Vancouver360- 737- 2646•Fax 503- 635 -1549 Visit our website at www.tclu.com•E -mail; info@tclu.com L $ CONTENTS Tree Protection Plan Narrative 1 Tree Protection Plan Check List 3 Tree Assessment 5 Tree Assessment Map 6 rr g $ y } � q y $ ( $ $ ARBORIST REPORT Subject: Tree Protection Plan Address of the Report: 7800 SW Durham Rd. Tigard, Oregon Date of the Report: November 10, 2008 Report Submitted To: Bonita Maplethorpe Tigard - Tualatin School District 233 6960 Sandburg Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 CC: Corey McManus, EIT Senior Project Designer WRG Design, Inc. • 5415 SW Westgate DR., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 corey. mcmanus©wrgdesion.com Dear Bonita, I have reviewed the Metzger Parking Site Plan and I have visited the site. My understanding is the intent of the project is to modify the existing parking lot to include 10 new parking spaces placed x: among the six existing Giant Sequoias on the west side of the parking lot while preserving the trees. To protect the trees the following measures should be undertaken. 1. Wrap the tree's trunks with 1 /2" thick plywood to prevent damage from equipment which will be operating at close quarters to the trees. The plywood may not be fastened directly to the tree by methods that will penetrate any part of the tree or otherwise damage the tree. The plywood will be used in lieu of standard wire tree protection fencing. 2. It will be necessary to prune away any lower tree limbs so as to provide 10 feet of vertical clearance above finish grade. Pruning shall be supervised by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist and s` shall be done to A.N.S.I. standards. 3. Any other limbs that may interfere with construction equipment clearance shall be tied back in a manner that provides access for the equipment and protects the limb from damage. 4. The existing boulder retained raised planters shall be removed down to original grade. A clay soil fill has been placed to create the planters after the Giant Sequoias had reached their current maturity. Care shall be taken not to damage roots that exist at original grade. Hand work will be necessary to remove the existing soil that is within six vertical inches of existing tree roots. Hand laborers shall be instructed to gently scrape away the last layers E. of soil above the roots working in radial direction outward from the tree's trunk. This work will require on site supervision by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist. Residential and Commercial Spraying •Fertilizing•Pruning•Landscape Installation•Landscape Maintenance•Consultation MEMBER: Tree Care Industry Association•International Society of Arboriculture•Oregon Landscape Contractors Assoc. State Licensed Tree Service #62635•Landscape Contractor #5659•Chemical Application ©000231•Insured P.O. Box 1566•Lake Oswego, OR 97035.503- 635-- 3165•Vancouver360- 737- 2646•Fax 503 -635 -1549 Visit our website at www.tclu.com•F -mail; info�tclu,com Page 1 V 5. Pruning of roots 2 inches in diameter or greater shall be avoided. 6. Base fill for parking spaces shall be of a gap graded crushed rock such as 3 inch to 1 inch drain rock or washed 3 /4 "x #10 concrete aggregate. The back slope of the base rock shall be left open to atmosphere or an aeration system as approved as by an T.S.A. Certified Arborist may be used. 7. Final design of the parking lot system shall be reviewed and approved by an I.S.A. Certified Arborist. In addition to these special conditions and specifications standard specifications and conditions that apply to this work have been attached. Sincerer K y yon Tree Care & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture, Lic #PN -0409 • } EE } ` { Page 2 Tree Protection Plan 1 REVISED 7/27/05 SITE ADDRESS 7800 SW Durham Rd. • Follow the below listed instructions in order to provide the proper protection before, during and after construction for trees #1 through #6. I. Before Construction: App. Non -App. X ❑ a. Identify and number the trees to be protected, verify by mapping and /or tagging and note their size in D.B.H. (Diameter at Breast Height), variety, health and structural conditions, review plans. X ❑ b. Check with local government agencies for tree protection ordinances. • X ❑ c. Remove any low limbs that may be in the way of construction equipment, and prune as needed s to adhere NAA standards. ❑ X d. Leave a protective covering on the soil, i.e., existing groundcover or mulch. X ❑ e. Notify all other contractors that these trees are to be saved and protected. ❑ X f. Install a temporary 6' high metal no -climb fence to protect the trees and their root systems. Install tree protection sign on fence. Posts located 10' on center as a general rule. For every inch in diameter of the trunk (D.B.H.) allow up to 1 foot of radius from the trunk as the protected area, (Example: 24" D.B.H. 24' radius of protected root system.) Ideally, we need to protect more than the drip zone. The drip zone into the trunk is the support roots that hold the tree up. The roots from that drip zone out provide nutrition, water and oxygen. Try to avoid loss of more than 30% of root on any one side. This allows some encroachment within the drip line. This should be determined on a case by case site conditions reviewed. (SEE ENCLOSED SITE PLAN) . X ❑ g. Identify any insect or disease problems that may require treatment. ❑ X h. Engineer and design proposed structures and construction to avoid root loss. Bridge type foundations can save major roots. X ❑ i. Design landscape islands and planting areas large enough to accommodate trees at maturity. ❑ X j. Plant the right tree in the right place. Avoid future conflicts with buildings and utilities. X ❑ k. Have an experienced Arborist review landscape plan to assure the right tree is planted in the right place and proposed changes don't kill retained mature trees. li ❑ X I. Consider tree removals adjacent to trees to be saved for wind related stability concerns. Page 3 App. Non -App. X ❑ m. Check for past and proposed grade and drainage changes, consider the effects. ❑ X n. Check trees for stability. ❑ X o. Remove all trees that would not survive the effects of change. Remove all hazardous trees. X ❑ p. Minimize environmental changes. II. During Construction: X ❑ a. Keep equipment off of the root system to avoid compaction. X ❑ b. Keep equipment away from structure to prevent damage to trunk and limbs. • X ❑ c. Don't allow chemicals to be dumped on the ground near the tree, i.e., gasoline, diesel, paint, herbicide, cleaner, thinners, etc. X 0 d. Provide means of temporary irrigation if the project runs through the summer. X ❑ e. If roots or limbs are cut or damaged, have them inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist and repaired or treated according to his /her recommendations. X ❑ f. Protect the trees from excessive heat, i.e., equipment, paving and /or burning. X ❑ g. Avoid trenching through the root systems, boring under them or hand digging can save roots. X ❑ h. Contact the ISA Certified Arborist familiar with the site prior to and during any activity within the drip zone or tree protection fencing for consultation. III. After Construction: X ❑ a. Carefully landscape the area under the tree, being careful of the roots and structure. Use plantings that will live under the same conditions as that of the tree. ❑ X b. Provide insect and disease control, fertilization and pruning as needed or adhere to long -term protection plan if provided. X ❑ c. Avoid direct irrigation spraying onto the trunk. The amount of irrigation needed to keep new plantings alive can often be enough to kill mature trees. X ❑ d. Do not cover existing root systems with more than 2" of soil. The more soil you add, the greater the chances of damaging the root system. ❑ X e. Provide irrigation and /or drainage to emulate pre - construction conditions. NOTE: This tree protection plan identifies construction protection measures to prevent unwarranted tree loss. The identified measures limit the amount of earth disturbance surrounding the trees, and limit the removal of the tree's root systems. Due to the variation of every project, it is unlikely all of the above identified measures can be practicably applied to each individual tree; nor is it likely each measure is necessary to retain each tree. Prior to the beginning of construction a meeting between a certified arborist and the necessary contractors will be held to determine the appropriate level of protection for each tree, in relation to what work needs to be completed in the tree's vicinity. On site supervision by a certified arborist will be determined and supplied as necessary. Page 4 p ?BSS+ 3C • to /i n, At 3$ ARBORIST REPORT 's. Subject: Tree Assessment Address of the Report: 7800 SW Durham Rd. Tigard, Oregon Date of the Report: November 10, 2008 Report Submitted To: Bonita Maplethorpe Tigard - Tualatin School District 233 6960 Sandburg Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 CC: Tony Roos WRG Design, Inc. 5415 SW Westgate DR., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97221 tony.roosnwrgdesign.com • TREE ASSESSMENT • NO. ^ mm COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME DBH CONDITION COMMENTS EXEMPT 1 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 24 Good No giganteum u 2 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 22 Good No giganteum 3 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 25 Good No giganteum 4 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 23 Good No giganteum 5 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 24 Good No giganteum 6 Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron 19 Good No giganteum Sincerel -y / on Tree are & Landscapes Unlimited, Inc. Certified Arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture, Lic #PN -0409 Residential and Commercial Spraying •Fertilizifg•Pruning•Landscape Insta €lation•Landscape Maintenance•Consultatlon MEMBER: Tree Care Industry AssociatIon•International Society of Arboriculture•Oregon Landscape Contractors Assoc, State Licensed Tree Service #62635•Landscape Contractor #5659•Chernicai Application C1000231•insured P.O. Box 1566•Lake Oswego, OR 97035 .503 - 635- 3165•Vancouver 360- 737 -2646 +Fax 503 -635 -1549 Visit our website at.www.tclu.com•E -mail: info@ltclu,com • Page 5 • •••-•159,0: - i ), ""'. 1,N,._:•,,ki,/ : ,.• , .... -----: ,=_:=--,-_,_______, 1 : : , : . pi:__,:.is_:„:„,„:1:, . 731, I PROJECT a kuul• ten• VIQNITY — —_ _ s I • • :. . °` DURHAM ROAD .._ —... x4Y ..__ = : o _ • I • I s7 GARD ,. I _-ts --- �.sti. ` ,... , •. i rSod ' ��' 1 ' T7 z V1ON1TY MAP .. , ._ ; ,� :' `., — I f cn co W rar Tr. scuE • , , � co • : FXISTIi iG �.._ ..__� - ^T.... CO m - / Y a: U N t.INF `v / : L.. W< ,' j ' d .• STALL COUNT i' �:. ='_ ; I W I — o g • STALL REMOVED BY . : : ' , � � I co I-1.I -V ACCESS DRIVE 11� <s .:` c m PROPOSED STASES G �% -- Z W OV D' - i- V. - BUILDIN:; N FARKIi •. -. Ril _ - STALLS (TYP),' . PROPOSED �. W P uPEftTY /e.g. - _ � T. E N } ' TRaNSFRRFD W __ is ,. ^ { 1 ' . rJ M a ce • f a 2� �0.._r 4U v" t : f _ ` E X1STfNG CUR2 o U _ i� / � / . F d �2 ,P (•p _ �� f - '' � PLAYGROUN O V z ' , i : r' " . / d 0 VIII to • Page 6 • ,,... _ _ „ _ . -- - ....._.. ...... . _ . . _ - - ____ ___. w . , ., . m m rr - .... , . , �: _ _ .. .. �..,� . w.� .�� m. u. _ _ �. w rs �.., .rt .rv. mM,� . >•� � �. .:�...ee.c rrz.:s:,ry :.s =-•�. arts - :y.,�er�r5^re ..�..... �.:.._.... .w,.,.�..::......,��.....w .�.».�.., e,...... w..,. ��,.....,..:.._:»...... 4,, z.,,, a•_...,, v ............. uu. o..«: M m,.,...,,,.., s..,,..,.... ��.+,. a.,.., w.,,,,.,.»....,......:, a,....>,. .,,.o.,«,..�•�,�.,:,...e..:<.d. ,e.,... ..... ........0 _,,. EXHIBIT J - Stormwater Report • Li i rz DESIGN a ns INC. i 1 MEMORANDUM To: Kim McMillan Via: Email ; City of Tigard I • ! i r From: Cindy Sundborg, EIT r-ri 5da Water Resources Designer i i Dug µ - FVi1'IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Date: November 10, 2008 Project: Durham Elementary Access • MI WRG #: TSD6701 . Re: Revised Metzger Property Swale Analysis l i LAND i PLANNING The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the newly constructed swale for Durham Elementary Access, located at the corner of SW Durham Road and SW 79 Ave in Tigard, Oregon. The Metzger t property has been reconfigured; therefore the proposed site and Metzger property will be re- analyzed s ., -i) to determine whether the designed swale stiff has sufficient treatment and conveyance capacity to ( V (` j meet city code. ""IL Water Quality ENGINEERING The impervious area required to be treated will include the proposed access road and parking lot, and impervious buildings and existing parking lot to the north. Also, due to the Durham Elementary Access • �- - -- development, water quality treatment for the adjacent Metzger property will be taken out. Therefore, L '". 1 approximately 311,058 sf (0.71 acres) of impervious area from the Metzger property will be collected 1 , and treated by the newly constructed swale for Durham Elementary Access site. This area includes the reconfiguration of the Metzger parking lot, which has added an additional 2,515 sf (0.06 acres) of LANDSCAPE impervious area. Pervious areas will not need to be considered in the water quality swale calculations. ARCHITECTURE The total impervious surface area is outlined in Table 1. Basin ID square feet acres F Basin 1 0.92 _.. _ 40,088 0. i Basin 2 ____ 23,602 0.54 i f SURVEY �. LAND Basin 3 23,235 0.53 Basin 4 -- — j M - .. -. �ous Area 117 983 3� 0 _._ „ 0.71 rnpervr 2.7_ � _ "" Total I j Table 1 – Impervious Area The total water quality volume and flow were computed according to Clean Water Service Design j I i Standards and are stated below: ; j Water Quality Volume = 0 (in) x Area (sf) = 0.36(i)x 117,983 (sf) = 3,540 cubic feet 5415 SW Westole Dr. 12 (in /ft) 12 (inlft) i Suite 100 . I Po'II n , OR Water Quality Flow = Water Quality Volume (cf) = 3,540 (cf) = 0.25 cubic feet per second 14,400 (sec) 14,400 (sec) • s PH 503/419 -2500 FX 5031419 -2000 • • • svwrr.,vigd.com • • • i k g I f I I • Water Quality Swale The water quality swale was designed in accordance with current CWS standards as follows: • Design Flow: Water Quality Flow • Minimum Hydraulic Residence Time: 9 minutes • Maximum Water Design Depth: 0.5 feet • • Minimum Slope: 0.5% • • • Minimum Length: 100 feet • • Manning's "n" value: 0.24 E • Maximum Velocity: 2.0 fps (based on 25 -yr flow) t . , Using FlowMaster 2005 Software and the CWS standards, the water quality swale was designed with the parameters listed in Table 2. • • Average D eptT� - e ol�i — esr ence t a oirt . Swale Length (ft) Slope ( %} Flow (cfs) (ft) (fps) Time (min) (ft) ' • Swale 170 0,5 0.25 0.29 0.17 16.7 4.0 . € : Table 2 —Swale Parameters The newly constructed swale has the capacity to treat 0.31 cfs, while still maintaining a hydraulic I . residence time of 9.0 minutes. The swale is capable of handling 3.42 acres. Table 3 lists the amount • of impervious area being sent to the swale from each basin, and the remaining capacity of the water quality Swale. . . Impervious Area Used Description of Area , (acres) Access Road & Parking lot (Basin 1) 0.92 Existing Parking lot & Building (Basin 2) 0.54 i Existing Building (Basin 3) 0.53 Metzger lot (Basin 4) 0.71 , Remaining Capacity of Swate 0.72 • Table 3 — Water Quality Swale Capacity This peak flow is greater than the calculated WQF of 0.25 cfs for the proposed site; therefore, the swale has sufficient capacity to provide water quality treatment for the site, including the reconfigured Metzger property. l Conveyance Swale Along with the water quality swale, the conveyance system has also been re- analyzed. The total • • impervious area is 117,983 sf. The pervious area, including grass /landscaped area, the football field, • and the playground is 165,291 sf. Using FlowMaster 2005 Software and the CWS standards, the . • conveyance swale parameters are: • Velocity: 0.33 fps i ` • Side Slope: 4H:1 V for the first 0.5 feet, then can increase to 3H:1 V • Bottom Width: 4 feet • Conveyance Depth: 1.02 feet • Top Width (with max. water design depth at 0.5 ft and freeboard of 1 ft): 14 feet W': 1 s • D E S I G N I N C. 1 Conclusion • The reconfiguration of the Metzger property will not affect the newly constructed swale located at Durham Elementary Access. The analysis shows that there is capacity to treat and convey flows from the site and from the adjacent Metzger property. • Attachments: Post Developed Basin Areas . • • 1 3 1 ' }. S } i } 'r 6 1 4 t 1 3 £ r % r } } E D E S I G N I N C. rt — - _........ - .__ -- -. t 7 "\ � ' �- 1� - -.__� i _ � ..._.,.. ...__,_...._.._....._...., - • -- ▪ fi _- - 1 ^p%�a•.•t -rte.. a7+ �I o i BASIN 3 BASIN 2 ::: • H -' .• IMPACTED EXISTING 'Y3�'•��'�`�� I �� r'`,. I METZGER PROPERTY �' t`'� r n I :....�, <. �, ' , AREA = 7,484 SF `.�'p;� �'�� I r E � f u t 14 4 I.�...'�� BASIN 5 � '� _ •- • / j 3 l '= x �x f BASI 4 b _ N_ 1- x MI �` 3 I r BASIN 1 ! •• - j—\ ;'I : w ! r f ,, J. ! 3 ' J - o F L \ �. , �' / , i I I I 4i ' -A .:�tC , y I + L. ti S -- ' + �s I 'a: f' it L nJ . . : [T � ;! 'I '•� ��, �!. ^.: _,_ � � a .. -�` � t e k` I 2ti 1 �� 1 m Q / _'\ j11 f �. / F: �_.1- � � -� l;• ± l ti-. -' / p - � •., I �'�•€ r4�- y hl. 1 { _ a>' � r'� I�.1 r -- _..,�__ _ I i ��.., �°:.- �(''••'..:.,._ ire G Q I ! -- -- - - -� 1 i !' W y SCALE 7 ' = 70 ' t , ,` 1 Y ❑ 1 aQC 10 5 0 10 i. i '1 r ! p t BASIN 5 I is l i I x . 