Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR2001-00010
SDR2001 - 0001O CAMERON PARK PLAZA NOTICE Of rot* ` I DEVELOPMENT. 1 y CITY OF 11G, ARD VARIANCE +i I i Deverop merit ommufit y K PLNIA tf 120 DAYS = 11/27/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CAMERON PARK PLAZA CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2001-00010 Variance (VAR) VAR2001-00013 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 69 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. OWNER: Saxony-Pacific, LLC APPLICANT: Welkin Engineering, Inc. Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions 8000 SW Pfaffle Street 5665 SW Meadows Road, #300 Tigard, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community I velopment Directoe signee has ": VED the above req bject to certain p- conclusions on which the dectsWit is based are noted in ' Vt. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 1 OF 25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit evidence of complying with the following conditions to the Planning Division. Staff contact: Mathew Scheidegger. 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 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: 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 2 OF 25 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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: Kit Church, Engineering). 15. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Division which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Pfaff le Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a minor collector street from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 16. If the applicant intends to make improvements to SW 78th Avenue, construction plans must be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. Plans must also be submitted to ODOT for any work involving the intersection at SW 78th Avenue/Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street. The construction plans would need to be approved by both the City and ODOT prior to issuance of the site permit. 17. The applicant's construction plans shall show the public sanitary sewer line in SW 79th Avenue to be extended to SW Pfaff le Street, as proposed by the applicant. 18. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 19. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 3 OF 25 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 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: 21. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 22. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as- builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. 23. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Pfaff le Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $6,463.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 24. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 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 Tax Lot (1 S136CD, Tax Lot 00600). Based on this search, two (2) previous site development reviews were found. SDR97-00016 was an approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office complex. The second, SDR1999-00011 was an approval to construct a 45-foot-high monopole tower within a 1,600 square foot lease area. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 4 OF 25 Vicinity Information: The subject site is located on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. The site is bordered on the east and west sides by property zoned Professional Commercial (C-P) and to the south by property zoned General Commercial (C-G). The property to the north is zoned R-4.5 and developed with single-family homes. However, SW Pfaffle Street separates properties to the north from the proposed building site. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 69 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer. However, the applicant's request to reduce the landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet was an error based on the site plan. Therefore, the variance needed is from the minimum 10 feet to 5 feet between the subject site and the property to the east. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET No comments were received. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICT Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the C-P: Professional Commercial District. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 5 OF 25 TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD C-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq.ft 46,144 sq.ft. -Detached unit - -Boarding,lodging,rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 235 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 0 ft[6] 83 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots[1] - - -Side yard 0/20 ft[3] 10 ft. -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - - -Rear yard 0/20 ft[3]- 10 ft. -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. - Maximum Height 45 ft 36 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 85% 75% Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 25% As demonstrated in the table above, the applicant's plans comply with the dimensional standards of the C-P zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Site Development Review criteria have been satisfied. B. 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. Variances and Adjustments (18.370): Variances shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using standards of approval contained in Subsection 2 below. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: The applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the landscape buffer from the minimum 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residentially developed property to the east. However, the adjoining property to the east has received site development review approval to construct a 23,940 square foot office building with its associated parking lot abutting the western property line. Therefore, instead of reducing the required buffer to 10 feet, for a commercial use abutting a residential use, the applicant's site plan shows the buffer reduced to 5 feet. The required 5 feet will be sufficient to buffer between the proposed office building in addition to the 10 feet of the proposed and approved office building on the property to the east. a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The properties adjoining the subject property are zoned (C-P) Professional Commercial and (C-G) General Commercial. However, the commercially zoned property to the east is developed with a single-family residence. The owner of the property has applied for and has received approval to demolish the residence and construct a 23,940 square foot office building (SDR1999-00024). The Welkin Corporate Center is slated to go forward in 2001 or 2002. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 6 OF 25 The developers of the Welkin Corporate Center (SDR1999-00024) arcel are working closely with the Cameron Plaza developers on many issues and are in favor of granting the variance. If approved, there is a possibility that the two projects may even combine driveways, which because of the timing issues with the setback restrictions that would not be possible. Because the area is in a state of transition, and the value of the property, it is doubtful the Welkin parcel will ever be considered for residential use again. Therefore, this request is applicable to the policies and standards for this zoning district, because it is not a materially detrimental to the Welkin property to the east. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The slope of the property and its wedge shaped configuration pushes the proposed building to the southwest corner of the site, placing the parking areas to the north and east. On the Welkin parcel, the building is proposed to the southeast. The two site plans work together best if the parking areas abut each other. Constructing the parking lots to abut the same property line, breaks up the one large landscape area, and offers a more uniform landscaping throughout the two parcels. No other properties are affected by this modification. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; No change in allowable use is requested and the remaining City standards will be maintained to their greatest extent. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and No existing physical and natural systems will be affected by this request. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The adjacent residential unit is being transitioned away with the approval of the Welkin Corporate Center (Approved but not yet under construction). A residential use would impose a greater buffer than if the Welkin Center was actually constructed. The applicant has no control over the timing of construction of the approved building to the east. FINDING: The Variance criteria are met as the applicant has shown that the project will be enhanced and there will be no adverse effects as a result of granting this variance. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. The applicant has provided plans showing access, egress and circulation from SW Pfaffle Street. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 7 OF 25 Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. No joint access is proposed at this time. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The proposed building is accessible from SW Pfaff le, a public street that will be maintained as a public street. Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. No driveway approach shall be less than five feet from the side property line projected except in cul-de-sacs, without approval and written permission of the city. The end slopes may encroach within the five foot restricted area. No portion of any driveway approach, including the end slopes, shall be located closer than thirty feet to an intersection street right-of-way line. Commercial or service drives shall not be more than thirty feet in width and if located on the same lot frontage shall be separated by a minimum length of curb of thirty feet. Each residential driveway shall be not more than twenty-six feet in width including end slopes, and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage spacing between such driveways shall be not less than thirty feet measured along the curb line. Joint access driveways shall conform to the appropriate width standard for commercial or residential type usage. The proposed site plan shows the curb cut at the entrance drive to be constructed out of concrete. The driveway approach is approximately 22 feet from the side property line. The width of the driveway approach is 38 feet. Therefore, this standard is met. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; According to the plans submitted, a concrete walkway extends from the main entrance on the east façade of the proposed building to the northern property line and connects to the proposed sidewalk of SW Pfaff le Street. 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 8 OF 25 distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The proposed walkway crosses a traffic aisle for a distance of 26 feet. Therefore, this standard has been 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 that all walkways will be concrete, which meets the standard. 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 (1) point of access into the parking lot that provides a 26-foot-wide access with 26 feet of pavement. The above standard indicates that a 30-foot-wide access with 24 feet of payment is required. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a plan showing a 30-foot-wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. One-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The entrance is designed for two-way traffic. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: • Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or • Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or • Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 9 OF 25 The applicant has not indicated whether or not the parking area is designed to connect with future parking areas on the adjacent parcel to the east. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. The rovision of a joint access would limit turning movement locations on Pfaff le Street and therefore, would allow improved circulation. A basis for granting the variance to the buffer area between the two properties is the joint access provision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITIONS: Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot-wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 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). The site plan shows six (6) Raywood Ash street trees along SW Pfaffle. The proposed trees are medium-sized trees and are spaced 30 feet apart. Therefore, this criterion has been met. 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. Property to the east and west are zoned (C-P) Professional Commercial. However, the parcel to the east is developed with a single-family residence. According to Table 18.745.1 (Buffer Matrix) the subject property is required to provide a buffer in accordance to the "D" standard of the Buffering Matrix. The "D" buffering standard allows for 3 different options of buffering (20 feet, 15 feet, and 10 feet). However, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the required buffering between the subject property and the abutting property to the east, which is addressed earlier in this decision, 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments). Screening: Special P-rovisions: 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 area is screened to the north by a 13.5-foot-wide landscaped buffer with a combination of low-lying ground cover (Little Gem Cotoneaster) and Blue Arctic Willow and Spring Bouquet Viburnum (vertical shrubbery). The proposed combination of low lying and vertical shrubbery is sufficient in screening the parking area from SW Pfaffle Street. The parking area is shown with 69 parking stalls. According to the above standard, the site is required to have 1 parking lot tree for every 7 spaces. The intent is to provide a canopy effect NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 10 OF 25 within the parking lot. The applicant's narrative indicates there are 15 trees within the parking lot used for the purpose of satisfying this standard. The site plan provides 7 trees located in landscaped islands throughout the parking lot. Based on a 69 stall parking lot, the applicant is required to provide 10 parking lot trees within landscaped islands equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is conditioned to provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. 