Loading...
SDR2003-00004 SDR2003 - 00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING r • NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 „ 42 CITY OF TIGARD ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING CommunityKDevetopment Shaping A Better Community ; 120 DAYS = 7/17/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2003-00004 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review for construction of a two-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. OWNER: Ron Enyeart, Marty Goldsmith Cedar Enterprises, LLC 4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 APPLICANT: Peter Magaro 10570 SW Citation Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008 LOCATION: 12665 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02800. ZONE: MUE. Mixed Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 1 OF 25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Division (Morgan Tracy, b`19-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates: A. All trees to be planted will be a minimum of 2 1/2 inch caliper size. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch-caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. B. Tree mitigation that accounts for replanting 48 caliper inches either on-site, off-site, or a payment in-lieu of replanting. The applicant shall note that parking lot and street trees do not qualify for mitigation, unless they are greater than 2-inches in caliper. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that: A. Identifies the material and height of the trash enclosure that meets the requirements of 18.745.050(E)(4). B. Shows 3 bicycle rack spaces for the proposed building. An elevation detail showing the design of the bike rack is also required. C. Indicates the compact parking spaces will be marked "compact" or with a large D. Shows the existing water service line meter relocated from SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue right-of-way. E. Shows one van accessible ADA parking space to be 9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. 3. Submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the location of the proposed trash enclosure meets their requirements. 4. Submit details addressing the design standards of the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (18.775.040) in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 5. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 6. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 7. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 2 OF 25 • 8. Prior to final inspection the appljcant shall pay funds to the City for the future traffic signals at the intersections of 72� Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68' Avenue/Dartmouth Street. The amounts are as follows: 72n /Dartmouth = $2,182.00; 68 /Dartmouth = $1,067.00. 9. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 70 Avenue adjacent to the subject property, when any of the following events occur: 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 for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property Fn addition to the subject property, or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject property and found two other land use cases related to the property. A Site Development Review (SDR95-00003) approval was granted to allow the conversion of a single-family residence to a commercial office. A fire rater destroyed the office and a Temporary Use approval was granted in 1997 (TUP 97-00014) to allow the placement of a temporary building for use as an interim office. The site has continued to be used for office and storage beyond the 1 year expiration timeframe for the TUP. The present application proposes to remove the existing trailers and shed completely, and construct a new building with parking per the Tigard Triangle Design standards. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located between SW 69th and the unimproved right-of-way for SW 70th, south of SW Beveland Street in the Tigard Triangle area. The site is bordered on all sides by Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zoning. The parcels to the north, south and east are developed with commercial offices. To the west lies a single-family house across the unimproved right-of- way. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is proposing clear the site of existing structures and other improvements, re-grade the site and construct a 6,342 square foot 2-story office building and parking lot. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET No letters were received from nearby property owners. It should be noted that prior to the application submittal, staff received a call from an adjacent employee regarding the trees that were in the process of being removed. As discussed later in this decision, these trees will be required to be mitigated. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 3 OF 25 SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections: A. Zoning Districts 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscapingg_and Screening 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal 18.795 Visual Clearance C. Specific SDR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Decision Makin Procedures • 18.390 Impact-Study SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICTS Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the MUE: Mixed-Use Employment zoning district. The proposed use, general office space, is outright permitted in the zone. The present use of the site for the Morton Tree Service business is considered a landscape contractor and thus falls into the "Office" classification. The proposed use will also be office, but in a more conventional sense and is likewise permitted in the zoning district. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD MUE Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 16,398 sq.ft. -Detached unit - -Boarding, lodging, rooming house Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 75 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 0'min/10'max 10' -Side facing street on corner&through lots - - -Side yard 0/20 ft [1] 5' &32' -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - -Rear yard 0/20 ft [1] 113' -Distance between front of garage& property line - - abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 38.6 ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 85% 70.1% Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.4 .39 (6,342 sf) Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 19.9% [1]no setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone. [2]includes all buildings and impervious area NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 4 OF 25 • As demonstrated in the table above, the applicant's plans comply with the dimensional standards of the MUE zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have been satisfied. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (18.620): Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve.public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography,, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. Performance Option: a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mite; b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance; c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. The proposal meets the Performance Option because SW 69th Avenue is 3,400 feet or approximately 6/10 of a, mile, which requires 5 intersections. Currently, there are eight (8) intersections on SW 69 Avenue. The straight-line distance from the subject property to the closest collector (Beveland Street) is 380 feet. The shortest vehicle and pedestrian trip from the subject property to Beveland is also 380 feet. Therefore, the performance option has been met. Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall arcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010C2 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. The subject site is less than an acre (0.38 acres), so no phasing is required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 5 OF 25 Building Placement On Major And Minor Arterials And The Street: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. SW 69th Avenue is neither a major or minor arterial. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Building Setback: The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall gbe 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. The proposed building is 10 feet from the current property line fronting SW 69th Avenue. Front Yard Setback Design: Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. The landscape plan indicates that a combination of landscaping and a concrete walk will be located between the building and the public street. Landscaping and walkways will be discussed further in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening). Walkway Connection To Building Entrances: A walkway connection is required between the building's entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. The applicant's plans show corner entrances to the proposed building. The plans also indicate a 10-foot-wide walkway connection to the street. This standard is met. Parking Location And Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The parking lot is located behind the proposed building. Landscaping along the front will occupy the whole front setback, except for those areas where driveways or walkways are present. This standard is met. According to the standard above, interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 landscape standard. However, the site plan shows the proposed trees to be planted in these areas below the 272-inch caliper minimum size. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to submit a revised landscaping plan that shows all trees to be no less than 2% inches in caliper. It should be noted that any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch-caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. FINDING: The applicant's plans do not meet the Tigard Triangle landscape standards. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 6 OF 25 Building Design Standards: All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Ground Floor Windows: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50 percent of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. According to the standard above, the building must have at a minimum of 50 ercent of the ground floor wall area as windows. The east elevation of the building (facing SW 69th Avenue) is 38 feet long, for a total calculated wall area of 228 square feet. Fifty percent of the wall area is 114 square feet. The elevations show 96 square feet of windows, and 54 square feet of glass doorway for a total of 150 square feet, in compliance with this standard. Building Facades: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. The east elevation of the proposed building is 38 feet. While no break is required, the plans show a covered portico entryway and is, therefore, in compliance with the standard. Weather Protection: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be backlit. The plans show two entrances into the building, one in the front and another in the rear near the parking area. Both the main entrance and the parking lot entrances have covered porches. Building Materials: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet pressboard or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The building will be a combination of stone veneer, cedar lap siding, and either composition shake or wood shake roof shingles. The proposed building materials meet this standard. Roofs And Roof Lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The proposed building does not have a false front or false roof. The applicant is proposing a pitched roof system with a basement level mechanical room to conceal mechanical equipment. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 7 OF 25 Roof-Mounted Equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. The applicant is proposing a pitched roof system with a basement level mechanical room to conceal mechanical equipment. This will meet the standard. Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code, the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.780.130.D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. The applicant is not p roposing a sign with this application. Because compliance with sign codes will be required when a sign permit is applied for, these standards have been satisfied. Landscaping and Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. The proposal does not abut a major or minor arterial, therefore, the L-1 standards do not apply. L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 21/2-inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 8 OF 25 • Because the site is on a local street, the L-2 landscape standards defer to Chapter 18.745. Compliance with Landscaping and Screening standards are discussed further in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tigard Triangle Design standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates that all trees will be a minimum of 21/2 inch caliper size. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 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. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Walkways: 18.705.030(F) requires that on-site pedestrian walkways comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; On site pedestrian walkways are present between the building entrance and the street that provides access and egress as well as to the parking lot. This standard is met. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking lot. This standard is therefore met. 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 plan depicts concrete sidewalks, which meets the standard. Access Management: Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 9 OF 25 A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated February 2003. The report reviewed the sight distance at the existing site access point and found that the sight distance was measured at about 140 feet to the south and about 200 feet to the north. Intersection sight distance is restricted by the vehicles parked on either side of the site driveway, which is typical in situations where on-street parking is allowed near intersections or driveways. It is generally not possible to allow on-street parking and have adequate sight distance at driveways and intersections. Because the intersection sight distance does not meet AASHTO standards, stopping sight distance was also measured. Stopping sight distance is the minimum distance required for an oncoming vehicle to recognize and stop for an obstruction in the roadway. For a posted speed of 25 mph, the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet in either direction. Stopping sight distance was measured at about 325 feet to the south and in excess of 300 feet to the north. Stopping sight distance is adequate. Staff concurs with Lancaster that even though the sight distance at the driveway is insufficient, the fact that the stopping sight distance for oncoming cars is more than adequate, the driveway should be considered safe. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The existing site access is not within the influence area of a collector or arterial intersection. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW 69th Avenue is neither a collector nor an arterial, so this criterion does not apply. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The development has one oint of access into the parking lot that provides 24 feet of pavement and is 32 feet wide. Therefore , this standard is met. FINDING: The access requirements have been met. 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 length shall be 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 II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 10 OF 25 • The applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows one additional Flowering Pear tree to match the existing flowering pear tree. There is no apparent specification as to the size or variety of flowering pear tree. Moreover, it is unclear whether an additional street tree is warranted on the north side of the proposed driveway. If there is an existing tree in the immediate vicinity, then no additional tree shall be required. The applicant has previously been conditioned to revise the landscape plan to show all trees at a 21,6-inch caliper size. In addition, the applicant shall show the existing tree on the north side of the driveway, or propose one if that tree is no longer present or will require removal to accommodate the driveway site work. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer is required between a proposed office use and existing office use. Buffering and/or screening are required for dissimilar uses. All properties surrounding the subject property are zoned MUE. However, there is one property to the west that is an existing single-family home. The other surrounding uses are all office. The single-family use is located across the ri rro ght-of-way for SW 70 , an unimproved street. The Triangle Transportation Plan shows this as a future road. The unimproved right-of-way is heavily vegetated. No buffer is required since the two uses are separated by the street. Should the right-of-way be vacated, a 10-foot buffer may be required, but it is likely that the residential use will have been converted by that time. 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. The parking lot is loc�_ed behind the building and lies at a lower elevation, so that it will be well screened from SW 69 Landscape materials are proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot to further screen the parking area from abutting properties. The applicant is proposing landscaped islands containing one tree for every seven spaces with low-lying ground cover and shrubs. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; The site plan submitted shows a trash enclosure, but does not clearly indicate what type and how tall the enclosure will be. A solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height is required. The applicant's revised plan will need to identify the material and height of the enclosure. Screening Of Refuse Containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park 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. The applicant's plans show gates that will screen the refuse area from the parking lot. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 11 OF 25 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: Submit a revised site plan that identifies the material and height of the trash enclosure that meets the requirements of 18.745.050(E)(4). 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 submitted written sign off from the waste hauler (Pride Disposal). This will be a required condition of approval. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclables 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 public streets adjacent to the site. The refuse container is accessed from the parking lot and is visible in order to enhance security for users. The proposed refuse container will not occupy any required parking stalls and screening has been conditioned to conform to Tigard standards previously in this decision. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant has p s not submitted a detail of the trash enclosure or refuse container. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of compliance with the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage 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 SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 12 OF 25 • CONDITIONS: • Submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the location of the proposed trash enclosure meets their requirements. • Submit details addressing the design standards of the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765}_ Location of vehicle parking: Off-street arking 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 parking lot associated with this project is directly adjacent to the proposed building, in compliance with this standard. 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: T) 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. Joint parking is not proposed with this application; therefore this standard is not applicable. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. This proposal is not considered a mixed-use project as it will contain solely office space, therefore this standard is not applicable. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 13 OF 25 Preferential Long-Term CarpoolNanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 lon94erm parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. The proposed parking lot associated with the office building development has a total of 19 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant will not be required to reserve any of the proposed parking for carpool/vanpool parking. 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. The applicant is providing 19 parking spaces, therefore, one (1) van accessible (9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle) ADA handicap space is required. The applicant's plans show one (1) ADA space that will be 8 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. Therefore, the site plan will need to be modified to be in compliance with the ADA 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 flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The access drive has been addressed previously 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. Pedestrian access has been discussed previously in this decision and there are no drop off edges that require barriers. 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 plans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked with striping. The compact spaces will need to be marked clearly marked as such. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 14 OF 25 Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant is providing wheel stops in the form of curbing on all of the parking stalls, located three feet back from the front of the stalls. 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 indicate that the standard parking spaces will be 8.5 feet by 18 feet and 7.5 feet by 16.5 feet for compact spaces. The access aisle will be 26 feet wide. The applicant proposes that of the 19 parking spaces, 5 will be compact. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances 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 site plan shows an area for bicycle racks. According to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed building will be required to provide 3 bicycle rack spaces. The applicant will need to provide a detail of the proposed bike rack with the building permit submittal. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall 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 remain well drained. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 15 OF 25 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. As discussed above, according to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed building will be required to provide a 3-stall bicycle rack. 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. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for General Office Uses is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The building is proposed to be 6,342 square feet. This will require 17.12 stalls, rounded up to 18 stalls. The site plan shows 19 stalls for this project 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 building is not greater than 10,000 square feet, therefore, the applicant is not required to provide a loading space. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully satisfied, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: • The compact parking spaces shall be marked as "compact" or with a large "C". • The applicant/owner shall submit a revised site plan that shows 3 bicycle rack spaces for the proposed building. An elevation detail showing the design of the bike rack is also required. • Revise the van accessible ADA parking space to be 9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the MUE Zoning District. No signs have been formally proposed. Signs are reviewed through a separate permit process administered by the Development Services Technicians. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit process, this standard has been satisfied. 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 shall be provided with a site development review 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, 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 16 OF 25 The applicant has provided an arborist report addressing the trees that previously occupied the property. These trees were removed prior to the submittal of the application, but since they were removed within the last year, they are still reviewed under the requirements of this chapter. There were four willow trees on site, 24, 28, 36 and 36 inches in diameter. The two smaller trees were rotten and considered dangerous, and are therefore not subject to the mitigation requirements. The two larger trees will require two thirds of the caliper inches removed to be mitigated, based on the 50% of the number of trees being removed. Of the 72 inches, 48 inches shall be replanted. The applicant has not provided a mitigation program to address this criteria. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided a tree mitigation plan, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit tree mitigation plan that accounts for replanting 48 caliper inches either on-site, off-site, or a payment in lieu of replanting. The applicant shall note that parking lot and street trees do not qualify for mitigation, unless they are greater than 2-inches in caliper. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right- of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at the vehicular access of the property. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13 (PParking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 rovision for the Disabled). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 17 OF 25 • Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light: air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The building is located on the site in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. The site is not in an area identified as prone to sliding. The building has a 5-foot buffer from the nearest adjoining property, thus, providing adequate light and air circulation. The Building Division will require adequate fire protection per the Uniform Building Code. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Crime Prevention and Safety: A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; B. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and E. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Windows are oriented towards the parking lot and the street. Light fixtures are shown on the applicant's plans on the building and in the parking lot which will sufficiently illuminate the site. This standard is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to an existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW 69th Avenue, which is not on a Tri-met transit route, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard is satisfied. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 18 OF 25 Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street and Accessway Standards, requires a local street to have a 60-foot right-of-way width and a 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 69th Avenue, which is classified as a local street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway was fully improved as a part of a local improvement district. No further improvements are needed except for the planting of one additional street tree along the frontage. There is one tree there presently, but the plan shows that they will install one more to complete the frontage planting. This site also lies adjacent to an unimproved right-of-way for SW 70th avenue. SW 70th Avenue is classified as a local street in the Tigard Triangle Standards. There is adequate right-of-way east of the centerline adjacent to this site. The roadway has not been improved to the north or south of the site, but will be a viable north/south connection in the future. In lieu of requiring a half-street improvement at this time, the City Engineer may accept a future improvement guarantee if one of the following conditions exist: . A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; . Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity. Staff finds that both of the above criteria are met for this project. It does not make sense to require the improvement now, but the applicant should provide a future improvement guarantee. The form of this guarantee will be a restrictive covenant and shall be executed prior to final building inspection. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. A 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk already exists along the frontage. The plan shows that the existing driveway apron will be reconstructed to provide a wider opening. There will be no other disturbance to the sidewalk along the frontage. 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 in 1996 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. There is an existing 8-inch public line in 69th Avenue with a lateral to this site. The plan calls for a partial abandonment of the existing lateral, as it is too long to effectively serve the new building. No additional public sewer line work is necessary. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 19 OF 25 • 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). There are no upstream drainage ways that impact this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plan shows that they will convey the onsite stormwater into an onsite detention pipe and treatment basins before discharging to an open channel that exists along the western boundary of the site. The open channel was improved by the City in recent years to better accommodate the drainage from the parcels in this area. The onsite detention system will ensure that the site runoff will be limited to the existing amount. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. 69th Avenue is not designated as a bikeway. Therefore, this section 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. 69th Avenue is not designated as a bikeway. Therefore, this section 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 lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. 69th Avenue is not designated as a bikeway. Therefore, this section does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 20 OF 25 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; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • 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 in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-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 of under-grounding. There are no existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of the site, therefore, no undergrounding requirement will apply. D. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: As was stated previously, a traffic impact report was submitted by Lancaster Engineering. The study analyzed the intersections of 69 Avenue/Hampton Street and 69 Avenue/Beveland Street and found that currently the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). Upon completion of the new project, these intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. Lancaster also addressed analyzed two key intersections in the Tigard Triangle: • SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street • SW 68"' Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street The two critical intersections have been identified as needing traffic signals. As development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces additional trips to these intersections, funds have been collected from the developers that will contribute to the future signal installation. The first project to contribute funds to the intersections was the Babies R Us project. A simple formula was established bpsed upon the impact from that development. That project had an impact of 1.1% at SW 72" Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the City Council required the developer to pay funds in the amount of $20,000.00. At the intersection of SW 68 Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the impact from that project was estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,000.00. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 21 OF 25 • Using this same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects in the Triangle, and can be calculated for this project. In order to provide the most fair comparison to the Babies R Us project, it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entering volumes (TEV) estimated as a part of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-out of the triangle area, including the Tri County site at 72"d/Dartmouth. Lancaster's report shows that this project will generate approximately 3 PM peak hour trips to the intersection of SW 72' Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a total entering volume (TEV) of 2,555 vehicles, the project impact is approximately 0.12%. Therefore, based on simple proportions, the project contribution to this intersection is $2,182.00. Likewise, the Lancaster report shows thatthe project will generate approximately 2 PM peak hour trips at the intersection of SW 68 Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a TEV of approximately 2,660 vehicles, the impact from this development is approximately 0.08%%. Therefore, based on the same proportion used in the Babies R Us development, the project contribution to this intersection is $1,067.00. Funds for both intersections must be paid to the City prior to a final building inspection. Public Water System: This site lies within the Tualatin Valley Water District service area. It appears the applicant will be able to utilize the existing water service to the site. No additional public water line work is necessary. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant's plan calls for the installation of two Stormwater Management filter catch basins. For the additional runoff that will be generated by this redevelopment, these filter basins will provide sufficient treatment. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. The proposed units from Stormwater Management is acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 22 OF 25 Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resultinj 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. The Building Division will review a grading and erosion control plan as a part of the Site Permit process. The site is less than one acre, so a NPDES permit is not required. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of$30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit issuance 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 permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of 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. E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.360.090 states, "The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:" Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public 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 $22,749 based on the use proposed. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $71,090 ($22,749 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 $48,341. No street improvements or right-of-way dedications are required for this project. However, the applicant will be conditioned to contribute to the cost NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 23 OF 25 of signalizing the two key intersections described previously for a total of $3,249. As the value of the proposed improvements is less than the remaining unmitigated impact, it is clearly proportionate to exact these improvements SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal has no objections. The City of Tigard Urban Forester has reviewed the proposal has no objections. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and has no additional comments. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: The existing service line crosses the lot from SW 70th Avenue right-of-way. Relocate the water meter to SW 69th Avenue right-of-way. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: 1) PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red or black on yellow background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) The curbs along the entrance driveway shall be marked as fire lanes. 2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the building and along an approved fire apparatus access roadway. Any hydrants that are left over from the minimum number of hydrant calculations may be full filled by hydrants that are up to 500 feet from any point of the building. The fire Prevention Ordinance has further requirements that need to be used for acceptance and placement of fire hydrants. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) A second hydrant shall be located within 500 feet of the closest portion of the building. 3) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 24 OF 25 Final Decision: - THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 13, 2003 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 29, 2003 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Ap e�al: The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III 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.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. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON MAY 28, 2003 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. May 13, 2003 PREPARED BY: Morgan Tr cy DATE Associate Planner d01.111011°P 44- May 13, 2003 " ' • D :'. 'ichard . Bewa -so ' DATE Planning Man.. : i:\curpin\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2003-00004(enyeart)\sdr2003-00004 decision.doc NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 25 OF 25 CITY of TIGARD Qom! GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM • ELMHURST ST VICINITY MAP � � s w HERMOSO Q JD1�2UU3-00004 sjim. FRANKLIN ST ur I ENYEART �ELAND S OFFICE BUILDING NIeEVELANp ST CV ^SITE - N n GONZAGA ST s. \\ ~ u • co co ,1 A i le SW 3' a.� HAMPTON ST •- }V��re "� ` BEND R4. .. MIP' ,.. 1 H Tigard Mee Map A/GJ� n I N 7,>. = D 200 40 600 Feel CO CO ! P f,603 feet •.5 ST < 414 City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and VARNS ST should be verified vAth the Developr,enl Services Division. ` 73125,O Nall 2Nd Lu \\\ Tigard,OR 97223 (503)9341171 hitp:lPwv c3i,Wrd.or.uS _� q \IIIIIk Plot date:Mar 24,2003;C:vnagic�MAGIC03.APR n Community Development --\___s_ .-:--.--z.-J.___:jjL) ... fA M ... \ ---.-.111162, r____., '-'444111V,I,ii,..--4& WI „_a,SAILIMMINIMITIMMill II%\\ \ - -- --.JO 2rriliblrill111.111111=1 ti e\4 — I '.. H1 Klim. li I*rt,.. . cm ® III4 --? 1 ,,,j.�� �_o• E_s te-gre ,p,.....„.. .- -'-. : 1 4 AMA . _""4 V A ' fd )-461"ZAA°P v'v.. (.°' Nkh .W. : . , I 1--4Mtic;r A Air i ihk C) ! N, St. ■..__,.. f Fes.' __ wr 1 ;' __ 11=1101111111111111111 Illllllllllllllllllli - - — �, A i CITY OF TIGARD ( 1 1 morrw.ILLITIME I %\y CITY OF TIGARD SDR2003-00004 SITE PLAN N ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING (Map is not to scale) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION 11'14 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING A Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/17/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2003-00004 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review for construction of a two-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. OWNER: Ron Enyeart, Marty Goldsmith Cedar Enterprises, LLC 4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 APPLICANT: Peter Magaro 10570 SW Citation Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008 LOCATION: 12665 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02800. ZONE: MUE. Mixed Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II . DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (250 per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice 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 MAY 13, 2003 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 29, 2003 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. _Apepal: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 28, 2003. Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Morgan Tracy at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. la ��,�;iilll ; ST .. ...._........... -"„ , i II CINITY MAP "I'llig111 II IPIW��Il �E ill. iinow 0 � ��r� 6111. • OFFICE BUILDING „L."... N am irmi me . . hhiliN mum.;J.; el._ I . • =mu r. on . . -,. , NI IN In" /li<I�Cl El IN ,sl►41; ih, FU ..•Mir EMI ��" `, a.w�. N Cry of I ,..,.i,hic.M* \'''\- 1 k ■........................._ W iiill' PI, , �� �I�R it .-.to Trz As. 1 I -- ■ Ny 1 r --- illllllllllllllllll,IUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIi-- `vi CITY OF TIGARD I SDR2003.00004 SITE PLAN N ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING (Map Is not to scale) NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION 4011, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW O CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: March 24, 2003 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 Type II Land Use Application FILE NAME: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON APRIL 7, 2003. All comments should be directed to Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 30, 2003. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: • Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; • Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; • Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: . The application is accepted by the City . Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. . The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. . City Staff issues a written decision. . Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." Illll'i1,i„ 11-i . VICINITY MAP IL 11 /////. AM , R ■ NE SDR2003 00004 ■ NNW 11,' II II. OFFICE BUILDING g IMO 1 ill R '''11111li I I min sw Min A saihk i A FA - : '' 1 ).. ir ta, .,,„ a N ■ A,, • ■...■r Cary of TgW 1111116, Plot dot.Mar 24.2003.C On.gc44AGIC03APR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: May 2, 2003 TO: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SDR 2003-00004, Enyeart Office Building Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that 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. A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated February 2003. The report reviewed the sight distance at the existing site access point and found that the sight distance was measured at about 140 feet to the south and about 200 feet to the north. Intersection sight distance is restricted by the vehicles parked on either side of the site driveway, which is typical in situation s where on-street parking is allowed near intersections or driveways. It is generally not possible to allow on-street parking and have adequate sight distance at driveways and intersections. Because the intersection sight distance does not meet AASHTO standards, stopping sight distance was also measured. Stopping sight distance is the minimum distance required for an oncoming vehicle to recognize and stop for an obstruction in the roadway. For a posted speed of 25 mph, the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet in either direction. Stopping sight distance was measured at about 325 feet to the south and in excess of 300 feet to the north. Stopping sight distance is adequate. Staff concurs with Lancaster that even though the sight distance at the driveway is insufficient, the fact that the stopping sight distance for oncoming cars is more than adequate, the driveway should be considered safe. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 1 of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The existing site access is not within the influence area of a collector or arterial intersection. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW 69th Avenue is neither a collector nor an arterial, so this criterion does not apply. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street and Accessway Standards, requires a local street to have a 60-foot wide right-of-way width and 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 69th Avenue, which is classified as a local street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway was fully improved as a part of a local improvement district. No further improvements are needed ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 2 except for the planting of one additional street tree along the frontage. There is one tree there presently, but the plan shows that they will install one more to complete the frontage planting. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. A 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk already exists along the frontage. The plan shows that the existing driveway apron will be reconstructed to provide a wider opening. There will be no other disturbance to the sidewalk along the frontage. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public line in 69th Avenue with a lateral to this site. The plan calls for a partial abandonment of the existing lateral, as it is too long to effectively serve the new building. No additional public sewer line work is necessary. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 3 Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There are no upstream drainage ways that impact this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plan shows that they will convey the onsite stormwater into an onsite detention pipe and treatment basins before discharging to an open channel that exists along the western boundary of the site. The open channel was improved by the City in recent years to better accommodate the drainage from the parcels in this area. The onsite detention system will ensure that the site runoff will be limited to the existing amount. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. SW 69th Avenue is not classified as a bike facility. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 4 Traffic Study Findings: As was stated previously, a traffic impact report was submitted by Lancaster Engineering. The study analyzed the intersections of 69th Avenue/Hampton Street and 69th Avenue/Beveland Street and found that currently the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). Upon completion of the new project, these intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. Lancaster also addressed analyzed two key intersections in the Tigard Triangle: • SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street • SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street The two critical intersections have been identified as needing traffic signals. As development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces additional trips to these intersections, funds have been collected from the developers that will contribute to the future signal installation. The first project to contribute funds to the intersections was the Babies R Us project. A simple formula was established based upon the impact from that development. That project had an impact of 1.1% at SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the City Council required the developer to pay funds in the amount of$20,000.00. At the intersection of SW 68th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the impact from that project was estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,000.00. Using this same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects in the Triangle, and can be calculated for this project. In order to provide the most fair comparison to the Babies R Us project, it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entering volumes (TEV) estimated as a part of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-out of the triangle area, including the Tri County site at 72nd/Dartmouth. Lancaster's report shows that this project will generate approximately 3 PM peak hour trips to the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a total entering volume (TEV) of 2,555 vehicles, the project impact is approximately 0.12%. Therefore, based on simple proportions, the project contribution to this intersection is $2,182.00. Likewise, the Lancaster report shows that the project will generate approximately 2 PM peak hour trips at the intersection of SW 68th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a TEV of approximately 2,660 vehicles, the impact from this development is approximately 0.08%%. Therefore, based on the same proportion used in the Babies R Us development, the project contribution to this intersection is $ 1,067.00. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 5 Funds for both intersections must be paid to the City prior to a final building inspection. Public Water System: This site lies within the Tualatin Valley Water District service area. It appears the applicant will be able to utilize the existing water service to the site. No additional public water line work is necessary. 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. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant's plan calls for the installation of two Stormwater Management filter catch basins. For the additional runoff that will be generated by this redevelopment, these filter basins will provide sufficient treatment. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. The proposed units from Stormwater Management is acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 6 Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The Building Division will review a grading and erosion control plan as a part of the Site Permit process. The site is less than one acre, so a NPDES permit is not required. Address Assignments: 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 permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 7 Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall pay funds to the City for the future traffic signals at the intersections of 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68th Avenue/Dartmouth Street. The amounts are as follows: 72nd/Dartmouth = $2,182.00; 68th/Dartmouth = $1,067.00. I\eng\bnanr\comments\sdAsd2003-00004.doc ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2003-00004 Enyeart Office PAGE 8 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY n OF TIGARD Community'Development Shaping BetterCommnunity DATE: March 24,2003 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Matt Stine,Urban Forester/Public Works Annex APR 1 4 2003 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x24311 Phone: 15031639-4111/Fax: 1503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MR)2003-00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WXTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 7, 2003. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person Commenting: AA _ .�,- A REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C;OFTIOARD Community cDeve(opment ►t nity RECEIVtli �Lr DATE: March 24,2003 APR 0 7 2003 TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner(x24311 Phone: [503)639-4111/Fax: 1503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR)2003-00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WXTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 7, 2003. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If ou have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person Commenting: 3. \1\ O\C 1. ` REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF HOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community DATE: March 24,2003 TO: Sherman Casper,Permit Coordinator/Community Development Department FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner(x24371 Phone: (5031 639-4171/Fax: (5031 684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]2003-00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WXTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 7, 2003. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: ;e Es---7A0 4 / C Name & Number of Person Commenting: I■E/Minni DATE: March 26, 2003 PLANS CHECK NO. SDR2003-00004 PROJECT T[H I. COUNTYWIDE Enyeart Office Building. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE WORKSHEET APPLICANT: (FOR NON-SINGLE FAMILY USES) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY/ZIP/PHONE: TAX MAP NO.: 2S 101 AD02800 • SITES NO.ADDRESS: 12665 SW 69,H Ave. LAND USE CATEGORY RATE PER TRIP RESIDENTIAL $239.00 BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL $ 60.00 X OFFICE $220.00 Estimate:note subject to 6% increase > July 1 , 03 INDUSTRIAL $230.00 INSTITUTIONAL $ 99.00 PAYMENT METHOD: CASH/CHECK CREDIT BANCROFT(PROMISSORY NOTE) USE LAND CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF USE WEEKDAY AVG. INSTITUTIONAL ONLY DEFER TO OCCUPANCY 710 A Gen Office TRIP RATE 16.31 WEEKEND AVG.TRIP RATE BASIS: The applicant proposes construction of a new a 6,340 sq. ft. two story office building. CALCULATIONS: TIF = (( Week day Avg. Trips X T.G.S.F.) — Credit ) X Rate Per Trip $ 22,79 = ((16.31 X 6.34 ) - 0 ) X $220 Transit Amt. = Projected Trip Rate X $18 $1,854 = 103 X $18 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION: 103 FEE: $22,749 FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY ADDITIONAL NOTES: No Credit assumed. ROAD AMT. $20,895 TRANSIT AMT. $1,854 PREPARED BY: S.S. Casper I:TIFWKST.DOC (DST) EFF: 07-01-98 'Ir REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CI..IY.. RD Community Deve(opment Shaping Better Community DATE: March 24,2003 TO: Tualatin Valley Water District Administrative Offices FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x2431] Phone: [5031639-4111/Fax: [5031684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2003-00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WXTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. formation supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information availa our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the-pro sal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BA Y: APRIL 7, 2003. You i may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your dpmments. If you are unable/ to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and c firm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, coTr anning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Nrittee co nts provided belo At.c s/Wws 0 4`4.e.. itz.,, 4. 0,....044‘).43 ell s est4 le./.14 at( - 0 - � Name & Number of Person Commenting: flillle 5c 4'03 524..9(51 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITE OF TIGAQD Community(Deve(ppnent t Better Community )11111: March 2 Z0K11 MAR 2 5 'fl(13 TIW ) vi-� Lee Walker,Cte,anWater Services/SWM Pro ram By -172 Ci► of Ti ard'!?'lannin Owision 1Norgan Trac 1 ASSOC1at®Planner 4124371 Phone: 15031639-4171/Fax: (503)684-7291 STAFF C INTACT: � SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 2003-00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING REC 6,3L JEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, � square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 MUE zoning district is designed 2S1 ) sq 2S1 )1AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use district pe m is amei employment district ge to u fly to majority Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning bou ded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), 9 of �,es including major retail goods and services, business/professional dens density of 25 units/acre, quivale and to hor ;Ing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a ma the 5 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 25 Community 7 Development 18 65 1 Code Ch pters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18 18. ''a0, 18.795 and 18.810. Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information su ;lied are the Site Plan, Vicinity tand P by various departments and agencies and fwilrl other e rendered information ro•osal in the+,neaff'futurYolu anc reed y S4Nhe p •o al i. th iar future. anc wish to comment or' this prepared and decision ®E_ , 0, ; ' ou are .'i You yon vuse th comment ovide bolo aor a, " „ phone the staff contact noted above with your ct the Tigard Plann ng ma use the space provided Irele please attach a separa e etter o return your comments. to r and b the above gdate, p P questions, contact yon � comments 5 SW Hain :Boulevard,yard, Tigpossible. d SOR 9723 have any q Dig soon, 13125 � � '�' ��'��,'�' ,'''' ;�,�. ;''; �� +� hltdICTWE';F,0 )X641'4TEMS!THAT'�A�' 014?'";": ",, ' r I: t. f SSE;�� � L ' � of our office. We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact Please refer to the encKose• etter. Written comments provided below: Name &Number of Person +:,ommenting' TOO Vi SHDIA aS 2I3LVM HV3ID 5Z5E9t8E05 Xid LT:60 EO/Z0/170 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C,OFTI44. (iARD Community cDeveCopment Shaping Better Community DATE: March 24,2003 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy,Associate Planner[x24371 Phone: [503)639-4111/Fax: [503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)2003-00004 ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WXTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: APRIL 7, 2003. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person Commenting: CITY TIGARD REQUEST FOR CO P 'NTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS.: DRZaO',- FILE NAME: rig leer '., eid,• CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS 14-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO CIT AREA: ❑Central gEast ❑South ❑West IZIProposal Descrip.in Library CIT Book CITY OFFICES _LONG RANGE PLANNING/Barbara Shields,Planning Mgr _yCOMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs. VPOLICE DEPTJJim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official L' ENGINEERING DEPT./Brian Rager,Dvipmnt.Review Engineer WATER DEPTJDennis Koellermeier,Operations Mgr. CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder _PUBLIC WORKS/John Roy,Property Manager 7 UBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine,Urban Forester ✓ PLANNER—POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING! ✓C.D./Sherman Casper,Permit Coord-tsomcuP re-TIF) SPECIAL DISTRICTS _ TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.. Y TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE* V TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* XEANWATER SERVICES • Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue Beaverton,OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS CITY OF BEAVERTON * _ CITY OF TUALATIN * _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS _ Planning Manager Planning Manager 2501 SW First Avenue Jennifer Goodridge _ Irish Bunnell,Deveopmei Services 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue PO Box 59 775 Summer Street NE PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 Portland,OR 97207 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM. METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING * _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE _ CITY OF DURHAM * 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 PO Box 23483 Bob Knight,Data Resource Center(ZCA) _ _ US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97281-3483 _ Paulette Allen,Growth Management Coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. Kathryn Harris Mel Huie,Greenspaces Coordinator(CPA/ZOA) Larry French(Comp.Plan Amendments Only) Routing CENWP-OP-G _CITY OF KING CITY* _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regional Planner(Wetlands) 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946 City Manager _ C.D. Manager,Growth Management Services Salem,OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City,OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY * _ OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY(Powerlines in Area) _OR.DEPT OF AVIATION(Monopole Towers) Dept.of Land Use&Transp. Bonneville Power Administration Tom Highland,Planning 155 N.First Avenue —CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO * Routing TTRC–Attn: Renae Ferrera 3040 25th Street,SE Suite 350,MS 13 Planning Director PO Box 3621 Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro,OR 97124 PO Box 369 Portland,OR 97208-3621 _Brent Curtis(CPA) Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Gregg Leion(CPA) _ OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT,REGION 1 * _Anne LaMountain°GAORB) _CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) _Marah Danielson,Development Review Coordinator _Phil Healy(IGAiuRB) David Knowles,Planning Bureau Do. Regional Administrator _Carl Toland, Right-of-Way Section tvacations) _Steve Conway(General Apps.) Portland Building 106,Rm. 1002 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Sr.Cartographer tcPNZC„MS 14 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 _Jim Nims(zcA)Ms 15 Portland,OR 97204 _Doria Mateja(zcA)MS 14 —ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A _WA.CO.CONSOLIDATED COMMUNIC.AGENCY(WCCCA)"911"(Monopole Towers) Jane Estes,Permit Specialist Dave Austin 5440 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 350 PO Box 6375 Portland,OR 97221-2414 Beaverton,OR 97007-0375 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES _PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Burlington Northern/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Robert I.Melbo,President&General Manager 110 W. 10th Avenue Albany,OR 97321 - SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.RJR _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS JAT&T CABLE VTRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations only) Pat McGann (If Project is Within V.Mile of A Transit Route) 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin,Project Planner Portland,OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 7eaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street yeaverton,OR 97006-4886 , / /Portland,OR 97232 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY v VERIZON L QWEST COMMUNICATIONS '"�Ken Gutierrez,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. Ken Perdue,Engineering Jeri Cella,Engineering 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue PO Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 llsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97075-1100 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#4 8 _ AT&T CABLE,are.Ea Ma,WaeW) Marsha Butler,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics&Planning Dept. Diana Carpenter 6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 3500 SW Bond Street Tigard,OR 97223-8039 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Portland,OR 97232 * INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500' OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:\patty\masters\Requesl For Comments Notification List 2.doc (Revised: 1/3/03) MAILING RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE SITE. In the Matter of the Proposed Land Use Applications for: Land Use File Nos.: SDR2003-00004 Land Use File Name: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING I, Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, do affirm that I posted notice of the land use proposal affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) fZ665 cw t9 , and did personally post notice of the proposed land use application(s) by means of weatherproof posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the Zel day of M,.,e 1 , 2003. / C . ./(----7/- Signature o Person Who Performed Posting (In the presence of the Notary) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the Li day of c,�t I , 20 L �`~~.~~OFFICIAL SEAL 1 d BENGTSON //' s/`' NOTARY PUBLIC 0868086 /�C��n/)27,COMMISSION NO• I l/ 1/`/ ( MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AF NOTAR PUBLIC OREGON My Commission Expires: 4 (24/07 h:\login\patty\masters\affdavit of posting for applicant to post public hearing.doc LNYEAIIT OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION : 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district iL designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171 . A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. t CITY OF TIGARD (97:, ---------- CURRENT PLANNING P"f1 �° ; _. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. o. i3 MfW G. ._,�--- TIGARD, OR 97223-8189 2333 °""` '' { 411' 2S101AA-08302 SZAMBELAN PETER J&ELOISE M CIS/ , 'N -� C� !) 3258 LAKEVIEW BLVD th�� LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 tI t. \t ?4v 0` SZAM258 970353061 1C01 14 05/16/03 G FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 52AfELAN 7�4�d WILF�ELM RD �l TUN OR 97062-7'734 k3j RETURN TO SENDER d VAL _ i1tlll�ltill[F!I!lfi�!!1�lliill3t l'�! itft�flllFitll it ilFlIII 0 •-•, „„41 , ...) c.S S AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OFTIOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community I, (Patricia L. Lunsford being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for of the City Tgarcdf,'Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropnate Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on May 13,2003, and deposited in the United States Mail on May 13,2003, postage prepaid. — AM111140 (Person th. -repare:otice) 1 STATE OE o GoN ) County of Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the / ,� day of , 2003. OFFICIAL SEAL J BENGTSON i `cr.:_;:// NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON OMMISSIO NO.38 6 ( MY COMMCISSION EXPIRES APR.27,2007 NOTARY PUBLIC b OREGON My Commission Expires: // 7/O 1 S EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION Ah" SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 CITY OF TIGARD ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING Community(DeveCopment Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/17/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2003-00004 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review for construction of a two-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. OWNER: Ron Enyeart, Marty Goldsmith Cedar Enterprises, LLC 4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 APPLICANT: Peter Magaro 10570 SW Citation Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008 LOCATION: 12665 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02800. ZONE: MUE. Mixed Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 1 OF 25 S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Division (Morgan Tracy, 639-4171, ext. 2428) for review and approval: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates: A. All trees to be planted will be a minimum of 2 1/2 inch caliper size. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch-caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. B. Tree mitigation that accounts for replanting 48 caliper inches either on-site, off-site, or a payment in-lieu of replanting. The applicant shall note that parking lot and street trees do not qualify for mitigation, unless they are greater than 2-inches in caliper. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that: A. Identifies the material and height of the trash enclosure that meets the requirements of 18.745.050(E)(4). B. Shows 3 bicycle rack spaces for the proposed building. An elevation detail showing the design of the bike rack is also required. C. Indicates the compact parking spaces will be marked "compact" or with a large D. Shows the existing water service line meter relocated from SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue right-of-way. E. Shows one van accessible ADA parking space to be 9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. 3. Submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the location of the proposed trash enclosure meets their requirements. 4. Submit details addressing the design standards of the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (18.775.040) in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 5. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used, they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 6. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 7. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 2 OF 25 S 8. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall pay funds to the City for the future traffic signals at the intersections of 72, Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68th Avenue/Dartmouth Street. The amounts are as follows: 72 /Dartmouth = $2,182.00; 68 /Dartmouth = $1,067.00. 9. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenanh whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 70t Avenue adjacent to the subject property, when any of the following events occur: 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 for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the subject property, or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: Staff conducted a search of City records for the subject property and found two other land use cases related to the property. A Site Development Review (SDR95-00003) approval was granted to allow the conversion of a single-family residence to a commercial office. A fire later destroyed the office and a Temporary Use approval was granted in 1997 (TUP 97-00014) to allow the placement of a temporary building for use as an interim office. The site has continued to be used for office and storage beyond the 1 year expiration timeframe for the TUP. The present application proposes to remove the existing trailers and shed completely, and construct a new building with parking per the Tigard Triangle Design standards. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located between SW 69th and the unimproved right-of-way for SW 70th, south of SW Beveland Street in the Tigard Triangle area. The site is bordered on all sides by Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zoning. The parcels to the north, south and east are developed with commercial offices. To the west lies a single-family house across the unimproved right-of- way. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is proposing clear the site of existing structures and other improvements, re-grade the site and construct a 6,342 square foot 2-story office building and parking lot. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET No letters were received from nearby property owners. It should be noted that prior to the application submittal, staff received a call from an adjacent employee regarding the trees that were in the process of being removed. As discussed later in this decision, these trees will be required to be mitigated. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 3 OF 25 S SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections: A. Zoning Districts 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.755 Mixed Solid VVaste and Recyclable Storage 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal 18.795 Visual Clearance C. Specific SDR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Decision MakinggProcedures 18.390 Impact-Study SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICTS Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the MUE: Mixed-Use Employment zoning district. The proposed use, general office space, is outright permitted in the zone. The present use of the site for the Morton Tree Service business is considered a landscape contractor and thus falls into the "Office" classification. The proposed use will also be office, but in a more conventional sense and is likewise permitted in the zoning district. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD MUE _ Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 16,398 sq. ft. - Detached unit - -Boarding, lodging, rooming house Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 75 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard O'min/10'max 10' -Side facing street on corner&through lots - - -Side yard 0/20 ft[1] 5' & 32' -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - - Rear yard 0/20 ft[1] 113' - Distance between front of garage& property line - - abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft 38.6 ft. Maximum Site Coverage [2] 85% 70.1% Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.4 .39 (6,342 sf) Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 19.9% [1]no setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone. [2]includes all buildings and impervious area NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 4 OF 25 • As demonstrated in the table above, the applicant's plans comply with the dimensional standards of the MUE zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have been satisfied. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (18.620): Ueign standards tor public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting. the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve.public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography,, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. Performance Option: a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile; b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance; c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. The proposal meets the Performance Option because SW 69th Avenue is 3,400 feet or approximately 6/10 of 4, mile, which requires 5 intersections. Currently, there are eight (8) intersections on SW 69 Avenue. The straight-line distance from the subject property to the closest collector (Beveland Street) is 380 feet. The shortest vehicle and pedestrian trip from the subject property to Beveland is also 380 feet. Therefore, the performance option has been met. Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall p arcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010C2 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. The subject site is less than an acre (0.38 acres), so no phasing is required. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 5 OF 25 Building Placement On Major And Minor Arterials And The Street: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. SW 69th Avenue is neither a major or minor arterial. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Building Setback: The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. The proposed building is 10 feet from the current property line fronting SW 69th Avenue. Front Yard Setback Design: Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. The landscape plan indicates that a combination of landscaping and a concrete walk will be located between the building and the public street. Landscaping and walkways will be discussed further in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening). Walkway Connection To Building Entrances: A walkway connection is required between the building's entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. The applicant's plans show corner entrances to the proposed building. The plans also indicate a 10-foot-wide walkway connection to the street. This standard is met. Parking Location And Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The parking lot is located behind the proposed building. Landscaping along the front will occupy the whole front setback, except for those areas where driveways or walkways are present. This standard is met. According to the standard above, interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 landscape standard. However, the site plan shows the proposed trees to be planted in these areas below the 2'/2-inch caliper minimum size. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to submit a revised landscaping plan that shows all trees to be no less than 21/2 inches in caliper. It should be noted that any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch-caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. FINDING: The applicant's plans do not meet the Tigard Triangle landscape standards. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 6 OF 25 Building Design Standards: All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Ground Floor Windows: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The round floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50 percent of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. According to the standard above, the building must have at a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area as windows. The east elevation of the building (facing SW 69th Avenue) is 38 feet long, for a total calculated wall area of 228 square feet. Fifty percent of the wall area is 114 square feet. The elevations show 96 square feet of windows, and 54 square feet of glass doorway for a total of 150 square feet, in compliance with this standard. Building Facades: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. The east elevation of the proposed building is 38 feet. While no break is required, the plans show a covered portico entryway and is, therefore, in compliance with the standard. Weather Protection: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be backlit. The plans show two entrances into the building, one in the front and another in the rear near the parking area. Both the main entrance and the parking lot entrances have covered porches. Building Materials: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet pressboard or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The building will be a combination of stone veneer, cedar lap siding, and either composition shake or wood shake roof shingles. The proposed building materials meet this standard. Roofs And Roof Lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The proposed building does not have a false front or false roof. The applicant is proposing a pitched roof system with a basement level mechanical room to conceal mechanical equipment. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 7 OF 25 S Roof-Mounted Equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. The applicant is proposing a pitched roof system with a basement level mechanical room to conceal mechanical equipment. This will meet the standard. Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code, the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.780.130.D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. The applicant is not proposing a sign with this application. Because compliance with sign codes will be required when a sign permit is applied for, these standards have been satisfied. Landscaping and Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. The proposal does not abut a major or minor arterial, therefore, the L-1 standards do not apply. L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 21/2-inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 8 OF 25 S Because the site is on a local street, the L-2 landscape standards defer to Chapter 18.745. Compliance with Landscaping and Screening standards are discussed further in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tigard Triangle Design standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates that all trees will be a minimum of 21,4 inch caliper size. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 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. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Walkways: 18.705.030(F) requires that on-site pedestrian walkways comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; On site pedestrian walkways are present between the building entrance and the street that provides access and egress as well as to the parking lot. This standard is met. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety . Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking lot. This standard is therefore met. 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 plan depicts concrete sidewalks, which meets the standard. Access Management: Section 18.705.030.H.1 states that 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 9 OF 25 A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated February 2003. The report reviewed the sight distance at the existing site access point and found that the sight distance was measured at about 140 feet to the south and about 200 feet to the north. Intersection sight distance is restricted by the vehicles parked on either side of the site driveway, which is typical in situations where on-street parking is allowed near intersections or driveways. It is generally not possible to allow on-street parking and have adequate sight distance at driveways and intersections. Because the intersection sight distance does not meet AASHTO standards, stopping sight distance was also measured. Stopping sight distance is the minimum distance required for an oncoming vehicle to recognize and stop for an obstruction in the roadway. For a posted speed of 25 mph, the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet in either direction. Stopping sight distance was measured at about 325 feet to the south and in excess of 300 feet to the north. Stopping sight distance is adequate. Staff concurs with Lancaster that even though the sight distance at the driveway is insufficient, the fact that the stopping sight distance for oncoming cars is more than adequate, the driveway should be considered safe. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The existing site access is not within the influence area of a collector or arterial intersection. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. SW 69th Avenue is neither a collector nor an arterial, so this criterion does not apply. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. The development has one oint of access into the parking lot that provides 24 feet of pavement and is 32 feet wide. Therefore , this standard is met. FINDING: The access requirements have been met. 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 length shall be 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 II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 10 OF 25 • The applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows one additional Flowering Pear tree to match the existing flowering pear tree. There is no apparent specification as to the size or variety of flowering pear tree. Moreover, it is unclear whether an additional street tree is warranted on the north side of the proposed driveway. If there is an existing tree in the immediate vicinity, then no additional tree shall be required. The applicant has previously been conditioned to revise the landscape plan to show all trees at a 21,4-inch caliper size. In addition, the applicant shall show the existing tree on the north side of the driveway, or propose one if that tree is no longer present or will require removal to accommodate the driveway site work. Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer is required between a proposed office use and existing office use. Buffering and/or screening are required for dissimilar uses. All properties surrounding the subject property are zoned MUE. However, there is one property to the west that is an existing single-family home. The other surrounding uses are all office. The single-family use is located across the right-of-way for SW 70", an unimproved street. The Triangle Transportation Plan shows this as a future road. The unimproved right-of-way is heavily vegetated. No buffer is required since the two uses are separated by the street. Should the right-of-way be vacated, a 10-foot buffer may be required, but it is likely that the residential use will have been converted by that time. 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. The parking lot is located behind the building and lies at a lower elevation, so that it will be well screened from SW 69m. Landscape materials are proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot to further screen the parking area from abutting properties. The applicant is proposing landscaped islands containing one tree for every seven spaces with low-lying ground cover and shrubs. Screening Of Service Facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; The site plan submitted shows a trash enclosure, but does not clearly indicate what type and how tall the enclosure will be. A solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height is required. The applicant's revised plan will need to identify the material and height of the enclosure. Screening Of Refuse Containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park 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. The applicant's plans show gates that will screen the refuse area from the parking lot. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 11 OF 25 s 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: Submit a revised site plan that identifies the material and height of the trash enclosure that meets the requirements of 18.745.050(E)(4). 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 submitted written sign off from the waste hauler (Pride Disposal). This will be a required condition of approval. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclables 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 public streets adjacent to the site. The refuse container is accessed from the parking lot and is visible in order to enhance security for users. The proposed refuse container will not occupy any required parking stalls and screening has been conditioned to conform to Tigard standards previously in this decision. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant has not submitted a detail of the trash enclosure or refuse container. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided evidence of compliance with the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage 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 SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 12 OF 25 S CONDITIONS: • Submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the location of the proposed trash enclosure meets their requirements. • Submit details addressing the design standards of the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location of vehicle parking: Off-street arking 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 parking lot associated with this project is directly adjacent to the proposed building, in compliance with this standard. 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. Joint parking is not proposed with this application; therefore this standard is not applicable. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. This proposal is not considered a mixed-use project as it will contain solely office space, therefore this standard is not applicable. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 13 OF 25 Preferential Long-Term CarpoolNanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. The proposed parking lot associated with the office building development has a total of 19 parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant will not be required to reserve any of the proposed parking for carpool/vanpool parking. 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. The applicant is providing 19 parking spaces, therefore, one (1) van accessible (9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle) ADA handicap space is required. The applicant's plans show one (1) ADA space that will be 8 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. Therefore, the site plan will need to be modified to be in compliance with the ADA 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 flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The access drive has been addressed previously 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. Pedestrian access has been discussed previously in this decision and there are no drop off edges that require barriers. 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 plans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked with striping. The compact spaces will need to be marked clearly marked as such. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 14 OF 25 Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant is providing wheel stops in the form of curbing on all of the parking stalls, located three feet back from the front of the stalls. 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 indicate that the standard parking spaces will be 8.5 feet by 18 feet and 7.5 feet by 16.5 feet for compact spaces. The access aisle will be 26 feet wide. The applicant proposes that of the 19 parking spaces, 5 will be compact. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances 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 site plan shows an area for bicycle racks. According to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed building will be required to provide 3 bicycle rack spaces. The applicant will need to provide a detail of the proposed bike rack with the building permit submittal. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall 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 remain well drained. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 15 OF 25 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. As discussed above, according to Table 18.765.2 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-parking requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed building will be required to provide a 3-stall bicycle rack. 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. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for General Office Uses is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The building is proposed to be 6,342 square feet. This will require 17.12 stalls, rounded up to 18 stalls. The site plan shows 19 stalls for this project 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 building is not greater than 10,000 square feet, therefore, the applicant is not required to provide a loading space. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully satisfied, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITIONS: • The compact parking spaces shall be marked as "compact" or with a large "C". • The applicant/owner shall submit a revised site plan that shows 3 bicycle rack spaces for the proposed building. An elevation detail showing the design of the bike rack is also required. • Revise the van accessible ADA parking space to be 9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the MUE Zoning District. No signs have been formally proposed. Signs are reviewed through a separate permit process administered by the Development Services Technicians. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit process, this standard has been satisfied. 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 shall be provided with a site development review 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, 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 16 OF 25 The applicant has provided an arborist report addressing the trees that previously occupied the property. These trees were removed prior to the submittal of the application, but since they were removed within the last year, they are still reviewed under the requirements of this chapter. There were four willow trees on site, 24, 28, 36 and 36 inches in diameter. The two smaller trees were rotten and considered dangerous, and are therefore not subject to the mitigation requirements. The two larger trees will require two thirds of the caliper inches removed to be mitigated, based on the 50% of the number of trees being removed. Of the 72 inches, 48 inches shall be replanted. The applicant has not provided a mitigation program to address this criteria. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided a tree mitigation plan, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met. CONDITION: Submit tree mitigation plan that accounts for replanting 48 caliper inches either on-site, off-site, or a payment in lieu of replanting. The applicant shall note that parking lot and street trees do not qualify for mitigation, unless they are greater than 2-inches in caliper. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right- of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at the vehicular access of the property. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13 Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 (Provision for the Disabled). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 17 OF 25 • Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The building is located on the site in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards. The site is not in an area identified as prone to sliding. The building has a 5-foot buffer from the nearest adjoining property, thus, providing adequate light and air circulation. The Building Division will require adequate fire protection per the Uniform Building Code. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Crime Prevention and Safety: A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; B. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and E. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Windows are oriented towards the parking lot and the street. Light fixtures are shown on the applicant's plans on the building and in the parking lot which will sufficiently illuminate the site. This standard is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to an existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW 69th Avenue, which is not on a Tri-met transit route, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard is satisfied. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 18.810): Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 18 OF 25 Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street and Accessway Standards, requires a local street to have a 60-foot right-of-way width and a 36-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW 69th Avenue, which is classified as a local street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. This roadway was fully improved as a part of a local improvement district. No further improvements are needed except for the planting of one additional street tree along the frontage. There is one tree there presently, but the plan shows that they will install one more to complete the frontage planting. This site also lies adjacent to an unimproved right-of-way for SW 70th avenue. SW 70th Avenue is classified as a local street in the Tigard Triangle Standards. There is adequate right-of-way east of the centerline adjacent to this site. The roadway has not been improved to the north or south of the site, but will be a viable north/south connection in the future. In lieu of requiring a half-street improvement at this time, the City Engineer may accept a future improvement guarantee if one of the following conditions exist: A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards; Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity. Staff finds that both of the above criteria are met for this project. It does not make sense to require the improvement now, but the applicant should provide a future improvement guarantee. The form of this guarantee will be a restrictive covenant and shall be executed prior to final building inspection. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. A 6-foot-wide concrete sidewalk already exists along the frontage. The plan shows that the existing driveway apron will be reconstructed to provide a wider opening. There will be no other disturbance to the sidewalk along the frontage. 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 in 1996 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. There is an existing 8-inch public line in 69th Avenue with a lateral to this site. The plan calls for a partial abandonment of the existing lateral, as it is too long to effectively serve the new building. No additional public sewer line work is necessary. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 19 OF 25 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). There are no upstream drainage ways that impact this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by the Unified Sewerage agency in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plan shows that they will convey the onsite stormwater into an onsite detention pipe and treatment basins before discharging to an open channel that exists along the western boundary of the site. The open channel was improved by the City in recent years to better accommodate the drainage from the parcels in this area. The onsite detention system will ensure that the site runoff will be limited to the existing amount. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. 69th Avenue is not designated as a bikeway. Therefore, this section 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. 69th Avenue is not designated as a bikeway. Therefore, this section 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 lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. 69th Avenue is not designated as a bikeway. Therefore, this section does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 20 OF 25 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; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • 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 in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-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 of under-grounding. There are no existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of the site, therefore, no undergrounding requirement will apply. D. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: As was stated previously, a traffic impactt report was submitted by Lancaster Engineering. The study analyzed the intersections of 69" Avenue/Hampton Street and 69" Avenue/Beveland Street and found that currently the intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). Upon LOS completion of the new project, these intersections will continue to operate at acceptable Lancaster also addressed analyzed two key intersections in the Tigard Triangle: • SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street • SW 68t" Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street The two critical intersections have been identified as needing traffic signals. As development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces additional trips to these intersections, funds have been collected from the developers that will contribute to the future signal installation. The first project to contribute funds to the intersections was the Babies R Us project. A simple formula was established bpsed upon the impact from that development. That project had an impact of 1.1% at SW 72' Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the City Council required the developer to pay funds in the amount of $20,000.00. At the intersection of SW 68t Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the impact from that project was estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,000.00. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 21 OF 25 Using this same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects in the Triangle, and can be calculated for this project. In order to provide the most fair comparison to the Babies R Us project, it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entering volumes (TEV) estimated as a part of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-out of the triangle area, including the Tri County site at 72nd/Dartmouth. Lancaster's report shows that this project will generate approximately 3 PM peak hour trips to the intersection of SW 72n Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a total entering volume (TEV) of 2,555 vehicles, the project impact is approximately 0.12%. Therefore, based on simple proportions, the project contribution to this intersection is $2,182.00. Likewise, the Lancaster report shows that the project will generate approximately 2 PM peak hour trips at the intersection of SW 68' Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street. With a TEV of approximately 2,660 vehicles, the impact from this development is approximately 0.08%%. Therefore, based on the same proportion used in the Babies R Us development, the project contribution to this intersection is $1,067.00. Funds for both intersections must be paid to the City prior to a final building inspection. Public Water System: This site lies within the Tualatin Valley Water District service area. It appears the applicant will be able to utilize the existing water service to the site. No additional public water line work is necessary. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant's plan calls for the installation of two Stormwater Management filter catch basins. For the additional runoff that will be generated by this redevelopment, these filter basins will provide sufficient treatment. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. The proposed units from Stormwater Management is acceptable, provided the property owner agrees to hire the manufacturer (or approved equal) to provide the required maintenance of the unit. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management, or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 22 OF 25 Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Building Division will review a grading and erosion control plan as a part of the Site Permit process. The site is less than one acre, so a NPDES permit is not required. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of$30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit issuance 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 permits for tenant improvements can be adequately tracked in the City's permit tracking system. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, this building will be a multi-tenant building. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall provide a suite layout map so suite numbers can be assigned. The addressing fee will then be calculated based upon the number of 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. E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.360.090 states, "The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:" Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public 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 $22,749 based on the use proposed. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $71,090 ($22,749 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 $48,341. No street improvements or right-of-way dedications are required for this project. However, the applicant will be conditioned to contribute to the cost NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 23 OF 25 of signalizing the two key intersections described previously for a total of $3,249. As the value of the proposed improvements is less than the remaining unmitigated impact, it is clearly proportionate to exact these improvements SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal has no objections. The City of Tigard Urban Forester has reviewed the proposal has no objections. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Clean Water Services has reviewed the proposal and has no additional comments. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: The existing service line crosses the lot from SW 70th Avenue right-of-way. Relocate the water meter to SW 69th Avenue right-of-way. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: 1) PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red or black on yellow background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) The curbs along the entrance driveway shall be marked as fire lanes. 2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the building and along an approved fire apparatus access roadway. Any hydrants that are left over from the minimum number of hydrant calculations may be full filled by hydrants that are up to 500 feet from any point of the building. The fire Prevention Ordinance has further requirements that need to be used for acceptance and placement of fire hydrants. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) A second hydrant shall be located within 500 feet of the closest portion of the building. 3) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 24 OF 25 Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 13, 2003 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 29, 2003 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. ,Appal: The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type Ill 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.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. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON MAY 28, 2003 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. 4/4,x, May 13, 2003 PREPARED BY: Morgan Tracy DATE Associate Planner 4112Er ll, May 13, 2003 APPR•VED BY. 'idlers . :ew- -so j DATE Planning Man. •'- i:\curpin\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2003-00004(enyeart)\sdr2003-00004 decision.doc NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE PAGE 25 OF 25 > A Y T AIMI ELMHURST ST Imil — CITY of TIGRD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION GA SYSTEM VICINITY MAP H FINNINNI a ERM i OSO W Illp.L Q - SDR2003-00004 Lamm it ST B r �E�ND S ii- II E NYEART ■ �� 1111.. III Z - GONZAGA ST likk:44111 c SW El AO �� R� . 1 3 fEpy ��7 .._1y Ell ,4_,,_ . HAMPTON ST 5`` :' : 4 r 1 \ S. ■ _.iyF-CF Bf.NO RD- Tigard �� N� = N r� > Tfpard kw Mop l - ' 'c'D,� N f- 0 200 400 600 Feet CO (D 1'=403 feet 1 S ST 4,,, - 1 .1i g j - City of Tigard a S rj Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. = 13125 SW Hall Blvd W Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 httpJMnvw.ci.tigard.onus Community Development Plot date:Mar 24,2003;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR _I--s-1-11::---.- -. )--Jit A. ... .... 1, " 4.- ,-.- ...---2------, irk ---------------,.. i .....--- P . :_ , (----111... , AO --- . '� ∎_ 1, L – il i ?i ! i � -._i tnti iFii } 4 1 I IN;ri Ilb■ -• W I M'e'w —Z��I�M��ZM �� �Em a ILI ▪ r a 4 nr,r ,*-re4Vffial:21141117- '. .: ° MI ° w1.9I /, ,I � . III. � � • II, _ . ..":" , 1 ___ , ii, ,„___.drim , , /1 - 7�—w_ s.�ryii7 ° r ;-� �'- ------- "iii llllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi --`-- I 1 A I a l / i j e.,....a.. i t I • Czi.1i,R, CITY OF TIGARD I SDR2003-00004 M OF SlTE PLAN N ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING (Map is not to scale) 0 i EXHIBIT. h Peter Magaro SDR2003-00004 10570 SW Citation Drive ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING Beaverton, OR 97008 Cedar Enterprises, LLC Attn: Ron Enyeart & Marty Goldsmith 4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 4111 CITY OF 44, TIGARD Community'Deve(opment Shaping Better Community , cPatricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of Tigard,"Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appropriate Box(s)Bek,w) E3 NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on May 13,2003, and deposited in the United States Mail on May 13,2003, postage prepaid. (Per • t . Pre.; -d Noti -) SZTle.E.OAF OkEGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of 2ward ) f, Subscribed and sworn/affir d before me on the / day of , 2003. 4 4 ; ,:,a OFFICIAL SEAL 44:/ /44 ��J BENGTSON 'NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.368086 NO t ' ' . 1 ; I I . 1-1 t AY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR.27,2007 Y -ti- My Commission Expires: / c" • EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 IG CITY OF TIOARD ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING Community ShapingA Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/17/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2003-00004 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review for construction of a two-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. OWNER: Ron Enyeart, Marty Goldsmith Cedar Enterprises, LLC 4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 APPLICANT: Peter Magaro 10570 SW Citation Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008 LOCATION: 12665 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02800. ZONE: MUE. Mixed Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway ( Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. A wide range of uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institutions, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II . DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice 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 MAY 13, 2003 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 29, 2003 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. A_p e�al: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 28, 2003. I Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Morgan Tracy at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. VIINI (-T■. '_ "CITY O.TIGNNA 1,,,..w -I,,, VICINITY MAP r *ilia, 411E1 vii., I ; Ill SDR2003-00004 MEM �..jX$$lI ______I,r .,I,O „ IST a ENYEART ��� ' : . �� OFFICE BUILDING ��I 1 lin IN Amino. aim olomp mum IIII / �I lin , ihi, N ,, hu & '1 ■■■■■.. ,� ...,_, : 111111 �® w..11....�wr •_■ wwww�w arw+ww.ar.111111.11111 laililik•Ill 011111.411 __. _ I�rr+�.. \v ; -..,,..... , .v... .z__._ __ ----._*__,. 1611: n,`t _ _ _,7 _ ,. le I 776- -4.1.'7: 10,` r�ib.1►M l •Iii _�� - eser.1- 1• W `i Illl�lwl� II_wih.�/ .�/_zA, ...�EI .. ;. _; - ---- illllllllllllllllllll Illllllllllllllllll ri ` \ / V 1 -- .4‘'''. my OF TIGARD t SDR2003.00004 arrariwx N ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING (Map Is not to scalef EXHIBIT 2S 101 AD-01600 2S 101 AD-00800 68TH STREET INVESTORS LLC EQUITY GROUP FUND 1 LLC 12670 SW 68TH AVE STE 300 BY KURT DALBEY TIGARD,OR 97223 7125 SW HAMPTON PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02201 S 101 AD-00803 ANDRUS MICHAEL R& Eo TY GRe P FUND 1 LLC ANDRUS NANCY A BY KU^i IALBEY 7155 SW BEVELAND ST 712 W HA. 'TON TIGARD, OR 97223 RTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02300 2 I 1 AD-01700 BOLON DEAN N EQUI GRO ' FUND 1 LLC 4022 NE LADDINGTON CT BY KURT :- BEY PORTLAND,OR 97232 7125 . HA •TON '4'TLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02200 2S 101 AC-00100 CASEY EDWARD L JR&JOANNE F ETZEL DAVID M&NADINE M 7085 SW BEVELAND RD 13400 SW DOE LN PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-07800 2S 101 AD-02400 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY PO BOX 23970 ATTN: FINANCIAL AFFAIRS TIGARD,OR 97281 414 N MERIDIAN NEWBERG,OR 97132 2 S 101 AD-01000 2S 101 AC-01000 CUTSHALL THELMA GIESZLER JACOB F 12705 SW 67TH AVE 18206 SW FALLATIN LOOP TIGARD,OR 97223 ALOHA,OR 97007 2S 101 AC-01400 2S 101 AD-01300 DALBEY KURT H HAMPTON BUILDING THE LLC BY BEACON HOMES PO BOX 94 7125 SW HAMPTON CAMP SHERMAN,OR 97730 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-09700 2S 101 AC-01100 DANA MARK R HUGHES JOSEPH 12585 SW 68TH AVE 7035 SW HAMPTON TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00200 2S 101 AD-01100 DAVIS SHIRLEY A J AND M PROPERTIES 7020 SW GONZAGA 6745 SW HAMPTON SUITE 100 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-08200 2S 101 AC-01300 DEFOE CHARLES E JR& KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH MCGEE JUDITH A PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST#838 12455 SW 68TH AVE ATTN: GENERAL ACCCOUNTING 11TH FLOG PORTLAND,OR 97223 500 NE MULTNOMAH#100 PORTLAND,OR 97232 • 2S 101 AD-03000 2S 101 AC-00900 KF LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND LLC 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR 12540 SW 68TH PKWY STE B PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02400 2S 101 AC-00800 LANFARM LLC ROGERS ROY R 16869 SW 65TH AVE STE 166 14429 SW AYNSLEY WAY LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S101AD-02700 2S101AA-09800 MCCROSKEY JOHN B ROTH J T JR&THERESA 1380 MORNING SKY CT 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 TIGARD,OR 97223 25101 AD-02800 2S 101 AA-08700 MORTON DON R AND CYNTHIA SUE R H J T &THERESA BY MAIL MEMONDAY-N JOHANNE 12600 ND AVE STE 200 3109 NE BROADWAY RD,OR 9 23 PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AC-01600 2S 101 AC-00600 NEIMEYER JOHN ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A 25 82ND DR STE 200 12600 SW 72ND AVE GLADSTONE,OR 97027 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101 AD-01400 25101 AB-02500 OREGON KI SOCIETY SHIM STEVE S&JANET H 12700 SW 68TH AVE 14347 SW KOVEN CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 101 AD-03200 2S 101 AA-08302 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES SZAMBELAN PETER J&ELOISE M 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 3258 LAKEVIEW BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S 101 AD-03300 2S 101 AA-0860 PAC LTY ASSOCIATES TI D Y OF 15351 .n EQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 1312 HALL 'TLAND, •' 97224 T ARD,0 97223 2S 101 AA-09600 25101 AA-088 PEIRCE STEPHEN W& TI RD TY OF PEIRCE LYNN L 131 W HALL 12560 SW 70TH GARD, R 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 25101 AA-09108 2S 101 AA-09100 R&D PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER 12559 SW 69TH AVE LTD PARTNERSHIP TIGARD,OR 97223 ATTN:GREG SPECHT 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON,OR 97006 2S 101 AD-02900 TRIANGLE TERRACE LLC 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AC-00300 WEAVER MICHAEL D&GAIL B 7075 SW GONZAGA ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S1 01 AC-00400 VERM AELD&GAILB 7075 ONZAGA ST ARD,OR 23 2S101AD-03100 WESTON INVESTMENT CO 2154 NE BROADWAY PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AA-07600 WILHELM MICHAEL W TR 13085 SW 124TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-02800 ZEEK VELMA EDWARDS 7060 SW BEVELAND TIGARD,OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: April 18, 2002 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 44 •II) CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping) Better Community I, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of Tigard;Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Apfropnate Boas)Below} © NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: SDR2003-00004/ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING riAMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on March 24,2003, and deposited in the United States Mail on March 24,2003, postage prepaid. 2Perss that P.fepa -. . ic- STALE of oRGoN ) County of`Washington )ss. City of 7.igard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the o� day of jf,Yc� , 2003. " OFFICIAL SEAL p.: DIANE M JELDERKS '.` ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON // / "' COMMISSION NO.326578 /�� M� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 ` w"(X_ a; ' I ' II I I ' i ' My Commission Ex res: 7/7/6j ICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: EXHIBIT A NOTICE , THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION SITE DEVEL PMENT REVIEW CITY O F TIGARD Community Development Shaping A'Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: March 24, 2003 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 Type II Land Use Application FILE NAME: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON APRIL 7, 2003. All comments should be directed to Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 30, 2003. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: • Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; • Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; • Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: • The application is accepted by the City • Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. • The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. • City Staff issues a written decision. • Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." mui - CI,Y o,IIGAFO :111111 VICINITY MAP 1111.;,/. 1111111 ■ SDR2003 00004 hul /• 11111 N ST a1' „ ON ICE BUILDING 111111" I no. . - POMPTON ST "` 2111"Et hie A/11. ii„,.,; 71, 411 VIM 0 104 4t0 1.■ •1111111111• Mb. w- nap Na at gran _ i'► te_ . �. 1.1. , , r 21 a... r GICU]APP 2S 101 AD-01600 2S 101 AD-00800 68TH STREET INVESTORS LLC EQUITY GROUP FUND 1 LLC 12670 SW 68TH AVE STE 300 BY KURT DALBEY EXHIBIT , TIGARD,OR 97223 7125 SW HAMPTON PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S101AB 02201 S101AD-00803 ANDRUS MICHAEL R& Eo TY GRe P FUND 1 LLC ANDRUS NANCY A BY KU'c.IALBEY 7155 SW BEVELAND ST 712 W HA• 'TON TIGARD,OR 97223 ••RTLAND,OR 97223 2S101AB-02300 2 81AD-01700 BOLON DEAN N EQUI GRO ' FUND 1 LLC 4022 NE LADDINGTON CT BY KURT •- BEY PORTLAND,OR 97232 7125 .• HA 'TON '•'TLAND,OR 97223 2S101AB-02200 2S101AC-00100 CASEY EDWARD L JR&JOANNE F ETZEL DAVID M&NADINE M 7085 SW BEVELAND RD 13400 SW DOE LN PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-07800 2S 101 AD-02400 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY PO BOX 23970 ATTN: FINANCIAL AFFAIRS TIGARD, OR 97281 414 N MERIDIAN NEWBERG,OR 97132 2S101AD-01000 2S101AC-01000 CUTSHALL THELMA GIESZLER JACOB F 12705 SW 67TH AVE 18206 SW FALLATIN LOOP TIGARD,OR 97223 ALOHA,OR 97007 2S 101 AC-01400 2S 101 AD-01300 DALBEY KURT H HAMPTON BUILDING THE LLC BY BEACON HOMES PO BOX 94 7125 SW HAMPTON CAMP SHERMAN,OR 97730 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-09700 ZS 101 AC-01100 DANA MARK R HUGHES JOSEPH 12585 SW 68TH AVE 7035 SW HAMPTON TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00200 2S 101 AD-01100 DAVIS SHIRLEY A J AND M PROPERTIES 7020 SW GONZAGA 6745 SW HAMPTON SUITE 100 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S101AA-08200 2S101AC-01300 DEFOE CHARLES E JR& KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH MCGEE JUDITH A PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST#838 12455 SW 68TH AVE ATTN: GENERAL ACCCOUNTING 11TH FLOG PORTLAND,OR 97223 500 NE MULTNOMAH#100 PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AD-03000 2S 101 AC-00900 KF LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND LLC 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR 12540 SW 68TH PKWY STE B PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02400 2S 101 AC-00800 LANFARM LLC ROGERS ROY R 16869 SW 65TH AVE STE 166 14429 SW AYNSLEY WAY LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 101 AD-02700 2S1 01 AA-09800 MCCROSKEY JOHN B ROTH J T JR&THERESA 1380 MORNING SKY CT 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AD-02800 2S 101 AA-08700 MORTON DON R AND CYNTHIA SUE R H J T &THERESA BY MAIL MEMONDAY-N JOHANNE 12600 ND AVE STE 200 3109 NE BROADWAY RD,OR 9 23 PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AC-01600 2S 101 AC-00600 NEIMEYER JOHN ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A 25 82ND DR STE 200 12600 SW 72ND AVE GLADSTONE,OR 97027 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AD-01400 2S 101 AB-02500 OREGON KI SOCIETY SHIM STEVE S&JANET H 12700 SW 68TH AVE 14347 SW KOVEN CT TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 101 AD-03200 2S 101 AA-08302 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES SZAMBELAN PETER J&ELOISE M 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 3258 LAKEVIEW BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 25101 AD-03300 2S 101 AA-0860 PAC '' LTY ASSOCIATES TI D Y OF 15351 .n EQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 1312 HALL •:'TLAND, 0' 97224 T ARD,O 97223 2S101AA-09600 2S101AA-088 PEIRCE STEPHEN W& TI RD TY OF PEIRCE LYNN L 131 W HALL 12560 SW 70TH GARD, R 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AA-09108 2S101AA-09100 R&D PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER 12559 SW 69TH AVE LTD PARTNERSHIP TIGARD,OR 97223 ATTN:GREG SPECHT 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON,OR 97006 2S 101 AD-02900 TRIANGLE TERRACE LLC 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00300 WEAVER MICHAEL D&GAIL B 7075 SW GONZAGA ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AC-00400 VERM AELD&GAILB 7075 ONZAGA ST ARD,O 23 2S 101 AD-03100 WESTON INVESTMENT CO 2154 NE BROADWAY PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AA-07600 WILHELM MICHAEL W TR 13085 SW 124TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AB-02800 ZEEK VELMA EDWARDS 7060 SW BEVELAND TIGARD,OR 97223 PETER MAGARO 10570 SW CITATION DRIVE BEAVERTON. OR 97008 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST (IT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: April 18, 2002 =MEI CITY of TIGA- 1 V� GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ff T FRANKLIN ST AREA NOTIFIED IT (500') "IIIIIIIP MN asalawwt > ,.. a..waw FOR Mark Stolle BEVELAND ST all a.uwae liMig 2111 RE: 12665 69th Avenue 21111111111111119 1 111111111211111 �' 2S I 0 I AD, 2800) astwwew ) 0 W asarwa Nasrewrw mammas 1 ..... I` Property owner information ST is valid for 3 months from GONZAGA \\"" \ the date printed on this map. mains= asrensw asseesw nauseam I eill n1MNSIw i...' NE W SIMMS asrume :mama SY• _ MI 111111 HAMPTON ST • N a.ala.aw 0 100 200 300 Feet 1 afYaestw MINIM 1"=229 feel ■ A City of Tigard 1 A Information on this map is for general location only and L•� should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd • l Tigard,OR 97223 ' (503)639-4171 http:/t a W.Ci.tigafd.or.us Community Development Plot date:Jan 28,2003;C:lmagicWIAGIC03.APR 2S101AD-01600 2S101AD-00800 68TH STREET INVESTORS LLC EQUITY GROUP FUND 1 LLC 12670 SW 68TH AVE STE 300 BY KURT DALBEY TIGARD,OR 97223 7125 SW HAMPTON PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02201 S 101 AD-00803 ANDRUS MICHAEL R& E0. TY GRP P FUND 1 LLC ANDRUS NANCY A BY KU'i■'ALBEY 7155 SW BEVELAND ST 712 W HA. 'TON TIGARD,OR 97223 '•RTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02300 2 1AD-01700 BOLON DEAN N EQUI GRO FUND 1 LLC 4022 NE LADDINGTON CT BY KURT BEY PORTLAND,OR 97232 7125 HA TON TLAND,OR 97223 2S101A0-02200 2S101AC-00100 CASEY EDWARD L JR&JOANNE F ETZEL DAVID M&NADINE M 7085 SW BEVELAND RD 13400 SW DOE LN PORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AA-07800 2S101AD-02400 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY PO BOX 23970 ATTN: FINANCIAL AFFAIRS TIGARD,OR 97281 414 N MERIDIAN NEWBERG,OR 97132 2S 101 AD-01000 25 101 AC-01000 CUTSHALL THELMA GIESZLER JACOB F 12705 SW 67TH AVE 18206 SW FALLATIN LOOP TIGARD,OR 97223 ALOHA,OR 97007 2S 101 AC-01400 2S 101 AD-01300 DALBEY KURT H HAMPTON BUILDING THE LLC BY BEACON HOMES PO BOX 94 7125 SW HAMPTON CAMP SHERMAN,OR 97730 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AA-09700 2S 101 AC-01100 DANA MARK R HUGHES JOSEPH 12585 SW 68TH AVE 7035 SW HAMPTON TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00200 2S 101 AD-01100 DAVIS SHIRLEY A J AND M PROPERTIES 7020 SW GONZAGA 6745 SW HAMPTON SUITE 100 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S101AA-08200 2S101AC-01300 DEFOE CHARLES E JR& KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH MCGEE JUDITH A PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST#838 12455 SW 68TH AVE ATTN:GENERAL ACCCOUNTING 11TH FLOG PORTLAND,OR 97223 500 NE MULTNOMAH#100 PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AD-03000 2S 101 AC-00900 KF LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND LLC 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR 12540 SW 68TH PKWY STE B PORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S101AB-02400 2S101AC-00800 LAN FARM LLC ROGERS ROY R 16869 SW 65TH AVE STE 166 14429 SW AYNSLEY WAY LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 101 AD-02700 2S 101 AA-09800 MCCROSKEY JOHN B ROTH J T JR&THERESA 1380 MORNING SKY CT 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 TIGARD,OR 97223 23 101 AD-02800 2S 101 AA-08700 MORTON DON R AND CYNTHIA SUE R H J T &THERESA BY MAIL MEMONDAY-N JOHANNE 12600 ND AVE STE 200 3109 NE BROADWAY RD,OR 9 23 PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 101 AC-01600 2S 101 AC-00600 NEIMEYER JOHN ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A 25 82ND DR STE 200 12600 SW 72ND AVE GLADSTONE,OR 97027 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AD-01400 2S 101 AB-02500 OREGON KI SOCIETY SHIM STEVE S&JANET H 12700 SW 68TH AVE 14347 SW KOVEN CT TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 101 AD-03200 2S 101 AA-08302 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES SZAMBELAN PETER J&ELOISE M 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 3258 LAKEVIEW BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 2S 101 AD-03300 2S 101 AA-0860 PAC LTY ASSOCIATES TI D Y OF 1535 EQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 1312 HALL TLAND, 97224 T ARD,0 97223 2S101AA-09600 2S101AA-088 PEIRCE STEPHEN W& TI RD TY OF PEIRCE LYNN L 131 W HALL 12560 SW 70TH GARD, R 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S101AA-09108 2S101AA-09100 R&D PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER 12559 SW 69TH AVE LTD PARTNERSHIP TIGARD,OR 97223 ATTN:GREG SPECHT 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON,OR 97006 2S101AD-02900 TRIANGLE TERRACE LLC 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AC-00300 WEAVER MICHAEL D&GAIL B 7075 SW GONZAGA ST TIGARD, OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00400 VER M AEL D&GAIL B 7075 ONZAGA ST ARD,0 23 2S101AD-03100 WESTON INVESTMENT CO 2154 NE BROADWAY PORTLAND,OR 97232 25101 AA-07600 WILHELM MICHAEL W TR 13085 SW 124TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02800 ZEEK VELMA EDWARDS 7060 SW BEVELAND TIGARD,OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 Tigard, OR 97224 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Crag head 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\Iabels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: April 18, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIVISION D 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD Community CITY OF T I TIGAR GARopment TIGARD, OREGON 91223 Shaping A(Better Community PHONE: 503-639-4111 FAX: 503-684-7291 (Attn: Patty/Planning) RiUi? pN ' p N PET :RTY 0 LOAIEIIIE Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1S134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: t z (,, co 5 S (Ai 11 ti-e, Ti,9 0L,,y:( o V („.2.5) N/44) ?goo INDICATE WHETHER YOU ARE REQUESTING 1, 2 OR 3 SETS OF LABELS: 5 (NOTE: A minimum of 2 sets of labels will be provided (unless only holding a neighborhood meeting at this time) to place on your 2 sets of envelopes that applicants are required to submit at the time of application submittal. If a neighborhood meeting is required and you have not yet held that meeting, you can request 3 sets provided your land use application will be submitted and deemed complete by the Planning Division within 3 months from this request.) NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: Ma rk 1-c, PHONE: 5 This request may be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in "Will Cali' by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list, plus$2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, multiply the cost to print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. *EXAMPLE* *``COST FOR THIS REQUEST *if 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet= $8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet= $ , x 3 sets= / < 2 sheets of labels x$2/sheet for CIT area x 2 sets= $ 4.00 L sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet for CIT area= $ ,) x sets=_ GENERATE LIST =$11.00 n / GENERATE LIST = =$31.00 X17 TOTAL GO APPLICANT MATERIALS • • SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TYPE II APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: /" rr- v7 DATE OF PRE-APP.: r0 �i Property Address/Location(s): FOR STAFF USE ONLY 12-if'c' 'v.-/. 6,4071 isv Tax Map & Tax Lot#(s): 2 Gi 1 0 I / P -- O 7 900 Case No.(s): )D 1.ZO)3')r`( Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: 217.23-- cv '7 Z62 Site Size: 1 �) ' 1C:?) �`� �' �n� Application Accepted By: 'Uv( 1 Applicant*: G D/a-izz- v 1 124 5 E ,. Date: Z/V-Vd Address: 4 004- J'i' P - Date Determined Complete: City/State: tAv€ O J ?#0 Zip: 1 ) Q L Rev.8/21/2001 iicurpinlmasters\evised\sdra.doc Primary Contact: jd1-R-?"( loOLAD j g,,A l T14• Phone: 9"0", —C'6 9' ) Fax: .93-3- ,g7-X385 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: (Attach list if more than one) (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) Address: 4n 04 vet- 71- Phone:003 "v 3(a ( Application Form City/State: (Ave txu_eteojec. Zip: I )O"..>s- M Owner's Signature/Written Authorization Title Transfer Instrument or Deed When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant Copy of Pre Application Conf. Notes 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) [21 Site/Plot Plan must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this (#of copies based on pre-app check list) form or submit a written authorization with this application. [ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/2"x 11") PROPOSAL SUMMARY Applicant's Statement (#of copies based on pre-app check list) The owners of record of the subject property request Site ❑ CWS Sewer Use Information Card Development Review approval to allow (please be specific): (Distributed/completed at application submittal) CWS Service Provider Letter �j LUyJ S�a.J Gc /- '2 fi'1rS) 1 C9-F4l C.F ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped #10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property ` I vOI Pc -QX 1 W►# i - ead 4"0 d' Owner List Generated by the City [ - Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits & Notes ❑ Filing Fee: (Under$100,000) $ 800.00 ($100,000-3999,999) $1,600.00 ($1 Million&Over) $1,780.00 (+$5610,000 over the first million) Urban: (See Washington County fee schedule) 1 •. , th List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: N00e --- APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements"box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ The above request does not violate 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. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this 2 1 day of .F1 7-VAl ,20,0 3 al‘ i n ture Owner's ignature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 5 Wasr '1 County,Oregon 2002-111443 Iv 09/2 ,2 04:46:14 PM D•DW Cnt:1 Stn=22 I REED I( RECORDING REQUESTED BY $5.00$6.00$11.00$220.00 •Totalo$242.00 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF OREGON GRANTOR'S NAME 11111111 11111 u Don R. Morton and Cynthia Sue Morton 00170345200201114430010011 I,Jerry Hanson,Director of A mint and Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clerk for Washington County, GRANTEE'S NAME do hereby certify that the within instrument of writing ,aOT.�, .� was received and recorded In the book of records of J "` 1 Cedar Enterprises, LLC said county. 9 Jerry R.Hanson,Director mint and Taxation, Ex-Officio County Clerk SEND TAX STATEMENTS TD: Cedar Enterprises LLC 4004 Kruse Way Place Ste. 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 AFTER RECORDING RETURN T0: ,A•`fir` Cedar Enterprises LLC WASHINGTON COUNTY �R �,, j �. 1 4004 Kruse Way Place Ste. 350 ;. - `' ,4 , REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX te : Lake Oswego, OR 97035 FEE PAID DATE :• 'I 1 •• • ••■ • II STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Don R. Morton and Cynthia Sue Morton, Husband and Wife, Grantor, conveys and warrants to C Cedar Enterprises, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Grantee, the following described real property, free and clear of encumbrances except as specifically set forth below, situated in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, J Lots 9, 10, 11, 34, 35 and 36, Block 31, WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, E.= Oregon Subject to and excepting: 2002-03 taxes, a lien not yet due and payable. Easement (s) recorded June 1, 1965, Book 554 and Page 656. w n THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS $219,500.00 (See ORS 93.030) "which is paid to a Qualified Intermediary as part of a 1031 deferred exchange" DATED: September 18, 2002 I DdrrR-Morton ✓iii s iii✓i�iO�CIAL SEAL IL dita iG i'y 177,7 f ±�y OFFICIAL S CARRIE REDIFER Cynthia Sue Morton -44,4%:x' NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON k `... COMMISSION NO. 353313 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN.20,2006 ■ STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF Clackamas This instrument was acknowledged before me on September 18, 2002 by Don R. Morton and Cynthia Sue Morton NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: I 'ZQ - u FORD-313 (Rev 2196) STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED ProposaJ Na Crckii‘ OR)4101- c%iie ewe . (16filt PRC)i LSS C)NAL (_t.:># ( ..f ION NARRATIVE APPLICANT: DATE OF REPORT: CEDAR ENTERPRISES L.L.C. FEBRUARY 21, 2003 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF CONTACT: RON ENYEART MORGAN TRACY MARTY GOLDSMITH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING DESIGNATION: 12665 SW. 69TH AVE.. MUE SITUATED IN THE N.E. '/4 SECTION 2, T. 2 S.,R. 1 W.,W. M. WASHINGTON COUNTY LOCATION: TAX LOT 12665 SW. 69TH AVE. TIGARD, OR 97223 2S 101 AD-02800 At$:'/I), D ten' 4 62 • T ERI . AGAr . • EAVERT1, , Or, .4. °tJ • OF I. APPLICANT REQUEST: AN D IN N E APPROVAL ROVAL A T F F °N NS TE RU UII C T (1)ONE E TpLIY CANT pFF��Q�ST�G O �p 2 SSQE U FEW,CONSTR�CT I N T° TKE A ° E IN y EXISTING VACANT PARCEL CURRENTLY NG B S �RC E CUTTING SE SCE APpLREQ ST S APpROSV TALL A CONW S p CT NG LOW T FUR O T.OF FI°C E BC�"E D�DING II FINDINGS: THE FOL LO W ARE 11G I NFpRM ATI°N IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL OWING THE�STED CONSTRUCTION 0 ONE E STORY OFFICE APPRONWATELY , 2S QuAR F ET A. 711E C gNT2 pNING IS DESIGNATED MUE EMpLo 7'n COMPREHENSIVE pL ANAIApDESIGN A IS C. ALLOWABLE L pT Cp GE NEW CONS TRUCT/0 v/ ss o OF TxEAILOT AREA.E 11,1AAAIUM IfIGIIT FOR NEW CONS TRUCTI pNIS 4S,`o .E. SETBACKS AS FOLLOWS: FRONT o',o„REAR SSE o.20' o- F M o-20'_0» CpIjE�FLOOR CTIUN520 AREA RATIO IS.4 0 PERCENT,REFER TO 2 III. COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL: ZONING REQUIREMENTS A. EXISTING PROPERTY IS ZONED MUE WITH NO MDVIMUM LOT SIZE. EXISTING LOT AREA IS 16,398 SQ. FT. B. AVERAGE LOT WIDTH TO BE 50', SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A WIDTH OF 74.94'. C. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS 45'-0', THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE HAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF APPROX. 35'. D. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR IS .40 PERCENT OF 16,398 SQ. FT. = 13,938 SQ. FT. THE PROPOSED TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAS A GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA OF 6,342 SQ. FT. , PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 320 SQ. FT OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BASEMENT. E. MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 15% OF 16,398 SQ. FT. =2,460 SQ. FT. LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED IS APPROX. 3,261SQ. FT. PARKING AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS F. PARKING REQUIRED IS PER PARKING ZONE A WHICH IS 2.7 PER 1,000 FOR OFFICE USE PER CODE SECTION 18.765.040. SQ. FT. OFFICE 6,342/1000 = 6.4 x 2.7 = 17.28 STALLS TOTAL REQUIRED = 17.28 STALLS = 18 STALLS TOTAL PROVIDED = 19 STALLS NO MORE THAN 40% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AS COMPACT SPACES. G. STANDARD PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS ARE 8'- 6" x 18- 6" AND COMPACT ARE 7'-6"x 16'-6"MIN. PARKING SPACES PROVIDED COMPLY. H. ONE ADA VAN PARKING SPACE HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING,WHICH IS LOCATED OFF THE REAR PARKING AREA. I. BICYCLE RACKS WILL BE PROVIDED AND LOCATED AS AS PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 3 J. DRIVEWAY ACCESS WIDTH SHALL BE 30'-0"WITH A MINIMUM PAVEMENT WIDTH OF 24'-0", TOTAL NUMBER OF ONE ACCESS REQUIRED,REFER TO CODE 18.765 AND 18.705. LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS K. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQ. FT. SHALL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LOADING SPACE. THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. CLEAR VISION AREA L. CITY REQUIREMENTS DICTATE CLEAR VISION AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN 3'-0"AND 8'-0"IN HEIGHT, THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO PROPERTY PER CODE 18.795. BUFFERING AND SCREENING M. BUFFER AREAS MUST BE OCCUPIED BY A MIXTURE OF DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES AND SHRUBS AND MUST ALSO ACHIEVE A BALANCE BETWEEN VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL PLANTINGS. PLEASE REFER TO THE SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE FOR SPECIES AND SIZE OF PLANTINGS,WHICH CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS. THE REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE 10'-0" ALONG NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY, 6'-0" ALONG EAST BOUNDARY, 6'-0"ALONG SOUTH AND 10'-0" ALONG WEST. THESE MINIMUMS HAVE BEEN MET AND EXCEEDED, PLEASE REFER TO SITE PLAN. REFER TO CODE 18.745.2. LANDSCAPING N. STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET AND MUST BE PLACED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN 6'-0"OF THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY. STREET TREE MUST HAVE MINIMUM CALIBER OF AT LEAST 2"WHEN MEASURED 4'-0" ABOVE GRADE AND SPACED 20-40'-0"APART. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PROPOSED PLACEMENT. REFER TO CODE 18.745, 18.765, AND 18.705. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD O. THERE SHALL BE PROVIDED (2)RECYCLING ENCLOSURES LOCATED AT THE EAST AND WEST ENDS OF THE PROPERTY. SERVICING BOTH BUILDINGS , AS PER CODE 18.755 TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS P. THERE WERE SEVERAL LARGE TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. REFER TO SURVEY AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGNATED TREES TO BE REMOVED. AN ARBORIST SHALL PREPARE THE REQUIRED REPORT TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT SHALL BE PER CITY CODE, REFER TO SECTION 18.790.030.C. ADDITIONALLY, CLEAN WATER SERVICES DOES NOT REQUIRES ANY MITIGATED LANDSCAPING AT THE WEST END OF THE PARKING LOT .THER IS NO ENCROACHMENT AREA INTO ANY BUFFER ZONE. SEE ATTACHED LETTER FILE # 340. MITIGATION Q. REPLACEMENT OF TREES SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARDS AS PER CODE 18.790.060.E CODE CHAPTERS R. CHAPTER 18.60 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. SITE DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW COMPLETED ON 10- 31-02 WITH MORGAN TRACY, BRIAN RAGER, JOE HUGHES, THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF DISCUSSION HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THIS NARRATIVE. 5 S. CHAPTER 18.390 IMPACT STUDY. IMPACT STUDY FOR TRIP GENERATION IS ATTACHED TO THE NARRATIVE DISCUSSING VEHICULAR ACCESS PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING .ADDITIONALLY THE SITE DEVELOPMENT SHALL REQUIRE STREET IMPROVMENTS ILLUSTRATED ON THE CIVIL DRAWINGS. T. CHAPTER 18.652 TIGARD DESIGN STANDARDS. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED INTO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE ACCOMPANYING SITE PLAN, FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS ALONG WITH THE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CREATES A HIGH QUALITY MIXED USE FACILITY WITH CONVENIENT PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS. U. CHAPTER 18.620 STREET CONNECTIVITY. ALL DEVELOPMENTS MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT LOCAL STREET SPACING WILL PROVIDE PUBLIC STREET CONNECTIONS AT INTERVALS OR NO MORE THAN 360' OR PERFORMANCE OPTION(a) OF LOCAL SPACING SHALL OCCUR AT INTERVALS OF NO LESS THAN 8 STREET INTERSECTIONS PER MILE OF WHICH THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH. V. CHAPTER 18.620.030 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS. THE BUILDING IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 50% OF FRONTAGE ALONG THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE SW 69TH AVE IS A COLLECTOR STREET AND NOT A MAJOR OR MINOR ARTERIAL STREET. THE MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK SHALL BE 0'-0"TO 10'-0"WHICH THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH. THE PROPOSED SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN PROVIDE FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY CONNECTION TO THE BUILDING ENTRANCE MINIMUM 6'0" WIDE. THE PARKING LOCATION IS TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND LIMITED TO 50% OF THE STREET FRONTAGE. 6 THE LANDSCAPE AREA IS PER L-1 LANDSCAPE STANDARD FOR FRONTAGE, AND L-2 FOR INTERIOR AND SIDE. W. CHAPTER 18.620.40 BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS. THE PROPOSED BUILDING COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR ALL STREET FACING ELEVATIONS WITHIN THE BUILDING SETBACK (0'-10') ALONG PUBLIC STREET TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 50% OF GROUND FLOOR WALL AREA WITH WINDOWS, DISPLAY AREAS OR DOOR WAY OPENINGS. THE BUILDING FACADE FACING AND WITHIN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC STREET COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR VARIATION AND BUILDING MATERIALS AND BUILDING OFFSETS FOR ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENT. WEATHER PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS IS PROVIDED FOR BY COVERED PORCHES AT BOTH ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING OFF THE PUBLIC STREET AS WELL AS THE PROVIDED PARKING AREA. THE BUILDING MATERIAL PROPOSED IS CEDAR SIDING AND SHINGLES ARRANGED IN A PARTICULAR DESIGN AND FORMAT TO CREATE AN INTERESTING ARCHITECTURAL SKIN FOR THIS TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING. ROOF CONSISTS OF ESSENTIALLY A PITCHED GABLE ROOF SYSTEM WITH VARYING HEIGHTS AND PITCHED HIP ROOF AREA AT MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING. ROOF MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS`B" COMPOSITION ASPHALT SHINGLE. ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL ATTIC MOUNTED AND OUT OF VIEW FROM ADJACENT PUBLIC STREETS AS PER CITY STANDARDS. X. CHAPTER 18.620.050 SIGNS. FINAL SIGN DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME HOWEVER SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PER CITY STANDARDS AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE TIGARD TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS. 7 Y. CHAPTER 18.620.070 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING. L-1 LOW SCREEN LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN PROVIDED ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND L-2 GENERAL LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITHIN PARKING LOT AREAS. PLEASE REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SIZE, SPECIES AND QUANTITY. Z. CHAPTER 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS. A PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR STREET AND UTILITIES HAS BEEN PREPARED BY CSA& ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR OVERALL STREET IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY ALONG SW 69 TH AVE. AS WELL AS SITE DRAINAGE PLAN AND WATER QUALITY FOR THIS SPECIFIC SITE,PLEASE REFER TO DRAWINGS. AA. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M. AS PER CITY REQUIREMENTS,THE RESULTS OF WHICH SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR REVIEW ALONG WITH THE LETTER OF NOTICE REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. IV. CONCLUSION: A. THE ABOVE OUTLINED FACTS AND CRITERIA OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ILLUSTRATES AND SUPPORTS THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF (1) ONE NEW TWO- STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS BEING THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF TIGARD GUIDELINES FOR A DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE. PLEASE CALL ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW. S CERE SUBMITTED, PE 1 R MA 3' O, PRESIDENT ON HALF 17,F PETER MAGARO ARCHITECTURE,PC. 8 tVc/wce4 ATE G o kfit A PROFESS(LI i =- L IMPACT STUDY APPLICANT: DATE OF REPORT: CEDAR ENTERPRISES L.L.C. FEBRUARY 21, 2003 PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF CONTACT: RON ENYEART MORGAN TRACY MARTY GOLDSMITH LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING DESIGNATION: 12665 SW.69 TH AVE. MUE SITUATED IN THE '/4 SECTION 2,T. 2 S.,R. 1 W.,W. M. WASHINGTON COUNTY LOCATION: TAX LOT 12665 SW. 69 TH AVE. TIGARD, OR 97223 2S 101 AD-02800 1 10570 S.W. Citation Drive • Beaverton, Oregon 97008 • (503) 579-2421 IMPACT STUDY RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY HIGHWAY DEDICATION TO IMPROVE STREET OR SIDEWALK. STREET IMPROVEMENTS THERE ARE NO STREET IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED,HOWEVER THER SAHLL BE CONSTUCTED A NEW 30'-0"WIDE DRIVEWAY. SANITARY SEWER THE SANITARY SEWER IS EXISTING AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROJECT.. WATER SUPPLY THE WATER SHALL BE PROVIDED BY TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT THROUGH A PUBLIC LINE TO BE EXTENDED PER REQUIREMENTS BY THE WATER PROVIDER. ALL CITY GUIDELINES FOR EXTENDING A LINE SHALL BE OBSERVED. FIRE PROTECTION TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT PROVIDES FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WITH IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE MARSHALL REGARDING INFORMATION FOR ADEQUACY OF CIRCULATION AS WELL AS NEED FOR FIRE HYDRANTS. ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL BE MADE FOR CIRCULATION ADJUSTMENTS OR THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HYDRANTS. THIS PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE AND IS LESS THAN 150'-0"FROM THE STREET CURB. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PER CITY OF TIGARD STANDARDS SHALL PROVIDE FOR STORM WATER RUNOFF TO BE CONVEYED TO AN APPROVED PUBLIC DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ONSITE DETENTION AND FILTRATION FOR WATER QUALITY SHALL BE PROVIDED UNDER THE PAVED PARKING DRIVEWAY AREA AS PER THE PRELIMINARY SUBMITTED PLANS PREPARED BY CSA& ASSOC. CIVIL ENGINEERS. 2 STORM DRAINAGE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS (SWM)ESTABLISHED BY UNIFIED SEWER AGENCY (USA)REQUIRES THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONSITE WATER QUALITY FACILITIES WHICH SHALL BE PROVIDED UNDER THE PAVED PARKING AREA. THE FACILITIES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REMOVE 65% OF THE PHOSPHORUS CONTAINED IN 100%OF THE STORM WATER GENERATED FORM THE NEWLY CREATED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. PLEASE REFER TO DRAWINGS PREPARED BY CSA& ASSOC. CIVIL ENGINEERS. POWER, TELEPHONE, CABLE TELEVISION ELECTRIC POWER AND TELEPHONE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC AND GTE NORTHWEST RESPECTIVELY. NATURAL GAS IS PROVED IS PROVIDED BY NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS. NOISE IMPACTS THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY BEING DAYTIME OFFICE USE PRIMARILY DOES NOT GENERATE UNUSUAL NOISES THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. ADDITIONALLY, THE WIDE SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS FROM THE PROPERTY LINES CREATE ADDITION SEPARATION AND SOFTENING OF ANY POTENTIAL NOISES. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SERVICING THE FACILITY SHALL BE SCREENED TO MINIMIZE SOUND IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORS. TRANSPORTATION THE PROJECT SITE IS SERVED BY SW 69 TH AVE. WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR STREET ACCORDING TO BRIAN RAGER, CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING STAFF, WHICH THE MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY ARE STATED HEREIN. THE FACILITY WILL GENERATE TRIPS BY EMPLOYEES AND VISITORS THROUGHOUT THE DAY WITH PEAKS AT MORNING, AND QUITTING TIME, TAPERING OFF LATE MORNING AND EARLY AFTERNOON WITH FEW EVENING TRIPS. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES WASHINGTON COUNTY ADOPTED COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE OF TIF IN 1990, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE SHALL BE PAID BY OWNER BASED 3 UPON THE NUMBER OF TRIPS WHICH ARE PROJECTED TO RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE CONTACT ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS , COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS IMPACT STUDY. INCE LY SUBMITTED, •TER • I • ' O,'PRESIDENT O BEHALF OF PETER MAGARO ARCHITECTURE,PC 4 NO/l V 7/7 9Y1 3118 N 'd1d AIL N._ 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111E •—•‘- ______ E i ,..i 1 - s 1=r -, -- , , .. Ir 74rANA., r I'2frAir ...,....o.... Iilmi 1 2/24/2003 08: 15 5036256179 PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPM PAGE 02/02 p *R *I *D* E DISPOSAL COMPANY P.O. Box 820 Sherwood, OR 97140 (503)625-6177 February 24, 2003 Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. 7035 SW Hampton Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Mark Stolle Dear Mr. Stolle, We have reviewed and accepted your building plans for Enyeart Trading, at 12665 SW 69`'' Ave., Tigard, Oregon. The area for garbage and recycling storage and disposal has been determined to be more than adequate for the anticipated needs of the tenants. Please call us if there are any questions or concerns we may assist you with. Sincerely, c4 ,...„.....7 r e_____. ..L ,, . _z;e-ex-zD ,,,::: . /./.0, Craig Schmidt CS:jf L,' J Printed on 100% recycled paper. F.le JAN 3 0 2003 CleanWate\ Services By Our conimntmetit is clear. Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction 7c 7 to Date • + ' a Map & Tax Lot 25 1 ' ►—a Z, a Owner')Ktr • . aw ,r Sife Address _ ,, • „��, '�„ ►j� .. ff•.11011W:.a& Contact chit situ / Proposed Activity .lgef - Address .Alf .J. -n 31L WNW. . .I/, • :. . 3 Phone j 1 ❑ Li Sensitive Area Composite Map ❑ ❑ ® Stormwater Infrastructure maps Map# vZ.SI(,Uf} QS # y3�a Y N NA Y N NA U _ [RI Locally adopted studies or maps o.. ❑ ❑ Other Specify Specify s;,e v;,;T i/31 43_�S Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 00-7: Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER • LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: fix' Se•.f.7ivt /OItlQ°e• Reviewed By: G% Date: t//(V/03 Returned to Applicant Mail dam, Fax Counter 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 • Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Date ilV/0' By Phone: (503) 846-8621 • Fax: (503) 846-3525 www.CICafWaterSc VIcCS.Org vn • nn.n7 nnn7 nn I IDr• rC7r},On(`n('•YDJ ll-I(` MAR-04-2003 16: 19 ENYEART TRADING 503 697 9385 P.02 *1414TREEAMI)lANR4CAVE MAINTENANCE,INC 12/19/02 Cedar Enterprises, LLC P.O. Box 2002 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Atten: Marti & Ron Enyert Re: Arborist Report: Removal of Four Willow Trees To Whom It May Concern, The four trees that were removed were all Weeping Willow trees, (Salix Babylonica). Two of the willows had substantial decay within the trunk. The other two seemed to be in good health. Tree #1 was located on the southeast corner of the lot. This willow had a height of approximately 40 feet and a dbh (diameter at breast height) of 24 inches. The canopy had been severely reduced due to the effects of major storm damage. This damage also contributed to some decay in the trunk of the tree. There was a spot in the trunk where there was approximately 40% of the wood was rotten. Removal of this tree was the only alternative. Tree #2 was located on the southern property line. This willow was identical to tree #1 (the height was about 40ft and the dbh was approximately 28 inches). It had much of the same problems. There was severe decay in the trunk wood due to the effects of major storm damage. There was also a spot in the trunk where there was roughly 35% of the wood was rotten. This tree was also in the way of the building that will be constructed in the near future. Page 1 of 2 P.O. BOX 596 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 ' (503) 636-7902 e-mail:morton @integrityonline.com ' www.integrityonline.com/mortontree MAR-04-2003 16:19 ENYEART TRADING 503 697 9385 P.03 s �rt/ T eE AND LANDSCAPE 6NWTENAhCEUfa Tree #3 and #4 were located on the northern property line. There heights were roughly 60ft and there dbh were approximately 36 inches. These two willows were in good health. They had suffered very little storm damage from the past, unlike trees l and 2. Willows 3 and 4 were nice specimens. In my professional opinion they should not have been removed. Replanting is a must. Sincere , Jason Seppa ISA Certified Arborist PNW # 1941 Page 2 of 2 P.O.BOX 596 LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97034 ' (503)636-7902 _ —�:._ r�.,i-�tt1 • newel/mnrfnntrcn TOTAL P.03 JJLE JOSEPH HUGHES CONSTRUCTION, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR CCB NO. 45645 (503) 624-7100 March 5, 2003 Morgan Tracy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Morgan: On January 30, 2003 we sent out letters to all property owners located within 500 feet of the proposed project located at 12665 SW 69th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223. The purpose of the letter was to inform all property owners of the proposed office building. A neighborhood meeting was set up to inform property owners on February 17th at 7035 SW Hampton Street at 6:00pm. Those in attendance: Mark Stolle, Joseph Hughes Construction Peter Magaro, Architect of Record Presentation drawings and elevations were displayed. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 due to lack of attendance. Thank you, 7)/1'1/0 Mark Stolle Project Manager 7035 S.W. Hampton • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • FAX (503) 684-5295 JOSEPH HUGHES CONSTRUCTION, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR CCB NO. 45645 (503) 624-7100 January 30, 2003 RE: Proposed Development Dear Interested Party: Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. is the General Contractor/Developer representing the owner of the property located at 12665 SW 69th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223. We are considering proposing a two story, mixed use, office space at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: February 17, 2003 at 6:00pm at Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. 7035 SW Hampton St., Tigard, OR 97223 Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 503-624-7100 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark Stolle Project Manager 7035 S.W. Hampton • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • FAX (503) 684-5295 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING -'OSTING NEIGHBORHOO ' MEETING NOTICE MP'ORTANT NOT[I3E,;, TH ., , l.,t� ;o � REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF Tl�b A"COPY OF; ti o EETltf TILE IAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME TIME PROPERTY '! a�� NEI ORH00!Art )WNERS ARE LED NOTICE, TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: t l City of Tigard Planning Division I' '' T F I� 6 13.125 SW Hall Boulevard I I ' r. . Tigard, OR 97223-8189 [IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THIS,AFFIDAVIT & CONES OF,ALL NOTICES,ATT,THE`TIMED F.APPLICATIQN', MAILING:�' i, S L \ja,1 i A& , being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 3(0 day of (t,m_ Q Li, :0 b 9.2, I caused to have mailed to acb_of the person n the attached list, a notice of a �eeting�discuss a proposed leve(opment at (or near) 1 2 h'?1" �U. ) �'-4� $ \ ` r -T I ci 4`' C a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons a!d were denosited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at t Y _t (1 ' __C).-K.-- with postage prepaid thereon. - Jl10il.► A• S 1 - Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) 'OSTING: )A,o,y( `Jb\. k, do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed o-e1j-e 1 c v)" 1,.-li- affecting the land located (state ttrw approximate location(s) IF no address(s)and/or tax lots)current) Lregistered) -2- ..,-2- .., t_ r� 1 RD • at L-3s u and did on the 3D day of i fa ✓ , 20 O personally post notice indicating that the site may be :roposed for a l9t i � �r\3 U-vlr 1 -j-application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to liscuss the proposal. C \ [q ` / 'j� The sign was posted at I� 5 `�U ) l V �• t ` 'J1 r O K. (state location you posted notice on property) "'a/1/%11ri Signature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) ,TATE OF 0J''-' ) .ounty of VI mkt,' N-.0„„ ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of 46g,n.___ig ______ , 20 C �,� OFFICIAL SEAL 7 If ,F ;�`rI MONIKA M.CHEEK O) f) � � COMMISSION 0 361650 (() lit CC MSSION Me SEF,HuIBIR 29.2006 f / NO ARY PUBLIC OF OR GON My Commission Expires: qi 7„./.G� - ,o Applicant,please complete the information below: 'lAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: YPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ■,• a- ea ' • 11..• i - .z Address or General Location of Subject Property: . . `ICA ' ' • : ."4-2-2, Subject Property Tax Map(s)and Lot#(s): .- I() st\► • Q - I' () h:Vogin\patty masters\affidavit of mailing-posting neighborhood meeting.doc JOSEPH HUGHES CONSTRUCTION, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR CCB NO. 45645 (503) 624-7100 January 30, 2003 RE: Proposed Development Dear Interested Party: Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. is the General Contractor/Developer representing the owner of the property located at 12665 SW 69`h Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223. We are considering proposing a two story, mixed use, office space at this location. - Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: February 17, 2003 at 6:00pm at Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. 7035 SW Hampton St., Tigard, OR 97223 Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 503-624-7100 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark Stolle Project Manager 7035 S.W. Hampton • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • FAX (503) 684-5295 ■ 101AFJ-01600 • 2S101AD-00800 ti8TH STREET INVESTORS LLC EQUITY GROUP FUND 1 LLC I'"670 SW 68TH AVE STE 300 BY KURT DALBEY BARD,OR 97223 7125 SW HAMPTON PORTLAND,OR 97223 101 AB-02201 S 101 AD-00803 JDRUS MICHAEL R& E•. TY GR' P FUND 1 LLC ANDRUS NANCY A BY KU":4 ALBEY 55 SW BEVELAND ST 712 W HA• *TON GARD, OR 97223 -•RTLAND,OR 97223 -,101AB-02300 2 •1AD-01700 )LON DEAN N EQUI GRO • FUND 1 LLC 122 NE LADDINGTON CT BY KURT :• BEY PORTLAND,OR 97232 7125 , HA 'TON '•"TLAND,OR 97223 2S 101 AB-02200 2S 101 AC-00100 ASEY EDWARD L JR&JOANNE F ETZEL DAVID M&NADINE M )85 SW BEVELAND RD 13400 SW DOE LN rORTLAND,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 3101 AA-07800 2S 101 AD-02400 CORLISS JAMES L&CORA K GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY 0 BOX 23970 ATTN:FINANCIAL AFFAIRS IGARD, OR 97281 414 N MERIDIAN NEWBERG,OR 97132 3101AD-01000 2S101AC-01000 cUTSHALL THELMA GIESZLER JACOB F 12705 SW 67TH AVE• 18206 SW FALLATIN LOOP IGARD, OR 97223 ALOHA,OR 97007 S101AC-01400 2S101AD-01300 1LBEY KURT H HAMPTON BUILDING THE LLC BY BEACON HOMES PO BOX 94 -'125 SW HAMPTON CAMP SHERMAN,OR 97730 ORTLAND,OR 97223 "S 101 AA-09700 2S 101 AC-01100 ANA MARK R HUGHES JOSEPH 2585 SW 68TH AVE 7035 SW HAMPTON TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00200 2S 1 O 1 AD-01100 -∎AVIS SHIRLEY A J AND M PROPERTIES 020 SW GONZAGA 6745 SW HAMPTON SUITE 100 .IGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 5101 AA-08200 2S101AC-01300 DEFOE CHARLES E JR& KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH ICGEE JUDITH A PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST#838 2455 SW 68TH AVE ATTN:GENERAL ACCCOUNTING 11TH FLOG rORTLAND,OR 97223 500 NE MULTNOMAH#100 PORTLAND,OR 97232 S101,1.0-03000 2S 101 AC-00900 r F LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND LLC 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR 12540 SW 68TH PKWY STE B 'ORTLAND,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 '3 101 AB-02400 2S 101 AC-00800 ANFARM LLC ROGERS ROY R 16869 SW 65TH AVE STE 166 14429 SW AYNSLEY WAY 'AKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97224 ?S 101 AD-02700 2S 101 AA-09800 v1CCROSKEY JOHN B ROTH J T JR&THERESA 1380 MORNING SKY CT 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S 101 AD-02800 2S 101 AA-08700 v1ORTON DON R AND CYNTHIA SUE R H J T &THERESA 3Y MAIL MEMONDAY-N JOHANNE 12600 ND AVE STE 200 3109 NE BROADWAY RD,OR 9 23 PORTLAND,OR 97232 2S 1 D 1 AC-01600 2S 101 AC-00600 NEIMEYER JOHN ROTH JACOB T JR&THERESA A 25 82ND DR STE 200 12600 SW 72ND AVE 3LADSTONE,OR 97027 TIGARD,OR 97223 2 S 101 AD-01400 2S 101 AB-02500 OREGON KI SOCIETY SHIM STEVE S&JANET H 12700 SW 68TH AVE 14347 SW KOVEN CT rIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S 101 AD-03200 2S 101 AA-08302 'ACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES SZAMBELAN PETER J&ELOISE M 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 3258 LAKEVIEW BLVD PORTLAND,OR 97224 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 7S 101 AD-03300 2S 101 AA-0860 'AC LTY ASSOCIATES TI D OF 535 EQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI 1312 HALL TLAND, 97224 T ARD,0 97223 2S 101 AA-09600 2S 101 AA-088 PEIRCE STEPHEN W& TI RD Y OF 'EIRCE LYNN L 131 W HALL 2560 SW 70TH GARD, R 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 5101 AA-09108 2S 101 AA-09100 R &D PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC TIGARD CORPORATE CENTER 2559 SW 69TH AVE LTD PARTNERSHIP IGARD,OR 97223 ATTN:GREG SPECHT 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON,OR 97006 3101AD-02900, .RIANGLE TERRACE LLC 12600 SW 72ND AVE#200 IGARD,OR 97223 S 101 AC-00300 JEAVER MICHAEL D&GAIL B /075 SW GONZAGA ST TIGARD,OR 97223 2S 101 AC-00400 VERM AELD&GAILB 075 ONZAGA ST ARD,O 23 2S 101 AD-03100 'VESTON INVESTMENT CO 154 NE BROADWAY 'ORTLAND,OR 97232 'S 101 AA-07600 WILHELM MICHAEL W TR 3085 SW 124TH AVE 'IGARD,OR 97223 S 101 AB-02800 _:EEK VELMA EDWARDS 7060 SW BEVELAND 'IGARD,OR 97223 Jack Biethan 1023 SW Summerfield Drive, #4 igard, OR 97224 Que Rorman 1250 SW 82nd Avenue igard, OR 97223 laomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue igard, OR 97223 lichael Trigoboff , 072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Pieter Jacobs 775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 2205 SW Hall Boulevard ,igard, OR 97223-6210 Javid Chapman ^840 SW Landau Place igard, OR 97223 athan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 igard, OR 97281 rad Spring 555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 TY OF TIGARD - EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: April 18, 2002 TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TIGARD, OREGON PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING February 2003 i engineering TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING Traffic Impact Study Tigard, Oregon ���c$ PROFFss � (r.x.‘GINi9 /D? v OREGON , �. G4Y9,2Pc 0 � E. me' I EXPIRES: i Z/3(he) - I Prepared By CATRIONA SUMRAIN TODD E. MOBLEY, PE TOM R. LANCASTER, PE, PTOE February, 2003 Union Station, Suite 206 •800 NW 6th Avenue• Portland,OR 97209•Phone 503.248.0313• Fax 503.248.9251 l& TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Location Description 5 Trip Generation 11 Trip Distribution 13 Operational Analysis 18 Appendix 23 -2- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. An office building is proposed in Tigard, Oregon. The site is located in the Tigard Trian- gle, south of SW Beveland Road and north of SW Hampton Street between SW 69th Ave- nue and SW 70`h Avenue. The site is also located to the east of the eastern terminus of Gonzaga Street. The building is proposed as a total of 6,206 square feet. Access to the site will be a single driveway onto 69th Avenue. 2. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 10 trips generated by the office development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 9 will be en- tering and 1 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, there are 9 trips ex- pected, with 2 entering and 9 exiting the site. A total of 68 weekday trips is expected, with half entering and half exiting. 3. While intersection sight distance does not meet AASHTO standards for the minor street approach at the site driveway, stopping sight distance is adequate for the vehicles on the major street. 4. The intersections of SW Beveland Road at SW 69th Avenue and SW Hampton Street at SW 69th Avenue are currently operating within the City of Tigard's level of service standards and will continue to operate within the City's standards with development of an office building on the site. -3- le INTRODUCTION A two-story office building is proposed in Tigard, Oregon. The site is located in the Tigard Triangle between SW 69`" Avenue and SW 701 Avenue, south of SW Beveland Road and north of SW Hampton Street. The building will be 6,206 square feet total. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed development on the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative measures. The analysis will include level of service calculations and a discussion of site access. Detailed information on level of service, traffic counts, trip generation calculations, and level of service calculations is included in the appendix to this report. -4- LOCATION DESCRIPTION A two-story office building is proposed in Tigard, Oregon. The site is located in the Tigard Triangle, south of SW Beveland Road and north of SW Hampton Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. The site is also located to the east of the eastern terminus of Gonzaga Street. The building is proposed as a total of 6,206 square feet. An area map showing the site location is on page seven, and a vicinity map showing the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study area intersections is shown on page eight. Access to the site will be a single driveway onto 69th Avenue. There are no other ac- cesses proposed in the site plan. The City of Tigard requires an analysis of the intersections of SW 69th Avenue at SW Beveland Road and SW 69th Avenue at SW Hampton Street. The City also requires a trip dis- tribution of the site trips through the intersections of SW Dartmouth Street at SW 68th Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street at SW 72°1 Avenue. SW Beveland Road is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified by the City as a Neighborhood Route. Within the Tigard Triangle, it is classified as a Local Col- lector. It is a two-lane facility with a width of 36 feet, but has no posted speed near the site. There are curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the road east of 69th Avenue, but no curbs or sidewalks between 69th Avenue and 72°d Avenue. There is on-street parking in the im- proved sections of road, but no bike lanes on either side of the road. SW Hampton Street is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified by the City as a Major Collector. Within the Tigard Triangle, it is classified as a Minor Arterial. It is also classified by Washington County as a Major Collector. It is generally a three-lane fa- cility near the site, although it narrows to a two-lane road east of SW 68th Avenue. The road is about 48 feet wide and has a posted speed of 35 mph. The road is fully improved with curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the street. There are no bike lanes on either side of the road. SW 69th Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard and is classified by the City as a Local Commercial Street. Within the Tigard Triangle, it is classified as a Local Ser- vice Street. In the vicinity of the site, it is a two-lane road with a posted speed of 25 mph and a road width of about 38 feet. The road is fully improved with curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the street. There is on-street parking, but no bike lanes on either side of the road. -5- le The intersection of SW Beveland Road and SW 69th Avenue is a slightly offset four- legged intersection that is controlled by STOP signs on the Beveland Road approaches. All ap- proaches to the intersection are single-lane. The intersection of SW Hampton Street and SW 69th Avenue is a four-legged intersec- tion with an offset driveway to a commercial development forming the fourth leg. The intersec- tion is stop-controlled on the driveway and SW 69th Avenue approaches. The Hampton Street approaches have two lanes, a left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The driveway and SW 69th Avenue approaches are single-lane. There are bus pullouts on both sides of the road south of 69th Avenue. The closest public transit system is the Tri-Met Route 78, Beaverton-Lake Oswego, which runs along Hampton Street near the site. Buses run about every thirty minutes with ser- vice from about 6:00 AM to about 11:30 PM. Tri-Met Route 38, Boones Ferry Road, which runs along SW 72od Avenue, has service only during the morning and evening peak hour with buses running about every thirty or sixty minutes. Manual turning movement counts were made at the study area intersections during Feb- ruary 2003 from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hours typically occur from about 7:20 to 8:20 AM and from about 4:30 to 5:30 PM. The volumes for the morning and evening peak hours are shown in the traffic flow diagrams on pages nine and ten. -6- t` N 13 - Its 1 1 � V,I,.Ar1 15s .