11 ! i ! ; J I .cC BASIN PER AREA IMP AREA TOTAL AREA 1 0 40,088 40,088 2 0 23,602 23,602 3 2,582 23,235 25,817 • 4 6,099 31 05$ 37,157 5 156,610 0 156,601 �_ - ; " f €tf? ! U o TOTAL 165,291 117,983 283,265 ' j :;'14' ,% 1 r C EXHIBIT K - Decision for Casefile SDR 2000 -00016 , s 7 S F 4 ,: NOTICE IfE ill DECISION 'SI E "D Y I , E -W �{SDR 0 00;0,00.':14,A ` ` EI.OPENI'r ,r�: ` :`LOT ;€ f O � ` ' b 0 07 ' =. , w'' r�= ,,,.,:.4,N 1 \ DJUS , (MIS ) 2 Q Q00 Y ' ; 5 ''cir� o> noa�a JACKSON ' BUSINES S ° CENTER ADDI �� #" e " ' 720 DAYS =111812001 . SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY : S i FILE NAME; JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2000 -00016 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) MI82000 -00007 i i i PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,320 square foot addition to an existing 21,000 square foot building and Lot Line Adjustment approval to adjust the eastern lot line to include 8,277 square feet. OWNER: David Metzger APPLICANT: NICOIi Engineering P.O. Box 275 Jim Andrews, Project Mgr. Sherwood, OR 97140 9025 SW Center Street PO Box 23784 ` Tigard, OR 97281 LOCATION: 7910 SW Durham Road; WCTM 2S113BA, Tax Lot 00300 and 7800 SW Durham Road; WCTM 2S113BA, Tax Lot 00200. ZONE: I -P; Industrial Park. The l -P zoning . district provides appropriate ? i locations for combining. light manufacturing, office and small -scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus -like setting. Only those Tight industrial uses with no off -site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I -P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in ' 1 -P zone have been adopted to insure' that developments will be well- integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW I CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, 18.530, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 1 • SECTION II. DECISION ,Notice Is h ereb y gi t hat the Cit O f 1 0,rd P* '', , r` o f „ , g , , " i pni de m et t Dire ctoris d `has APPROVED the a bove re u o rt to Cond o ` ' � q es.. s ib eet #o c 0 =:lp� p 5.,•V appro� l { E h. ind i "� A11 conclusions ap rh jo h ltl1.b4 locls,o isfO s e i` r� tbd'A a ectiot i -41e...!,-!,.-...., ``A + r ,, E_ NOTICE OF TYPE 1I DECISION SDR2000.00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION { PAGE i OF 20 f i • r CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • r, THE FOLLOWING'CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED i PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITEIBUILDING PERMITS: u • mi evi s e ce o comp ymg wi e . o ow rig cons! ions o e • arming II !vision. Staff contact: Mathew Scheidegger 503- 639 - 4171, x317. 1. Submit a plan showing street trees at a minimum 3 -inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. t 2. Record a crossover easement for the access and walkways for both Tax Lots. 3. Submit a plan showing parking lot trees to be at least 2- inches in caliper. 4. Submit a narrative addressing one of the four methods of waste management that will ' be used according to the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Design Standards. 5. Submit a verification letter that the franchise hauler approves the refuse container and , location. . , 6. Submit a plan showing all parking stalls to the north and west of the proposed l addition that abut pedestrian walkways and the stalls that abut the boundary of the situ will have wheel at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of the parking stall. 7. Provide directional signs for bicycle parking from the front of the building. 8. Submit a detail of the bike rack to be used. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE •SATISFIED • i l PRlOR : ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT:: Submit .to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639 4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: l 9. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this 3 i project to coven the old driveway closure, new driveway construction, signal modification (if necessary), and any other work in the public right -of -way. The applicant will need to submit five (5) copies of a proposed public improvement plan for review and approval. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by i F the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public improvements. i 10. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual E or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if I i • one is required) and providing 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 - l , Department will delay processing of project documents. i 11, The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval . - by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on -site. No'construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of i any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers ' and employees associated with the project. . 12. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church Engineering Department. Suite numbers will then be assigned by the City and the address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. 1 NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2000- 00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 2 OF 20 13. The applicant's construction plans shall show that they will physically remove the existing driveway at the western boundary of the site and replace it with concrete curb and sidewalk to match existing. The plan shall also show that the applicant will install street trees along the frontage of this site. • 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows how they will provide onsite detention to. meet USA's Design and Construction Standards. 15. The applicant shall provide an on -site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted, by Resolution and Order NO. 00 -7). Final plans arid' calculatjons shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review arid approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a prippoSed maintenance plan 's all be submitted along with the plans and calculation s for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR ITO ;iISSUA NCE, OF THE BUILDING PERMIT., U•1111 o e ngineering ' ep men : nan - ager, , ex . or review and approval: 16. - Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the ' Public along the frontage of SW Durham Road to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet - from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right -of -way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. THE 1= OLLOWING CON D ITIONS::SHAL'L BE : SATISFIED ,PRIOR TO A F INAL IBUILDING INSPE Submit to the Engineering Depar (Brian -Rages, 639 - 4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 17. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public :.right - of-way (or public easement) and obtain . approval from the Engineering Department. 18: To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency 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 i. visual . observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at I x 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. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the address (7910 SW Beveland Street). i I. Based on this search, staff could not find any record of past land use activity. The property was previously used as residential, with a single -story home on the property. Vicinity Information: Adjacent properties to the east and south are zoned I -P (Industrial Park) and are developed with office /warehouse /manufacturing buildings. Property on the west :side is zoned R -12 and developed as an elementary school. Property on the north side of SW 'Durham Road is zoned R -12 (Residential, 12 units per acre) and is developed with single- family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,320 square foot addition to an existing 21,000 square foot building and Lot Line Adjustment approval to adjust the eastern lot line to include 8,277 square feet. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 000151JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 3 OF 20 it g i SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET A letter was received from Merry Cailah�n who lives on SW Bond Street, near the intersection of SW Bond Street and SW 79 Avenue. Her fetter listed a few concerns that can be addressed by Engineering. i. First, Ms. Callahan is concerned about the additional traffic impact from this development and has asked for an assessment of the number of cars that may enter and exit this developnierit on .a given day. The City did not require a formal traffic impact report for this development because the amount of traffic it.will generate is not considered significant. £. The City uses. a similar guideline that Is. used by Washington County and the City of , Beaverton as to when a. traffic impact report should be required. For a street like Durham Road, with traffic volumes likely over 6,000 cars per day, a traffic impact report would not be required if the development were going to add less than 500 trips per day. Based on estimates derived. from the Institute: of. Transportation Engineers, T r i p Generation (Sixth Edition), the proposed office building addition will generate approximately 115 new trips er average weekday: Because of • the existing traffic signal Staff has recommended a condition that will require the applicant to modify the existing signal to accommodate the new driveway into this site. It is Staffs opinion that the applicant has sufficiently addressed the traffic impact from this development. ' . Second, Mg,.. Callahan indicated that she. has a concern with the amount of green time for the SW 79 'Avenue leg of the signalized intersection. Staff spoke to the City Engineer about this and found that there have been no other complaints of inadequate ,green lime. SW Durham Road is the primary leg of that intersection because it is an: arterial street, and because of this and the large amount of traffic it carries, it is given the majority of the green time. The City Engineer does not intend to alter the timing of this signal. • Third, the letter rai a concern that because of heavy congestion on SW Durham Road, additional traffic from this development may use SW 79 Avenue to travel to and from the j north. It is feasible that some portion of the site traffic will use SW 79 Avenue, but very likely the volume of trip will be less than 50% of the site traffic. It can be argued that the existing width of SW 79w Avenue would meet the standards of a local residential street. A local residential street can accommodate up to 1,500 vehicles per day. At present, there is. approximately 800 vehicles per average weekday, baked on very recent traffic counts by the City. Even if 100 ,of the site traffic used SW 79 Avenue (115 cars per day), Staff F • would not consider this significant, and certainly would not consider the additional traffic to be overly burdensome on the existing street. , . . In summary this development will not have a negative impact on the transportation system, and by the existing traffic signal and locating the new site driveway across from i SW 79 Avenue, the traffic impacts from the development will be adequately mitigated. i I SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.410 Lot Line Adjustment) 18.530 Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) - 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off- Street parking and loading requirements) 18.775 Sensitive lands) . 18.780 Signs) 18.790' Tree Removal) . 18.795 Visual Clearance) 18.797 WaterResources Overlay) B. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 C. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 D. Impact Study 18.390 . NOTICE OF TYRE II DECISION SDR2000 -00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 4 OF 20 1 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW AND FINDINGS A. • Applicable Development Code Standards I P The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal i be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.410, {8.530, 18.705, 18.730, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.775, 18.780, 18.790 18.795, and 18.810. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the following Devel Code Chapters which are also listed under Section 18.360.090.A.1: 18.350 (Planned Developments), 18.715 j C Density .Computations), or 18.750 (Manufactured /Mobile Home Regulations). These l hapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards, and are not discussed in this decision. Lot Line Adjustments (18.410): Approval criteria. Section 18.410.040: The Director shall approve or deny a request for a lot line adjustment in writing based on findings that the following criteria are satisfied:. An additional parcel is not created by the lot line adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustments is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; i No new Tots will be created as part of this adjustment; two (2) lots exist and two (2) lots will I . remain after the proposed adjustment. There is no minimum lot size for the i -P zone. In i any event, the lots will be 47,261 and 484,807 square feet after the adjustment. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. € , . By reducing the lot size, the lot or structures on. the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; Reducing the size of the larger lot and increasing the size of the smaller lot will not create a violation of the City of Tigard's Development Code'or zoning district regulations. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district, including: . The minimum .width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot ; requirement of the applicable zoning district; + The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the access way may not be included in the lot area calculation; . Each lot created h the partition process shall front a public right-of-way - by at least 15 feet or have a legally recorded minimum 15400t wide access easement; and , l . Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. . . The width of the smaller lot at its short point is 149 feet wide. No flag lot will result from r this application. Each lot has frontage on SW Durham Road and each lot has at least one . access that is at least 15 feet Wide. Both lots are zoned I -P, according to Table 18.530.2, no setbacks are required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. Tax Lot 300 does abut a residential zone to the west and has a setback of 62 feet. Therefore, this standard has been met. l . With Regard to Flag-Lots: . • When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall - generally be located so as to maximize separation from' existing l structures: . A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.745.040. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation 'areas for proposed development. k NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 000I61JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 5 OF 20 i 6 1 • i i Neither lot will be a flag tot; therefore, this standard does not apply. The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an , accessway would have detrimental effect on fire- fighting capabilities. i i According to the plans, the lengths of both lots are 322 feet 6 inches and a new accessway is associated with the. concurrent Site Development Review.: A new fire hydrant is proposed 56 feet from the northern property Tine and located within the landscaping on the west side of Tax Lot 300. Tax Lot 200 has an existing fire hydrant located in the northern parking lot. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than . one lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with . the approved partition map. No common drive is proposed with this application. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. i Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.705, Ac cess, Egress, and Circulation. ! i L Both lots have existing access to SW Durham Road. Therefore, this standard has been met. Exemptions From Dedications: A lot line adjustment is not considered a development action for purposes of determining whether floodplain, greenway, or right -of -way dedication is required. Plain maps show no floodplain and no greenway or right -of -w ay dedication is necessary with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Variances to Development Standards: An application for a variance to the standards prescribed in this chapter shall be made in accordance with Chapter 18.370, Variances and Adjustments. The applicant has not requested a variance or an adjustment with this application. - , FINDING: Based on fhe analysis above, staff finds that the Lot Line Adjustment criteria have been met. . . industrial Zoning Districts 18.530): .. 18 states that lot coverage may be increased from 75% to 80% as part of the site development review process, providing the following requirements are satisfied; i The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site. The applicant shall meet the following performance standards with regard to the landscaping plan approved as part of the site development review process: Street trees, as required by . Section 18.745.040 C1 are to be installed with a minimum caliper of three inches rather than the two inches as measured at four feet in height; the landscaping between a parking lot and street property line shall have a minimum width of .10 feet; All i applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745 050 shall be : satisfied. The applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the landscape area. . The applicant has requested the maximum allowable site coverage to be increased to 80 %. In order to allow the increase, the landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site. The site plan shows the landscaping to be 23% of the site The applicant Will be conditioned to provide street trees at a minimum 3 -inch caliper and spaced ,20 to 30 feet apart. The landscaping between the parking area and the street property line is 10 feet.. Buffering, screening and setbacks are addressed later in this decision and the applicant has included an extensive care program for the landscaping associated with this project. Therefore, based on the completion I of the following condition, the. applicant may .increasethe lot coverage to 80 %. FINDING: Based on the analysis above; Staff finds that the Industrial Zoning Standards have not been satisfied. If the applicant complies with the condition below, the standards will be met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 000161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 6 OF 20 CONDITION:Submit a plan showing street trees at a minimum 3 -inch caliper and spaced 20 to 30 feet apart. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): 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,eievators of all commercial, institutional, and .industrial .uses to .flie streets which provide the required access and egress; Walkways shall •provide convenient connections between buildings in multi- building commercial, institutional, and complexes.. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; I Plans indicate that a walkway extends from the ground floor entrance of the existing 21,000 square foot building to the sidewalk abutting SW Durham. To insure that the walkway will be available, a crossover easement will need to be recorded. . I Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access: driveways or pparking 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 fi separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, . bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The existing walkway crosses a vehicle access by 24 feet. The walkway is stripped with appropriate pavement markings. 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 plans show the walkway paved with a hard surface material. F i 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 100 parking spaces is one 30 -foot access with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. • The development will have less that 100 parking spaces and has 2 points of access into the parking lot'offof SW Durham Road. Because the existing 21;000 square foot building and the 10,320 square foot addition is being reviewed as one project, a cross over easement will need • E i to be recorded where the two tax lots abut to the north and south of the projects. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the access and egress standards have not been satisfied. If the applicant 'complies with the condition below, the standards will be met. I: V CONDITION: Record a crossover easement for the access and walkways for both Tax Lots. Landscaping and Screening (18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a • private drive More than 100 feet . in len th shall projects required to . plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 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). NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2000-00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 7 OF 20 , 1 1 Street trees have already been addressed. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied, Buffering and Screening: • Section 18.745.050 states that buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses, which are of a different type in accordance with the matrices in this ' chapter (Table 18.745.1 and 18.745.2). The owner of each proposed i . development is responsible for the. installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for , separation by a right- of-way,. buffering, but not screening, shall be required as a j . specified in the matrix. g s The proposed construction is for an office /manufacturing building, which is allowed outright in the I - zone. This parcel abuts R -12 zoned land to the west side of the property, and t -P to the east and south. According to the buffer matrix for the parking area, a Type C buffer is required next to a residential zoned property (west property fine): As shown on the landscape plan, the applicant has provided screening equal to a D -2 buffer which includes 15 feet of landscaping along the west side of the property, with a 4.5 foot high decorative rock wall and a 6 -foot chain link fence to provide the required screening. Therefore, this standard has been • met. . . l Screening: : Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot 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. • 37 parking spaces are proposed on the west side of the property. According to the standard, 5 parking lot trees . are required. The applicant has provided 6 parking tot . trees, l 4, 8 -inch Vine Maples and 2, Pin Oaks. The applicant has positioned 2 of the required trees on 6 -foot Landscaped islands and has created a larger .18 -foot landscaped island with 2, 1'/2 -inch Royal Red Maples, 5, five- gallon Doublefile Viburnum and 6, five- gallon i f Vibumums. However, all trees must be planted with a 2 -inch caliper. or greater. Therefore, t he applicant will be required to submit a plan showing all trees to be 2- inches in caliper or Screening of service facilities. Except for one family and two- family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal i g area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would l otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a ! i solid wood fence- or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse t materials shall be contained within the screened area; ; I All gas meters and other service facilities are located within the landscaped areas except t the refuse container, which is addressed below. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. � z Screening of refuse containers. , Except for one- and two- family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or i commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by lacement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. : The applicant's plans show service facilities to be :located at the southwest end of the lot and screened with 6 -foot concrete walls and chain link fence. The facility is separated from the proposed truck parking area with a 4 -foot island with 3, two - gallon Shrub Rose. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 00016fJACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 8 OF 20 3 FINDING: ' Based on the analysis above the landscaping and screening standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: The applicant will be conditioned to submit a plan showing parking lot trees to be at least 2- inches in caliper. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (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 (1) 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. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to . submit a:written sign -off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has not provided information . pertaining to any one of the four methods to • demonstrate compliance with this chapter. Therefore, the applicant will be required to J address one the four methods mentioned above. Location standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source - separated recyclable shall be co- located with 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 proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C design standards; 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 ! 1 public streets adjacent to the site. The location of the proposed refuse container is not in a required front yard and is centrally located for all users. The proposed location is not within a parking area. The applicant has not provided a service provider letter from the franchise hauler. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to submit verification that the franchise hauler approves the container and placement. . 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 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 applicant has not submitted detail of the trash enclosure or refuse container. The applicant must submit, details. addressing the design standards in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. FINDING: Because the applicant has not,provided evidence of compliance with the mixed solid waste and recyclable design standards, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 000161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 9 OF 20 ■ 1 • CONDITIONS: • Submit narrative addressing one of the four methods of waste 1 I management that will be used according to the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Design Standards. • Submit verification fetter that the franchise hauler approves of the refuse container and location. I Off- Street Parking� and Loading {18.765): Vehicle Parking Plan Requirements: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, � egress and. circulation ' i requirements. 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 ficw o traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular s 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 i shall have a minimums 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. j D The access drive has been addressed previously in this decision. Loading /Unloading Driveways: I = A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers 'shall be located on the site of an school or other meeting place wh is designed to accommodate more than 25 . people at one time. This application does not include a school or a meeting facility. Therefore, this standard i i does not apply. . , On-Site Vehicle Stacking For Drive -ln Use: . All uses providing drive-in services as defined by this title shall provide on the same site a stacking lane for inbound vehicles as noted in Table 18.765.1 of the Development Code. No drive -in is associated with this application.. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Curb Cut's: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030.N. Curb cuts will be discussed later in this decision. Pedestrian Access: - Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow - moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. The site lan does not indicated a grade separation between the existing parking area of tax lot 200 and 30Q. Therefore, no preventive barriers will be required. i 4 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 000161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 10 OF 20 1 Ti i . Parking Lot Striping: - Except single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet i the off - street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked i and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The plans submifted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked. Therefore, this i standard has been satisfied. Wheel Stops: } Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parkin 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 fr three - feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape 1 f pp material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area can not be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. . ' The applicant's site plan does not indicate that wheel stops will be provided for those parking stalls that abut the boundary of the development or those stalls at the front of the ? proposed building and on the west side that abut the pedestrian walkways. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to have wheel stops that are at least 4 inches high and located ' i 3 feet back from the front of those parking stall mentioned, Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking gin Figures s 18.76 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x f 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing feet in width. access from both ends, shad be 24 E The plans show the parkin stalls to be 9 feet by 18.5 feet without extending into landscaped areas, which meets the minimum requirement for standard parking stalls. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: E F Section 1 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located . within parking aisles, landscape areas or Pedestriamways; outdoor bicycle arkin shall be visible from on -site buildings and/or the street.. When the bicycle p g area is not visible from the street, directional suns shall be used toyloca parking , parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which , has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to t latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi -story residential building. The applicant has provided six (6 bicycle parking spaces at the southeast corner of the i buildin The spaces are within 50 feet of an entrance, however, the spaces can not be seen frrom the street. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide directional signs from the front of the building. { Bicycle Parkin _g Design Rep_uirements: s Section 18:765:050.0. The f ollowin design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required f that bicycles m ayy be securely locked p to r them� cy without undueaincon en en Provision of bicyc�Ie lockers for long-term (employee) raged bu not required; :bicycle racks must be securely achre to parking rr round ,wall encouraged other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall other at least 2/2 feet b when covered with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shad be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except , where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At -cost or deposit fees for , bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced- material i.e. pavers, . asphalt concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remin well el drained. • NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION , S DR 2 000 -00o161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 11 OF 20 , The applicant has not provided a detail of the bike rack to be used. Therefore, Staff is unable to confirm that this standard is met. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. Table 18.765.2 states that for Office, 0.5 bicycle parking spaces are required for every 1•,000 square feet of gross floor area. The building has approximately 5,676 square feet of office space. Table 18.765.2 also states that bicycle parking is required for warehouse and light industrial square footage. Based on the calculations of these uses associated with this addition, no bicycle spaces are required. Therefore, only 3 bicycle parking stalls are required. The applicant has provided 7. 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. • According to the applicant no tenants have been identified at this time, but assumptions have been made in order to estimate the square footage of the anticipated occupancy types, which were used to develop the required parking spaces. A break down of estimated square footages is as follows: - Office = (2.711000), :therefore, (5,676 sq. ft. = 15 spaces).. Warehouse = (0.5/1000), therefore, (3,096 sq. ft. = 1.5 spaces). E • Light Industrial = (1.6/1000), therefore, (1,548 sq. ft. = 2.5 spaces). According to the estimated square footage of each use, this addition requires only 19 parking stalls. The applicant has provided a total of 37 parking stalls. Off - Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise . by truck shall provide and . maintain off - street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space' is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed addition is 10,320 square feet. The plans provide one truck parking stall and one `truck maneuvering staging area." According to the City Engineer, the loading and i 1 maneuvering space meets City specifications. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off - street parking and loading standards have not been fully met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met. • • CONDITIONS: • Submit a plan showing all parking stalls to the north and west of the proposed addition that abut pedestrian walkways and the stalls that abut the boundary of the site will have wheel stops at least 4 inches high and located 3 feet back from the front of the parking stall. • • Provide directional signs for bicycle parking from the front of the building. • Submit a detail of the bike rack to be used. • a Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.0 lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C -G Zoning District. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000 -000161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 12 OF 20 i I' No signs are associated with this application. However, any sign will need to be approved by future applications for sign permits. Therefore, this standard has been deferred until time of application. i FINDING: 'Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the Sign standards can be deferred until time of application. i Tree Removal (18:790): • Section 18.7 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review i application. The tree plan shall include identification of ,a11 existing trees identification . of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. , According to the arborist report submitted, 236.5 inches of Sequoias were removed from the • proposed site. The owner has replanted 114.6 inches of Sequoias along the perimeter of the i project and 187 inches of trees within the landscaped areas of the project totaling 301.6 inches -- 65.1 inches in excess of the combined diameters of the trees being removed. ' i l Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that the Tree Removal criteria have been met. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of i all roperty.ad'acent.to intersecting right -of -ways orthe intersection of a public street , and p a private driveway. A clear vision area shall , no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visual! clear between three (3) and eight (8 feet in height (8) (trees may be placed l within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual j i clearance area. is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 -foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30=foot I i distance points with a straight line. The applicant does not propose anything to be constructed in the visual clearance triangle. Therefore, this standard does not apply. i FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. • i C. Specific Site Development Review Approval Standards Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site i Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of E the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately y 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); 8.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi - family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi- family Use); and 18.360.090.9 .(Demarcation of Spaces). I . The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360:090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (underlying zone); 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 cated to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate liglg, air circulation and fire - fighting; and oriented with. consideration for sun and wind. Trees shad be preserved to the extent possible. 'Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790 Tree Removal. i NOTICE OF TYPE ii DECISION SDR2000 -40016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 13 OF 20 1 i 4 q . 1 The applicant's plans have considered the natural environment on the site by locating the building as far away from the residential zone abutting the west side of the subject property without sacrificing the intent of the project. Out of the 12 existing trees on the property, 11 are to be relocated. 100 year floodplain Where landfill andfor development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian /bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian! bicycle plan. No landfill or development is being done within a floodplain. Crime Prevention and Safety: . • Windows shall be located so that . areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed E 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 • f towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian o vehicular .:traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light - patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. . Windows are oriented towards the entrance of 'the building. The City of Tigard Police • Department has reviewed this project and has no objection to it. 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 City and Tri -Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; . and connecting paths to the shelters. Public transit is available on SW Durham Road and pedestrian access to SW Durham has been provided via walkway connections. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; f Drainage will be discussed under the Street and Utility Section below. Provision for the disabled: All facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set .. forth in ORS Chapter 447; . For this project, 2 disabled parking spaces are re uired and the applicant has provided 2 spaces that are 9 feet wide and 8 -foot access isle. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. .. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other,sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. i Dimensional Requirements: I i NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2000 -00016JJACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 14 OF 20 . k 1 TABLE 18.530.2 - 'z DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES • • STANDARD I -P .• ;:Proposed . Minimum Lot Size None 47,261 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 50 ft. 149 ft. Minimum Setbacks Front yard 35 ft. 117 sq. ft, i - Side facing street on corner & through lots [1] 20 ft. - - Side yard 0/50 ft. [3] - ' 63 ft. - Rear yard • � 0/50 ft. [3][4] 96 ft. . - Distance between front of garage & properly Tine : . , . abutting a public or private street __ - Maximum Height 45 ft. ' 2711, Maximum Site Coverage [2] 75 % [5] 77% . Maximum, Landscape Requirement 25 % [6] . 23% (1] The provisions of Chapter 18.795 (Vision Clearance) must be satisfied. . I [21 Includes all buildings and Impervious surfaces. . [3] No setback shall be'required except 50 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district, [4] Development In industrial zones abutling the Rolling Hills neighborhood shall comply with Policy 11.5.1. [5] Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80% if the provisions of Section 18.530.0508 are satisfied. [6] Except that a reducllon to 20% of the site may be approved through the site development review process. t FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Specific Site Development Review Approval . Standards have been fully met. Street And Utility Improvements Standards` (Section 18.810):. • Chapter 18.810. provides construction standards for the implementation of public and • pr 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. - k i Section 18. states that any new street or additional street•width planned as , a ortion Of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the p E C • TDC . I Minimum Rights -of -Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030(E) requires an arterial i street to have a 60 to 90-foot tight - of-way width and a 40 -foot minimum paved section. i Other :improvements required may include on- street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, ; i underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees: This site lies adjacent to SW Durham Road, which is classified as an arterial street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 30 to 35, feet of 1 : right- of:way (ROW) from centerline; according to the.most recent tax assessor's. map. The j applicantshould ensure that there.is a minimum of 35 feet of ROW as suggested by the applicant's. plan. If there is less than 35 feet from centerline, the applicant must dedicate { . additional ROW. • . . SW Durham Road is currently improved with curb and sidewalk in this area:, The Cittr recently completed a traffic signal at the intersection of SW Durham Road and SW 79 Avenue, across from the proposed driveway. In order to mitigate the impact from this • 1 development, the applicant should add street trees along thefrontage of the site and make any necessary modifications to the traffic signal and controllers to accommodate the new i driveway. The applicant will also need to close an existing driveway adjacent to the • western property boundary in order to construct the new driveway across adjacent SW 79 ' E Avenue. The old driveway apron shall be removed and new curb and sidewalk shall be installed in its place. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 15 OF 20 i 3 il 1 Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City I design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local I .. residential streets. There are exis sidewalks on SW Durham Road. No additional sidewalk work is needed, except for what is needed to fill in for the old driveway approach at the western property l boundary. s 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency s in 1990 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. y The applicant's plans indicate the new building will be served from an existing 6-inch sanitary sewer stub that was provided to this site. The applicant's contractor will need to verify the location of that.Iateral prior to connection. i Storm Drainage: , General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 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 the Unified Sewerage Agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). { The project plan will not negatively impact the upstream drainage basin because the upstream.area is accommodated by the storm system in SW Reiling Street: • 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 the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions d or amendments). In 1997, the Unified .Sewerage Agency (USA) completed a basin study .of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Managenient Plan. Section V of that plan includes a 3 t recommendation that local governments institute � a stormwa er i 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 plan is not clear as to how onsite detention will be provided. Stormwater treatment is adequately 'addressed, but the 25 -year detention does not appear to be i addressed. There is adequate 'space on this site to accommodate at least below -grade detention, so Staff is confident that this standard can be met. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall demonstrate how they will meet the onsite detention requirement. . NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000- 000161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 16 OF 20 k 1 ff . • Il 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 lan shall include provisions for the future extension of such pp p h bikeways through the dedication of easements or right -of -way. • No bikeway is associated with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B 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. No bikeway is associated with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Minimum Width :. Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways Within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel Zane. Minimum width for two -way bikeways separated.from the road is eight feet. . i No bikeway is associated with this project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all .utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services . and related facilities shall be placed .underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to - provide the underground services; a The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; i s . All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed . prior to the surfacing of the . streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under - Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a . developer .shall pay a fee in -lieu of under - grounding costs when the development is ' proposed. to take place on a street where existing .utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines . that the cost and technical difficulty of under - grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding ! x in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- ! F by -case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which ,under- grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal: of above - ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right -of -way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in -lieu tof under-grounding., All overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road were placed underground as a part of the recent improvement. No additional requirements are necessary. • ADD1T[ONAi, CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY � E IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: The applicant proposes to extend the existing onsite water system to serve the new building. If any public water line work is necessary , it must be covered by a Street Opening Permit from the Engineering Department and must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2000.00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 17 OF 20 ■ i ? p . i g E Storm Water Quality: a . The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations I established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and No. 00-7) which require the construction of on -site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent l of the phosphorus contained in 100 ercent of the storm water runoff generated from r 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 issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved bythe City prior to construction. The applicant intends to install a manufactured unit made by StormTreat Systems, inc. - f. This type of facility has been approved by the City on prior projects because the . manufacturer information shows that these systems will achieve the total phosphorus removal required by the USA standards. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency 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. r 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 i provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. i Grading and Erosion Control: - USA Design n 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 USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. 1 A grading plan shall be submitted with the building plan submittal. Address' Assignments: . The. City of Tigard is responsible for ddresses 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 shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance 4 of the site permit. . For multi- tenant buildings, one address number is assigned to the building . and then all tenant spaces are given suite numbers. The City is responsible for assigning the main address and suite numbers. This information is needed so that building ermits for tenant impravements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi tenant building. Pr to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the numberof suites that must be addressed. In multi -level structures, ground level suites shall " have numbers preceded by a "1 ", second level suites shall have numbers preceded by a "2 ", etc. D. Impact Study (18.390) Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shalt provide an impact study to quantify I the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility i system standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. l l l . . i NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2000.00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 18 OF 20 fi . 1 r I In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of 6 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 z authority shall adopt findings which proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on ublic systems. The Washington County Traffic impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A -Boy Expansion /Dolan II /Resolution 95 -61, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial 'Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $21,311, based F on the 5,676 square feet of office, 3,096 square feet of warehouse and 1,548 square feet of light industrial proposed: Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this pro ects traffic impact is $66,597 ($21,311 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The.unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $45,285.87. The applicant has been required by the ! Engineering Department. to plant street trees and fill in an old driveway -approach with a new curb and sidewalk. Based on the cost of these improvements, the requirements are more than roughly proportional to the unmitigated impacts. At most the applicant would be i • required to dedicate no more than 5 feet of right-of-way at 12 dollars per linear foot, for a t value of $8,940 thus it is easily roughly proportional to the unmitigated impact of i $45,285.87. I SECTION VII. 'OTHER STAFF COMMENTS " The City of . Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: • i Move new hydrant 200 feet south and 40 feet east. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections ` } to it. The City of Tigard Operations Department comments were received in . the form of a I '. letter concerning procedural issues related to tree removal. . STAFF RESPONSE: • Discussions were conducted via telephone conversations, . The City of Tigard Utility Manager has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: . Since this is an addition to an existing building, we will not require a separate domestic water for the new addition. We will, however, want to make sure that the - existing 1 -inch meter is capable of meeting all service requirements. Applicant will need to provide the Water Division, the water usage calculations for both existing i building and proposed addition. 1 SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the i proposal and has no objections to it. } Unified Sewerage Agency comments were received in the form of a letter. Staff Response: USA's issues have been addressed under the street and utility NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2000 -00016 /JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 19 OF 20 . i3 • improvement section of this decision. Portland General Electric has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. • SECTION IX. 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 NOVEMBER 13,2000, AND :BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON NOVEMBER 3.0_., 2000 :UN.LES AN APPEAL A eal: T� cision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type 111 Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.6.1: 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 the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of T igard 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 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. • THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 6 PM ON 'NOVEMBER 29, 2000 s � L 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. / 1 G , AVAL_,, November 13. 2000 PRE 'A' B • - Mafhe chlEtidegger DATE I - As ' a t Planner •r JCA p,/ JT- rqr November 13, 2000 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewe r dorff DATE Planning Manager • l:I curglnr rnatheulrsdr 1SDR2000- 00016.dec.doc.dat NOTICE OF TYPE If DECISION SDR2000- 000161JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION PAGE 20 OF 20 {r , . W t . ] _w 1IL • • • _� _ ' SW DURHAM ROAD -��—~ °- pml '` �:'r' 3 _ an ; i:� � ";,n 1 ; maim bee ' r ter ` „°` ,.. , al i i -" • .a.r" """' ..�� ``'. Q GI Ka c�vlur��sa�w.c�ti�ai*aa�a.n ■ " . � ti�`��ia��w�t��u��u■ ■ r wl wll�� 's��ISi 111 -- .11AN ril7►'l!