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; Screening of Service Facilities is addressed under Chapter 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. CONDITION: Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. 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 chosen to demonstrate compliance with the Minimum Standards Method. According to Minimum Standards, an office use is required to provide a minimum storage area of 10 square feet, plus 4 square feet per 1,000 square feet gross floor area (GFA). The applicant is proposing to develop a 20,925 square foot building which will require a 94 square foot storage area. The applicant has proposed a 110 square foot storage area. However, the applicant has not provided a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. Therefore , the applicant will be required to provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storag NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 11 OF 25 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. However, the site plan shows the proposed refuse containers to be located within the front yard setback. Therefore, the applicant will need to provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 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 design standards for the refuse enclosure have not been addressed. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 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: CONDITIONS: • Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. • Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. • Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secure in a closed and open position. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location of vehicle parking: Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. The parking lot associated with this project, at the furthest point away from the proposed building, is 87 feet. The building itself is proposed to be 20,925 square feet. The applicant is proposing the building to be occupied with an office use. Based on Table 18.765.2 (Minimum and Maximum Parking), Office use is required to provide a minimum of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet and a maximum of 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 12 OF 25 Therefore, the building is required to provide at minimum 56 parking spaces and a maximum of 86 spaces. The site plan shows the site to have 69 parking spaces. Therefore, the standard is met. 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 does not apply. 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 develo ment, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3 Subsequent use or g dg uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060. 4)maximum parking allowances hall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. The project is not considered a mixed-use project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. 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 will exceed 20 long-term parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 13 OF 25 The site plan shows the site will have a total of 69 parking stalls. According to the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards, a parking lot with 51-75 parking stalls is required to provide 3 stalls that are ADA accessible. The site plan does indicate 3 ADA accessible parking stalls located at the front entrance of the proposed building. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the siteL 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 under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). 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 under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). 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. There is only one (1) access into the parking lot. Therefore, no directional arrows will be required. 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 site plan indicates that parking stalls adjacent to the interior walkway will be constructed with a 4-inch-high concrete wheel stop with a 3-foot bumper overhang. Therefore, this criterion is met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 14 OF 25 The applicant's plans indicate that all parking stalls but 9 compact spaces will meet the minimum dimensions for standard parking stalls. Aisle widths meet the minimum standard of 24 feet. 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. 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 10 stall bicycle rack. The site plan indicates an 11 stall bicycle rack will be provided on the east side of the building. According to the criterion above, the bicycle rack cannot be located within a pedestrian way. The proposed bicycle rack is adjacent to the front entrance. However, a 10-foot-wide access isle is maintained to the front entrance. Therefore, this standard is met. Bicycle Parkin 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 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 arking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parkin 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. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 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 is required to provide a 10-stall bicycle rack. The site plan indicates an eleven (11) stall bicycle rack will be provided. Therefore, this standard has been met. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 15 OF 25 Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for General Office Use is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the maximum is 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Based on a 20,925 square foot building, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 56 and a maximum of 86 parking spaces. The plans provide 69 parking spaces. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed site will be constructed with a commercial building that is 20,925 square feet. According to the standard, the site plan shows the site to have two (2) loading spaces that comply with Section 18.765.080.B. (Off-Street Loading Dimensions) of the Tigard Development Code. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met: CONDITIONS: • Provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 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. The applicant has provided a report prepared by a certified arborist and a plan indicating which trees are to be removed. Based on the information provided, the applicant is required to mitigate for 100 percent of the 71 inches to be removed that are not in poor condition. The applicant has indicated on the landscape plan that 73 inches of trees will be planted to satisfy the requirement. However, Staff cannot determine which trees will be planted in order to satisfy the requirement (street trees and parking lot trees do not count for mitigation). Therefore, the applicant must provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required mitigation of 71 inches. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met: CONDITION:Provide a plan showing, which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required mitigation of 71 inches. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 16 OF 25 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 ri9ht- 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 (P(Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 rovision for the Disabled). 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. Siting the building and parking lot requires the removal of all of the existing nine (9) trees. Tree Mitigation has been discussed under Chapter 18.790. The proposed building does not alter the existing topography because the existing topography is relatively flat. The existing grade differential is 7 feet over a 220-foot linear dimension, thereby demonstrating a flat site of less than 5 percent grade. According to the geotechnical report, the site is underlain by fine- grained silt, clay and sand (Pleistocene Flood Deposits), which vary in sustainability based on tie season. However, the geotechnical report does provide fill recommendations based on conditions of the soil at time of compaction. Therefore, this standard has been met. Crime Prevention and Safety: Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 17 OF 25 • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially 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 located on all sides of the building. However, The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has requested an exterior lighting plan. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, which is not on Tri-met transit routes, therefore, this standard does not apply. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Dimensional Requirements: Provisions of the (C-P) Professional Commercial Zoning District have been addressed earlier in this decision under Section 18.520.040.B. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have not been met. CONDITION: Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. D. 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 18.810.030(E) requires a minor collector street to have a 60-foot right-of-way width and a 40-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 18 OF 25 SW Pfaffle Street This site lies adjacent to SW Pfaffle Street, which is classified as a minor collector on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide a minimum of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans indicate they will provide this dedication. SW Pfaffle Street is currently paved, but not fully improved to City standards. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of this site. The applicant's plans indicate they will provide this improvement as a part of the project. Other Transportation Improvements The applicant s traffic study points out various deficiencies in the existing transportation system in the area, including a queuing problem on SW 78 h Avenue, between SW Pfaffle Street and Highway 99W. These other issues will be discussed in more detail in the Traffic Study Findings section later in the report. 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. By constructing the half-street improvement in SW Pfaffle Street, this standard will be met. 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 public sewer line in SW 81st Avenue, just nortfb of SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant intends to extend the public line southerly in SW 81 Avenue to SW Pfaffle Street, where a new manhole will be installed to terminate the line. A service lateral will then be extended to the site. The public sewer line does not need to be extended east or west because those adjacent sites are being, or will be, served from other public sewer lines. For instance, the proposed Welkin project immediately to the east, will be served from the existing public line in SW 79 Avenue. 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 Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The topography of this site slopes to the northwest, and the southern property line is near the top of a ridge. The property to the south of the site is fully developed and slopes away from this site. The storm drainage system in SW Pfaffle Street will be enhanced by this development by installation of a 12-inch main line along the frontage. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 19 OF 25 Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans show that the onsite runoff will be directed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and detained in a pond. The water will exit the pond and will discharge into the public storm drainage system in SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant's preliminary sizing calculations for the detention facility indicate that they are providing adequate storage of stormwater to meet CWS standards. 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. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion 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. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: . The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; . 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 20 OF 25 • 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 existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Pfaff le Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 235 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $6,463.