• a 11 /7 car Fn J/ 1 vrn_r. !w'�:r.... I Tigard 5- s PROJECT o F SITE `•\ 71 a AC V`�o Y ran /At. Not to Scale le AREA MAP TOi.dwg -7- Legend 'T STOP Sign • Study intersection ________■!_.< SW Dartmouth Street 1 1 F a o c 2 c c-x 0 y Q) L Q >Q 0 w N N CO CO 0 0 0 0 SW Beveland Road 1 SW Gonzaga Street PROJECT SITE --- SW Hampton Street 2 • ,N, Not to Scale VICINITY MAP Existing Intersection Configurations - & Traffic Control Devices T01.dwg -8- SW Dartmouth Street ________.1_.< 1 �2 ,rtriv <—t 8 E-I 4,1-> •C 4 7A F1 r3 18 a`° 4 cc 2 c 0 cc Y > t4 > > 0 o cv <- 110 Q Q o_ c f 1/y .F2 g o rn co 3 76---1\ FIT f> 3 3 3 � 353 "o`° tn cn cn 4 SW Beveland Road 1 SW Gonzaga Street PROJECT SITE - SW Hampton Street 2 • Not to Scale le' TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour TOLdwg -9- SW Dartmouth Street _.......)1_< 1 Nv-� E-15 Ei.,4 .F 4 10--INE1'r 17—) c.%fi") 9-4, z 2 z z C C Y N w w L coon E-257 4 EJJ.y ■F1 0 L r. 3 44J < TI > 3 3 3 co 193- NON r ( cn SW Beveland Road 1 SW Gonzaga Street PROJECT SITE --- SW Hampton Street 2 Not to Scale Ise" TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour TOLdwg -10- lk.,.i TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed two-story office development, trip rates from Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The trip rates used were for land-use code 710, General Office Building. The trip generation rates are based on the gross square footage and were calculated for a total of 6,206 square feet. The average rates were used, since the fitted curve equation shows a Y-intercept of 38 weekday trips and 79 evening peak hour trips. That is, according to the fitted curve equation, even a very small office building will generate a minimum of 79 evening peak hour trips. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 10 trips generated by the office development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 9 will be en- tering and 1 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, there are 9 trips expected, with 2 entering and 9 exiting the site. A total of 68 weekday trips is expected, with half enter- ing and half exiting. Because an office development is typically an origin or destination for trips, no reduc- tion was taken for pass-by trips. And, although there is transit service near the site, for a con- servative analysis, no reduction in site trips was taken for transit use. A summary of the trip generation calculations for the office development is shown in the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. -11- LI TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Tigard Office Building Entering Exiting Total Trips Trips Trips Office (6,206 sq ft) AM Peak Hour 9 1 10 PM Peak Hour 2 7 9 Weekday 34 34 68 -12- TRIP DISTRIBUTION Since the proposed land use is commercial and is located amongst other commercial land uses, it is expected that the trip distribution patterns will be similar to the existing pat- terns. For this reason, the existing traffic volumes at the study area intersections were used to determine the distributional patterns of the proposed development. The locations of the on- ramps and off-ramps for the nearby freeways were also considered in the distribution. The traffic flow diagrams on pages 14 and 15 show the distribution of the site trips from the office development during the morning and evening peak hours. The traffic flow dia- grams on pages 16 and 17 show the assignment of the site trips to the roadway network during the morning and evening peak hours. -13- Ot OL ��O9` SW Dartmouth Street �40� �59° Nt- 11 i 0 3 >> 0 c c c L > Q Q Q v r -C s c N. o co 3 3 3 3 (n N (n cn SW Beveland Road 1 • SW Gonzago Street PROJECT SITE SW Hampton Street 2 giy o o f o ,TNT Not to Scale le" SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages - AM Peak Hour TOl.dwg -14- If q � o o� o � a K rn 1 OZ SW Dartmouth Street 4357 4307; /( '' 1 5% oC1 �� �C7 11:44 �Y itt) v ,.' c c c .x Q >¢ a- v s -c t c r. 0 CO CO 3 3 3 3 0 N 0 o SW Beveland Road 1 • SW Gonzaga Street PROJECT SITE - SW Hampton Street 2 • Q °� Is0.., At lNI Not to Scale SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages - PM Peak Hour TOLdwg -15- t0 'L 0 oo— E-0 --oo E-2 E-J4,4 .00 EJ4,14 .00 0-T Tr-> 0-T EITf 1-> 000 0. 000 0-1 0-1, SW Dartmouth Street _ L.,../ 1 �► /Lo (::: E-0 EJ4,L . O 0- El 1'r� 0- 000 0-1 a o G z z Q �0 > > o �-oo E—0 Q Q CL E-14,L v o r t w 4 -T ITf 3 3 � 0 000 v) v) 0-1 SW Bevelond Road 1 SW Gonzaga Street PROJECT SITE --- SW Hampton Street 2 At Not to Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Trips - AM Peak Hour T01.dwg -16- 000 E-1 000 E- 1 EJ.,L ■v° 0 y .F° 0A' <1T r> 1A\ <-1Tr> 0 000 0--> 000 0 0--q, _____.....iy,/ SW Dartmouth Street ��-(—: E-0 off' E'1Tr� 0—� o�r o 0--4, C 2 C 'c Y 0 > > o Q -oo E-0 Q Q o_ c E�.l,y .F° s w N. 1-f I T r-> 3 3 3 (J) ::: o00 SW Beveland Road 1 SW Conzaga Street PROJECT SITE --" SW Hampton Street 2 • N, Not to Scale le' TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Trips - PM Peak Hour T01.dwg -17- OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Background Traffic No specific developments have been identified that would contribute to the traffic vol- umes at the study area intersections. Because of the small size of the development, it is ex- pected that the development could be completed quickly and no background growth rate was applied to the traffic volumes at the study area intersections. Traffic flow diagrams showing the existing traffic conditions with the site trips added is given on pages 19 and 20. -18- SW Dartmouth Street _______Al_..< 1 . * E-8 0.1,y .F4 7i <-11'r> r 8- - 4 w o 2 z z 3 c c Y Q ,� �4 > > o ocv (- 110 ¢ Q c <14,14 .`2 z r r 80i\ FITI> 3 3 3 (r) 353--> ^o`n (/) 0 cn SW Beveland Road 1 SW Gonzaga Street PROJECT SITE --: SW Hampton Street 2 • (4 Not to Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing + Site Trips AM Peak Hour TO,.dwg -19- SW Dartmouth Street 1 �► N*r7 -15 EJ4,L c4 10i <-1T14 9� a o 2 c C C Y`> 0 � 1 > > o a Q On <-257 Q Q .G- 1 s y r.3 45- E l h1 3 3 3 0 193-> N*N cn v) cn \ ° zi SW Beveland Road 1 SW Gonzaga Street 4 PROJECT SITE --" SW Hampton Street 2 • Not to Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing + Site Trips - PM Peak Hour TOLdwg -20- Sight distance Sight distance was measured at the proposed location of the office driveway. Sight dis- tance was measured in accordance with procedures from A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, published in 2001 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The posted speed on SW 69th Avenue is 25 mph, requir- ing at least 280 feet of sight distance in each direction. Intersection sight distance was measured at a point 15 feet from the edge of the travel lane. Intersection sight distance was measured at about 140 feet to the south and about 200 feet to the north. Intersection sight distance is restricted by the vehicles parked on either side of the site driveway, which is typical in situations where on-street parking is allowed near intersec- tions or driveways. It is generally not possible to allow on-street parking and have adequate sight distance at driveways and intersections. Because the intersection sight distance does not meet AASHTO standards, stopping sight distance was also measured. Stopping sight distance is the minimum distance required for an oncoming vehicle to recognize and stop for an obstruction in the roadway. For a posted speed of 25 mph, the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet in either direction. Stopping sight distance was measured at about 325 feet to the south and in excess of 300 feet to the north. Stopping sight distance is adequate. So, while sight distance for the vehicles pulling out of the site driveway does not meet AASHTO standards, there is adequate sight distance for the vehicles on SW 69th Avenue to recognize and stop for any vehicle at the site driveway possibly obstructing traffic. Capacity Analysis To determine the level of service at the study area intersections, a capacity analysis was conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to level F, which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The analysis was made for the morning and evening peak hours for existing conditions and existing plus site trips. The study area intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection analysis methods in the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (HCM2000), published in 2000 by the Trans- portation Research Board. -21- The results of the capacity analysis show that the unsignalized intersection of SW Beve- land Road at SW 69th Avenue is presently functioning between level of service A and B during the morning peak hour and at B during the evening peak hour. Development of the site as an office building will not change the level of service during either the morning or evening peak hours. The unsignalized intersection of SW Hampton Street at SW 69th Avenue is currently operating at level of service B during both the morning and evening peak hours. The level of service remains the same with development of an office building on the site. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the Levels of Service (LOS) and delay are shown in the following table. Tables showing the relationships between delay and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Tigard Office Building AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay SW Beveland Road @ SW 69th Avenue Existing Conditions A/B 10 B 10 Existing + Site Trips A/B 10 B 10 SW Hampton Street I@ SW 69th Avenue Existing Conditions B 12 B 14 Existing + Site Trips B 12 B 15 LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds -22- IL APPENDIX -23- l& LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service A to C are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service C. Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E is generally considered acceptable. Here is a more complete description of levels of service: Level of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles. Level of service B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; short traffic delays at intersections. Higher average intersection delay than for level of service A resulting from more vehicles stopping. Level of service C: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service B due to a significant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This is the recommended design standard for rural highways. Level of service D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in- tersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable. At traffic signals many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are noticeable. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections. Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals, and traffic volumes near capacity. Flow is unstable so that any interruption, no matter how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F. Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable. Level of service F: Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may interfere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and speeds may drop to zero. There may be frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service F will typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is considered unacceptable by most drivers. lii LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL CONTROL DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-20 C 20-35 D 35-55 E 55-80 F >80 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL CONTROL DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-15 C 15-25 D 25-35 E 35-50 F >50 INTERSEC. .J TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMAI REPORT o9TH AVENUE AT BEVELAND ROAD ♦ T= 6.5% P=.803 N 45 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 02/12/03 O I50 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 4 37 4 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09: 00 H 4-13 4-1 1 L► 4-14 A 7 L2 T= 2 .3% T= 0% 18 —► 4-8 P=.517 P=.583 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 4 ♦ r T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 4l I P=PHF BY APPROACH 29 —► 28 —► DLLK 145 1 41 6 ♦ Peak Hour 07:25-08:25 Traffic Smithy - ♦ T= 6.6% P=.6 I48 TEV=136 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ♦ ♦ FROM - TO —► 4_1 ►� � � ♦� 1 r■ j _ L ALL 07:00-07:05 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 6 07:05-07:10 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 4 0 1 1 0 13 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 07:15-07:20 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 12 07:20-07:25 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 07:25-07:30 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 12 07:30-07:35 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 7 07:45-07:50 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 14 07:50-07:55 1 2 0 1 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 18 07:55-08:00 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 14 08:00-08:05 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 12 08:05-08:10 0 2 0 0 3 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 12 08:10-08:15 0 3 1 1 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 15 08:15-08:20 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 08:20-08:25 1 4 1 1 5 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 16 08:25-08:30 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 10 08:30-08:35 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 08:35-08:40 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 08:40-08:45 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 08:45-08:50 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 08:50-08:55 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 9 08:55-09:00 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 8 Total Survey 8 25 10 8 58 11 2 64 10 5 16 3 220 PHF .33 .56 .58 .5 .77 .33 .25 .51 .5 .33 .67 .25 .739 % Trucks 0 4 0 12.5 5.2 9.1 0 7.8 0 0 0 0 5 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 2 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 3 9 3 4 30 2 1 46 4 2 10 1 115 07:15-08:15 2 14 5 3 36 4 1 46 6 3 9 2 131 07 :30-08:30 4 18 6 4 36 4 1 42 6 4 7 2 134 07 :45-08:45 5 21 7 4 34 7 1 34 4 4 6 2 129 08:00-09:00 5 16 7 4 28 9 1 18 6 3 6 2 105 INTERSEC--ON TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMA-' REPORT ;9TH AVENUE AT BEVELAND ROAI ♦ T= 1% P=.64 N 64 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 02/12/03 O I57 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 20 41 3 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 H -42 .J I L. .-21 10 J L2 T= 0% T= 5% 17 -► i-15 P=.75 P=.583 9 i (4 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME ♦ ♦ T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH ..41 I r• P=PHF BY APPROACH 36 -► 7 45 3 23 Peak Hour DLLL I54 ♦ 16:30-17:30 Traffic Smithy - ♦ T= 0% P=.509 I55 TEV=176 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ♦ A ♦ FROM - TO 1 -► J 4J L. �i I r► r -4 L ♦ ALL 16:00-16:05 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 16:05-16:10 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 13 16:10-16:15 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 16:15-16:20 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 20 16:20-16:25 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 9 16:25-16:30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 16:30-16:35 0 5 0 4 8 2 1 4 0 0 2 0 26 16:35-16:40 2 0 1 3 5 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 15 16:40-16:45 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 16:45-16:50 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 14 16:50-16:55 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 16:55-17:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 6 17 :00-17:05 0 3 2 4 4 0 1 7 0 0 1 0 22 17 :05-17:10 1 1 4 1 6 0 2 9 1 1 3 0 29 17:10-17:15 0 1 0 2 5 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 17 17:15-17:20 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 11 17 :20-17:25 2 1 0 2 4 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 13 17:25-17:30 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 11 17:30-17:35 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 12 17 :35-17:40 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 11 17:40-17:45 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 10 17 :45-17:50 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 17:50-17:55 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 17:55-18:00 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 Total Survey 16 30 15 32 67 5 10 71 4 8 29 3 290 PHF .56 .71 .42 .56 .68 .38 .44 .51 .38 .5 .47 .5 .647 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 12.5 3.4 0 1 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17 :00 8 12 6 18 32 5 4 25 2 5 15 2 134 16:15-17:15 6 14 9 21 43 5 6 42 3 6 17 2 174 16:30-17 :30 9 17 10 20 41 3 7 45 3 4 15 2 176 16:45-17 :45 8 16 8 13 33 1 7 47 3 4 18 2 160 17:00-18:00 8 18 9 14 35 0 6 46 2 3 14 1 156 INTERSEC N TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMA REPORT .,9TH AVENUE AT HAMPTON STREE. • T=10.3% P=.666 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 02/12/03 N �16 I80 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 14 0 2 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H 4-125 4J L► 4-116 A 76 J T= 1.9% T= 6.1% 353 —► 4-110 P=.820 P=.828 4 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME ♦i ;2 T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH �J I �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 433 —► 1 0 5 360 —► DJYF Peak Hour 6 07:20-08:20 Traffic Smithy T= 7.7% P=.375 �♦6 TEV=571 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO 1 —► J 4J I L. •1 1 C► r L ALL •07:00-07:05 0 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 07:05-07:10 0 14 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 26 07:10-07:15 0 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 34 07:15-07:20 0 28 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 44 07:20-07:25 0 42 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 56 07:25-07:30 0 25 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 47 07:30-07:35 0 23 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 34 07:35-07:40 2 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 40 07:40-07:45 1 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 31 07:45-07:50 0 20 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 44 07:50-07:55 0 30 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 45 07:55-08:00 1 36 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 11 1 58 08:00-08:05 0 44 6 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 1 62 08:05-08:10 0 25 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 56 08:10-08:15 0 32 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 47 08:15-08:20 0 31 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 51 08:20-08:25 0 20 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 41 08:25-08:30 2 18 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 40 08:30-08:35 0 30 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 50 08:35-08:40 0 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 39 08:40-08:45 0 20 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 08:45-08:50 0 25 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 14 0 44 08:50-08:55 1 10 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 8 0 25 08:55-09:00 0 13 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 1 30 Total Survey 7 602 129 24 0 5 6 1 6 3 203 6 992 PHF .33 .8 .68 .7 0 .5 .25 0 .31 .25 .83 .5 .811 % Trucks 0 2 1.6 8.3 0 20 0 100 0 0 6.4 0 3 .1 Stopped Buses 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Hourly Totals 07 :00-08:00 4 307 64 10 0 2 1 0 3 1 86 3 481 07:15-08:15 4 350 81 15 0 2 1 0 5 2 100 4 564 07:30-08:30 6 324 81 15 0 2 0 0 5 2 111 3 549 07:45-08:45 3 333 76 14 0 3 2 0 4 2 119 3 559 08:00-09:00 3 295 65 14 0 3 5 1 3 2 117 3 511 INTERSEC""r)N TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMAT' REPORT ;9TH AVENUE AT HAMPTON STREE • T= 1.6% P=.798 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 02/12/03 NO 183 I49 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 80 0 3 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H i-359 Ai I L. 4-259 44 - L1 T= 2% T= 1.5% 193 —► 4-257 P=.871 P=.799 0 i 1 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME ♦ L,T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH Al I f• P=PHF BY APPROACH 237 —► 220 —► DJYG 22 4 24 Peak Hour I1 ♦ 16:30-17:30 Traffic Smithy i T= 0% P=.694 I50 TEV=629 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ♦ • FROM - TO --1' Ai 14-� •l I♦ r' L ALL 16:00-16:05 0 13 3 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 20 0 42 16:05-16:10 0 17 4 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 28 2 57 16:10-16:15 1 17 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 23 0 48 16:15-16:20 0 10 2 11 0 0 2 1 1 0 17 0 44 16:20-16:25 0 22 1 7 0 0 1 0 2 0 13 1 47 16:25-16:30 0 13 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 17 0 37 16:30-16:35 0 14 3 8 0 1 2 0 0 1 17 1 47 16:35-16:40 0 15 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 46 16:40-16:45 0 12 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 29 0 50 16:45-16:50 0 9 3 4 0 0 3 0 2 0 20 0 41 16:50-16:55 0 20 5 4 0 0 3 0 4 0 20 0 56 16:55-17:00 0 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 44 17:00-17:05 0 13 6 9 0 0 2 1 4 0 15 0 50 17:05-17:10 0 15 9 10 0 0 2 0 1 0 35 0 72 17:10-17:15 0 16 3 6 0 1 3 2 1 0 27 0 59 17:15-17:20 0 22 3 8 0 0 1 1 5 0 19 0 59 17:20-17:25 0 12 5 7 0 1 2 0 3 0 21 0 51 17:25-17:30 0 22 3 10 0 0 2 0 1 0 16 0 54 17:30-17:35 0 9 6 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 20 0 40 17:35-17:40 0 17 7 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 1 46 17:40-17:45 0 15 5 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 36 17:45-17:50 0 27 13 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 55 17:50-17:55 0 25 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 47 17:55-18:00 0 19 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 49 Total Survey 1 397 108 123 1 4 33 7 39 1 457 6 1177 PHF 0 .86 .61 .8 0 .38 .69 .33 .55 .25 .79 .25 .827 % Trucks 100 2 .9 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.6 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 1 185 29 56 1 2 19 2 17 1 242 4 559 16:15-17:15 0 182 39 74 0 3 22 4 18 1 248 2 593 16:30-17:30 0 193 44 80 0 3 22 4 24 1 257 1 629 16:45-17:45 0 193 55 70 0 2 20 5 29 0 233 1 608 17:00-18: 00 0 212 79 67 0 2 14 5 22 0 215 2 618 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 6.2 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.56 Trip Rate: 1.49 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional 88% 12% 17% 83% Distribution Distribution EEEEEEE Tri p Ends ........ ............... 711`1...€Tri Ends '..'....... ..€...'. ... WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 11.01 Trip Rate: 0.98 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Directional 50% 50% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends ` 3 .......... Trip Ends � � �?�'�� ' ���`6$ € P Source:TRIP GENERATION,Sixth Edition TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 0.6*-al lnfognat o ' ' g.y.}t ,� 4r ,.,.:4,,,,::','',Slt@ n,PE a Q, 1 `4� n4 , , .�� a� � a i �'��kk� Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ BEVELAND Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS Date Performed 02/14/2003 (2003) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW BEVELAND ROAD North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 _ � ., u.-, :' a6 � i' k5. �.' '. fi � ih 'Y Y 4iT �" `Y 1 i i..6 i 1%h ';le . M416Cirg�u.s._men s '`�? " NS i'�"*i*�lf,��t * .:t%a a *Pic .4 " 4 ..f 6 z 1 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 41 6 4 37 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 55 8 5 49 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 9 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 , Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 8 2 7 18 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 10 2 9 24 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 , RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR beta to eue `L=e., •t_. e..ef"alla+ie. ,..____.___.__ ,-_.. __._-___.._ ` . Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 1 5 17 38 C (m) (vph) 1559 1456 769 774 vlc 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.15 Control Delay 7.3 7.5 9.8 9.9 LOS A A A A Approach Delay -- — 9.8 9.9 Approach LOS -- -- A A > HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY dire l r na#10 t r 7 °' 't r =,Ste' gorrpation M-;_ , '4; . gr. Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ BEVELAND Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS Date Performed 02/14/2003 (2003) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW BEVELAND ROAD North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ti:. _ n .. , ii 6 1144 :R Y 17 4 t V -w 'We r ' � Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 45 3 3 41 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 69 4 4 63 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 20 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 15 2 10 17 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 23 3 15 26 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 13 3 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR :t`" ...�, :� k $ w3 `,' Ys � '1.,'t x..: w, y3,�;: "1`r,KF, wsf 3: r ,� !�e;' �s"s cag. ' De ay,,a ue i e 3�eng ,�- o ®, _ewe_ .sf$e�r�ce. .*�. � t_,..,�' � .�x�. �; � � ., �. .._:,:.� '���� ,,.. Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 10 4 32 54 C (m) (vph) 1512 1401 701 762 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.23 Control Delay 7.4 7.6 10.4 10.1 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- — 10.4 10.1 Approach LOS -- -- B B > HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 0-'ber 1 n 6:1--a to P "t* .2.., i < ..--- ,,(06 � ...._,,_ _ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ BEVELAND Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING + SITE(2003) Date Performed 02/14/2003 Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW BEVELAND ROAD North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 1 41 6 4 42 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 55 8 5 56 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 9 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 8 2 7 18 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 10 2 9 24 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR De a -Quail e‘' en• h nI%TM&n! `:�--._._. _.._: ._. . .. __ __ .- . - -. __.' Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 1 5 17 38 C (m) (vph) 1550 1456 762 767 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.16 Control Delay 7.3 7.5 9.8 9.9 LOS A A A A Approach Delay -- — 9.8 9.9 Approach LOS — -- A A > HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.I c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ge eral _t� odr�rn�����rmc4 oq. o *JSLtirzar, .;tior�� .� 7V, ,"P,,5xP�.�� um Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ BEVELAND Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING + SITE(2003) Date Performed 02/14/2003 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING , East/West Street: SW BEVELAND ROAD North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Weal Volume...: c :'. ®l.�. tie s. 51 .,¢Z:.._, K u_ :Ng s Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 49 3 3 42 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 _ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 75 4 4 64 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 20 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 15 2 10 17 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 23 3 15 26 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 13 3 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela e., a en "h an a e; S:e :0 x`R _ .M _ VMSP ,-" '__ .;,p'774,;::: Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 10 4 32 54 C (m)(vph) 1511 1394 695 756 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.23 Control Delay 7.4 7.6 10.4 10.1 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 10.4 10.1 Approach LOS -- — B B > HCS000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ HAMPTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Analysis Year EXISTING CONDITIONS Date Performed 02/14/2003 (2003) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW HAMPTON STREET North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE _ Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 76 353 4 2 110 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 93 435 4 2 135 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 1 0 5 2 0 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 6 2 0 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 100 0 20 0 8 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela 747,61e E..eig. ;'a.,, e ev014:0e" ic ,O ,,. ,.:1- :n ,3 . -1:.4176.rma Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 93 2 7 19 C (m) (vph) 1442 1132 537 725 v/c 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.21 0.01 0.04 0.08 Control Delay 7.7 8.2 11.8 10.1 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 11.8 10.1 Approach LOS -- — B B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ HAMPTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING EXISTING CONDITIONS Date Performed 02/14/2003 Analysis Year (2003) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW HAMPTON STREET North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 H,Q.:Ce .Aoif ._ .. . .a�;,dUs , , . Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 44 193 0 1 257 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 53 232 0 1 309 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 — -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 22 4 24 3 0 80 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 4 28 3 0 96 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dola 1 `Yt s - . . h J ,r v A Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v(vph) 53 1 58 99 C (m) (vph) 1254 1348 439 705 vlc 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.14 95% queue length 0.13 0.00 0.45 0.49 Control Delay 8.0 7.7 14.4 10.9 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- — 14.4 10.9 Approach LOS — -- B B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY aeaal', qe .rI_a,;�o $1.e1 4ratio..'4 . i , F f` ._ Analyst CATRIONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ HAMPTON LANCASTER Agency/Co. ENGINEERING Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD Date Performed 02/14/2003 Analysis Year EXISTING + SITE(2003) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW HAMPTON STREET North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Ueha e" 1/�um;es, .ln.� . itiit ,s> i - Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 80 353 4 2 110 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 98 435 4 2 135 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- _ -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 1 0 5 2 0 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 6 2 0 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 100 0 20 0 8 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela - 3'g1= ,1 — Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 98 2 7 20 C (m) (vph) 1442 1132 534 728 vlc 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.22 0.01 0.04 0.08 Control Delay 7.7 8.2 11.8 10.1 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 11.8 10.1 Approach LOS -- – B B HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ge a alitn ion aiteej n.. r tio,� $rY i Analyst CATR!ONA SUMRAIN Intersection 69th @ HAMPTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction CITY OF TIGARD ENGINEERING Date Performed 02/14/2003 Analysis Year EXISTING + SITE(2003) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK HOUR Project Description TIGARD OFFICE BUILDING East/West Street: SW HAMPTON STREET North/South Street: SW 69th AVENUE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Wehicle tii .rnes,y1i°. ,,-djus..m e Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 45 193 0 1 257 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 232 0 1 309 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 0 -- — . Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 22 4 24 3 0 83 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 4 28 3 0 100 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Ile a `tea _a e "= Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 54 1 58 103 C (m)(vph) 1254 1348 435 706 v/c 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.15 95% queue length 0.13 0.00 0.46 0.51 Control Delay 8.0 7.7 14.5 11.0 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 14.5 11.0 Approach LOS -- — B B HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c CSA CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE STORMWATER CALCULATIONS Aso PROfE`p 4 •J9 lf (0 3c -._.y FOR 12665 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD, OR JOSEPH HUGHES JOSEPH HUGHES CONSTRUCTION,INC. CSA JOB#02-221 321 S.W. 4th, 4th Floor• Portland, Oregon 97204 (503)228-3848 E-mail:csa @cnnw.net FAX(503) 228-0475 STORMWATER SUMMARY STORMWATER NARRATIVE: The current conditions on this site allow stormwater to sheet across the lot from East to West.The stormwater flows across a graveled area,then across an asphalt concrete area until it eventually runs off into a small drainage ditch just West of the property.This drainage ditch also collects stormwater run-off from properties to the North and carries this flow down to the south where it empties into the public stormwater system through a ditch inlet.The drainage area was inspected during a small storm event and no apparent signs of flooding were seen,upstream or downstream. With the post-developed conditions,the impervious area will increase two-fold.The stormwater will be collected by two(2) stormwater filter catch basins and then emptied into a flow control manhole with an 18-inch detention pipe spanning 18-feet.The stormwater will then be carried out to the drainage ditch by a 12-inch pipe and emptied into the ditch with additional riprap ditch protection.With the provided water detention system the post-developed peak run-off flow during a 25-year storm event will be equal to or less than the peak run-off flow for the respective storm event with the current pre-developed conditions. STORMWATER OUALITY: Water quality will be provided by stormwater filter catch basins manufactured by Stormwater Management,Incorporated.These facilities will filter petroleum and oil products from the parking lot run- off using perlite media or CSF leaf media. STORMWATER QUANTITY: Water detention control will be provided by a flow control manhole with a 2-inch orifice,with an attached 18-foot long, 18-inch detention pipe. This system will maintain the current run-off flows in the pre- developed area(during a 25-year storm event)with the post-developed terrain conditions. PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS: Impervious Area: Asphalt concrete area=0.14 acres Pervious Area: Graveled area=0.24 acres Total Area: 0.38 acres POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS: Impervious Area: Asphalt concrete area=0.19 acres Office building=0.08 acres Pervious Area: Meadow/Grass area=0.11 acres Total Area: 0.38 acres RESULTS OF SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROLOGY: PEAK FLOWS (CFS) STORM EVENT PRE-DEVELOPED POST-DEVELOPED 2-YEAR 0.18 0.20 5-YEAR 0.23 0.24 10-YEAR 0.28 0.29 25-YEAR 0.33 0.34 PEAK FLOWS-WITH DETENTION STORM EVENT PRE-DEVELOPED POST-DEVELOPED 2-YEAR 0.18 0.17 5-YEAR 0.23 0.21 10-YEAR 0.28 0.26 25-YEAR 0.33 0.30 Detention will be provided by a flow control manhole with 18 feet of 18-inch detention pipe. The flow control manhole will have a 2-inch orifice,and the detention pipe will be sloped at 1%. • CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:32 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Pre-developed 2-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 2 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 2.50 in. pervious area = 0.24 A CN = 89 Gp C:gravel roads impervious area = 0. 14 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\2-yr-pre.hyd peak flow = 0.18 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 2, 421 cu.ft. • CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:33 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Pre-developed 5-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 5 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.00 in. pervious area = 0.24 A CN = 89 Gp C:gravel roads impervious area = 0.14 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\5-yrpre.hyd peak flow = 0.23 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 3, 062 cu.ft. • CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:34 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Pre-developed 10-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 10 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.50 in. pervious area = 0.24 A CN = 89 Gp C:gravel roads impervious area = 0.14 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c: \mydocu-1\02-221\10-yrpre.hyd peak flow = 0.28 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 3, 714 cu.ft. • CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:34 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Pre-developed 25-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 25 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 4.00 in. pervious area = 0.24 A CN = 89 Gp C:gravel roads impervious area = 0. 14 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\25-yrpre.hyd peak flow = 0.33 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 4, 373 cu.ft. C FA C o nSu2 t= rj9 E�9z rea 2s P.RE .10:22 20-Feb-0.3 Office E ulla2n9 12665 SW 69th RCNO$T. b the SANTA RoC H Pre'ae FlAe 100'Y:DA: r m event total Time of Concentration _ 5.0 orm h aph: SCS Type/period 4 hs st rr duration 2 years storm pervious 4.50 impervious us i area n. htotal site red 0.24 A I4 A CN ° 8 YdrograPh file, 0.30 A CN 89 9: C gravel peak n f l o f ` 0.3j cc- 1mYaocu`1 102, roads one 5,o3g cu 00 hr. 221 1100'Are,hYa CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:31 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Post-developed 2-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 2 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 2.50 in. pervious area = 0.11 A CN = 85 Gp C:meadow impervious area = 0.27 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c: \mydocu-1\02-221\2-yrdev.hyd peak flow = 0.20 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 2, 696 cu.ft. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:31 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Post-developed 5-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 5 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.00 in. pervious area = 0. 11 A CN = 85 Gp C:meadow impervious area = 0.27 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c: \mydocu-1\02-221\5-yrdev.hyd peak flow = 0.24 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 3, 347 cu.ft. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:30 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Post-developed 10-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 10 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.50 in. pervious area = 0.11 A CN = 85 Gp C:meadow impervious area = 0.27 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\10-yrdev.hyd peak flow = 0.29 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 4, 007 cu.ft. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:28 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Post-developed 25-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 25 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 4 .00 in. pervious area = 0.11 A CN = 85 Gp C:meadow impervious area = 0.27 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\25-yrdev.hyd peak flow = 0.34 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 4, 672 cu.ft. • CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 10:22 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Post-developed 100-year storm event total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS Typel return period = 100 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 4.50 in. pervious area = 0.11 A CN = 85 Gp C:meadow impervious area = 0.27 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.38 A hydrograph file: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\100-dev.hyd peak flow = 0.38 cfs @ 10.00 hr. runoff volume = 5,341 cu.ft. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:58 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th DETENTION ROUTING flow (cfs) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 � 1- 0.0 I 0 20 40 60 80 100 time (hr) DETENTION TUBE (stage-volume calculated) diameter = 1.50'; length = 18.00'; slope = 1.00%; invert = 237.90'MSL STAGE VOLUME 237.9 0 238.2 3 238.5 9 238.7 16 239.0 23 239.3 28 239.6 32 OUTLET TYPE ELEVATION SIZE circ. orifice 238.0 dia. (in) = 2.00 inflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\2-yrdev.hyd outflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\2-yr-pre.hyd peaks: inflow = 0.20 cfs @ 10.00 hr. outflow = 0.17 cfs @ 10.17 hr. stage: 2.79 ft. volume: 32 c.f. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:57 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th DETENTION ROUTING flow (cfs) 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0.2 0.1 0.1 i 0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 time (hr) DETENTION TUBE (stage-volume calculated) diameter = 1.50'; length = 18.00'; slope = 1.00%; invert = 237.90'MSL STAGE VOLUME 237.9 0 238.2 3 238.5 9 238.7 16 239.0 23 239.3 28 239.6 32 OUTLET TYPE ELEVATION SIZE circ. orifice 238.0 dia. (in) = 2.00 inflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\5-yrdev.hyd outflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\5-yrpre.hyd peaks: inflow = 0.24 cfs @ 10.00 hr. outflow = 0.21 cfs @ 10.17 hr. stage: 4.15 ft. volume: 32 c.f. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:56 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th DETENTION ROUTING flow (cfs) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 A 0.1 1 17-1/ L 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 time (hr) DETENTION TUBE (stage-volume calculated) diameter = 1.50'; length = 18.00'; slope = 1.00%; invert = 237.90'MSL STAGE VOLUME 237.9 0 238.2 3 238.5 9 238.7 16 239.0 23 239.3 28 239.6 32 OUTLET TYPE ELEVATION SIZE circ. orifice 238.0 dia. (in) = 2.00 inflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\10-yrdev.hyd outflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-22l\10-yrpre.hyd peaks: inflow = 0.29 cfs @ 10.00 hr. outflow = 0.26 cfs @ 10.33 hr. stage: 6.32 ft. volume: 33 c.f. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 09:55 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th DETENTION ROUTING flow (cfs) 0.4 I � 0.3 0.2 0. 1 1,\* 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 time (hr) DETENTION TUBE (stage-volume calculated) diameter = 1.50'; length = 18.00'; slope = 1.00%; invert = 237.90'MSL STAGE VOLUME 237.9 0 238.2 3 238.5 9 238.7 16 239.0 23 239.3 28 239.6 32 OUTLET TYPE ELEVATION SIZE circ. orifice 238.0 dia. (in) = 2.00 inflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\25-yrdev.hyd outflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\25-yrpre.hyd peaks: inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 10.00 hr. outflow = 0.30 cfs @ 10.33 hr. stage: 8.25 ft. volume: 33 c.f. CFA Consulting Engineers PRE 10:23 20-Feb-03 Project 02-221 Joseph Hughes Office Building - 12665 SW 69th DETENTION ROUTING flow (cfs) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 I 0.0 l 0 20 40 60 80 100 time (hr) DETENTION TUBE (stage-volume calculated) diameter = 1.50'; length = 18.00'; slope = 1.00%; invert = 237.90'MSL STAGE VOLUME 237.9 0 238.2 3 238.5 9 238.7 16 239.0 23 239.3 28 239.6 32 OUTLET TYPE ELEVATION SIZE circ. orifice 238.0 dia. (in) = 2.00 inflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu"1\02-221\100-dev.hyd outflow hydrograph: c:\mydocu-1\02-221\100-pre.hyd peaks: inflow = 0.38 cfs @ 10.00 hr. outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 10.17 hr. stage: 9.63 ft. volume: 33 c.f. CITY OF TIOARD Community(Development Shaping A Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS = 7/1612003 FILE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2003-00004 Type ll Land Use Application FILE TITLE: ENYEART OFFICE BUILDING APPLICANT: Peter Magaro OWNERS: Cedar Enterprises, LLC 10570 SW Citation Drive Attn: Ron Enyeart & Marty Goldsmith Beaverton, OR 97008 4004 Kruse Way Place, Suite 350 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story, 6,340 square foot office and 19 parking stalls. LOCATION: 12665 SW 69ith Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 2800. ZONE: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, CRITERIA: 18.720, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. CIT AREA: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ® TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: MARCH 24, 2003 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: APRIL 7, 2003 ❑HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM Z STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 30, 2003 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® VICINITY MAP ® LANDSCAPING PLAN ® IMPACT STUDY Z SITE PLAN ❑ WETLANDS REPORT ® TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ® NARRATIVE ❑ TREE PLAN Z OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171, Ext. 2428 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: cnyeart Office Bldg. COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: 3/3/03 GRADING ® Existing and proposed contours shown. ® Does proposed grading impact adjacent parcels? ❑ Yes ® No ® Adjacent parcel grades shown. STREET ISSUES ® Right-of-way clearly shown. ® Centerline of street(s) clearly shown. ® Street name(s) shown. ® Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. ❑ Street profiles shown. ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. ® Traffic Impact Report ® Street grades compliant? ® Street widths dimensioned and appropriate? ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width appropriate? ❑ Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines shown. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? WATER ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines w/sizes noted? ® Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? ® Proposed meter location and size shown? ® Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES ® Existing/proposed lines shown? ® Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? ® Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ® Area for facility match requirements from calcs? ® Facility shown outside any wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? The submittal is hereb deemed ® COMPLETE ❑ INCOMPLETE By: Le Date: 3/3/03 REVISED: 03/03/03 • . 1 r*. ..44414/ CITY OF TIGARD OREGON March 6, 2003 Peter Magaro 10570 SW Citation Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 RE: Completeness Review-Cedar Enterprises Building, Case File No. SDR2003-00004 Dear Mr. Magaro: The City has received your application for Site Development Review (SDR2003-00004) to develop the vacant site for use as a commercial office building. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that the following additional information is necessary before the application can be deemed complete: 1. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes. There were no minutes from your neighborhood meeting included. Include a copy of the letter you recently provided to me with your resubmittal. 2. Landscape Plan. Your landscape plan appears adequate, but is extremely difficult to identify what plant materials are what. Please revise the plan and call out the plant materials. Also, you may want to consider replacing some of the laurel with small trees to address some of the mitigation required. See the mitigation notes, below. 3. Tree Mitigation. Based on the arborist report, it appears that there were four trees removed from the property, two of which were diseased and hazardous, the other two were healthy. This represents a 50% removal, which requires that two-thirds of the caliper inches removed require mitigation. The two trees totaled 72 inches, for a total mitigation requirement of 48 caliper inches. For the trees that cannot be planted on- site or somewhere off-site, a payment in lieu of replanting will be required at $125 per caliper inch. Include a copy of the report with your resubmittal. 4. Lighting Plan. Information pertaining to lighting needs to be identified on the plans. This may be shown on the site plan, on the building elevations, or 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 on a separate plan altogether. Lighting needs to be adequate to discourage crime, but shall not cause glare onto adjacent properties. 5. Number of application copies. Please submit the required 20 copies reflecting the changes previously described. Should you have any questions with regard to these items, please contact me at 503-639-4171. Sincerely, Morgan racy ✓ �" Associate Planner c: SDR2003-00004 Land Use File \\tig333\usr\depts\curpin\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2003-00004(cedar enterprises)\sdr2003-00004 incomplete.doc LAN ) USE APPL C. F ON Project: COMPLETENESS REVIEW COMPLETE INCOMPLETE STANDARD INFORMATION: U • Deed/Title/Proof Of Ownership Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits, Minutes, List Of Attendees ImlacLUtudy (18.390) rrl USA Service Provider Letter Err Construction Cost Estimate ❑ C _# Sets Of Application Materials/Plans _i Pre-Application Conference Notes Q"- Envelopes With Postage (Verify Count) PROJECT STATISTICS: ri Building Footprint Size % Of Landscaping On Site % Of Building Impervious Surface On Site rit Lot Square Footage PLANS DIMENSIONED: ❑ Building Footprint Ei Parking Space Dimensions (Include Accessible&Bike Parking) / Truck Loading Space Where Applicable ZI Building Height R• Access Approach And Aisle ❑ Visual Clearance Triangle Shown ADDITIONAL PLANS: 2 Vicinity Map Architectural Plan Tree Inventory [,,Existing Conditions Plan (� Landscape Plan V Site Plan [1 Lighting Plan /REE PLAN/MIT GATION PLAN: +/❑..: • Ai, ,.- .1 • . .b-' - - • a . l,- ❑ --- -- -Lo were were pre%, (ewwJt4 (ui5 f el 044, C yt«,r alb) ADDITIONAL REPORTS: (list any special reports) ❑ ❑ ❑ n - - RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: ❑ 1 8.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 1 8.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ❑ 1 8.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ❑ 18.340(Directors Interpretation) ❑ 1 8.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) ❑ 18.350(Planned Development) ❑ 18.705(Access/EgresslGrculation) C 18.780(Signs) ❑ 18.360(Site Development Renew) ❑ 1 8.710(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) ❑ 1 8.370 nanances/Adlustrnents) n 18.715(Density Computations) ❑ 18.790(Tree Removal) ❑ 1 8.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendment) ❑ 18.720(Design Compaobility Standards) ❑ 18.195(Visual Clearance Areas) ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permit) ❑ 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) ❑ 1 8.791(Water Resources(WR)Overlay District) ❑ 1 8.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) ❑ 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ❑ 18.198(Wireless Communication Facilities) ❑ 1 8.410(Lot Line Adjustments) ❑ 1 8.740(Historic Overlay) ❑ 1 8.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.420(Land Partitions) L 1 8.742(Home Occupation Permit) ❑ 18.430(Subdivisions) n 18.145(Landscaping&Screening Standards) ❑ 18.510(Residential Ioning District) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ❑ 1 8.520(Commercial Zoning District) I 1 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) ❑ 1 8.530(Industrial Zoning District) ❑ 1 8.760(Nonconforming Situations) ADDITIONAL ITEMS: It d _ a , I. I_ . t . - '' . / La. 4 ! I .tOr OOd4 V • I:\curpin\masters\revised\land use application completeness review.dot REVISED: 17-Jan-01 "�'48 "\ CITY OF TIGARD OREGON March 19, 2003 Peter Magaro 10570 SW Citation Drive Beaverton, OR 97008 RE: Completeness Review-Cedar Enterprises Building, Case File No. SDR2003-00004 Dear Mr. Magaro: The City has received the information necessary to begin the review of your Site Development Review application (SDR2003-00004). Staff has, therefore, deemed your application submittal as complete and will begin the review process. The estimated time for rendering a decision from the date an application is deemed complete is 5-6 weeks. If you have any questions regarding your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 2428. Since ely, G organ Tracy Associate Planner Enclosure C: SDR2003-00004 Land Use File \\tig3331usr\depts\curp1n\morgan\workspace\sdr\sdr2003-00004(cedar enterprises)\sdr2003-00004 complete.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 saloN DNEflI4MOD lNiOI ,I,VDI'IddV ilild CITY OF TIGARD CM or TWARtr.OKNOPI PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES Co mmunity Devefopment Shaping J4 Better Community (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) NON-RESIDENTIAL sFI AT: ,1/ ,ajz APPLICANT: -�� /� AGENT: Phone: ( '3) <-�1-- �zq'2GJr Phone: ( 1 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): -2S/ —O--g©O NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: C6D ii) .$' - !._ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Cie „ze ��/�o #_&_.e. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 7y/ rte( G�s� iw - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: q',� CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.)AREA: ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. 3 l MINIMUM LOT SIZE:____ sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: .)U ft. Max. building height: ft. Setbacks:d' Front e ft. Side O ft. Rear 7 ft. Corner a ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE cOV jAGE: Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: / %. LO✓t 5t b,.'J 1 .l hpre- c�th NEIGHBORHOOD MEMNG (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout] THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • I •I NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. 1 1 IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.1651 Minimum number of accesses: l Minimum access width: . Minimum pavement width: All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.705.030] WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and, neighboring developnit 66,44,44,- coylfte,e/40y, 4 �Q�����. ,n 7«4- 3, areas 911A. f„ �v C>v,i-z - x/7041^ 1 SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.1301 ➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of • LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.B.] BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: ➢ A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; ➢ All actual building setbacks will be at least half (1/2) of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.145] In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG:rw~'1.4114. I I LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.145,18.765 and 18.705) STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. 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. ( RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.765.040] REQUIRED parking for this type of use: -F��cc .� /Oe' Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. • Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x 16 feet, 6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. HANDICAPPED PARKING: • All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. ,i\ LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.165.0801 Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section VI BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Section 18.1651 BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Fl SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.115) The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.115.080.C1 When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. CLEANWATER SERVICES[CWSI BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regulations-Chapter 31 ' LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a 9'1 I vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA 4 CORRIDOR PER SIDE5 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 15 feet 10 to <50 acres >50 to <100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% 10 to <50 acres 30 feet ► >50 to <100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in • Natural lakes and ponds <25%slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' 4Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for Director's review. �—TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.C.] A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; • Identification of all trees which 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. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. h MITIGATION (Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.EJ REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: • A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: 0 The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. I I CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7951 The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. I ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'/2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330(Conditional Use) _' 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) 18.340(Directors Interpretation) 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) _ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) 18.350(Planned Development) \ 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) K. 18.780(Signs) • 18.360(Site Development Review) 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) _ 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) 18.715(Density Computations) 18.790(Tree Removal) 18.380(Zoning Map/TextAmendments) 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) 18.795(visual Clearance Areas) - 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) ' 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) _ 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) - 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) 18.740(Historic Overlay) - 18.420(Land Partitions) 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) 18.430(Subdivisions) a 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) - 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section . ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: LY 10 duet, c',1o✓acbt'P1 el 1 Imail.✓ f/oQc pia/7.7. -ikyet( eft c ,z : (404:" exc lostvt, 440 „.‘,5 _ ' .or (cc % allO . -AA btui�- 3� bi,t o 511 doily yiliatt- "" c) w1.,,.1�,�✓ P,,J - ok ( ' 1 evil-- tc�� A) 1,,y1 ids CC - p`Py - ex me tu./ a ,A,I PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. /; -4-/a/ks Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The Planning counter closes at 4:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 81/2" x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal period follows all land use d cisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard ;tip, �r ,�� . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available, om the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: /-`alt`vi rt.-LAI . , A5t-1 a 7)li-.4�c,� CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING`DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 E-MAIL (staffs first name)a@ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18(CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE)INTERNET ADDRESS: www.ci.tigard.or.us H:lpatty\masters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 3-Oct-02 (Engineering section:preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section 7 i,,t"s :1',.''''041 „ . .x.,-1, +1,,, `” .�fs y� ,,Ats}• "<�fi''y '� `.} '.§ y,, ,,o�. •y ., icy+ I, ,,. rya:'• . ' i ieJIoN a C_� PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Map(sl: 2S1 01AD Tax Letts): 2800 Use Type: Commercial 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 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 I SW to feet 1 SW to feet I I SW to feet Street improvements: I street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: feet of pavement concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk I I street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 Fallneerel/lepttment Section • n Other: I 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. Other: street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb I 1 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 I concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities I I _-foot concrete sidewalk n 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 I I concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Motes Page 2 of 6 Ea/4eeha,lepertmeat Section • • street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. 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: (1.) 70" Avenue. (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: [l 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 $ 27.50 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. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located 69th Avenue. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to connect the new building to the public sewer. As a part of the 69`h Avenue LID, a sewer service lateral was extended to the property line, near the south boundary. Water Supply: The Tualatin Valley Water District (Phone:(503) 642-1511) 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 CITY OF TIMARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 LIuIueerleg eepttmentSectlee information regarding the quacy of circulation systems, th' eed 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 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. Onsite detention is required if the net new impervious area will exceed 5,000 sf. Applicant must submit a preliminary plan and sizing calculations as a part of the SDR application. 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 newly created 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 new 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: Construction of an on-site water quality facility. Payment of the fee in-lieu. 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. 1) A traffic imipact report is required. The applicant's traffic engineer must look at the impact of this development on local intersections and analyze the PM Peak Hour trip contribution to the intersections of 72"d/Dartmouth and 68`h/Dartmouth. 2) The applicant should check to see if the LID assessment has been paid for this parcel. Prior to development, the LID assessment must be paid. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES CITY OFTIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 WilmerIe,'apartment Sect lee In 1990, Washington Count lopted a county-wide Traffic Impa -ee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects tees from new development baseu 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. Pay TIF for change in use. 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. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public 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: 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 on-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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Eapleserley IspertasetSeale' Building Permit (BU1- This permit covers only the const `ion 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. 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 lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots 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: '( to ; (oz- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STAFF DA E Phone: 1503)639-4171 Fax: 1503)624-0152 i.\engtbnanr templates\preap notes-eng.dot Revised: March 21, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 Wiesen!Wittman Section • r APRE-APPLICATION ' its CONFERENCE REQUEST CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant: "per 1 el-4- M RC-,fa- ( ( vn(TrLC-) Address: I O -1O ‘-'7W - 1 W--Phone: 901,-.51°I^ Z42I Case No.: t rC `a b City: v tm ti ,O g--- Zip: '17 00 S Receipt No.: 1-Ctra 070 �3 -�°I- 242) Application Accepted By: Aar- Contact Person: lam - Phone: `2 Date: /p/Zx/U"L Property Owner/Deed Holder(s): Tip v.--) '- ' DATE OF PRE-APP.: lQ/W/ll7i E •J ' c 117-124-17I NC c?-‘2 v > TIME OF PRE-APP.: /0--42A-til Address: 1004 I�R�->7E Wfl PI- Phone: 603U—(0(05-1 PRE APP. HELD WITH: gvi1 39t' City: L.,p.4 '€ O 7,c9 Zip: '1-7 035— Rev.7/1/2002 is\curpin\masters\revised\Pre-AppRequest.doc Property Address/Location(s): (Zte to evw. (A* REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) Tax Map & Tax Lot#(s): 'L" Io I /14- 1> Z8:::C:) _ Zonin g: MU e7. L�J. Pre-Application Conf. Request Form Site Size: 1 l X ZV27 2 COPIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: Brief Description of the Proposal and any site-specific questions/issues that PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE INFORMATION you would like to have staff research prior to the meeting. All of the information identified on this form are required to be submitted by the applicant and received by the Planning Division a Site Plan. The site plan must show the minimum of one (1) week prior to officially scheduling a proposed lots and/or building layouts pre-application conference date/time to allow staff ample time to drawn to scale. Also, show the location prepare for the meeting. of the subject property in relation to the nearest streets; and the locations of A pre-application conference can usually be scheduled within 1-2 driveways on the subject property and weeks of the Planning Division's receipt of the request for either across the street. Tuesday or Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences are The Proposed Uses. one (1) hour long and are typically held between the hours of Information. Include 9:00 11:00 AM. Contour Lines if Possible. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES MUST BE SCHEDULED IN ❑ If the Pre-Application Conference is for a PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER FROM • W MONOPOLE project, the applicant must 8:00-4:00/MONDAY-FRIDAY. attach a copy of the letter and proof in the form of an affidavit of mailing, that IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE the collocation protocol was completed PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE (see Section 18.798.080 of the Tigard INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM Community Development Code). ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE Filing Fee $200.00 GROUP. i 1 'ter _ I i ■ MIIIIIIIIIIIIII i i 111.4::! 1 7 a I P In I 1l N . * , . - ------- .,, ------------ 1 .._ 4 ; 1111 1 1 ■ 11116 - , ---c> 411 ,, 245' Mi 111! -14 lio 24O 1 , i 1 I I , , , , , , , , , 1116L___. 1111116. -AI a A MP T W _ IL , 1 I I I 111 1 , 4,0-1 /O0 coplowN FIRST TOTAL A-A= - AR e/i I I M qv 1n'//o I FIRST FLOOR AREA TASULATION SCALE: 1/160"=1'-0" RECEIVED AUG 15 2003 t4 CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DIVISION ) STAIR 'i d f OPEN z 4 NET AREA = 2935 SO FT NZ tu u STAIR "Z .j SECOND FLOOR AREA T4E3ULATION SCALE: 1/16"=1 -0" /_2 s- 60 Ggikx �� 1411•14 l i , .__..._ — _.._—��_._�.-_ — �. _- —_-__ .. _ � -__• .�� .� v - .. ■ 41111= alto l % l a, __ __, , ., „:,..