� n ■i+ i , i / //J/ 04 I • C ■ n«rw.,.evc - LOCArt•I.M2•1 TO .i 6. yii TY1{. :.'nArAw � 4 .11 \'l\1raltr t -t I 1! /// • j inn : 11... n -a ,.. i .r �...o�. r- - - • yr • n .awn..aiwi .. euy�el �w n+ roa woa WWI ..:: ! ■11.1I1 I ■ PROPO3KP EXIBTI? • • • cm wnoaac O� T IG t sD ■.�.000 -000 16 C �►RD SITE PLAN N JACKSON BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION (Map is not to scale) • - - _.....,.. _, ._- ..m.- ..-» ..,.- ....,.,,r�.«.,. �.. ...• _.. -- ,..,..,,. -.,. ,,E.. �,7, -.- r .vac, -- _...- ..r,... �., „m...�,.� rte.. ,-n �.,.,,..,x,...,,v.,, .r w,v ,�. v-... a.�,,,, -m. �,..:., e.,- r....�n,.:.- �;...,..,. ,,.,t . �. .». ��., vMr n :anzr. c7ra�rc gs�......._ ar - �`�`.. Lmoa rlrllfll�l��M�� ■ CITY o f T I G A R o X � I � GEOGRAPHIC I11FORMATIOI, SYSTEM 11 �� ,, , , � VICI NITY Y MAP !____ ill p in = ism _____ . 1 h IIIMICE in ILI A , WA <C > U SDR2000 -00016 : . ' mom MOM R � : ' �� II11 +� �'� w J ACKSON 1 � N � ,'111111 aM..1 • , BUSINESS V a■ ... ... ■11 1 1i1iuiii ■ CENTER � ADDITION 17 ► 1 1 f c DURHAM RD —�l O \NI 64,:• I` 1 \\\4w .„,‘,,,, . , • . ..c. i 1 4,:v . . • ! • I SITE co : ,.. , , „.%:. h , •Ni. ..\\\ Nit ' R o / A N • • - � O 0 104) 200 300 44)0 54)0 Feot 3'= 378 feet G� y - Cty Infolmalgn on this map is g eneral location Hol and should fb vedfiadn{Ih the Dev elopment Services Division. 13525 SW Hag Bivd Tigard, OR 97223 d 1 . (593) 639 -4171 . 1 htlp:1AWN li.tipatd.04 Community Development Plot date: Sep 28,.2004); C:lmagic\MAGICO3APR EXHIBIT L - Decision for Casefile CUP 2007 -00004 • 120 DAYS = 3/20/2008 DATE OF FILING: 2/8/2008 DATE MAILED: 2 /8/2008 FEB l �• .: � CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER Case Number: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2007 -00004 Case Name: DURHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS Applicant's Nanxe /Address: Tigard -Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard,OR 97223 Owner's Name /Address: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard, OR 97223 Address of Property 8048 SW Shaffer Lane and 7800 SW Durham Road Tigard, OR 97224 Tax Map /Lot Nos.: Washington Co. Tax Assessor's Map No. 2S 113B0, Tax Lot 300; 2S 113BA, 401 and 500; and 2S113BA, Tax Lot 200. A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE, THE QTY OF TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICANTS PLANS, NARRATIVE, MATERIALS, COMMENTS OF REVIEWING AGENCIES, THE PLANNING DIVISIONS STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE HEARINGS OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 28, 2008 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN FINAL ORDER Request: D The applicant requests Conditional Use Approval to relocate the access drive to the Durham Elementary. School, currently located along SW Shaffer Lane, to a new access to align 'with SW 79th Avenue. The new alignment . involves an intersection with SW Durham Road that would cross the adjacent property to the east. The applicant also requests 20 additional parking spaces. At the January 28, 2008 public hearing, the Hearings Officer approved this request, subject to conditions of approval contained within this final order. Zone: R-12 (HD): Medium Density Residential District; and I -P: Industrial Park District. Applicable Review Criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.390, 18.510, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Action: D ❑ Approval as Requested © Approval with Conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to - © Owners of Record within the Required Distance © Affected Government Agencies © Interested Parties © The Applicants and Owners The adopted findings of fact and decision can be obtained from the Planning Division/Community Development Department at the City of Tigard Permit Center at City Hall. Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON FEBRUARY 8, 2008 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON FEBRUARY 26, 2008 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED, Appeal: The decision of the Review Authority is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1, may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18,390.040.G,2, of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. • • THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5 :00 PM ON FEBRUARY 25, 2008. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639 -4171. 45 c24 ' ' - 1 4 3 a - 4 3c1-(-0 1 . 1 F 1 f . BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER .. FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J) F I N A L ORDER for a major modification of a conditional use permit to relocate) the access drive serving the existing Durham Elementary ) CUP2007 -00004 School at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane in the City of Tigard, Oregon) (Durham Elementary) A. SUMMARY 1. Rob Saxton filed the application on behalf of Tigard- Tualatin School District 23J "applicant"). the The a licant re requests approval of a major modification of a ( pp Pp major 1 conditional use permit to relocate the access drive serving the existing Durham Elementary School at 8048 SW Shaffer Lane; also known as tax lots 2S113B0, 00300; , : 2S113BA, 00401; 2S113BA, 00500; and 2S113BA, 00200 (the "site "). Access to the Durham 4 Elementary School is currently provided 'from Shaffer Lane west of the site. The applicant a x proposes to close the existing Shaffer Lane access and construct a new access road extending east of the school and intersection Durham Road at the existing signalized intersection with i 1 SW 79 Avenue. The applicant also proposes to provide an additional 20 parking spaces to i x serve the school and the adjacent Durham Center north of the school. The proposed access is to be constructed across Tax Lot 200 with a drive serving the school property involving Tax Lots 401, 500 and 300. Additional basic facts about the site and surrounding land and applicable approval standards are provided in the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer E dated January 22, 2008 (the " Staff Report"), incorporated herein by reference. 2. Tigard Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer ") conducted a duly 4 noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. At the public hearing City staff recommended conditional approval of the application. Representatives i . of the applicant testified in support of the application. The owner of Tax Lot 200 testified in opposition to the proposed access. Other than service providers, no one testified orally s or in writing. Disputed issue in this case include: a. Whether changes to the existing traffic patterns will have a significant impact on the Metzger property, tax lot 200; . , b. Whether the hearings officer can require that the applicant utilize other alternative access locations; . c. Whether the proposed access will encourage trespass onto the Metzger property and expose the Metzgers to increased liability; and d. Whether the alleged impacts to the value of the Metzgers' property are relevant to the applicable approval criteria. E • i 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. . a B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer held a duly noticed public hearing on January 28, 2008 to receive and consider public testimony in this matter. The record includes a witness list, E materials in the casefile as of the close of the record, including materials submitted after the hearing, and an audio record of the hearing. 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 relevant testimony offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Gary Pagenstecher summarized the Staff Report. He requested the 1 1 hearings officer modify condition 23 as set out in his Memorandum dated January 28, 2008. 4 3. Attorney Kelly Hoesseni, engineer Tony Roos, transportation engineer Chris Maciejewski and planner Erin Bagman testified for the applicant. 1 a a. Ms. Hoesseni summarized the history of the existing school access and the alternative access locations the applicant considered. The applicant concluded that the `' proposed access is the safest option, because it provides access at an existing signalized 1 intersection and allows the applicant to close two existing driveways onto Durham Road. She accepted the proposed conditions of approval as modified at the hearing without objections. b. Mr. Roos testified that the applicant will provide a dedicated eastbound right turn lane on Durham Road at the 79 Street intersection, which will mitigate the 1 . impacts of increased school traffic on Durham Road. The applicant designed the 79 Street/Durham Road intersection with sufficient turning radius to allow school buses and h z fire trucks to utilize the new access without entering the oncoming traffic lane. The proposed 36 -foot wide access road will allow for on- street parking and two -way traffic r flow. The applicant will provide a sidewalk between Durham Road and the school to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The applicant will install a fence on the south side of the l access road to prevent children from straying into the road from the play fields. 1 c. Mr. Maciejewski testified that the design of the proposed access intersection is intended to enhance traffic flow on Durham Road. The eastbound right i turn lane at the Durham Road/79 Street intersection will offset the increased traffic generated by the school. He noted that the school bus drop off area is separated from the parent drop off area. The applicant will install traffic calming measures on the access • road, including a "speed table" at the school site to accommodate pedestrians crossing the N access road. The revised parking lot design allows the school and the Durham Center to share access and parking areas, CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order if (Durham Elementary Access) Page 2 4 , I tt w . w ;Y 1 I i. He testified that the applicant is concerned about vehicles queues I at the Durham Road signal blocking access to the Metzgers' property. However such 1 impacts are relatively short lived and minor. The Metzgers' property generates an . average of ten vehicle trips during the school peak hour. The applicant could install signs urging drivers not to block the intersection in order to maintain access to the Metzgers' 4 property. A four -way stop at the intersection of the proposed school access and the 1 driveway to the Metzgers' property would create traffic backups that would impact the Durham Road/97 Avenue intersection. d. Ms. Engm.an summarized the developments compliance with the applicable approval criteria. 4. David Metzger testified on behalf of Metzger Ventures, the owner of tax lot 200, where the applicant proposed to access Durham Road. He argued that the proposed access will impact the value of his property. He expressed concerns that his company will I be held liable for accidents or injuries that occur at the proposed Durham Road 1 intersection. He argued that buses and cars waiting for the traffic signal on Durham Road will block access to his property. Some drivers seeking a faster route may travel around the buildings on his site to exit via the entrance only driveway on the eastern portion of g his property. He argued that other alternative means of providing access to the site are ! available and should be utilized in order to avoid impacts to his property. i 5. The hearing the hearings officer closed the public record at the end of the hearing and took the matter under advisement. 1 . C. DISCUSSION , l 1. The Staff Report identifies the applicable approval criteria for the application and applies them to the record in the case. The hearings officer agrees that the standards identified in the Staff Report are applicable and finds that they are correctly applied to ° the facts of the case in the Staff Report. Substantial evidence in the record shows that the a proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval criteria for a major modification of 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 TMC. The hearings officer adopts the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report, as modified, as his own. i 2. There is no dispute that the proposed access road will cause some impacts to id 1 the Metzger property, tax lot 200, changing the existing traffic flow and increasing congestion at the existing signalized access to Durham Road. Under current conditions :I the Durham Road access functions as a private driveway serving only the Metzger property. The proposed access drive will increase the volume of traffic using the access and create conflicting turning movements -- traffic entering or leaving the school will conflict with traffic entering or leaving the Metzger property. However the hearings CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer cer Final Order i (Durham Elementary Access) Page 3 l M E officer finds that such impacts are not significant given the relatively short duration of the 1. peak traffic period for the school and the low volumes of traffic accessing the school and the Metzger property during these peak periods. ;3 a. Based on Mr. Maciejewski's testimony, the Metzger property currently generates an average of 10 vehicle trips during the schools peak hours. Based on the January 17, 2008 Memorandum from Joyce Woods, the principal of Durham Elementary, to Kelly Hossaini, the majority of school traffic occurs during a thirty minute peak period between 7:50 and 8:20 in the mornings and a second 45 minute peak period between 2:00 and 2:45 in the afternoons. An average of 11 to 12 buses and 15 to 30 passenger cars arrive and depart the school during these peak periods. The school generated traffic must exit via the 79 Street/Durham Road intersection, creating a potential conflict with the existing traffic generated by the Metzger property. This additional traffic may be perceptible, but it will not exceed the capacity of the intersection or cause or exacerbate a traffic hazard based on the applicant's traffic engineer analysis. Mr. Metztger's u • nsubstantiated concerns about potential conflicts are not sufficient to overcome the i expert testimony of the applicant's traffic engineers. 'F z b. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to install 1 "Do Not Block Intersection" signs at the intersections of the access road with the z driveways serving the Metzger property to ensure that drivers are aware of the driveways and potentially conflicting traffic movements. A condition of approval is warranted to . that effect. c. Mr. Metzger expressed concerns that drivers will ignore such signs. In addition, he argued that some drivers may travel through his property and attempt to i . access Durham Road via the existing entrance only driveway on the east portion of his property. The hearings officer finds that reasonable prudent drivers will observe a applicable traffic control signs and access limitations in the area. Unfortunately not all ii ii f drivers are prudent. However there is no evidence that the development proposed in this application will contribute a disproportionate share of imprudent drivers. 3. The hearings officer has no authority to require the applicant to utilize an alternative accessway as suggested by Mr. Metzger. The hearings officer's jurisdiction is 3 limited to review of the access proposed by the applicant. If the proposed access complies with the applicable approval criteria it must be approved, regardless of whether , other alternatives are available that would have less impact on the Metzgers' property. In addition, as outlined in the applicants alternatives analysis, the other access points noted 1 f by Mr. Metzger would not comply with applicable approval criteria because they would increase existing congestion problems on Durham Road. L. r 4. Mr. Metzger expressed concerns that the access easement across his property 4 will expose him to increased liability for accidents that may occur on his property. 1 However such liability concerns are not relevant to to the applicable approval criteria for this development. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed access I will significantly increase the Metzgers' potential liability. The potential liability for the 1 CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 4 ' . i 3 3 R . u TI • • accessway is no different than for similar shared driveways and access ways in the area. There is no substantial evidence that similar existing driveways elsewhere in the City have created an unusual hazard or exposed adjacent or underlying property owners to excessive liability. 5. Mr. Metzger argued that the proposed access will facilitate students trespassing 1 . onto his property. The proposed development will create a pedestrian pathway across the t northern corner of the Metzger property, which may increase the potential for trespass and other nuisance or illegal activities. However the hearings officer finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that significant trespass problems will arise. The proposed sidewalk, which is located on the north and west sides of the access drive, away from the majority of the Metzger property, will not substantially enhance access to the Metzger property compared to existing conditions. Similar access is currently available i . from the existing sidewalk along the Metzger property's Durham Road frontage. There is no evidence that this existing access has generated significant trespass concerns. The Metzgers have adequate legal recourse to address any trespass problems that may arise. R 6. The potential impact of the accessway on the value of the Metzgers' property is irrelevant, because it does not relate to any of the applicable approval criteria. The School District must compensate the Metzgers' for the value of the easement over their property. In addition, the School District may be required to compensate the Metzgers to any reduction in the value of their remaining property caused by the easement. However 1 such compensation issues are beyond the scope of the hearings officer's jurisdiction in f this proceeding. Compensation issues are within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts. 4 h • D. CONCLUSIONS 1 1 n g 2 Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, R the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the 4 proposed conditional use permit does or will comply with the applicable criteria of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision 1 complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. 