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering for this project, and is dated June 2001. Lancaster analyzed three local intersections that would be impacted from this development: • SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street • SW Pfaffle Street/SW 78th Avenue • Highway 99W/SW 78th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street Lancaster performed manual intersection traffic counts in April 2001, and compared the numbers to counts taken in 1997/1998. They found that there has been a small growth in AM peak hour traffic, and a reduction in PM peak hour traffic at the study intersections. Based on this finding, Lancaster applied the proposed site-generated traffic to these intersections without assuming an annual growth rate. Staff concurs with this theory. Lancaster found that three traffic signal warrants (per MUTCD) are currently met at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street. However, they also found that the intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) D during the PM peak hour, and will continue to operate at LOS D after this project is fully operational. LOS D is considered acceptable for an unsignalized intersection. For this reason, a traffic signal is not recommended The other two intersections will also continue to operate at acceptable LOS, with the intersection of Highway 99W/SW 78 Avenue continuing to operate at LOS D. Howeve[n Lancaster and the applicant point out that there is an existing queuing problem on SW 78 Avenue, with vehicles stacking back beyond the intersection at SW Pfaffle Street during peak hour . The applicant has expressed interest in adding an additional southbound lane on SW 78t Avenue to help alleviate the stacking problem. The applicant has met with both ODOT and City staff with regard to the proposed solution. If ODOT and the City approve the applicant's solution, the applicant would be eligible for Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits for those improvements. In order to receive the credit, the applicant would need to complete the improvements as a part of this project. Public Water System: This site is located in the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. There is an existing public water line located in SW Pfaffle Street that will service this site. The applicant must coordinate with TVWD with regard to the water service for the site. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 21 OF 25 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 plans indicate they will treat the stormwater with an extended dry detention pond. The preliminary sizing calculations indicate there is adequate storage in the proposed pond for treatment of the site runoff. 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. 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 five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The preliminary grading and erosion control plan meet current CWS standards. A final version of this plan must be reviewed by the Engineering and Building Departments prior to construction. 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. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 22 OF 25 D. 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 rojected 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 $70,646 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 $220,769 ($70,646 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the collector and arterial street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $150,123. The applicant has proposed to construct half-street improvements along SW Pfaffle Street since this is the frontage they are obtaining access from. The cost of the improvements is expected to be $67,563 (1,175 square feet x $12.00 per square foot, $14,100 + 235 feet x $200 per linear foot for half-street improvements, + 235 feet x $27.50 for underground utilities), thus it meets the rough proportionality test. In any event, the applicant has proposed to construct these improvements. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Public Works Division has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comment: Issues related to trees to remain in relation to survivability and building plans. Also, questions regarding tree mitigation. Staff Response: The applicant has been conditioned to provide a tree mitigation plan, which will be routed to the City's Arborist for review. The City of Tigard Advanced Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 23 OF 25 The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: • Request lighting plan for exterior. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: • Fire hydrants/fire department access to be approved by TVFR. • A separate site and plumbing permit will be required. • A Geo Tech Report with soil bear and liquefaction potential will be required. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: I have reviewed the submittal for the above named project and have the following comments: 1. The minimum required fire flow is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi (see attached fire flow worksheet. Fire District records indicate the minimum fire flow is available, therefore a current hydrant flow will not be necessary. (UFC Appendix III-A) 2. A minimum of 3 fire hydrants shall be provided for this development (see attached fire flow worksheet). Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no part of the structure is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. (UFC 903.4) 3. The fire department connection (FDC) shall be located within 70 feet of a fire hydrant. Fire department connections shall not be attached to the protected structure. (UFC 903.4.2.5) 4. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) 5. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704) 6. A Knox brand key box shall be provided on the building. Contact the Fire Marshal's Office for installation details and an application. (UFC Chapter 9) 7. A building survey and plans, in accordance with —VF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the Fire District web site. To access this information via Internet, follow this link: http://www.tvfr.com/Departments/FireMarshal/new construction.htm 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 SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 24 OF 25 Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 3, 2001 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: 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 OCTOBER 2, 2001. 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. tem 'At � �� September 18, 2001 PREPARE I BY. ►'" ew Sch••i.-gger DATE Assistant Pla ner a — � P�� ���� September 18, 2001 APPROVED BY: Richard H. %e �ersdorff DATE Planning Manager I:\curpin\mathew\sdr\SDR2001-00010.dec.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 25 OF 25 • C I T Y o t■■ ' ■ ■, 1 \ 17411111 O01. O viM■ _ _■' SPR CE ST 11111 11111111 VICINITY MAP -SPR ST i SPRUCE ! r verVIIIIIIIN I- THORN S . ���� T � g°® �� iligl® %e a SDR2001 -00010 g VAR200 I -000 13 min jr.11, � CAMERON PLAZA mew r liii I. ., r� ,..2,1:4 PF_ =LE 111116 NprANOM PG 1 Q �11 Ns 1111■ '441111‘ •.. 917` '4' • -c--- N • L0 400 000 Fat �� �ry �� 1'e 503 feet Oil,* ii �-,� rl►►, fTi City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. __ 13125 SW Hall Blvd 111611SWIP.- :>1111111111.11.".118.101°.'"..1 r .-• N PL Tigard.OR 97223 d er (503)939-4171 h t tp:I Mrviw,c 1.t i g a rd.or.w Community Development Plot date:Jul 30,2001;C:\magicWIAGIC03.APR ivi SW PFAFFLE STREET n - _ Z PARKING HANG _ _ zf-u O fln tff. o--NAfEr NUTALTYREIEknIx4 . - .-.T . . I --- - -1 s. M1 N) II I I / I `- - 52I-531 54 551 561 571-58 59 601 61 62 631 641 65 66 / / • 1 I /_ COMPACT N. / I I E CROSSWALK STRIPING ----- u ACCESS 2S RAR N` 1/ c''i 4 I 0 1 (INSIDE WHEEL),IS - RAD.(OUTSIDE WFIEE1.) \ I I -- I � 50 I _.= 1 f 0 5 1 51 ° 49 48 47 461 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 6 I Z �_ �� L 35 Z 1 n 34 — 7 1 Q WHEEL STOP, TYP 8 J I 1 67 68 I 33_ 9 I r 32 a. 1 — 1_ 10 I CI 31 a' 1 a 11 1 Ce t \\�\ 8 12 I Q 1 - �A°� 13 C0 1 1 1 �e 14 I �v I PROPOSE �D 2 STORY 15. LL iI 1 (20.000 SF) _ - 16 1 BUILDING J11 jI c O 1 I BICYCLE PARKING. I 1 -TOTAL OF 10 SPACES 17 1'J; 29 18 I F- 28 t9 0 1 1 27 0 I H26 " 21 I Ali--€1. 0 25 22 5• 19'-0- 26'-0- —79' ; 5' \L9- 1 23 tC \ �� 24 _u2 6" C I1 'Y' T G RD + SDR200 1-000 1 0/VAR200 1-000 1 3 o F q SITE PLAN N�i A CAMERON PLAZA (Map is not to scale) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00010 alt■ VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00013 !1'ch!. CITY OF TIOARD CAMERON Community�DeveCopment AMERON PARK PLAZA ShapingA Better Community 120 DAYS = 11/27/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CAMERON PARK PLAZA CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2001-00010 Variance (VAR) VAR2001-00013 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 69 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. OWNER: Saxony-Pacific, LLC APPLICANT: Welkin Engineering, Inc. Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions 8000 SW Pfaffle Street 5665 SW Meadows Road, #300 Tigard, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 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 SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 3, 2001 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal, ector'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 18.390.040.6.2 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 OCTOBER 2, 2001. Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Mathew Scheidegger at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. , tp.4 W E. " H 1 hit I II I L.IIIMII1"ra R>f i la 4 111111 I ME VICINITY MAP M' ei - �rM...�■∎ 1111 �� ���`■1�I mil a tll " ri�2 /-iii= — ■ :o_o iiL SDR200 1-000 1 0 L I �� 22: 1 is g = YAR2001-00013 mil j1 ! jl! L M =I .. CAMERON PLAZA ow NE■Imo .... li.ra-N ) ! Eh 1 11r Ilk 1, \ / SIN ∎ mi., iih I p N \ • -�� I1 / x . `. Ilis . F'd k .0., • ►�' ,� I ._A ime OM.'" I= fIrraik :_ \ ....... ..------- wwr --- SW PFAFFLE STREET - ` _ z F= _ _- O JI 152 53 5.50 56 521 56 5. 60 61 u 65 ..65166 ,1 / > 2 0 6 Hp 0 ��2. 1 , :5 51 1 M .2 N 45 ..f N 42 41 .0 Si 2. 321 I b •6 I Z --f4 ,"2"-- . 2 1 1 9 52 — I 51— Y 10 moo/ \\ 11 �L \ 12 a I• • _II CI ' 1��°612�1s.' \\\\\� Is L1. Ps.6M Ml H - !��_ 0 , u 1 I „_ 'L':Mao.2 to n b U 1 2 H 2 20 20 21 23 2: d \ �� 22 . CITY OF TIGARD � SDR2001-00010IYAR2001-00013 SITE PLAN N' CAMERON PLAZA (Map is not to scale) NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENI JER,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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping A Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: July 31, 2001 FILE NUMBERS: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00010 Type II Land Use Application VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00013 FILE NAME: CAMERON PARK PLAZA PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 815` Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. 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 AUGUST 14, 2001. All comments should be directed to Mathew Scheidegcier, Assistant 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 SEPTEMBER 6, 2001. 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." i . iillow Ira i I ] III II`I VICINITY MAP .■■ ■• ■� ■II •_ II1.III1 II n SPRUCE 1 MIME "U" M �� ll��F I i /111/��� �M� ���®�a�e re SDR2001-00010 ao. is� YAR2001-00013 �= S`II film Nora ---- -, no .I. n:;�m'�1. CAMERON PLAZA NOM •• 5 =N:mom11ENM - ■ 114 Nil° �1 _�! IIIUimow11. --- II lh, imeolh. Nun" ,\\Torgimr____r___ _____ LI IlHah. II v.,4 _ 1. k.. No IL. I mu'r 'IR IllirA 1114111Nili O� A it ..- * / h A Al. City Ttgard SWTII MnM b MYC.AIn M D....m+M S..vb.OM.bn T1233O 01220 OJ = REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE Sept. 7 2001 PLANS CHECK NO PROJECT TITLE: Cameron Park Pl. Office Bldg. COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE WORKSHEET APPLICANT: (FOR NON-SINGLE FAMILY USES) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY/ZIP/PHONE TAX MAP NO LAND USE CATEGORY RATE PER TRIP SITES NO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL $ 226.00 BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL $ 57.00 X OFFICE $ 207.00 This is an estimated TIF INDUSTRIAL $ 217.00 INSTITUTIONAL $ 94.00 PAYMENT METHOD: CASH/CHECK C• REDIT BANCROFT(PROMISSORY NOTE) INSTITUTIONAL ONLY D• EFER TO OCCUPANCY LAND USE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF USE WEEKDAY AVG WEEKEND AVG.TRIP RATE 710A Office General TRIP RATE 16.31 BASIS: Applicant proposes construction of a new 20,925 sq. ft. office building. CALCULATIONS: TIF = T.G.S.F. X Weekday Ave trips X Rate per Trip _ $70,646 = 20.925 X 16.31 X $207 Transit Amt. = trip Generation X $17 $5,797 = 341 X $17 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 341 FEE. $70,646 FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY ADDITIONAL NOTES: No Credits applied ROAD AMT. $64,849 T• RANSIT AMT. $5,797 P• REPARED BY: S.S. Casper I:TIFWKST.DOC (DST) EFF: 07-01-98 OMEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: September 7, 2001 TO: Matthew Scheidegger, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer 171 RE: SDR 2001-00010, Cameron Park Plaza 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 18.810.030(E) requires a minor collector street to have a 60-foot right-of-way width and a 40-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. SW Pfaffle Street This site lies adjacent to SW Pfaffle Street, which is classified as a minor collector on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide a minimum of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans indicate they will provide this dedication. SW Pfaffle Street is currently paved, but not fully improved to City standards. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of this site. The ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 1 applicant's plans indicate they will provide this improvement as a part of the project. Other Transportation Improvements The applicant's traffic study points out various deficiencies in the existing transportation system in the area, including a queuing problem on SW 78th Avenue, between SW Pfaffle Street and Highway 99W. These other issues will be discussed in more detail in the Traffic Study Findings section later in the report. 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. By constructing the half-street improvement in SW Pfaffle Street, this standard will be met. 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 public sewer line in SW 81st Avenue, just north of SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant intends to extend the public line southerly in SW 81st Avenue to SW Pfaffle Street, where a new manhole will be installed to terminate the line. A service lateral will then be extended to the site. The public sewer line does not need to be extended east or west because those adjacent sites are being, or will be, served from other public sewer lines. For instance, the proposed Welkin project immediately to the east, will be served from the existing public line in SW 79th Avenue. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 2 Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The topography of this site slopes to the northwest, and the southern property line is near the top of a ridge. The property to the south of the site is fully developed and slopes away from this site. The storm drainage system in SW Pfaffle Street will be enhanced by this development by installation of a 12-inch main line along the frontage. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans show that the onsite runoff will be directed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and detained in a pond. The water will exit the pond and will discharge into the public storm drainage system in SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant's preliminary sizing calculations for the detention facility indicate that they are providing adequate storage of stormwater to meet CWS standards. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 3 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. 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. 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. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 4 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 existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 235 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 6,463.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering for this project, and is dated June 2001. Lancaster analyzed three local intersections that would be impacted from this development: • SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street • SW Pfaff le Street/SW 78th Avenue • Highway 99W/SW 78th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street Lancaster performed manual intersection traffic counts in April 2001, and compared the numbers to counts taken in 1997/1998. They found that there has been a small growth in AM peak hour traffic, and a reduction in PM peak hour traffic at the study intersections. Based on this finding, Lancaster applied the proposed site-generated traffic to these intersections without assuming an annual growth rate. Staff concurs with this theory. Lancaster found that three traffic signal warrants (per MUTCD) are currently met at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street. However, they also found that the intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) D during the PM peak hour, and will continue to operate at LOS D after this project is fully operational. LOS D is considered acceptable for an unsignalized intersection. For this reason, a traffic signal is not recommended ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 5 The other two intersections will also continue to operate at acceptable LOS, with the intersection of Highway 99W/SW 78th Avenue continuing to operate at LOS D. However, Lancaster and the applicant point out that there is an existing queuing problem on SW 78th Avenue, with vehicles stacking back beyond the intersection at SW Pfaffle Street during peak hours. The applicant has expressed interest in adding an additional southbound lane on SW 78th Avenue to help alleviate the stacking problem. The applicant has met with both ODOT and City staff with regard to the proposed solution. If ODOT and the City approve the applicant's solution, the applicant would be eligible for Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits for those improvements. In order to receive the credit, the applicant would need to complete the improvements as a part of this project. Public Water System: This site is located in the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. There is an existing public water line located in SW Pfaffle Street that will service this site. The applicant must coordinate with TVWD with regard to the water service for the site. 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 plans indicate they will treat the stormwater with an extended dry detention pond. The preliminary sizing calculations indicate there is adequate storage in the proposed pond for treatment of the site runoff. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 6 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. 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 five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The preliminary grading and erosion control plan meet current CWS standards. A final version of this plan must be reviewed by the Engineering and Building departments prior to construction. 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. 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 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza 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 a site permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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: Kit Church, Engineering). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 8 The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Division which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Pfaff le Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a minor collector street from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; I. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. If the applicant intends to make improvements to SW 78th Avenue, construction plans must be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. Plans must also be submitted to ODOT for any work involving the intersection at SW 78th Avenue/Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street. The construction plans would need to be approved by both the City and ODOT prior to issuance of the site permit. The applicant's construction plans shall show the public sanitary sewer line in SW 79th Avenue to be extended to SW Pfaff le Street, as proposed by the applicant. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 9 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 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 complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Pfaffle Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 6,463.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 10 . - made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 1\tig333\usr\depts\eng\brianr\comments\sdrlsdr2001-00010.doc ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 2001-00010 Cameron Park Plaza PAGE 11 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY n FTIOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community DATE: July 31,2001 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Dennis Koellermeier,Operations Manager AUG 1 5 2001 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner fx31TJ Phone: (503)639-4111/Fax: (5031684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISORI 2001-00010/VARIANCE[VARI 2001-00013 CAMERON PARK PLAZA REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CSD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81st Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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: AUGUST 14, 2001. 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: 0,-1- in 3ervict 3-13JIu lSTN1 — /A--ieewily 71 Abyd- ZSL- Ay ,Zet-Lvtviiifq4- ..//4nA 1,41 7 nr..: 4,4 7 6//c 0) ase prarnde thefolkwing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I 4 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community cDeveCopment Shaping Better Community DATE: July 31,2001 TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division AUG10 '�VUi CITY OF TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner[x3111 Phone: (5031639-4111/Fax: (5031684-1297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISOR12001-00010/VARIANCE(VAR)2001-00013 CAMERON PARK PLAZA REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CSD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81st Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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: AUGUST 14, 2001. 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: "eq1/4/&c" \‘--h r 9100 C-0f e.,Xte(tol . (P1Tease provide thefolfowing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: vJ bl-(' 'Phone Number(s): `f• az4 I 441, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIGARD Community cDeve(opment Shaping Better Community DATE: July 31,2001 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Long Range Planning Staff: Duane ' Joel P AUG 0 7 2001 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner[x3111 Phone: [503)639-4111/Fax: [503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)2001-00010/VARIANCE[VAR(2001-00013 CAMERON PARK PIA REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CSD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81st Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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: AUGUST 14, 2001. 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: (PCease provide the following information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CIOFTIGARD Community(Development Shaping f7 Better Community DATE: July 31,2001 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Gary Lampella,Building Official AUG 0 7 2001 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY WARD STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner[x3171 Phone: [503)639-4171/Fax: [503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)2001-00010/VARIANCE[VAR)2001-00013 CAMERON PARK PLAZA REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CSD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81st Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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: AUGUST 14, 2001. 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: ov Are, 2) A PLcc tv c./J G, -4)i -P—Mct— w. u� �a a ' .u i A Grs o ee.vc 2e.poQ - u-1 ` SO t�. tae_ p,. h L0 c u.E FAG-boJ 411541T-I r -< Ls.) rw , tc (P&ase pravu(e the foltowing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: 2 I Phone Number(s): 2,,- I REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C;OF HOARD Community cDevetopment Shaping A g3etter Community RECEIVED PLANNING DATE: lily 31,2001 AUG 01 2001 TO: n Roy,Property Manager/Operations Department CITY OF'CGARO FROM: , City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner[x3111 Phone: (5031639-4171/Fax: (5031684-1297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR)2001-00010/VARIANCE[VAR)2001-00013 CAMERON PARK PLAZA < REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CSD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81st Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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: AUGUST 14, 2001. 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: (PCease provide thefolTowing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CI TIGARD Community(Development Shaping A Better Community DATE: July 31,2001 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner 1x3171 Phone: 15031639-4171/Fax: (5031684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR)2001-00010/VARIANCE[VAR)2001-00013 CAMERON PARK PLAZA REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CSD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81st Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 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: AUGUST 14, 2001. 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: (lease provide thefofkwing information)Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I CI I OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMI►,..ATS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOLSI: .S X19( — °2/Z) FILE NAME[S]: ez--. rc7-<`o/ CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS I4-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO CIT AREA: Central ❑ East N South ❑ West ❑ L! Also Place For Review in Library CIT Book CITY OFFICES LONG RANGE PLANNING/Nadine Smith,Supervisor COMMUNITY DVLPMNT. DEPT./Dvlpmnt Svcs.Technicians ‘-'<_POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,Cnme Prevention Officer BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official ' ENGINEERING DEPT./Brian Rager,Dvlpmnt Review Engineer 'WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,Utilities Manager CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder c:,...71 OPERATIONS DEPT./John Roy,Property Mgr.-Matt Stine.Arbonst ✓ PLANNER-TIME TO POST PROJECT SITE! SPECIAL DISTRICTS TUAL. HILLS PARK& REC. DIST.*"TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE& RESCUE * TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT * ___UNIFIED SWRGE.AGENCY * Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Julia Huffman/SWM Program 15101 SW Walker Road Washington County fire Distract PO Box 14S 155 N.First Street Beaverton,OR 91006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 91015 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 775 Summer Street NE Irish Bunnell,Development services PO Box 369 PO Box 59 Salem,OR 97301-1279 PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 Portland,OR 97207 Beaverton,OR 97076 _ OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM. METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING * _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE CITY OF DURHAM toe 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 _ Carol Hall,Data Resource Center(zCA) _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97281-3483 _ Paulette Allen,Growth Management Coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue Mel Huie,Greenspaces Coordinator(CPA/ZOA) Larry French(Comp Plan Amendments Only) PO Box 2946 CITY OF KING CITY #e Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regonal Planner(Wetlands) 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 Portland,OR 97208-2946 City Manager _ C.D. Manager,Growth Management Services Salem,OR 97301-2540 15300 SW 116th Avenue WASHINGTON COUNTY* King City,OR 97224 _ OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY(Powertines in Area) _OREGON DEPT.OF TRANS.