„ , 1-__ .._. _ .. __ - , .„,, ;$ j _____ . 1 4 ... 11 , ,. ,,fir IF z1 /11 ilim _i t 1.1.0 , 4 *--- 40 ' i i 0 141 1 ilir, ' 1 , : j ‘11 ('' 1. i V. , , i 47 VI Z . , ' I . 1-//' t. l _ , if'\,/ -ec----._ tiT._., ,..t p.- wii,...i , .....______? .... Ve/‘,,,NehIPJ, r :11 , 1 1 ekaf-;;/ e-,4ope--- -t ; 1 Li _ ' [IiH -__I . j HWIlign ,,i�i i� ii I �i 'i� I L 4 i i 1-ti-e 0 c I 4__ : ,..........._ . .,.ics e,.... \ 1 Iv [ r I Icfr 1 iq It V? 12' ! I 1 'ACM �'? n ,--A.017e --- N er / Cl 0 • t - �^ ' �...__. _p -Nmow#"1• ,\ . gi; OV.c°� \ 14°74 41 --•■••• , AI&11 lir 1 44 (D3 t *tore 2.: 1-4 IP Cb CD AP qa z.. . far ___r . i . . r • !, . r. _ <_ys.-mss_.-_r ► -. wiMA..• rN ' =_- -1-b.�- - fil 1r wn GZ- 12- $ (0 v-tvc, - Tfritvi'1 V H : OCT 2 4 2002 - - �1a - -- -21 No extbickusqurp. . 4° or9-604 x 4:cE;z;: t;;e ®o , ( 'fob ' RY A ESSIONAL CORPORATION 19/9711+P �-• 11 ‘A-7644,44?--V NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Jo' ri.•i H U&H &7ft5cr4Jerk:*4 4 co PST- s o. 10570 S.W. Citation Drive '� . "7 - . __ _ �V _- .-- ef`2.1 I x i•1 182, 447%446P • Peter Magaro Beaverton, Oregon 97008 "1 ;"� -- Z Odd CZ�,�h��N•7 Architect, A.I.A. (503) 579-2421 � � ��� H1r TtI NS 6 tff' 1 MM` PLAN S_DgaIoo , -00004 ( lOte-4-70p . &IX/enitd-76) cyp/ za)3-447c19 N fill . PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPANY - '� r P.O. Box 820 Sherwood, OR 97140 (503)625-6177 �'- Con. fU'" i 3 February 24, 2003 Joseph Hughes Construction, Inc. 7035 SW Hampton Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Mark Stolle Dear Mr. Stolle, We have reviewed and accepted your building plans for Enyeart Trading, at 12665 SW 69th Ave., Tigard, Oregon. We agree that the use of Roll Carts for garbage and recycle disposal will be more than adequate for the anticipated tenants. There will not be a need for a structural enclosure to store these carts. Please call us if there are any questions or concerns we may assist you with. Sincerely, Craig Schmidt CS:jf • J Printed on 100% recycled paper. SPR2®v;- `fi JOSEPH HUGHES CONSTRUCTION, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTOR CCB NO.45645 (503)624-7100 August 15, 2003 Morgan Tracy City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 Dear Morgan: It is our understanding that because of the removal of 48" caliper trees there is a negative balance on caliper size. This $1000.00 deposit is made until we determine where the planting will occur or this issue is resolved. Thank you, /464r, Mark Stolle Project Manager Joseph Hughes Construction 7035 S.W. Hampton • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • FAX(503)684-5295 CITY OF TIGARD 8/15/2003 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 3:43:31P1vi /A» •,. i Tigard,Oregon 97223 '1. (503) 639-4171 Receipt #: 27200300000000003679 Date: 08/15/2003 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid SDR2003-00004 [CUSDPS] Cust Depst-68th/Dart 200-0000-229096 1,067.00 SDR2003-00004 [CUSDTP]Cust Depst-72nd/Dart 200-0000-229095 2,182.00 SDR2003-00004 [TREES]Tree Replacement Revnu 215-0000-417000 1,000.00 Line Item Total: $4,249.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct/Check Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check JH CONSTRUCTION MET 22951 In Person 1,000.00 Check JH CONSTRUCTION MET 22950 In Person 3,249.00 Payment Total: $4,249.00 N GE ' RYCT10N,1 y I. ,, .sp f .. ti ; - & 22951/ a• 4„ # WA9-NING10-TON75M-UAU4TA�r< 3250� JO�EN HCUGH EONiT r 1 �� � • ."+.14; :4:, `'�*: , Y0 r Y. sa. i R r( ; f ew '� '�, "�w a+( , ? tioi ! .:CCB#45646 3r4f �? a y 70)35 S W Hampton Tigat j�, J " " r` y '1• l7 "s£., ,.v f'° * {d ,iAa s�$ x i y,, R �' k, to i' of rh o :•5031624 7100T ; �` ti ' s• ' . Ogle thtivaa `. .`' 1ar a 8 � ents fis.*,.ii k DATE CHECK I b. . .. AN '1UNT , (� `� p ;; ,,. 5, 2003 X2951 $******100000 .. - , . 4r' i , �ri ` `t ;`` 'yMt',., R TWO SIGNATUR -SQUIRED FOR AMOUNTS OVER$1,500.00 . a r;\14n . ,k 7 s, r 4•, r n ► tf:F PAY n ir TO THE City off` Tigard �` � . :3,...';',..,:-.,:,A�" ��,` "'s► ORDER 13125 SW Hall Blvd e`' ' i ' ' , "` `°,-ter: Tigard, OR.. 9722 ;� f n aY y . a ,. � ;. ,, - •s •. :. .. .._... •"`S x � is > * a fir�+* ,.5 .,, ... .ro . I rage I of 1 cReceipt.rpt gton County,Oregon 2003-158758 09/.41/2003 09:37:20 AM Return Recorded Document to: $5.0 $ otai 16 003 I MESA $5.00 511.00-Total=$18.00 City Hall Records Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 00440688200301587580010017 I,Jerry Hanson,Director of Assanmint and Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clerk for Washington County, Oregon,do hereby certify that the within Instrument of `" TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE writing was received and recorded In the book of lF records of said county. Installment Payment Application and Disclosure Statement �'t °' Jerry R.Hanson,Director merit and Taxation, �`,?+ � Ex-Officio County Clerk In the Matter of the Traffic Impact Fee for Cedar Enterprises,LLC Tax Map 2S101AD Lot Number(s) 02800 and as further described in Deed# _ Building Permit# 8UP2003-00379 Site Address 12665 SW 69°'Avenue Subdivision Case File# SDR2003-00004 TIF Land Use District MUE To Be Billed To: Cedar Enterprises,LLC Address: 4004 Kruse Way Place,Suite 350,Lake Oswego,OR 97035 To the City of Tigard: In accordance with the provision of Oregon Revised Statute 223.208 and Washington County Code 3.17 which relates to the imposition of a traffic impact fee for the financing of major collector roads and arterials of Washington County, I/we HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION AND AGREE, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, to pay my/our traffic impact fee, as has been determined by Washington County Code 3.17 in 20 semi-annual installments of the amount financed together with one-half of one year's interest thereon at a rate of 5.19 annual percentage rate on the unpaid amount owed. The lien date is the first day of the month following the date the application is signed. The first payment is due six months thereafter and at six(6)month intervals thereafter for a period of 10 years. Each installment payment will include principal and interest. If 11we neglect or refuse to pay any part of the installments provided herein,including interest,within one(1)year after the same shall have become due and payable, then the whole amount of the unpaid assessment shall become due and payable at once and shall be collected in the manner provided by law including foreclosure on the above-described real property. The traffic impact fee,annual percentage rate of interest(5.19%)and finance charges which I/we agree to pay are as follows: HIGHWAY TRANSIT 1) Amount of Traffic Impact Fee $ 20,938.00 $1,872.00 2) Amount Financed $ 20,938.00 $1,872.00_ 3) Equal Semi-Annual Principal Payments $ 1,046.90 $93.60 4) Interest on Balance at Rate of 5,19% I\We understand that the amount owed,as stated above, shall be a lien on the above-described subject property pursuant to Washington County Code 3.17 and ORS 223.230. DATED this 27 day of A-14_81,-4f , •2a>3 ig ture of ropey Owner(s) Signature of Property Owner(s)• STATE OF OREGON ) Name(Please Print): / L`�f eR}lea County ofa4lasuirlgtefj ) Address: 4064' Std f ►�u `�'� Pf- S+e f o u L"442_ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 2 7 day of/C 1P1 �O° . `4 Nota Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: / -Zv°(, 02„,-, OFFICIAL SEAL DOCUMENT1 KARIN >_. GUTIERREZ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ()COMMISSION NO.353068 ( MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN, 18,2006 () 5/7/2004 Conditions Associated With 12:49:00PM TIDEMARK Case #: SDR2003-00004 COMPUTER SYSTEMS. INC co de. -1r Ilultl Status Chan ti 1 REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN None Met 8/14/2003 MET 8/15/2003 PLN 1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that indicates: A. All trees to be planted will be a minimum of 2?inch caliper size. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch-caliper shall be eligible for mitigation credit. B. Tree mitigation that accounts for replanting 48 caliper inches either on-site, off-site,or a payment in-lieu of replanting. The applicant shall note that parking lot and street trees do not qualify for mitigation,unless they are greater than 2-inches in caliper. 1 REVISED SITE PLAN None Met 8/15/2003 MET 8/14/2003 MET 2. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that: A. Identifies the material and height of the trash enclosure that meets the requirements of 18.745.050(E)(4). B. Shows 3 bicycle rack spaces for the proposed building. An elevation detail showing the design of the bike rack is also required. C. Indicates the compact parking spaces will be marked"compact"or with a large"C". D. Shows the existing water service line meter relocated from SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue right-of-way. E. Shows one van accessible ADA parking space to be 9 feet wide with an 8-foot aisle. 1 WASTE HAULER VERIFICATION None Met 8/14/2003 MET 8/14/2003 PLN 3. Submit verification from the franchise waste hauler indicating that the location of the proposed trash enclosure meets their requirements. 1 MIXED SOLID WASTE&RECYCLABLES None Met 8/14/2003 MET 8/14/2003 MET 4. Submit details addressing the design standards of the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage(18.775.040)in order for Staff to determine that this standard has been met. 1 SUITE LAYOUT MAP None Met 6/11/2003 SLT 8/20/2003 ST 5. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Shirley Treat, Engineering Department. If the applicant is not sure how many suites will be used,they must estimate a number. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated. The fee must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Shirley Treat, Engineering). 1 ON-SITE H2O QUALITY FACILITY None Met 8/29/2003 KSM 8/29/2003 KSM 6. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards(adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department(Brian Rager)for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 1 STORMWATER MGMT.MAINT.AGREEMEP None NOT MET KSM 8/29/2003 KSM 7. Prior to a final building inspection,the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a maintenance agreement with Stormwater Management,or another company that demonstrates they can meet the maintenance requirements of the manufacturer, for the proposed onsite storm water treatment facility. 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNALS FUNDS None Met 8/14/2003 MET 8/15/2003 PLN 8. Prior to final inspection the applicant shall pay funds to the City for the future traffic signals at the intersections of 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street and 68th Avenue/Dartmouth Street. The amounts are as follows: 72nd/Dartmouth= $2,182.00; 68th/Dartmouth=$1,067.00. 1 70TH AVE. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT None Met 5/4/2004 KSM 5/3/2004 KSM Page 1 of 2 CaseConditions..tpt 5/7/2004 • Conditions Associated With 12:49:00PM TIDEMARK Case #: SDR2003-00004 COMPUTER SYSTEMS. INC • 9. Prior to final building inspection,the applicant shall execute a Restrictive Covenant whereby they agree to complete or participate in the future improvements of SW 70th Avenue adjacent to the subject property,when any of the following events occur: A. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, B. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by the City or other public agency, C. when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s)of property in addition to the subject property,or D. when construction of the improvements is deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the subject site. Page 2 of 2 CaseConditions..rpt W- 'ton County,Oregon 2004_048277 05 J04 01:33:18 PM D-IPP$ Cnt=1 Stn=8 RECORD81 S25.00$6.00$11.00-Total=S42.00 t, After recording, return to: City of Tigard — Records Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 00575211200400482770050057 C- Tigard, OR 97223 I.Jerry Hanson,Director of Assessment and Taxation �,�• .� and Ex-Officio County Clerk for Washington County, j Oregon,do hereby certify that the within Instrument of ° writing was received and recorded In the book of s(:fr*?' records of said county. I I•"•�" •y•4 Jerry R.Hanson,Director ssessment and Taxation, Ex• fflcio County Clerk RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS) THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 41 day of 4 ,e,L, 20 , by the City of Tigard, a Municipal Corporation of Washington County, Oregon, ("CITY"), and C , 2,)( L L C. , ("OWNER"). RECITALS WHEREAS OWNER is the Owner of record of Property covered by this Agreement as shown in Section 1 below, and WHEREAS OWNER has received approval of a development on the Property from the CITY, as set forth in SDR2003-00004 dated 5/29/03, and WHEREAS Chapter 18.810 of the TMC (Tigard Municipal Code) contains certain conditions applicable to street improvements, and issuance of permits is conditioned on OWNER'S compliance with the TMC, and WHEREAS OWNER wishes to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, and WHEREAS parties wish to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 18.810. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises, covenants and undertakings, and the issuance of a building permit in advance of OWNER constructing improvements required by the TMC, the parties agree as follows: Section 1: The real property subject to this Agreement is described as follows: Parcels of Partition or Subdiv Plat No. , recorded as Document No. Washington County, Oregon. v '� '((�� ��c P- � ��'sfi too r-lu � f� If �L7W�VER a rees at the terms of this Agreement shat d tne OWNER as well as its heirs, successors in interest or assigns. Section 2: The improvements covered by this Agreement are as follows: SW 70th Avenue Future half-street improvements Restrictive Covenant(Future Street Improvements) Page 1 of 4 Revision data 1/1101 • I II!11ii111111i11111 U iii 2©04_46277 Section 3: This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from the date of its execution until the improvements referred to in Section 2 are constructed in accordance with CITY standards in effect at the time of construction. Section 4: CITY agrees that the improvements listed in Section 2 will only be required as a result of any one of the following events: (1) when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, (2) when the improvements are part of a larger public project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by CITY or other public agency, (3) when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the property described in Section 1, or (4) when construction of the improvements are deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the improvements described in Section 2. In addition to this Agreement, OWNER'S obligation to share design and/or construction expenses may arise by application of the Reimbursement District Ordinance; Chapter 13.09, TMC, or any similar ordinance or law providing a process whereby such expenses are distributed among benefited properties. Section 5: OWNER agrees to sign any and all waivers, petitions, consents and all other documents necessary to obtain the above listed applicable improvements under any improvement act or proceeding of the State of Oregon, Washington County, or the CITY as may be proposed or adopted and to waive all right to remonstrate against the improvements listed in Section 2 above, submitted either alone or in conjunction with other improvements described in Section 4, as may be proposed. OWNER agrees that in lieu of any other document, CITY may treat this Agreement as a waiver of remonstrance on behalf of the property described in Section 1 against formation of such a Local Improvement District. OWNER covenants and agrees that the improvements described in Section 2 will specially benefit OWNER'S property as described in Section 1. Section 6: If CITY decides to form a Local Improvement District as a mechanism for the installation of improvements listed in Section 2, then OWNER shall retain the right to protest only the amount or the manner of spreading the assessment, but not the formation of such district. Section 7: CITY acknowledges that OWNER'S execution and performance of the terms of this Agreement constitutes compliance with the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.810. Section 8: OWNER agrees that if CITY causes the improvements listed in Section 2 to be constructed, or part of such improvements without regard to the source of funds for such project, but not as part of a Local Improvement District, then CITY will charge to OWNER and OWNER will promptly pay OWNER'S share of the cost of such improvements. OWNER'S share will be determined by CITY in a manner similar to spreading the cost of a public improvement to specially benefited properties. The parties intend OWNER to share in the cost of improvements even though actual construction is undertaken and performed by some third party, so long as the improvements, listed in Section 2, are included within the project. Restrictive Covenant(Future Street Improvements) Page 2 of 4 Revision date; 1!1/01 IIII IllIllIllil E ii iii 2004-48277 (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, prior to construction of such improvements under this section, OWNER shall be provided not less than six (6) months written notice by first class mail that the project will be built. The notice shall advise OWNER that OWNER will share in the cost of such improvements and provide OWNER with an estimate of the total project cost as well as an estimate of OWNER'S share of the costs. Failure to provide this "six month" notice in advance of construction shall not nullify OWNER'S obligation to pay, but shall only extend the payment due date by the amount of time less than six months that notice was given, but not more than six months. Upon completion of improvements pursuant to this Section, CITY shall provide written notice to OWNER of OWNER'S share of the actual cost of the improvements and OWNER shall pay OWNER'S share within sixty (60) days. If OWNER's share of the cost of the improvements is $10,000 or more, the owner may elect to pay the City in 10 equal annual installments, with the first installment due within 60 days of the notice. The installment option shall be available only if the OWNER provides written notice and the first payment within 60 days of the notice. If the installment option is chosen, the unpaid amounts shall bear interest at the then legal rate of interest. Interest on overdue payments shall bear interest at the rate of one and one-half(1 %%) per month from the date the payment is due until paid. (2) Where the improvements listed in Section 2 are constructed by a third party, who seeks reimbursement in accordance with the Reimbursement District Ordinance, Chapter 13.09, TMC, or a similar ordinance, then the terms and procedures of the ordinances shall apply in lieu of the provisions in subsection (1) of this section. Section 9: At any time prior to the events listed in Section 4, OWNER or OWNER's successors may pay to the CITY an amount determined by the CITY to be OWNER's share of the anticipated cost of the future improvements. Payment under this section shall discharge all of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. City shall use the funds received under this section solely to pay for the costs of the improvements. Section 10: CITY and OWNER intend that all terms of this Agreement shall be covenants, conditions, and restrictions running with the title to the property covered by this Agreement, and shall be binding upon parties to this Agreement, their heirs, executors, assigns, administrators, and successors and shall be construed to be a benefit and a burden upon the property described in Section 1. The parties agree the CITY may, for purposes of recovering the cost of improvements described in Section 2, levy an assessment against the property, described in Section 1, and may enforce payment of such assessment in the manner provided in ORS Chapter 223 or the general laws of the State of Oregon. Section 11: Promptly after its execution by the parties, this Agreement shall be recorded in the records of Washington County to provide public notice and especially notice to future owners of property, described in Section 1 of the conditions, covenants and restrictions against the title to the property imposed by this Agreement. Section 12: CITY may enforce the terms of this Agreement in any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to any other legal remedies, OWNER'S failure or refusal to comply with this Agreement shall constitute a violation of the TMC and the rights, remedies, and penalties provided in the TMC may also be enforced. Restrictive Covenant (Future Street Improvements) Page 3 of 4 Revision Gate: 1/1/01 lIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIII 2004-48277 Section 13: If suit or action is instituted to enforce a right guaranteed in this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to, in addition to the statutory costs and disbursements, a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the trial and appellate courts respectively. Section 14: The parties agree that if any term of provision of this agreement is declared by a court to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, so long as this agreement continues to reflect the intent of the parties. The parties shall negotiate an equitable adjustment of this agreement so that the purposes of this agreement are effected. OWNER(S): ,,qq /.i, e d /) Sigrfatu,r= Signature 4 it ` -i2j' - / . Name (Pridt or Type Name (Print or Type) / #w 4 c r 5 Title (Print or Ty+)pe) Title (Print or Type) Acknowledgment of OWNER'S signature(s) must be notarized. Where the OWNER is a corporation, it has caused its name to be signed by resolution or official approval of its board of directors. STATE OF OREGON ) County of `tJ(),Okn`1, • ) On this 4C, ay /\ i , 20 C , before me a Notary Public, J personally appeared and acknowledged that the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. " __ -. Before me: kc i,v ib' /(9 ' at eek 1 � OFFICIAL SEAL otary_ P foy9regon• MONIKA M.CHEEK 1) ���-- �r�,, ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ( L�(_ e-62---- / � .�� COMMISSION NO.361650 ( My commission expires: (2 ,) 6-3---Oh �( MY COMMA EXP*ES SEPTEMBER 29,2006 ( c �: c- �� . _ . �... Accepted on behalf of the City of Tigard this 3rd day of M a./ , 20O-. o � . 0_1-0-4---......-.._-_ City Engineer NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT document2 Restrictive Covenant(Future Street Improvements) Page 4 of 4 Revision date. 1/1/01 zooa_4az„ FRANKLIN EVELAND ST :v GONZAGA ST Z - 1 F- co - SW ------ HAMPTON ST 4. W' ton County,Oregon 2004_048277 0 J04 01:33:18 PM D•IPPS Cnt=1 Stn=8 RECORD81 $25.00$6.00$11.00•Total=$42.00 t; After recording, return to: ( City of Tigard — Records Division G 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 00575211200400482770050057 I,Jerry Hanson,Director of A ment and Taxation Tigard, OR 97223 and Ex-Officio County Clerk for Washington County, Oregon,do hereby certify that the within instrument of writing was received and recorded In the book of 1�c'f records of said county. �� �' •i-y� ,.'.•I'^ Jerry R.Hanson,Director ment and Taxation, '� iR"o Ex Officio County Clerk RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS) THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this '/ day of 4p,e,L, 20 Ch , by the City of Tigard, a Municipal Corporation of Washington County, Oregon, ("CITY"), and rN p),b 3c I. L C__ , ("OWNER"). RECITALS WHEREAS OWNER is the Owner of record of Property covered by this Agreement as shown in Section 1 below, and WHEREAS OWNER has received approval of a development on the Property from the CITY, as set forth in SDR2003-00004 dated 5/29/03, and WHEREAS Chapter 18.810 of the TMC (Tigard Municipal Code) contains certain conditions applicable to street improvements, and issuance of permits is conditioned on OWNER'S compliance with the TMC, and WHEREAS OWNER wishes to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, and WHEREAS parties wish to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 18.810. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises, covenants and undertakings, and the issuance of a building permit in advance of OWNER constructing improvements required by the TMC, the parties agree as follows: Section 1: The real property subject to this Agreement is described as follows: Parcels of Partition or Subdiv Plat No. , recorded as Document No. Washington County, Oregon. LaLs 9-I( Eq-3[ 1j0c.(- 3 I kiest- ��ri-l� d 1 U1/1�NER a rees at the terms of this Agreemen shat 0 id me OWNER as well as its heirs, successors in interest or assigns. Section 2: The improvements covered by this Agreement are as follows: SW 70th Avenue Future half-street improvements Restrictive Covenant (Future Street Improvements) Page 1 of 4 Revision date. 1/1/01 2004-48277 Section 3: This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from the date of its execution until the improvements referred to in Section 2 are constructed in accordance with CITY standards in effect at the time of construction. Section 4: CITY agrees that the improvements listed in Section 2 will only be required as a result of any one of the following events: (1) when the improvements are part of a larger project to be financed or paid for by the formation of a Local Improvement District, (2) when the improvements are part of a larger public project to be financed or paid for in whole or in part by CITY or other public agency, (3) when the improvements are part of a larger project to be constructed by a third party and involves the sharing of design and/or construction expenses by the third party owner(s) of property in addition to the property described in Section 1, or (4) when construction of the improvements are deemed to be appropriate by the City Engineer in conjunction with construction of improvements by others adjacent to the improvements described in Section 2. In addition to this Agreement, OWNER'S obligation to share design and/or construction expenses may arise by application of the Reimbursement District Ordinance; Chapter 13.09, TMC, or any similar ordinance or law providing a process whereby such expenses are distributed among benefited properties. Section 5: OWNER agrees to sign any and all waivers, petitions, consents and all other documents necessary to obtain the above listed applicable improvements under any improvement act or proceeding of the State of Oregon, Washington County, or the CITY as may be proposed or adopted and to waive all right to remonstrate against the improvements listed in Section 2 above, submitted either alone or in conjunction with other improvements described in Section 4, as may be proposed. OWNER agrees that in lieu of any other document, CITY may treat this Agreement as a waiver of remonstrance on behalf of the property described in Section 1 against formation of such a Local Improvement District. OWNER covenants and agrees that the improvements described in Section 2 will specially benefit OWNER'S property as described in Section 1. Section 6: If CITY decides to form a Local Improvement District as a mechanism for the installation of improvements listed in Section 2, then OWNER shall retain the right to protest only the amount or the manner of spreading the assessment, but not the formation of such district. Section 7: CITY acknowledges that OWNER'S execution and performance of the terms of this Agreement constitutes compliance with the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.810. Section 8: OWNER agrees that if CITY causes the improvements listed in Section 2 to be constructed, or part of such improvements without regard to the source of funds for such project, but not as part of a Local Improvement District, then CITY will charge to OWNER and OWNER will promptly pay OWNER'S share of the cost of such improvements. OWNER'S share will be determined by CITY in a manner similar to spreading the cost of a public improvement to specially benefited properties. The parties intend OWNER to share in the cost of improvements even though actual construction is undertaken and performed by some third party, so long as the improvements, listed in Section 2, are included within the project. Restrictive Covenant(Future Street Improvements) Page 2 of 4 Revision date. 1/1/01 111111111H1111111111�I III 2004-48277 (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, prior to construction of such improvements under this section, OWNER shall be provided not less than six (6) months written notice by first class mail that the project will be built. The notice shall advise OWNER that OWNER will share in the cost of such improvements and provide OWNER with an estimate of the total project cost as well as an estimate of OWNER'S share of the costs. Failure to provide this "six month" notice in advance of construction shall not nullify OWNER'S obligation to pay, but shall only extend the payment due date by the amount of time less than six months that notice was given, but not more than six months. Upon completion of improvements pursuant to this Section, CITY shall provide written notice to OWNER of OWNER'S share of the actual cost of the improvements and OWNER shall pay OWNER'S share within sixty (60) days. If OWNER's share of the cost of the improvements is $10,000 or more, the owner may elect to pay the City in 10 equal annual installments, with the first installment due within 60 days of the notice. The installment option shall be available only if the OWNER provides written notice and the first payment within 60 days of the notice. If the installment option is chosen, the unpaid amounts shall bear interest at the then legal rate of interest. Interest on overdue payments shall bear interest at the rate of one and one-half (1 1/2%) per month from the date the payment is due until paid. (2) Where the improvements listed in Section 2 are constructed by a third party, who seeks reimbursement in accordance with the Reimbursement District Ordinance, Chapter 13.09, TMC, or a similar ordinance, then the terms and procedures of the ordinances shall apply in lieu of the provisions in subsection (1) of this section. Section 9: At any time prior to the events listed in Section 4, OWNER or OWNER's successors may pay to the CITY an amount determined by the CITY to be OWNER's share of the anticipated cost of the future improvements. Payment under this section shall discharge all of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. City shall use the funds received under this section solely to pay for the costs of the improvements. Section 10: CITY and OWNER intend that all terms of this Agreement shall be covenants, conditions, and restrictions running with the title to the property covered by this Agreement, and shall be binding upon parties to this Agreement, their heirs, executors, assigns, administrators, and successors and shall be construed to be a benefit and a burden upon the property described in Section 1. The parties agree the CITY may, for purposes of recovering the cost of improvements described in Section 2, levy an assessment against the property, described in Section 1, and may enforce payment of such assessment in the manner provided in ORS Chapter 223 or the general laws of the State of Oregon. Section 11: Promptly after its execution by the parties, this Agreement shall be recorded in the records of Washington County to provide public notice and especially notice to future owners of property, described in Section 1 of the conditions, covenants and restrictions against the title to the property imposed by this Agreement. Section 12: CITY may enforce the terms of this Agreement in any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to any other legal remedies, OWNER'S failure or refusal to comply with this Agreement shall constitute a violation of the TMC and the rights, remedies, and penalties provided in the TMC may also be enforced. Restrictive Covenant (Future Street Improvements) Page 3 of 4 Revision date: 1/1/01 1111111 11111111111111111 111 2004-48277 Section 13: If suit or action is instituted to enforce a right guaranteed in this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to, in addition to the statutory costs and disbursements, a reasonable attorney's fee to be fixed by the trial and appellate courts respectively. Section 14: The parties agree that if any term of provision of this agreement is declared by a court to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, so long as this agreement continues to reflect the intent of the parties. The parties shall negotiate an equitable adjustment of this agreement so that the purposes of this agreement are effected. OWNER(S): Sig' atur. Signature Name (Print or Type Name (Print or Type) Title (Print or Tye) Title (Print or Type) Acknowledgment of OWNER'S signature(s) must be notarized. Where the OWNER is a corporation, it has caused its name to be signed by resolution or official approval of its board of directors. STATE OF OREGON County of t\)0.01,./hA U • ) On this 46'4 v1:lay , 20 CV- , before me a Notary Public, personally appeared and acknowledged that the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. ti, w . .. Before me: 1 6 1 AA /'1 eek %4:=7 OFRCIAL SEAL OFRCIAL M.CHEEK otary P li fo regon r -"'� NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ) COMMISSION NO.361650 l My commission expires: cry n� -c-) 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 29,2006 ( .-.. �.,..�.�_ Accepted on behalf of the City of Tigard this 3rd day of Mal/ , 20O1-. -1) • 0- City Engineer NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT documenl2 Restrictive Covenant (Future Street Improvements) Page 4 of 4 Revision dote 1/1/01 ;' :ooa_aaz,, 7' FRANKLIN ...VELAND ST soli"� Illw Z � N Q \ GONZAGA ST I 111 II co co SW HAMPTON ST >-. 11111 `� � a