1 s E. DECISION 4 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 i� officer hereby approves CUP2007 -00004 (Durham Elementary Access), subject to the following conditions of approval: } Li k 3 H � • CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer Final Order ;P (Durham Elementary Access) Page 5 3 ! ; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND /OR BUILDING PERMITS: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and /or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT , PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503 - 639 - 4171, EXT 2434. The :� cover letter shall dearly identify where in the submittal the required information is E found: 1. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the required 10- buffer (Table 18.745.1) from the revised right -of -way 5 line along SW Durham Road, an arterial, and demonstrating compliance with the applicable landscaping and screening provisions for parking lots in TDC 1 18.745.050.E.1. s 2. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan i that shows the clear vision areas formed by the right -of -way or property line as required in TDC 18.795.040. 3. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles leading to the proposed new parking and at the intersection with the existing parking lot. Pedestrian crossings are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet and must include appropriate 4 . landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials. l • 4. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows parking spaces, interior drives and access aisles clearly marked. 5. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing street trees on Tax Lots 300 and 500 in addition to Tax Lot 401. i • 6. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised tree protection plan showing locations of trees 32 -53. In addition, the plan shall show 1 s all trees that are in close proximity to construction activities protected by chain link fencing; other trees may be protected with orange construction fencing. The tree protection plan shall also include a signature of approval from the project I arborist. I : a 7. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit construction • drawings to both Planning and Engineering that include: : A. The approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan; B. A construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving; C. A note prohibiting equipment, vehicles, machinery, grading, dumping, storage, burial of debris, or any other construction - related activities in any tree protection zone; and f. D. A note stating that only those trees identified on the approved Tree Removal plan are authorized for removal by this report. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any party found to be in violation of this chapter [18.790] pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 18.790.060 (D) of the Tigard Development Code; and 2) Payment of an additional civil q , penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer Final Order 7 (Durham Elementary Access) Page 6 j z 11 . damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. _ 4 E. If work is required within an established tree protection zone, the project 3 arborist shall prepare a proposal detailing the construction techniques to be employed and the likely impacts to the trees. The proposal shall be I reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before proposed work can f proceed within a tree protection zone. The City Arborist may require changes prior to approval. The project arborist shall be on site while work 1 is occurring within the tree protection zone and submit a summary report certifying that the work occurred per the proposal and will not . significantly impact the health and/or stability of the trees. 8. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall establish tree protection fencing as directed by the project arborist and conditioned by this decision to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall call for an inspection and allow access by the City Arborist for the purpose of monitoring the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performing adequately. Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation , measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 9. As an ongoing obligation during the development of the proposed property, the i • applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist submits written reports to the City 1 . Arborist, at least once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) I fencing installation through construction. The reports shall include the condition u and location of the tree protection fencing and whether any changes occurred. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees 1 did not adversely impact the overall, long -term health and stability of the tree(s). Failure to follow the plan, or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated 1 locations shall be grounds for immediate suspension of work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. g 10. Prior to commencing any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that shows "Do Not Block Intersection" signs at the intersection of the site access II , drive and the driveways to the Metzger property, tax lot 200. The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and /or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503-639-4171, EXT 2642. k The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 11 , „,,I,,,,,,,5 d' ,,, 1 � ,,q -' 1[ ; ES N .4,'” ", m 44t 9` �, X. 'F. @ c I4I5 6 �-. v r'' v' f1�01 s}b s)ftfE +} (, r t, , ,.0n 3 ki —n _q�ak_pV�srt .o G s ' o tb ti 4 ' r r aik441, :,, a r i s : a { t a � f'3 1 i y � � �1 yx 9v �E rs t. 7 r ''i �k�kC ��L ��m E�B�;. } , ,, I:I , r 9 E 0. tw �J r--M fr .: . a l - at ti ion o any . ravings require • +y t e : ui • g l 'vision 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.tigard- or.gov). 4 hi a ci CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 7 1 , ; . . : r e 12. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name address and telephone designated 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 Engineenng Department will delay processing of project documents. ., 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. .14. Any necessary off-site utility easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and shall be submitted to and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a site permit. 15. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax Lots 401 and 500 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right -of -way centerline. The dedication. document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering - • Department. I 16. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax ii Lot 300 to increase the right-of-way to 50 feet from the centerline or to increase the right-of-way to 38 feet from centerline and provide a 12 foot preserve right - ofway. The description shall be tied to the existing right -of-way centerline. The s . dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 17. Additional right - of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Tax 1 Lot 200 (as indicated in Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1 in the Order Confirming Immediate Possession) to increase the right -of -way to 50 feet from the centerline. R The description shall be tied to the existing right -of-way centerline. The s dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the i Engineering Department. 18. The applicant's plans shall be revised to remove all private parking spaces from the public right -of-way or preserve right- of-way. 19. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, indicating that they will construct the following frontage improvements along SW Durham Road as a part of this project: A. eastbound right -turn lane and 8 -foot concrete curbside sidewalk; B. street trees along Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500, in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; C. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; and D. driveway apron removal, a 20. A profile of Durham Road shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the I subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 21, Tax Lots 300, 401 and 500 shall not be permitted to access directly onto Durham Road. CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham .Elementary Access) Page 8 l I 5 P. k 22. The applicant's plans shall indicate the restoration of bicycle striping upon completion of the right -turn lane construction. ,{ 23. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) - permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit I F plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 24. The applicant shall maintain the minimum 36 -inch waterline cover as the widened street section is constructed. If the street widening requires the waterline to be I moved, the applicant shall replace the 12 -inch cast iron main in Durham Road with a 12 -inch ductile iron line and u pdate the water valves located within the widened street section. <f 25. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed private water quality facility shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) as a part of the j Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans. Included with the plans shall be 1 a proposed landscape plan and maintenance plan. 26. During issuance of the Site permit, the applicant shall Pay the fee in -lieu of constructing an on -site water quantity {detention) facility. The fee is based on the i total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. 1 E: 27. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) per,uit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion I Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." L n. *y5 y " m - ec H J4 -t -- '-` m ay r'� ''53 Cx. 28. .q a e 3 PTV �MU`.1 9 P i i � L 4yef 1 - '1i ' ,,. a $ . 1 F THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED 1 s PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting documents and /or plans that address the following requirements to the CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION, ATTN: Gary Pagenstecher 503- 639 -4171, EXT 2434. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: 29. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall record deed restrictions to the effect that any existing tree greater than 6" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified aborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. 30. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a final report by the Project '• Arborist certifying the health of protected trees. Tree protection measures may be ' removed and final inspection authorized upon review and approval by the City 1 Arborist. 31. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. U i 1 9 CUP2007 -00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 9 . - - fl . ? The applicant shall prepare a cover letter and submit it, along with any supporting _ documents and /or plans that address the following requirements to the ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ATTN: Kim McMillan 503 - 639 -4171, EXT 2642. The cover letter shall clearly identify where in the submittal the required information is found: : ! 32. 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. 33. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as- built drawings of the public improvements as follows: I) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as- builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DA C" 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). 34. The applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW Durham Road adjacent to the subject property, when any of the following events occur: 5 A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid t for in whole or in part by the City or other pubic agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to b onstructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property m addition to the subject property, or ? 3 D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others N adjacent to the subject site. 35. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. The agreement shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel Deeds. The agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to recording. F 36. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Durham Road underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in- lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that 1 .. is parallel to the utility lines and will be $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is y chosen, the amount will be $19,530.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 37. 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 1 stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard Engineering with written ! confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance wita the design and `1 specifications. i ii CUP2007-06004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 10 i , . • g FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S j DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. 1 DATED this 8 day of February 2008. • 1 74.0 3 roe Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer 5 • g f • • $ Y 4 • k E t t 1 CUP2007-00004 Hearings Officer Final Order (Durham Elementary Access) Page 11 ...y,.. H,uu�n,w w,« x.,,.e....,...:a.,...�,.MO «., ,:,,,K,.:..,,,.. .,..,...�.....,„<_,..,.,,,,_. ,.� , .. ...tt.w>:.. a,...,,,.. . . .. .................... Y,...>.,,,�.,..,a,,....;.,,,,,, �.a .... .�,�..,"...M..:�:......._...:., .. . :«..�...s„e.,_..e._......ee.__. .. . r-,... �.,.•••. �. r- ��:- �. I...»... vz�r�- �-,--•.-,+.-.,,,-_..:-, e. r.— ve: asmr..•; �,[�rx_- �,mn�:cacaermvn:esmwxiu� . w�u . renraaae, _, ..... �CO �■� ANA •- CITY ut 71GARF] 4 lANGTREE ST � GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 5Y5TEM 4 �111�l ni an maw , w VICINI 111 orAirapa .. � �' �,�� , VICINITY MAP ....... e IH i 1 � _ � � �. . � � DURHAM 1 T I1 ELEMENTARY &I i LN , I1: J 1 iI i II LEME SCHOOL 111 m��n��1 � le, m ua anI1H i11 a , �atIgh 11111i!l' 11N11 1111111111111 111 Mil M� _ ii -, �� 1: �`� 11 DURHA M RD ,�� _ LEGEND: . ii �� • ', � F SU BJECT /A10.4 / ./ --"1 ' . SA i . 4.4 (._,_..,•_____.„ .• Q Tgartl Area Map t N 0 300 I 200 300 400 50C Feel 1 1 "= 305 leer '.. -' w. "1 . >Lt :t-a! ] AddllIPIII ] Information an 1110 map is for ganeraf location only and 1 should he verified with the Devefopmenl Services Division. 13125 SW Nall 9tvtl Tigard, OR 47223 ' (503) fi39-4171 hl 1911vM++.'ci.liga rdor. u s t:on:munity Development Plot date: Nov 30. 2007; C:Im M agicAGICO3.APR M nx 1,. .-a ...:....r.�.:�nr3rr..ci:+..� < . < w .. w .,..,,.:.,.,,.....,:... a,,,,,. n.: ..,..A,.:�,.:..,�.M....,�.,.... ,,,......«,k..,..,.:h. .., .�..�....�,v,........,o�.,,,..� ..,.�.k. ....,,....,.,,.,:.::..... .............. a,. «.r.<..:�,�.•.....,.a.,..b...». •,�,,,�.. ,.. �,..,.m..,�,..,..,.«..,...,..H, �. .. �_ _�.... -.. _. -_- .r— _,- .._._r,.;.:..: -:. :..--..nu..-,,.,. M- a_+. I., W,.,. or• m-.. e-^.., a. o.. A:..:...,..,.: m�..:.-,, rrti: s- s,_ a..,_ rt_ n •r+xr,v.r„.e.n?m..,..•..,.r -K,e . ., .. ... ..._ ......... __........_ __ .,,.. _.. .�.-. ,...�rx__,�- �.�,:e -,�- r,..�, _ -. - • • • • _ _ .C.. ' � _ ° .� g� V . 1 gq • - sl[N[ o6f�lME pA] • ]1 400 .. - _ _ _ _ y � � _ . I - • - - • - Ryry VN[ S/w ' • it � � - • . � ' iaoo • .. is coma ] ].y ' R ]oy DURFIAM•RD.' ". ix ]ay. .11°' J ] . ''�� - 9- -' g• $ T 6 �� n tf!iEir:sitialli rfa dr2V � .-_.. finsQ �9 f I. Q N¢ - , \-- 0 : 1>:�: _ . _ f� fD Rmcs E _ - .. 4 "� ^ .. l� � i `r. - NRORm(9 4 SWW - I lU3,E" n].R N so lut r p . , _ f \`J y xµan •. 'VP,. ]s' spry n GiOr[ •+ VE• Rf] • • V 1 1 l I� .f� ) . 6 '7 � � a i • _ • _ • i1 ]a`'. `` _ !] IPA I - •! j ...'74 Raab" _ - co $ • so.. r .`v N _ / fit. R�.0 • tr C �f1 ' W..0• 1' . - . 1^]rnx,[7 ].5 20 ) /�i • .< y l .. _ �.. • • '� �� a� eS� II>,p: ly e' . _ y • R15.y ] ' x'' tOXNfGI N r•`�i 1�" ^ _ _ • 7 k y P1C Rs.y y • •. •..:v T 4 ` �• % PNn000.l H) f0.0: • . Nsy : 4 1 ) i 1 A' VISA' `r • • 4 \ate Di. I.'. - ' � • < . r .— • • • • ._ 1 • �' %'a'gifi� ..y rlrc:naT -oaol B _ - • - : )E; } R!1ff 0,, 1 MIZE cart I d - Q . �� M. ]f G ]L �� o .; �i = o -, � 0.N1P • .1w rc. ! i ' i '� OPr cwAY. • • , . , . ^-� r < m #3 - 9 ] i ' ! VA910S I ' J - , +y - - J. V ( 1 • I . - X rpm T � I J � -.v .. i:rw1N — • �� ` - WiE r�! _ y I MMO]Wf:0o0t1 �,,,,,(( - /A r CIS[ x— . • • . �8. • . •r . - -moo fi I : • SATE � ' I I PLAN D20 Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Buildable Lands Invento and Land Use Trends Report CG #1 Prepared By: Darren Wyss Dept Head Approval: _ _ —y City Mgr Approval: v/ (�� 1�/ .� ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update on the Tigard 2009 Buildable Lands Inventory and Land Use Trends. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive update and provide feedback KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose of the buildable lands inventory (BLI) is to identify undeveloped land that is available and compatible with development policies and practices. The inventory is useful for informing policy and also as a tool for tracking and analyzing development activity and trends, as well as helping to project future capacity. This identification of buildable lands is completed by the City on a yearly basis (since 2002) and total acreage is reported at the end of a calendar year. The BLI process uses a protocol that employs the same basic structure but is refined each year for efficiency, and to increase accuracy. However, the attributes of buildable land have remained the same over the years. The updated version of the BLI is complete and reflects activity through the end of 2008 (2009 BLI). This report provides information on the 2009 BLI and changes in the inventory over the past seven years. Basic information on residential building permits, subdivision approvals, minor land partition approvals, and annexations are reported to show their relationship to and influence upon the BLI. Some additional analysis on the data will be performed and then all will be packaged into a final report for distribution. This presentation will give the Council time to identify any additional information it would like to have available. That information will then be included in the final report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS 1. Implement the Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Buildable Lands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis FISCAL NOTES N/A • BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT AND LAND USE TRENDS ANALYSIS — APRIL 1, 2009 TIGARD Introduction The purpose of the buildable lands inventory (BLI) is to identify undeveloped land that is available and compatible with development policies and practices. The inventory is useful for informing policy and also as a tool for tracking and analyzing development activity and trends, as well as helping to project future capacity. This identification of buildable lands is completed by the City on a yearly basis (since 2002) and total acreage is reported at the end of a calendar year. The BLI process uses a protocol that employs the same basic structure but is refined each year for efficiency, and to increase accuracy. However, the attributes of buildable land have remained the same over the years. The updated version of the BLI is complete and reflects activity through the end of 2008 (2009 BLI). This report provides information on the 2009 BLI and changes in the inventory over the past seven years. Basic information on residential building permits, subdivision approvals, minor land partition approvals, and annexations are reported to show their relationship to and influence upon the BLI. Finally, a map showing the spatial location of land included on the 2009 BLI is included as Attachment A. Definition of Buildable Land The Tigard BLI defines buildable land as: 1) privately owned taxlots that are vacant or 2) larger privately owned taxlots that are developed but with 1/4 acre or greater of the taxlot vacant. While Metro uses a' /z acre minimum for partially developed land, protocol reduced it to reflect higher densities on infill taxlots. Additionally, publicly owned land, sensitive lands, water quality tracts, and homeowner association owned lots within subdivisions were not included. Platted, vacant lots within subdivisions are considered buildable until development has occurred. 2009 BLI Key Findings /Observations Figure 1 displays the relationship between the 2009 BLI and the Figure 1. Relationship of 2009 BU to Developed Area 2009 BLI developed area of Tigard (excluding 8% public right -of -way). Less than 10% of developable land within the city limits is currently classified as buildable. This, of course, does not limit development to Developed less than 10 %, but points to the 92% possibility of increased pressure to redevelop properties, to increase density, and to look for mixed -use areas in absorbing more residential development. Buildable Lands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis April 2009 Page 1 of 6 Table 1 displays total acreage and number of Table 1. 2009 BLI (acres) lots for the 2009 BLI, based on four planning designations. The percentage for each Percent planning designation is consistent with the Zoning Lots Acres Acreage overall zoning of Tigard. The residential Commercial 45 49.96 9.63% planning designation has, by far, the largest Industrial 21 67.86 13.07% number of buildable lots and acres. Mixed - Use 65 38.15 7.35% Residential 707 363.04 69.95% Table 2 breaks down the 2009 BLI totals into Total 838 519.01 zoning districts and gives a more complete look at what is available. Table 2. 2009 BLI (acres) Commercial Land - Only three of the five commercial districts contain buildable land and Percent 80% of that is zoned General Commercial. Zoning Lots Acres Acreage The lack of Community and Neighborhood C -C 0 0 0% Commercial land available limits the ability to C - 33 40.28 7.8% develop neighborhood markets, restaurants, or C - 0 0 0% coffee shops within walking distance of most C -P 9 8.89 1.7% residences. CBD 3 0.79 0.2% I -H 0 0 0% Industrial Land - No buildable land remains I - 11 24.51 4.7% in the Heavy Industrial district and of what I 10 43.35 8.4% remains in Light Industrial, 69% (17.64 acres) is MUC 4 2.75 0.5% located on one property that is currently MU 37 19.20 3.7% proposed to be rezoned high density MU - 12 11.03 2.1% residential. Likewise, 80% (34.7 acres) of the MU - 1 1.24 0.2% buildable Industrial Park land is also located on MUR -1 9 3.17 0.6% the one property. This distribution inhibits the MUR -2 2 0.76 0.1% possibility of developing a large project without R - 2 2.39 0.5% redeveloping property with an existing use. R - 2 2 0.99 0.2% R - 3.5 30 22.66 4.4% Mixed -Use Land - Mixed use districts all R - 4.5 281 161.66 31.1% contain some buildable land, but roughly half is R - 141 104.94 20.2% zoned Mixed Use Employment (50 %) and R -12 84 41.40 8.0% located in the Tigard Triangle. R -25 167 29.00 5.6% R - 40 0 0 0% Residential Land - Buildable land located in Total 838 519.01 residential districts also shows some interesting • patterns. A large portion of residential land included on the 2009 BLI is zoned low density (51% is R -3.5 or R -4.5) or medium density (29% is R -7). The remaining low density residential land (R -1 and R -2) comprises only 1% of buildable residential land and all is partially developed. No land zoned R -40 remains on the inventory, within the city limits or urban service area. Buildable Lands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis April 2009 Page 2 of 6 2005 BLI and Lot Size Tracking the buildable acres is a helpful exercise, but taking a look at a few additional attributes can help to paint a clearer picture of what lies ahead for the city. Table 3 breaks the 2009 BLI down into the planning designations and distributes the lots based on size (the buildable land inventories are clipped to taxlot boundaries) and whether the lot is vacant or partially vacant. This distinction (vacant vs. partially vacant) gives a sense of the effort Table 3. DistributionlNumber of Lots - 2009 BLI Commercial Industrial Mixed Use Residential • _ �_ �o U C U U t o U t U co t O ~ co (0 f0 co N c0 CU N N CO N N > a> > a> > a> > a> 5000 sq ft or less 3 2 0 2 3 2 234 1 247 5001 to 10,000 sq ft 8 0 2 1 10 2 155 18 196 10,001 sq ft to 1 acre 12 9 5 2 28 12 80 125 273 1 to 2 acres 1 3 2 2 5 1 21 40 75 2 to 5 acres 4 1 1 1 0 1 13 14 35 5 to 10 acres 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 7 More than 10 acres 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 5 Total 30 15 13 8 47 18 506 201 838 needed to develop the lot. According to the BLI definition of buildable land (see page 1), vacant lots in Table 3 have no development and partially vacant lots have development present, but a portion is undeveloped and could accommodate new structures. As discussed previously, a majority of buildable lots lie within residential zoning districts. However, the more telling story is the size of the residential lots (see Figure 2) that are included on the 2009 BLI. 87% of the buildable residential lots are less than one acre in size and 58% are less than 10,000 square feet. Additionally, a great majority of residential lots less than 10,000 square feet are vacant, meaning they are more than likely part of a platted subdivision. This indicates the land use planning process has been completed and only building permits are needed for development. The opposite is true for lots greater than 10,000 square feet as the majority are partially developed and few (16 lots) remain vacant greater than 2 acres. Only 33 (5 %) residential lots greater than 2 acres remain on the Figure 2. Distribution of 2009 BLI Residential Lots 250 200 150 - 100 • Vacant 50 • Partially Vacant i 4...7 0 - - r — r r 5000 5001 10,001 1 to 2 2 to 5 5 to 10 More sq ft or to sq ft to acres acres acres than less 10,000 1 acre 10 sq ft acres Buildable Lands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis April 2009 Page 3 of 6 inventory. This distribution shows that the future of large residential developments may lie in consolidating lots that contain existing homes. Otherwise, partitions and infill development will become the primary means of expanding the housing base within the city limits. Changes from 2003 to 2009 Another important analysis is to take a look at the changes in buildable land over time. A comparison of the BLI from 2003 to 2009 is included in Table 4. Over the time period, there has been minimal loss of commercial buildable land (3.55 acres, 6.6 %) and industrial buildable land (2.51 acres, 3.5 %). Mixed -use losses from the BLI are 15.9 acres (29.4 %), while residential losses total 144.42 acres (28.5 %). This shows that the city is predominately developing properties on the BLI for residential and mixed use. Residential land on the BLI did increase over the period 2004 to 2006 due to annexation, but this trend reversed over the past three years. Table 4. Buildable Lands Inventory Through the Years (As of January 1st) Zoning 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Commercial 67 53.51 69 51.87 60 51.99 47 55.88 47 51.17 48 51.70 45 49.96 Industrial 39 70.37 38 70.87 31 70.04 22 69.14 22 67.22 22 67.90 21 67.86 Mixed -Use 102 54.05 112 52.88 98 53.86 71 40.34 68 42.82 66 38.25 65 38.15 Residential 1220 507.46 938 417.48 737 419.75 631 435.55 582 387.04 706 370.90 _ 707 363.04 Total 1428 685.39 1157 593.09 926 595.64 771 600.91 719 548.25 842 528.75 838 519.01 Table 5 compares the buildable lands over time by zoning district. There has been a steady decrease in all residential zoning districts, except for the R -7 zoning district. It has only seen a 2.3% decrease in the amount of buildable land within the city limits, due to a noteworthy transfer of buildable land into the city limits through annexation. Table 5. Change in Buildable Lands Inventory (as of January 1st) Zoning 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres Lots Acres C -C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C -G 55 42.58 56 41.79 49 42.11 35 45.65 36 42.26 36 42.02 33 40.28 C -N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C -P 10 10.05 10 9.15 9 9.18 9 9.16 8 8.12 9 8.89 9 8.89 CBD 2 0.87 3 0.93 2 0.70 3 1.07 3 0.79 3 0.79 3 0.79 I -H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I -L 16 25.33 16 25.27 13 25.60 11 25.55 11 24.51 11 24.51 11 24.51 I -P 23 45.04 22 45.59 18 44.44 11 43.59 11 42.72 11 43.39 10 43.35 MUC 6 10.24 9 10.08 6 9.98 4 3.38 4 2.75 4 2.75 4 2.75 MUE 55 27.96 59 27.64 54 28.61 40 23.30 40 23.23 38 19.30 37 19.20 MUE -1 17 8.58 19 8.57 16 8.70 12 8.47 12 11.03 12 11.03 12 11.03 MUE -2 2 0.76 3 0.85 2 0.75 1 0.75 1 1.24 1 1.24 1 1.24 MUR -1 18 5.09 19 5.06 17 5.11 11 3.73 9 3.81 9 3.17 9 3.17 MUR -2 4 1.41 3 0.68 3 0.71 3 0.71 2 0.76 2 0.76 2 0.76 R -1 3 3.19 3 3.19 3 3.35 3 3.35 2 2.39 2 2.39 2 2.39 R -2 4 1.35 4 1.35 3 1.36 3 1.36 2 0.99 2 0.99 2 0.99 R -3.5 100 30.79 72 24.97 42 25.79 40 24.25 31 22.89 31 22.89 30 22.66 R -4.5 659 256.62 482 223.32 370 215.46 281 205.45 337 185.73 331 172.40 281 161.66 R -7 310 107.40 191 70.27 106 79.04 234 123.61 122 96.11 145 98.15 141 104.94 R -12 108 65.29 83 54.20 157 56.06 57 44.03 60 46.68 110 44.18 84 41.40 R -25 36 42.82 103 40.17 56 38.70 13 33.50 28 32.24 85 29.90 167 29.00 R -40 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1428 685.39 1157 593.09 926 595.64 771 600.91 719 548.25 842 528.75 838 519.01 The increase of buildable land within the city limits may be due to annexation (slight variations between years within zoning districts may be the result of data clean - up) Buildable Lands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis April 2009 Page 4 of 6 Annexations and the BLI Table 6 displays the Table 6. Annexation and Buildable Lands Inventory annexations Number of Acres Percentage that have Year Annexations Annexed Lots Annexed Acres on BLI on BLI occurred over 2008 4 14.00 7 8.41 60.07% the past seven 2007 4 45.29 23 27.63 61.01% years and how 2006 3 38.96 11 0 0.00% much of the 2005 4 47.58 65 28.93 60.80% land was 2004 3 94.98 16 35.45 37.32% included on 2003 2 4.21 3 1.94 46.08% the BLI. The 2002 4 64.63 16 46.41 71.81% annexations Total 309.65 148.77 48.04% that occurred in 2004 and 2005, included a significant amount of R -7 buildable land and directly led.to the increase during those years (see Table 5 above). Table 6 shows about half of land being annexed is considered buildable (48 %) over the time period and that number increases to 65% if you remove the 51.83 acres of land annexed in 2004 that is owned by Clean Water Services and located in the floodplain and the 29.04 acres of public land annexed in 2006. New Residential Development Table 7. New Dwelling Units To get a sense of the residential Dwelling Units building activity taking place in the Single Multi city, Table 7 shows the number of Year Family Family Demos Total certificates of occupancy and 2008 120 34 7 147 demolition permits issued over time. 2007 156 60 11 205 The total number of yearly permits has 2006 174 60 23 211 fluctuated, but declined annually over 2005 301 108 29 380 the past three years. 2008 saw the 2004 267 0 26 241 fewest new dwelling units finished 2003 294 42 40 296 since the City began tracking the 2002 187 29 25 191 information in a database. 2001 288 0 15 273 Table 8. New Dwelling Units 2000 202 112 24 290 Percent 1999 244 0 9 235 Year Number on BLI 1998 200 8 9 199 2008 154 86.0 1997 298 4 12 290 2007 216 77.9 1996 316 126 14 428 2006 234 84.3 1995 335 0 9 326 2005 409 92.3 1994 320 298 7 611 2004 267 75.4 Total 3702 881 260 4323 2003 336 84.2 2002 216 81.9 Table 9 makes the connection between new residential Total 1832 83.9% construction and the BLI. Although the majority of new construction has occurred on lots identified by the BLI, there is still a significant amount (16.1%) that is not captured by the buildable lands inventory. This means that the city is experiencing development on lands where it was not anticipated to occur. This can be attributed to a number of reasons, including: the demolition of an existing home and new construction taking its place, the combining of lots and demolition of homes for new construction, or an oversight of a partially vacant lot that had the attributes to be included on the BLI. Buildable bands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis April 2009 Page 5 of 6 Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions Table 9 shows the number of approved subdivisions and land partitions since 2005. The GIS data before 2005 is not consistent (missing year approved or other critical information) so it is not presented in this analysis. Table 9. Approved Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions Subdivisions Minor Land Partitions Original Approved Acres on Original Approved Acres on Year Number Lots Lots Acres BLI Number Lots Lots Acres BLI 2008 4 9 42 11.01 5.02 10 10 23 5.17 0.26 2007 13 28 221 45.34 26.99 15 15 38 14.79 5.87 2006 17 41 465 76.67 50.19 7 7 18 14.54 6.24 2005 24 36 398 79.82 58.66 12 13 30 12.05 6.01 • The number of subdivisions has decreased over the time period, while minor land partitions have fluctuated. This can potentially be attributed to the residential lot size data displayed earlier in Figure 2, as there are not many larger vacant lots available to subdivide. The buildable lands inventory is capturing about 66% of land included in approved subdivisions, while capturing about 40% of land included in minor land partitions. This shows that it is more difficult to predict the smaller, infill projects in existing neighborhoods that are associated with minor land partitions. Residential Capacity of 2009 BLI The residential capacity of the City's buildable lands inventory is presented as a range. The low end of the range is derived from the 80% minimum density requirements and the high end from the 5 -year average dwelling unit /acre the City has actually experienced for each zoning district. Taking into account the size of a buildable lot (whether it is already platted or can be partitioned or subdivided), a capacity was projected for each lot included on the 2009 BLI. The projections remove 20% for public right -of -way and 10% for open space on lots large enough to be subdivided. The projected capacity range for the 2009 BLI is 2,821 to 2,991 additional dwelling units. This includes all zoning designations that allow residential development. A more accurate projection also takes into account the 16.1% of new residential dwelling units that does not get captured by the buildable lands inventory (see Table 8). This increases the projected capacity range from 3,275 to 3,473 new dwelling units. • Next Steps Staff will perform some additional analysis on the data and package everything into a final report for distribution. Any additional information the Council would like to have available will be included in the final report. Buildable T,ands Report and Land Use Trends Analysis April 2009 Page 6 of 6 ti I v- a Kf �, 'e°' : ' � Buildable Lands C N >< > >< Inventory c G 3 ao z6 8 8 8 8 w 0 w 8® r_. �t R gij� C� 9 8 89 �' 5000 sq ft or less 3 2 0 , 2 3 2 234 1 247 " � `} - ' roc $ 1 , _, J anuary 1 2009 fifi CBD 3 0 79 �' 5001 to 10,000 aq fl 8 0 2 1 10 2 155 18 196 +„ 1 ) Ffi 0 0 '! " ,. 