(ODOT) Dept.of Land Use&Transp. Bonneville Power Administration Aeronautics Division 155 N.First Avenue CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO* Routing TTRC-Attn: Renae Ferrera Tom Highland,Planning Suite 350,MS 13 Planning Director PO Box 3621 3040 25th Street,SE Hillsboro.OR 97124 PO Box 369 Portland,OR 97208-3621 Salem,OR 97310 _Brent Curtis(CPA) Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Gregg Leion(CPA) OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT,REGION 1 * _Anne LaMountain(IGANRO) _CITY OF PORTLAND (NOety for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) _Sonya Kazen,Development Review Coordinator _Phil Healy(icANRB) David Knowles,Planning Bureau De Regional Administrator _Cad Toland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) _Steve Conway(General Apps) Portland Building 106,Rm. 1002 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders Sr.Cartographer(ce.aco)us t. 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 i Jane Estes,Permit Specialist 5440 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 350 h\patty\masters\Request For Comments Notification List 2.doc (Revised 19-Oct-00) Portland,OR 97221-2414 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES _PORTLAND WESTERN R/R, BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Burlington Northern Santa Fe RJR Predecessor) Robert I. Melbo,President&General Manager 110 W. 10th Avenue Albany,OR 97321 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON %'1TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Anne.aoons Only) Pat McGann (If Project rs Within'.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 Beaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portland,OR 97232 _PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY _GENERAL TELEPHONE QUEST COMMUNICATIONS Jim VanKleek,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer Elaine Self,Engineering Richard Jackson,Engineering 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue MC: OR030546 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 11C Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _TCI CABLE(Apps.E of HalVN n(99W) Marsha Butler,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics&Planning Dept. Diana Carpenter 13137 SW Pacific Highway 16550 SW Merlo Road 3500 SW Bond Street Tigard.OR 97223 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Portland,OR 97232 *INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATIOHJNS011PUAKCEVITNJNTERGOVERNMINTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500'OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/All CITY PROJECTS(Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). MAILING RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CIA 444, TGARD Community Development S hoping A 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 Appropnate Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2001-00010/VAR200I-00013 — CAMERON PLAZA ❑ 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 September 18,2001, and deposited in the United States Mail on September 18,2001, postage prepaid. 2,L. 4/614e,-/ . Lie- . lire-- (Person that Prepared i. e) STATE OF oEGoN ) County off Washington )ss. City of tgard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of 0e/16 A-6 r , 2001. :,te, OFFICIAL SEAL r! '°•''^4%.1. DIANE M JELDERKS '''t,-,%'/' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ' MY COMMISSION NO. SEPT. ,I�4/1_MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 2 /l_ ' I ' l ; 1 1 '1'. I 'I My Commission Expir. ;. • EXHIBIT NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00010 VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00013 OF& CITY OF TIGARD CAMERON PARK PLAZA shapingAB Community 120 DAYS = 11/27/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CAMERON PARK PLAZA CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2001-00010 Variance (VAR) VAR2001-00013 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 69 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. OWNER: Saxony-Pacific, LLC APPLICANT: Welkin Engineering, Inc. Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions 8000 SW Pfaffle Street 5665 SW Meadows Road, #300 Tigard, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 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 SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 3, 2001 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. A__p.,eal: 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 OCTOBER 2, 2001. I Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Mathew Scheidegger at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. �: ■ 111 .` VICINITY MAP .d.iif:6: , ) . iir1li I l l T ` n.01 '."' •— SDR2001 000 I 0 ml 2:1111%r — ,. VAR2001-00013 �� MINIM �' _ — CAMERON PLAZA X171 NE •••1 •I'm III 1s IN 7 Ilkl NW Am :11=1 — 1 � � �/ . por 'Ilk 0°P4 7 r,c c 1)0°' 1 1 ki PI -c---- A �___ rr r cm AVITIA AO \ MIrM Nola*61166 SiMIL‘m SW PFAFFLE STREET Z -- - f==...s__ c O -� 15}1 56155156 571561591160 61 62 65 H165166 /I I 1 �_ lin NII/GI 2 '6 11-, o w1 111 - z • 6'1' M6 - t 6 Z 5 SO 1 1 1 � M YI 611 NI 661{{1'U 6216,1{OI xI 16112 J6 M_I 1( Z Fa 1111 II'' 1111 1111 ) Q x e J 1 62 a 32 - 0 i ' I 5 X 11 1 \ a,2 i a 16 - `CD 8.4:I1 - 1 16 ��N\ 15 U- 0 H �r — 1 16 O 111 I MIME W11003). 12 1 >- _ e f- L m I 9 U 6 --- 1 11 4-22: , 1 I 26 r,2i __ I6 c) _ _ 25 r� 22 r l'4\\ 123 I �� I6 1r! I CITY OF TIGARD Nt SDR2001-00010/YAR2001-00013 I SITE PLAN •6 '\ CAMERON PLAZA (Map Is not to scale) _ _ ___ _ EMU ' _i 1 136CB-0'2300 1 S 136CD-00500 ALVAREZ ERICK A&DORIS K CHRIS N EN JILL K 11190 SW 82ND AVE 293 SW RVANTES TIGARD,OR 97223 LAK S GO,OR 97035 1 S 136CC-02200 1S 136CB-02400 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT LTD COOLMAN HERBERT R&ENOLA MAE T 11336 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD#103 11160 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CC-00200 1S 136CA-03700 ANDR W MANAGEMENT LTD CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R 11336 BULL MOUNTAIN RD#103 11260 SW 79TH AVE TIGA D, 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136CC-00100 1 S 136CA-03100 BARASCH STEPHEN CURNES MELINDA L& BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE SHELTON DUANE C GENERAL MOTORS CORP M/C483-616-420 11215 SW 79TH AVE 16 E JUDSON ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PONTIAC,MI 48342 1 S 136CB-06800 1 S 136CB-01800 BARKER KENNETH W DAVIS DWIGHT J DONIS L 11263 SW 81ST AVE 11215 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-06700 1 S 136CB-06900 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K DEARMOND JULIA 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01001 1 S 136CA-03000 CHEVRON U S A INC DENNY DOUGLAS D& PO BOX 285 SALLY A HOUSTON,TX 77001 11185 SW 79TH ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09400 1 S 136CB-06100 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S DUNN CHARLES A&TAMARA S 11242 SW 81ST 11230 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01002 1S 136CD-00600 CHRISTENSEN JILL K FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 293 SW CERVANTES FINKE LOTTE I TRUSTEE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1S136CD-00401 1S136CA-05400 CHRIS E SEN JILL K FISHER JOHN S SR&RENEE M 293 S RVANTES 10940 SW 95TH LAK OS GO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S'136CA-05401 1 S 136CA-03200 GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR KING MARVIN FRANKLIN& 11285 SW 78TH AVE KING TRACEE SUE TIGARD,OR 97223 11255 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03500 1S 136CA-03600 GATES MARIE KNIGHT ROBERT W 11300 SW 79TH AVE 11290 SW 79TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-02200 1S136CA-03301 HADDIX BRYAN S LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09100 1S136CA-03300 HAMILTON BETTY I LOOS HELEN A 11162 SW 81ST AVE 7935 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 15136C8-09200 1 S 136CA-05300 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J LOWRY THOMAS&KATHLEEN 11190 SW 81ST 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-01700 15136CB-06600 HARTUNG JANICE L LOWY GAIL E 11185 SW 82ND 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-06200 1 S 136CD-01000 HEIN JAMES L JANICE L MONAGHAN FARMS INC 11260 SW 83RD AVE 14120 EAST EVANS AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 AURORA,CO 80014 1 S 136CB-01600 1 S 136CB-07200 HUNTER ALISHA M&ERIC V MULDOON MATTHEW J/LESLIE L 11155 SW 82ND AVE 11155 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-06400 1 S 136CB-06300 HUYNH HIEU NGOC OLLISON RANDY L&CINDY A 11320 SW 83RD ST 11100 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09500 1 S 136CD-00100 INGLE TIMOTHY MARK PACIFIC CROSSROADS PROPERTIES I 11268 SW 81ST AVE BY WYSE INVESTMENT SERVICES CO TIGARD,OR 97223 200 SW MARKET ST STE 345 PORTLAND,OR 97201 1t1 1 S 136CB-06500 PEEL WILLIAM WICK MURRAY A 11255 SW 78TH AVE 4460 ALHAMBRA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 SAN DIEGO,CA 92107 1 S 136CB-02800 1 S 136CB-09600 PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-01900 PFAFFLE HELEN N TR 8225 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03800 PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W 11250 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02100 RORMAN JAMES M&SUSAN M 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03900 ROWLES EVERETT R PATRICIA A 11200 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02000 RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC& GERONIMO-RUIZ ROSAURA 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09300 SPIERING COLLEEN A 17815 NE COURTNEY RD NEWBERG,OR 97132 1 S 136C8-07000 TOLLIVER BRADLEY D 11207 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 13608-07100 TULL ALONZO E IV&AMY L 11181 SW 81ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97224 Naomi Gallucci CITY OF TIGARD 11285 SW 78th Avenue EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Tigard, OR 97223 i:lcurpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc UPDATED: 9-May-01 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 John Snyder 11100 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11043 SW Summerfield Drive, Apt. 3 Tigard, OR 97224-3376 Ellen Beilstein 14630 SW 139th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Jim Petersen 10815 SW 74th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY Ai Ilk CFTIGARD Community Development Sfrapingf Better Community I, Patricia L. Lunford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City ofTigard Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropnate Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2001-00010/VAR200I-00013 — CAMERON PLAZA ❑ 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 September 18,2001, and deposited in the United States Mail on September 18,2001, postage prepaid. 4"-L-. --- (Person that Prepared otice) SV4 J'L OAF OkEGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) �I Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the C day of 0 , 2001. OFFICIAL SEAL r DIANE M JELDERKS ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.326578 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 Cliff M • i NOTARY PUBLIC OF 'EGO My Commission Expires: 7/7/3 _ EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00010 CITY OF TIOARD VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00013 Community Development Shaping Better Community CAMERON PARK PLAZA 120 DAYS = 11/27/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CAMERON PARK PLAZA CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2001-00010 Variance (VAR) VAR2001-00013 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 69 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 10 feet to 5 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. OWNER: Saxony-Pacific, LLC APPLICANT: Welkin Engineering, Inc. Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions 8000 SW Pfaffle Street 5665 SW Meadows Road, #300 Tigard, OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 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 SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 1 OF 25 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit evidence of complying with the following conditions to the Planning Division. Staff contact: Mathew Scheidegger. 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 3111)—for review and approval: 11 . Prior to issuance of a site permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 2 OF 25 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit, the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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: Kit Church, Engineering). 15. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Division which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a minor collector street from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 16. If the applicant intends to make improvements to SW 78th Avenue, construction plans must be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. Plans must also be submitted to ODOT for any work involving the intersection at SW 78th Avenue/Highway 99W/SW Dartmouth Street. The construction plans would need to be approved by both the City and ODOT prior to issuance of the site permit. 17. The applicant's construction plans shall show the public sanitary sewer line in SW 79th Avenue to be extended to SW Pfaff le Street, as proposed by the applicant. 18. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 19. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 3 OF 25 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 318) for review and approval: 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 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: 21 . Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 22. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) mylars, and 2) a diskette of the as- builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable. Note: if the public improvement drawings were hand-drawn, then a diskette is not required. 23. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Pfaffle Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $6,463.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 24. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 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 Tax Lot (1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600). Based on this search, two (2) previous site development reviews were found. SDR97-00016 was an approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office complex. The second, SDR1999-00011 was an approval to construct a 45-foot-high monopole tower within a 1,600 square foot lease area. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 4 OF 25 Vicinity Information: The subject site is located on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. The site is bordered on the east and west sides by property zoned Professional Commercial (C-P) and to the south by property zoned General Commercial (C-G). The property to the north is zoned R-4.5 and developed with single-family homes. However, SW Pfaffle Street separates properties to the north from the proposed building site. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 69 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer. However, the applicant's request to reduce the landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet was an error based on the site plan. Therefore, the variance needed is from the minimum 10 feet to 5 feet between the subject site and the property to the east. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET No comments were received. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.370 Variances and Adjustments) 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICT Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the C-P: Professional Commercial District. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 5 OF 25 TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD C-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq.ft 46,144 sq.ft. -Detached unit - -Boarding,lodging,rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 235 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 0 ft[6] 83 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots[1] - - -Side yard 0/20 ft[3] 10 ft. -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district - - -Rear yard 0/20 ft[3]- 10 ft. -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. - Maximum Height 45 ft 36 ft. Maximum Site Coverage[2] 85% 75 Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% 25% As demonstrated in the table above, the applicant's plans comply with the dimensional standards of the C-P zone. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Site Development Review criteria have been satisfied. B. 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. Variances and Adjustments (18.370): Variances shall Adjustments processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using standards of approval contained in Subsection 2 below. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: The applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the landscape buffer from the minimum 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residentially developed property to the east. However, the adjoining property to the east has received site development review approval to construct a 23,940 square foot office building with its associated parking lot abutting the western property line. Therefore, instead of reducing the required buffer to 10 feet, for a commercial use abutting a residential use, the applicant's site plan shows the buffer reduced to 5 feet. The required 5 feet will be sufficient to buffer between the proposed office building in addition to the 10 feet of the proposed and approved office building on the property to the east. a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The properties adjoining the subject property are zoned (C-P) Professional Commercial and (C-G) General Commercial. However, the commercially zoned property to the east is developed with a single-family residence. The owner of the property has applied for and has received approval to demolish the residence and construct a 23,940 square foot office building (SDR1999-00024). The Welkin Corporate Center is slated to go forward in 2001 or 2002. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 6 OF 25 The developers of the Welkin Corporate Center (SDR1999-00024) arcel are working closely with the Cameron Plaza developers on many issues and are in favor of granting the variance. If approved, there is a possibility that the two projects may even combine driveways, which because of the timing issues with the setback restrictions that would not be possible. Because the area is in a state of transition, and the value of the property, it is doubtful the Welkin parcel will ever be considered for residential use again. Therefore, this request is applicable to the policies and standards for this zoning district, because it is not a materially detrimental to the Welkin property to the east. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The slope of the property and its wedge shaped configuration pushes the proposed building to the southwest corner of the site, placing the parking areas to the north and east. On the Welkin parcel, the building is proposed to the southeast. The two site plans work together best if the parking areas abut each other. Constructing the parking lots to abut the same property line, breaks up the one large landscape area, and offers a more uniform landscaping throughout the two parcels. No other properties are affected by this modification. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; No change in allowable use is requested and the remaining City standards will be maintained to their greatest extent. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and No existing physical and natural systems will be affected by this request. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The adjacent residential unit is being transitioned away with the approval of the Welkin Corporate Center (Approved but not yet under construction). A residential use would impose a greater buffer than if the Welkin Center was actually constructed. The applicant has no control over the timing of construction of the approved building to the east. FINDING: The Variance criteria are met as the applicant has shown that the project will be enhanced and there will be no adverse effects as a result of granting this variance. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. The applicant has provided plans showing access, egress and circulation from SW Pfaffle Street. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 7 OF 25 Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. No joint access is proposed at this time. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The proposed building is accessible from SW Pfaffle, a public street that will be maintained as a public street. Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. No driveway approach shall be less than five feet from the side property line projected except in cul-de-sacs, without approval and written permission of the city. The end slopes may encroach within the five foot restricted area. No portion of any driveway approach, including the end slopes, shall be located closer than thirty feet to an intersection street right-of-way line. Commercial or service drives shall not be more than thirty feet in width and if located on the same lot frontage shall be separated by a minimum length of curb of thirty feet. Each residential driveway shall be not more than twenty-six feet in width including end slopes, and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage spacing between such driveways shall be not less than thirty feet measured along the curb line. Joint access driveways shall conform to the appropriate width standard for commercial or residential type usage. The proposed site plan shows the curb cut at the entrance drive to be constructed out of concrete. The driveway approach is approximately 22 feet from the side property line. The width of the driveway approach is 38 feet. Therefore, this standard is met. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; According to the plans submitted, a concrete walkway extends from the main entrance on the east façade of the proposed building to the northern property line and connects to the proposed sidewalk of SW Pfaffle Street. 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 8 OF 25 distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The proposed walkway crosses a traffic aisle for a distance of 26 feet. Therefore, this standard has been 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 that all walkways will be concrete, which meets the standard. 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 (1) point of access into the parking lot that provides a 26-foot-wide access with 26 feet of pavement. The above standard indicates that a 30-foot-wide access with 24 feet of payment is required. Therefore, the applicant is required to provide a plan showing a 30-foot-wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. One-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The entrance is designed for two-way traffic. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: • Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or • Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or • Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 9 OF 25 The applicant has not indicated whether or not the parking area is designed to connect with future parking areas on the adjacent parcel to the east. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. The provision of a joint access would limit turning movement locations on Pfaff le Street and therefore, would allow improved circulation. A basis for granting the variance to the buffer area between the two properties is the joint access provision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITIONS: Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot-wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 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). The site plan shows six (6) Raywood Ash street trees along SW Pfaffle. The proposed trees are medium-sized trees and are spaced 30 feet apart. Therefore, this criterion has been met. 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. Property to the east and west are zoned (C-P) Professional Commercial. However, the parcel to the east is developed with a single-family residence. According to Table 18.745.1 (Buffer Matrix) the subject property is required to provide a buffer in accordance to the "D" standard of the Buffering Matrix. The "D" buffering standard allows for 3 different options of buffering (20 feet, 15 feet, and 10 feet). However, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the required buffering between the subject property and the abutting property to the east, which is addressed earlier in this decision, 18.370 (Variances and Adjustments). 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 area is screened to the north by a 13.5-foot-wide landscaped buffer with a combination of low-lying ground cover (Little Gem Cotoneaster) and Blue Arctic Willow and Spring Bouquet Viburnum (vertical shrubbery)). The proposed combination of low lying and vertical shrubbery is sufficient in screening the parking area from SW Pfaffle Street. The parking area is shown with 69 parking stalls. According to the above standard, the site is required to have 1 parking lot tree for every 7 spaces. The intent is to provide a canopy effect NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 10 OF 25 within the parking lot. The applicant's narrative indicates there are 15 trees within the parking lot used for the purpose of satisfying this standard. The site plan provides 7 trees located in landscaped islands throughout the parking lot. Based on a 69 stall parking lot, the applicant is required to provide 10 parking lot trees within landscaped islands equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is conditioned to provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. 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; Screening of Service Facilities is addressed under Chapter 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. CONDITION: Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces. 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 chosen to demonstrate compliance with the Minimum Standards Method. According to Minimum Standards, an office use is required to provide a minimum storage area of 10 square feet, plus 4 square feet per 1,000 square feet gross floor area (GFA). The applicant is proposing to develop a 20,925 square foot building which will require a 94 square foot storage area. The applicant has proposed a 110 square foot storage area. However, the applicant has not provided a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. Therefore , the applicant will be required to provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 11 OF 25 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. However, the site plan shows the proposed refuse containers to be located within the front yard setback. Therefore, the applicant will need to provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 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 design standards for the refuse enclosure have not been addressed. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 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: CONDITIONS: • Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. • Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. • Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six (6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secure in a closed and open position. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location of vehicle parking: Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. The parking lot associated with this project, at the furthest point away from the proposed building, is 87 feet. The building itself is proposed to be 20,925 square feet. The applicant is proposing the building to be occupied with an office use. Based on Table 18.765.2 (Minimum and Maximum Parking), Office use is required to provide a minimum of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet and a maximum of 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 12 OF 25 Therefore, the building is required to provide at minimum 56 parking spaces and a maximum of 86 spaces. The site plan shows the site to have 69 parking spaces. Therefore, the standard is met. 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 does not apply. 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 develo ment, 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 ection 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. The project is not considered a mixed-use project. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. 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 will exceed 20 long-term parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010/VAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 13 OF 25 The site plan shows the site will have a total of 69 parking stalls. According to the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards, a parking lot with 51-75 parking stalls is required to provide 3 stalls that are ADA accessible. The site plan does indicate 3 ADA accessible parking stalls located at the front entrance of the proposed building. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; the number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of 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 under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). 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 under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). 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. There is only one (1) access into the parking lot. Therefore, no directional arrows will be required. 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 site plan indicates that parking stalls adjacent to the interior walkway will be constructed with a 4-inch-high concrete wheel stop with a 3-foot bumper overhang. Therefore, this criterion is met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 14 OF 25 The applicant's plans indicate that all parking stalls but 9 compact spaces will meet the minimum dimensions for standard parking stalls. Aisle widths meet the minimum standard of 24 feet. 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. 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 10 stall bicycle rack. The site plan indicates an 11 stall bicycle rack will be provided on the east side of the building. According to the criterion above, the bicycle rack cannot be located within a pedestrian way. The proposed bicycle rack is adjacent to the front entrance. However, a 10-foot-wide access isle is maintained to the front entrance. Therefore, this standard is met. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for for 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 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 arking 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. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 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 is required to provide a 10-stall bicycle rack. The site plan indicates an eleven (11) stall bicycle rack will be provided. Therefore, this standard has been met. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 15 OF 25 Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for General Office Use is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the maximum is 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Based on a 20,925 square foot building, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 56 and a maximum of 86 parking spaces. The plans provide 69 parking spaces. Therefore, this standard is satisfied. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. The proposed site will be constructed with a commercial building that is 20,925 square feet. According to the standard, the site plan shows the site to have two (2) loading spaces that comply with Section 18.765.080.B. (Off-Street Loading Dimensions) of the Tigard Development Code. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be fully met: CONDITIONS: Provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 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 rovided 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. The applicant has provided a report prepared by a certified arborist and a plan indicating which trees are to be removed. Based on the information provided, the applicant is required to mitigate for 100 percent of the 71 inches to be removed that are not in poor condition. The applicant has indicated on the landscape plan that 73 inches of trees will be planted to satisfy the requirement. However, Staff cannot determine which trees will be planted in order to satisfy the requirement (street trees and parking lot trees do not count for mitigation). Therefore, the applicant must provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required mitigation of 71 inches. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have not been fully met. If the applicant complies with the condition listed below, the standards will be met: CONDITION: Provide a plan showing, which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required mitigation of 71 inches. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 16 OF 25 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). 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. Siting the building and parking lot requires the removal of all of the existing nine (9) trees. Tree Mitigation has been discussed under Chapter 18.790. The proposed building does not alter the existing topography because the existing topography is relatively flat. The existing grade differential is 7 feet over a 220-foot linear dimension, thereby demonstrating a flat site of less than 5 percent grade. According to the geotechnical report, the site is underlain by fine- grained silt, clay and sand (Pleistocene Flood Deposits), which vary in sustainability based on the season. However, the geotechnical report does provide fill recommendations based on conditions of the soil at time of compaction. Therefore, this standard has been met. Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 17 OF 25 • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially 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 located on all sides of the building. However, The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has requested an exterior lighting plan. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, which is not on Tri-met transit routes, therefore, this standard does not apply. Provisions of the Underlying Zone: All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Dimensional Requirements: Provisions of the (C-P) Professional Commercial Zoning District have been addressed earlier in this decision under Section 18.520.040.B. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have not been met. CONDITION: Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. D. 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 18.810.030(E) requires a minor collector street to have a 60-foot right-of-way width and a 40-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 18 OF 25 SW Pfaffle Street This site lies adjacent to SW Pfaffle Street, which is classified as a minor collector on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant should dedicate additional ROW to provide a minimum of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans indicate they will provide this dedication. SW Pfaffle Street is currently paved, but not fully improved to City standards. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along the frontace of this site. The applicant's plans indicate they will provide this improvement as a part of he project. Other Transportation Improvements The applicant s traffic study points out various deficiencies in the existing transportation system in the area, including a queuing problem on SW 78`" Avenue, between SW Pfaffle Street and Highway 99W. These other issues will be discussed in more detail in the Traffic Study Findings section later in the report. 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. By constructing the half-street improvement in SW Pfaffle Street, this standard will be met. 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 public sewer line in SW 81st Avenue, just north of SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant intends to extend the public line southerly in SW 81st Avenue to SW Pfaffle Street, where a new manhole will be installed to terminate the line. A service lateral will then be extended to the site. The public sewer line does not need to be extended east or west because those adjacent sites are being, or will be, served from other public sewer lines. For instance, the proposed Welkin project immediately to the east, will be served from the existing public line in SW 79 Avenue. 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 Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The topography of this site slopes to the northwest, and the southern property line is near the top of a ridge. The property to the south of the site is fully developed and slopes away from this site. The storm drainage system in SW Pfaffle Street will be enhanced by this development by installation of a 12-inch main line along the frontage. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 19 OF 25 Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans show that the onsite runoff will be directed to the northwest corner of the site where it will be treated and detained in a pond. The water will exit the pond and will discharge into the public storm drainage system in SW Pfeifle Street. The applicant's preliminary sizing calculations for the detention facility indicate that they are providing adequate storage of stormwater to meet CWS standards. 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. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion 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. No bikeways are associated with this project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 20 OF 25 • 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 existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontage along this site is 235 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $6,463.00. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Study Findings: A traffic impact report was prepared by Lancaster Engineering for this project, and is dated June 2001 . Lancaster analyzed three local intersections that would be impacted from this development: • SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street • SW Pfaffle Street/SW 78th Avenue • Highway 99W/SW 78th Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street Lancaster performed manual intersection traffic counts in April 2001, and compared the numbers to counts taken in 1997/1998. They found that there has been a small growth in AM peak hour traffic, and a reduction in RN peak hour traffic at the study intersections. Based on this finding, Lancaster applied the proposed site-generated traffic to these intersections without assuming an annual growth rate. Staff concurs with this theory. Lancaster found that three traffic signal warrants (per MUTCD) are currently met at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street. However, they also found that the intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) D during the PM peak hour, and will continue to operate at LOS D after this project is fully operational. LOS D is considered acceptable for an unsignalized intersection. For this reason, a traffic signal is not recommended The other two intersections will also continue to operate at acceptable LOS, with the intersection of Highway 99W/SW 78th Avenue continuing to operate at LOS D. Howeve[ti Lancaster and the applicant point out that there is an existing queuing problem on SW 78 Avenue, with vehicles stacking back beyond the intersection at SW Pfaffle Street during peak hours. The applicant has expressed interest in adding an additional southbound lane on SW 78t Avenue to help alleviate the stacking problem. The applicant has met with both ODOT and City staff with regard to the proposed solution. If ODOT and the City approve the applicant's solution, the applicant would be eligible for Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits for those improvements. In order to receive the credit, the applicant would need to complete the improvements as a part of this project. Public Water System: This site is located in the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. There is an existing public water line located in SW Pfaffle Street that will service this site. The applicant must coordinate with TVWD with regard to the water service for the site. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 21 OF 25 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 plans indicate they will treat the stormwater with an extended dry detention pond. The preliminary sizing calculations indicate there is adequate storage in the proposed pond for treatment of the site runoff. 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. 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 five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The preliminary grading and erosion control plan meet current CWS standards. A final version of this plan must be reviewed by the Engineering and Building Departments prior to construction. 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. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 22 OF 25 D. 