10,001 so fl to 1 acre 12 9 5 2 28 12 80 125 273 ;, ' ' - - t . I [ . 4L 11 24.51 . 1 to 2 acres 1 3 2 2 5 1 21 40 75 x o� _ -' i g ��] FP 10 43.35 'y �' i _ ! - - 6 City of Tiga r 5 to 5 aces 4 1 1 0 1 13 14 35 & r " s ' MUC 4 2.)5 Sto 10 acres 2 0 01 0 1 0 1 3 7 " - N .. MUE 37 18.20 P More than 10 acres 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 5 .g Q• - a Ore Ori MUE -1 12 1103 - C � r MUE -2 1 1.24 '•': 1 • MUR -1 9 3.17 - •% \�� /f '�- • wTe ,� rra, % y e y - Bu Lantl -Jan 1, 2o09 MUR -2 2 0 76 i - ' � _ { L f � . j y 1M-U1 R-2 2.39 ^., " y I ru< i gj 7 Local Wet Corr Invent »!/) R-2 2 0.99 , sr` �- K . .d ,4.:1; �. �. � � ��. f �� t F � ! ^� ! r ) tot CWS vegetated Corridor R3.5 30 2288 t a F ; f ,F _ -, A 1 , t • 1 � - 7 P � E lOOYrflood_ /'=�5 281 18166 f / yt 7 f25 f 141 10494 4,03" / i L��'C t/ , � r 1 — 0 2 84 4140 . 1 29 av r K{ , , ;'1i ',l( K t; i } �p6' ��R40 0 0 1� ' % - .x, f+ -F� w T,� , t t { -' . ..1.,,,,,,4.,..:.' N f Slope o f 25 % Greats t otal 838 519 •01 \ # _ .M1:: t i ¢ . w ) r F, t � Ill u it Tigard City Limits ..� _ �/' 4 r I i �. � �"Y Y - ` y - sat ■ d 7axlot Boundary sere S r 0 '� 7 t . =' zN' .� `� "}Y' -.� I tr{ �^x' a ` x , � ` [l • .. ▪ llL _ , r te, 1 �. _, 1 ! �� 7oninaGassificatlons t �,. '1e ' x - . DYl% Y 1 r r , _ i4 O r 1 ` g n/ x .,_._ C-C Community co—c,..,.. 7.47% / ' e -v t K ', , > f y 1 � 1 1' f w q .� r1 fY P C-G Genial Co / _ : v f4 ' - / �> ° e � C-N NeghlSOrhood Commercial y " � i n ; . 1 i .",� - - I •:;-, ,� �' ' < � . _ c c :,:," Processional Commercial ' -� '+sue i,i/ r '�.� I !� .'� � "'.f 6 s ,: � e '-'..-%;'`...$'-!:3:.-i‘, y , �' ,i ✓° `��'"' al ineu l Dishbt .% j s 4; ' a >; _I , ▪ } f / � „ „Ai ;>vl +v ? ` ` , �, _ 4ti cBD Centr Fbavy Indus .k. % - t �1".li g . , { llr� / '� 'C� .`°l „ � FL Li9nt lndoaMal r 1 fr / �� ■ '�^=� }' x ';� e/: " V " X M Industrial Park �. [ i // ,� // // . �._ y L . - M UC Mixed Use Comm ercial . , / _ - UE Merotl Use Ertybynant -' / j /f / � j% t �,.. = A; y L - ( � e _ UE -1 Mixed Use btpbyment 1 - ,% � � .< : � ,'�; .� �. �+p UE -2 Mhmd Usa Fmpbyment 2 7 s�k jimr �' /y �/ �� i A I UR -1 Muted Use Resitlen8a11 ` � / �/ y/ > i }'1 JW .°"'.. ` UR -2 to ured Use Rasideneal2 - �, T � t 7 f a4.c w i _ ` :...m. -1 30 .000 6q Ft Min Lot Sae -2 2 0,00 0 Sq Ft Min Lot S ¢ e 1 `� ` l /r E1 r J.6 10.000 Sq Ft Min Lot Sae { � � L :;y � ,�; � . . � .S 7500 Sq F t M in LOt Size � ■ 3: � /// / i k 1 i r - e . i- g -7 5,000 Sq Ft M i n Lot Size ` u a n R - 12 3,050 Sq Ft Mm Lot Size .L , - , c - rl ■ tt IF \ R -25 1,480 Sq Ft Mm Lot Size #A � ri 1 1 .. ', _ . � . � / .-. _ ) � �; � R �SI 40 Unit Per Acre 1 ` ■ - , 4 I - r ti �y - (PD) Planned De Ov erlay • pp 1 i4 r t r �. K ( HO) Histor De tn at Overlay . / M 3i 4 RI° / ' � A " ■ „ . the mr,. Ple ratd „ b.a x m epeaea aa wpinrm i i �,- y p ,� 4 - / "� a.# > a e.. e w.ee as, r r �, Pn �d to m�em j f/� _ - _ { D '+ 41 ` ae, der�tap , nvuddetodo�w no:lwmm n +, • . - ,+rid' r "' i-:::-:= Pe t, . 6om dcla r4 and o aleve. Far G am/ d ' 1 afdn mmrw.enldwe�m � 6ea.. L M Z 9 1 ' �/ � -c S •., . y .. T.• -'-'1:11.1 k wM oFliaet l�dadlr un �S )) � .+AR i fa�yg. - �E qq a ,C 'MA • 1 Fldi nnr u edndope4 pn `ddy I. Y ,• . �: n 2 . Pntie ltvva:ra' dn'dap pr aldy Is dte fr wm e omorcameP.roaram ! _ J �- - - -:- . _ \ " lheiv9nee nrep eeem.d 90sm.Pi 971? 1 ipl Wilt • - - a". / \ Aelry 1 200 Relili on,xie bemwe dea con+ 4 �, .tl rr. d ` � •. anmmdmmta ecalrro RS Untmr atWemlp. e r p • _ _ rII. • 1 . S 'f •- 1 . 4 �d9.. ' a b s ® 0 92 GJ Y / x .i ) �� "e hfi1 yy x r I Agenda Item # g Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Briefing on Highway 99W Transit Supportive Land Use and Design Vision Prepared By: Sean Farrelly Dept Head Approval:_ City Mgr Approval: 01 1/ I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update on the status and upcoming public involvement events for the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive update and provide feedback KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In January 2009, the City engaged the services of the University of Oregon's Portland Urban Architecture Laboratory (the department that produced the Tigard Downtown Future Vision.) This project would develop a land use /urban design vision for the 4 -mile Tigard portion of the Highway 99W corridor. The project would establish future design and development principles for the corridor to support its future development a "transit supportive, prosperous, high amenity, mixed use, urban corridor." In the winter semester a professor, graduate fellow, and a class of graduate students worked on documenting the existing conditions of the corridor and doing preliminary drawings of potential future development. In the spring semester an architecture studio class will create a "3 -D" vision of the scale, form, and character of a recommended transit supportive urban form for the Hwy 99W corridor. The project will continue with selected students throughout the summer continuing project tasks, including visualizing potential station nodes. The project is scheduled to be complete in November. Stakeholder involvement will include invitations to the "pin -up" review of work in progress. An Open House is tentatively scheduled for July and will include review of studio work, and potentially a guest speaker, an expert on development in transit corridors. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A - CITY COUNCIL GOALS Long Term Goal: Seek to improve Hwy 99 Corridor (land use, alternative routes, traffic, etc.) ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES N/A Agenda Item # 9 Meeting Date April 14, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Downtown Circulation Plan, Council Goal No. 2 � Prepared By: Sean Farrelly Dept Head Approval: / 7- F ---5 City Mgr Approval: L l/ x /10 / (, e ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update on the status of the upcoming Downtown Circulation Plan (Council Goal No. 2 Implement Downtown Urban Renewal). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive update and provide feedback. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) found one of the major constraints for the development of Downtown to be the lack of connectivity - which impedes pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation in the Downtown. Barriers to multi-modal connectivity include block size, the rail line, Highway 99W, and Fanno Creek. The Downtown Circulation Plan will address these constraints and plan for vehicle, pedestrian, transit, and bicycle circulation in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. It will later be adopted as part of the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP). The purpose of the plan is to: • Implement a transportation network with improved connectivity and provide the basis to obtain rights -of- way for the network as new development occurs. • Establish street standards which will lay the foundation for vibrant, active, pedestrian- friendly streets which accommodate anticipated uses and allow traffic to move appropriately within the district. The Circulation Plan will include: 1. A map specifically identifying the recommended location of Downtown streets, alleys, and pedestrian ways within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The conceptual street network illustrated in the Tigard Downtown Future Vision (Attachment 1) and the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan will be used as starting points in the development of the map. 2. A range of flexible, street functional classifications, and street cross - sections to address the elements of lane width, on -street parking, bicycle lanes, planting strips, sidewalks, shoulder, street trees, and medians for each functional street classification (i.e. collectors, local streets, alleys and other forms of public rights -of -way). 3. A transportation engineering review of the recommended new Downtown transportation network. The review will utilize existing conditions and future projections of traffic volumes and intersection turning movements. 4. An assessment of how new transportation connections will affect: a. The value of properties impacted; and b. The value of properties in the Urban Renewal District as a whole. 1: \1.,R11 \Council Materials \2009 \4 -'14-09 AIS Downtown Circ.docx 1 The Public Involvement Plan (Attachment 2) identifies stakeholder engagement activities. Stakeholders include Downtown residents, property and business owners, the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC), Chamber of Commerce, and the Tigard Central Business District Association. Activities include CCAC meetings and an open house. A consultant team will be selected by the first week of May. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2009 Goal No. 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal 5 -Year Goals: Implement Comprehensive Plan ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Conceptual Downtown Circulation Plan from Tigard Downtown Future Vision Attachment 2: Public Involvement Plan Tigard Downtown Circulation Plan FISCAL NOTES The Downtown Circulation Plan budget is $35,000 for consultant services in urban design, transportation planning, and traffic engineering. These funds have been budgeted. I:A LIMN \Council Materials \2009 \474 -09 AIS Downtown Circ.docx 2 Attachment 1: Conceptual Circulation Plan :,, y " s. • , (.. ? ' _. %/4 ,. ti . t i s k AL -116k0°L, + fib � b S / k. v l ib • p ° O er r fi g ; p 'moo, °� r: Q 7) 04) 4 't, Q '} A °O % /'.'', .%k o /' O t t r� • 0 ° o 0 0 0 1 °o ° ° o °o�P /� Q O M p �'. r , ' f,ff� ,. 4. r ' ' \,. ot A. , .),, a o ;49 <.' O 4 S r ,+- r + It3 O 4643407011 --,: �`r`+ r 0 , ) 9 ix . �/ \. 0,0 0 .�LiQL�Cr3C-3r=tc j `, ; " \ 1 5 1 ' f. 1 „ii :, �: a, Q 0 a . P ,. o - o ,� .�\ti ; tip �'`� , ,� //. > J� . e� 0 CONCEPTUAL FUTURE POTENTIAL CIRCULATION PLAN PEDESTRIAN PATHS rn FUTURE STREETS /AUTO CONNECTIONS Based on current streets and potential street continuations as well as alignments Q EXISTING PEDESTRIAN PATHS of destination points this diagram shows a EXISTING STREETS projection of future vehicular and pedestrian -""~ circulation. ga FANNO CREEK Attachment 2 Public Involvement Plan Tigard Downtown Circulation Plan I. Introduction Background The Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan (TDIP) found one of the major constraints for the development of Downtown to be the lack of connectivity - which impedes pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation in the Downtown. Barriers to connectivity include block size, the rail line, Highway 99W and Fanno Creek. The Downtown Circulation Plan will address these constraints and be adopted as part of the Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP). The Circulation Plan will include: 1. A map specifically identifying the recommended location of Downtown streets and pedestrian pathways within the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The conceptual street network was illustrated in the Tigard Downtown Future Vision. This map, as well as the Downtown Streetscape Design Plan, will be used as starting points in the development of a recommended map. The recommended network will be consistent with street connectivity standards contained in the draft Downtown Development Code. 2. A range of flexible, street functional classifications and street cross - sections to address the elements of lane width, on -street parking, bicycle lanes, planting strips, sidewalks, shoulder, street trees, and medians for each functional street classification (i.e. collectors, local streets, etc.) . 3. A transportation engineering review of the recommended new Downtown transportation network. The review will utilize existing conditions and future projections of traffic volumes and intersection turning movements. 4. An assessment of how new transportation connections will affect: a. The value of properties impacted; and b. The value of properties in the Urban Renewal District as a whole. Purpose The City's objective is the completion of a plan for vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation in the Downtown Urban Renewal District which implements the community's planning vision. The purpose of the plan is to: • Implement a transportation network with improved connectivity and provide the basis to obtain rights -of -way for the network as new development occurs over the next fifty years. • Establish street standards which will lay the foundation for vibrant, active, pedestrian - friendly streets which accommodate anticipated uses and allow traffic to move appropriately within the district. I: \LRP-LN \Council Materials \2009 \414-09 Att 2 Downtown Circ.docx 1 I �, Attachment 2 Public Involvement Plan Components The Tigard Comprehensive Plan Citizen Involvement section is divided between two goals: Goal 1.1: Provide Citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1.2 Ensure all Citizens have access to: A. Opportunities to communicate directly to the City; and B. Information on issues in an understandable form. Thus, the Communication Plan breaks down each phase of the process and addresses ways in which citizens and stakeholders can participate, communicate, and receive information about the Downtown Circulation Plan. Key Players City Center Advisory Commission The Advisory Commission's role is to provide comments and suggestions on the development and implementation of an Urban Renewal Plan for improving the downtown area. The Commission will review the Circulation Plan as it is developed and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Stakeholders For this project, stakeholders are divided into two categories: • "Downtown ": Business owners, property owners, residents, and civic leaders from within the downtown urban renewal district. This includes stakeholder /leadership groups, such as the Tigard Central Business District Association and the Chamber of Commerce, along with business and property owners in the area. Potential issues may include impacts on property values from right -of -way acquisition, street utility improvement costs, decreased or enhanced business viability, and opportunities for customer access. • "Tigard Citizens ": Outreach to residents and business owners in other parts of the City, including the Neighborhood Network program. Staff The role of staff will be to facilitate the CCAC meetings, the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) meetings, and the open house. City staff will also participate in the review of materials provided by the consultant. Committee for Cititien Involvement The role of the Committee for Citizen Involvement is to review the form and process of City communications with its residents. This Committee will have an opportunity to review the Communication Plan at the outset of the project, and will monitor citizen involvement throughout the process. I: \LRP1..N \Council Materials \2009 \4 -14 -09 Att 2 Downtown Circ.docx 2 Attachment 2 Schedule This project is expected to run through November 2009. II. Project Phases Each of the following phases will have a citizen engagement component (see Tools Matrix on next page): Phase 1: Project Launch Tasks: a. Approve Communication Plan b. Get the word out c. Hiring of Consultant Phase 2: Define Current Conditions Tasks: a. Review Past Work b. Present Issues and Findings Phase 3: Develop Draft Plan Tasks: a. Develop Draft Circulation Map and Street Sections b. Staff Review Phase 4: Draft Plan Review Tasks: a. Traffic Engineering Review b. TSP Consultant Review Phase 5: Plan Adoption Tasks: a. City Center Advisory Commission Recommendation b. Planning Commission Work Sessions and Public Hearings c. City Council Work Sessions and Public Hearings Phase 6: Implementation and Monitoring III. Project Schedule Phase 2: Phase 1: Phase 3: Phase 4: Phase 5: April - Define June - August Sept - May Sept. ov Project Current July Develop Sept Draft Plan . Plan Launch Conditions Draft Plan Review Adoption I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \4-14-09 Art 2 Downtown Circ.docx 3 Attachment 2 IV. Public Involvement Tools Matrix Phase 1: Project Launch Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy CCAC Meeting Participation CCI Meeting Participation Stakeholder Meeting Information Develop Website Information ListSery Messa . e Communication Phase 2: Define Current Conditions Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy- CCAC Meeting Participation Cityscape Article Information Update Website Information Listsery Messa•. e Communication Phase 3: Develop Draft Plan Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy CCAC Meeting Participation Open House Participation Cityscape Article Information Update Website Information Listsery Messa ' e Communication Phase 4: Draft Plan Review limer Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy CCAC Meeting Participation Comment Period Participation Update Website Information Press Release- NN Websites Information Listsery Messa_• e Communication Phase 5: Plan Adoption Involvement Tools Comprehensive Plan Policy Planning Commission Work Sessions and Public Hearing Participation City Council Work Sessions and Public Hearing Participation Cityscape Article Information Update Website Information Press Release - NN Websites Information Listsery Messa . e Communication Phase 6: Implementation I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \4-1409 Att 2 Downtown Circ.docx 4