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 rojected 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 $70,646 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 $220,769 ($70,646 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the collector and arterial street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $150,123. The applicant has proposed to construct half-street improvements along SW Pfaffle Street since this is the frontage they are obtaining access from. The cost of the improvements is expected to be $67,563 (1,175 square feet x $12.00 per square foot, $14,100 + 235 feet x $200 per linear foot for half-street improvements, + 235 feet x $27.50 for underground utilities), thus it meets the rough proportionality test. In any event, the applicant has proposed to construct these improvements. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The City of Tigard Public Works Division has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comment: Issues related to trees to remain in relation to survivability and building plans. Also, questions regarding tree mitigation. Staff Response: The applicant has been conditioned to provide a tree mitigation plan, which will be routed to the City's Arborist for review. The City of Tigard Advanced Planning Division has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 23 OF 25 The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: • Request lighting plan for exterior. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: • Fire hydrants/fire department access to be approved by TVFR. • A separate site and plumbing permit will be required. • A Geo Tech Report with soil bear and liquefaction potential will be required. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: I have reviewed the submittal for the above named project and have the following comments: 1. The minimum required fire flow is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi (see attached fire flow worksheet. Fire District records indicate the minimum fire flow is available, therefore a current hydrant flow will not be necessary. (UFC Appendix III-A) 2. A minimum of 3 fire hydrants shall be provided for this development (see attached fire flow worksheet). Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no part of the structure is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant. (UFC 903.4) 3. The fire department connection ( DC) shall be located within 70 feet of a fire hydrant. Fire department connections shall not be attached to the protected structure. (UFC 903.4.2.5) 4. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) 5. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704) 6. A Knox brand key box shall be provided on the building. Contact the Fire Marshal's Office for installation details and an application. (UFC Chapter 9) 7. A building survey and plans, in accordance with TVF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the Fire District web site. To access this information via Internet, follow this link: http://www.tvfr.com/Departments/FireMarshal/new construction.htm 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 SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 24 OF 25 Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 3, 2001 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: 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 18.390.040.6.2. 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 OCTOBER 2, 2001. 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. _ September 18, 2001 PREPARE I BY. 'a ew ch i• -gger DATE Assistant Pla ner a September 18, 2001 APPROVED BY: - Richard H. e ersdorff DATE Planning Manager I:\curpin\mathew\sdr\SDR2001-00010.dec.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2001-00010NAR2001-00013-CAMERON PARK PLAZA PAGE 25 OF 25 J _� —�' _J�_ CITY of TIGARD ii \ GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 1 -11- 4� T SPRUCE ST VICINITY MAP I II l �� ST = SPRUCE J L� /L�1l1� T ANN 1 2®e i Na —d TH Rr�l s f- ¢ .,� F i r. I P�®�B1e SDR200I -00010 IIII E N �� VAR2001 -00013 in milimp . ___,_ .., IE. Arm - -AmpMil , `_ CAMERON PLAZA IIIII mu -mom 1.1.7 I:*Nom..SI ‘,4%-k N. [ IIN ■ .■ 1 .. , .______ p oli - _ LE lin III l � � Q PGA. • 4Pr ‘4411111k ir 1111. �� • ..0 $ 90 I - N r0 400 800 Feet 44 r• . t"=503 feet ^--rZJ A,,,, ■�► 111 al City of Tigard Information on this map Is for general location only and• should W verified Wth the Development Services Division. • ,- 13125 SW Hall Blvd 03 Iola PL Tigard,OR 97223 (503)6391171 http:l/www.ci.tipard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Jul 30,2001;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR SW PFAFFLE STREET - 1 v I V Z n PARKING OVERHANG N-u _- - _ -. _ _- _ — I _ FIRE IANE \ . *Am IALITY REIIFITIbN - -C _ _ A "1101(1. F UN -rte +I t// I ' r + i > 52 531 54 55 561 57158 59 601 61 621 631 64i 65166 i/ i ! 1 COMPACT I \ " ' ! 2 Q r/ ---- .-- CROSSWALK STRIPING — k.\ ------- 1 , REQ0 FIRE DEPT. kl o �n\\ 11 % ACCESS:2S RAD. [S2‘.,:l\� I!/ —1G-34— I 0 1 2 r " (INSIDE WHEEL). • ''1 -_al_— Z RAD.(OUTSIDE WHEEL) I I — I I ^ ( —�- ` I o 5 50 I 1 J i v — 51 ., 49 48 47 461 45 44 43 1 42 (1 41 40 39 38 37 36 6 I r 35 Z 1 l 34 7 J 33w et STOP, rYP I' 8 67 68 __9— 1 u 11 32 - r. 10 I CI 31 N 1 -a ( LL \\\ 812 Q 1 0A ' 13 V 1 1 1 1 1 - --- 1 18 14 PROPOSED 2 STORY 1 L. °'� \\\\� 15 1 F \',e BUILDING Lim (20.000 SF) -_ O C 0 1`- — 16 iv, 1 ° �TOTYCC OF(0 SPACES 17 r 1 29 --18 I_ 28 H- 19 U 11 1 1 27 0 1 26 o 21 16-6 II 25 22 ll 5' 19'-0• 26•-0• --1-Y�•-- 5' 1W 1I 23 + i''\‘��� 24 0 )0 92'-6" TOF T I G A R SDR2001-0001 0/VAR2001-00013 SITE PLAN 11 CAMERON PLAZA (Map is not to scale) EXHIBIT B Welkin Engineering, Inc. 8000 SW Pfaffle Street SDR2001-00010 Tigard, OR 97223 CAMERON PARK PLAZA Saxony-Pacific, LLC Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions 5665 SW Meadows Road, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING _tia Y OF.4 TIGARD CITY 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 of7igar , Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appmpoate Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: SDR2001-00010/VAR2001-00013 — CAMERON PARK PLAZA ❑ 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 July 31,2001, and deposited in the United States Mail on July 31,2001, postage prepaid. )• de;,,,,i. ' - A . . ,_. ,, (Person that Prepared otice) S7f1'OE O GOfW ) County If Washington )ss. City of?igard ) 1 Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3rtA day of 1.,....4,. .....A. , 2001. I .. , OFFICIAL SEAL •'�'',1-..1.t''''. 77,� DIANE M JELDERKS 044441:WCel/ ` ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ' COMMISSION NO.326578 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT.07,2003 NOTARY PUBLIC OF EGON My Commission Expires: /7/:- 3 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN, _DER,VENDOR OR SELLER: EXIT 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW „Ai I CITY OF TIGARD Community cDeve(opment ShapingA Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: July 31, 2001 FILE NUMBERS: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00010 Type II Land Use Application VARIANCE (VAR) 2001.00013 FILE NAME: CAMERON PARK PLAZA PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81' Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. 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 AUGUST 14, 2001. All comments should be directed to Mathew Scheidegger, Assistant 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 SEPTEMBER 6, 2001. 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."m r11----nEl mi immesim I■ I e. C I T Y..e...,l.e ARD "WI ' -."\ I 1 ii 77 !: 1,111111 Mina. — VICINITY MAP i I i i �� � i T'mt I I:i! m 4111�1/�: -i,®B OI 184 f mi �.. � �� ��.1 ��� 1 SDR2001-00010 [ F■ N i l/l_ 10 ilIN H VAR200 I-00013 im. INE ow arm non Mims CAMERON PLAZA lor IN I p �-:�� I:: -- — rm NE-a�. .......li • 11 iidiiii.i11 ^-r 4 :_,., „ ■ Nig% liiirmiLc—F-7 IN gl \ e:Alk MI hb, IIE Il• ! r . ‘41k 0 11114% t as / N 1 � 0 100, ' 1,WI MI car rya *ISM_ Osvdepsurl won. .1/ENPIM OM galw.nl I ' 1 S 136CB-01300 1 S 136CD-00500 LX.L.[1,IT B ALVAREZ ERICK A&DORIS K CHRIS N EN JILL K 11190 SW 82ND AVE 293 SW RVANTES TIGARD,OR 97223 LAK S GO,OR 97035 1 S136CC-02200 1 S136CB-02400 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT LTD COOLMAN HERBERT R&ENOLA MAE T 11336 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD#103 11160 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S1 36CC-00200 1 S 136CA-03700 ANDR W MANAGEMENT LTD CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R 11336f BULL MOUNTAIN RD#103 11260 SW 79TH AVE TIGA D, 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CC-00100 1 S 136CA-03100 BARASCH STEPHEN CURNES MELINDA L& BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE SHELTON DUANE C GENERAL MOTORS CORP M/C483-616-420 11215 SW 79TH AVE 16 E JUDSON ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PONTIAC,MI 48342 1 S 136CB-06800 1 S 136CB-01800 BARKER KENNETH W DAVIS DWIGHT J DONIS L 11263 SW 81ST AVE 11215 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S13603-06700 1S13603-06900 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K DEARMOND JULIA 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01001 1S 136CA-03000 CHEVRON U S A INC DENNY DOUGLAS D& PO BOX 285 SALLY A HOUSTON,TX 77001 11185 SW 79TH ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09400 1 S 136CB-06100 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S DUNN CHARLES A&TAMARA S 11242 SW 81ST 11230 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01002 1 S 136C0-00600 CHRISTENSEN JILL K FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 293 SW CERVANTES FINKE LOTTE I TRUSTEE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1 S 136CD-00401 1S 136CA-05400 CHRIS E SEN JILL K FISHER JOHN S SR&RENEE M 293 S RVANTES 10940 SW 95TH LAK OS GO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S 136CA-05401 1 S 136CA-03200 GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR KING MARVIN FRANKLIN& 11285 SW 78TH AVE KING TRACEE SUE TIGARD,OR 97223 11255 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 is 136CA-03500 1S 136CA-03600 GATES MARIE KNIGHT ROBERT W 11300 SW 79TH AVE 11290 SW 79TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02200 1 S 136CA-03301 HADDIX BRYAN S LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1St 36CB-09100 1 S 136CA-03300 HAMILTON BETTY I LOOS HELEN A 11162 SW 81ST AVE 7935 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C8-09200 1 S 136CA-05300 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J LOWRY THOMAS&KATHLEEN 11190 SW 81ST 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-01700 1S 136CB-06600 HARTUNG JANICE L LOWY GAIL E 11185 SW 82ND 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-06200 1 S136CD-01000 HEIN JAMES L JANICE L MONAGHAN FARMS INC 11260 SW 83RD AVE 14120 EAST EVANS AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 AURORA,CO 80014 1 S 136CB-01600 1S 136CB-07200 HUNTER ALISHA M&ERIC V MULDOON MATTHEW J/LESLIE L 11155 SW 82ND AVE 11155 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C8-06400 1 S 136C8-06300 HUYNH HIEU NGOC OLLISON RANDY L&CINDY A 11320 SW 83RD ST 11100 SW 95TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C8-09500 1 S 136CD-00100 INGLE TIMOTHY MARK PACIFIC CROSSROADS PROPERTIES I 11268 SW 81ST AVE BY WYSE INVESTMENT SERVICES CO TIGARD,OR 97223 200 SW MARKET ST STE 345 PORTLAND,OR 97201 1 S 136CA-05402 1 S 136CB-06500 PEEL WILLIAM WICK MURRAY A 11255 SW 78TH AVE 4460 ALHAMBRA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 SAN DIEGO,CA 92107 1 S 136CB-02800 1 S 136CB-09600 PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-01900 Welkin Engineering, Inc. PFAFFLE HELEN N TR 8000 SW Pfaffle Street 8225 SW PFAFFLE Tigard, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 Saxony-Pacific, LLC 1S136CA-03800 Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W 5665 SW Meadows Road, Suite 300 11250 SW 79TH AVE Lake Oswego, OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02100 RORMAN JAMES M&SUSAN M 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03900 ROWLES EVERETT R PATRICIA A 11200 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 is 136C8-02000 RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC& GERONIMO-RUIZ ROSAURA 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09300 SPIERING COLLEEN A 17815 NE COURTNEY RD NEWBERG,OR 97132 1 S136CB-07000 TOLLIVER BRADLEY D 11207 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-07100 TULL ALONZO E IV&AMY L 11181 SW 81ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97224 Naomi Gallucci CITY OF TIGARD 11285 SW 78th Avenue EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Tigard, OR 97223 is\curpin\setup\Iabels\CIT East.doc UPDATED: 9-May-01 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82,d Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 John Snyder 11100 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11043 SW Summerfield Drive, Apt. 3 Tigard, OR 97224-3376 Ellen Beilstein 14630 SW 139th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Jim Petersen 10815 SW 74th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 _, ^+ i ,J CITY of TIGARD ` / \ `J - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM / I I —1 VICINITY MAP SPRUCE ST PR CE ST a SPRUCE —J I _ 1 .II I . , IrIPSIIIIIImpse• I M THORN ST — _ ¢ goo . a SDR2UU I -UUO l O 101> WI �� F� _ �n_1� VAR2001 -00013 i. Ea Q _ CAMERON PLAZA IN MI �=--- MI .= I It I- :�i- .- CO•i� ��� . 111111 IOW I : .IN l'.------' EPEE Iiippr>le w Ni •ill QP �J" L ,t:111‘110 _ go "0 t N I �0 400 800 Feet r1"=503 feel OA * 111111 City of Tigard I _ Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified%nth the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd (503)IUL Tigard,OR 97223 ghevA 6 3 9-417 1 httpl w wv ci tigard or us Community Development Plot date:Jul 30,2001;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR / ■ Q CITY of TIGARD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM W Q AREA NOTIFIED > (500') Q 15'13ecsonoo 1513801101e00 S1360802400 131365809100 13178Ca03000 131360907100 /a ,313651309100 1[13115407!1111 - LL 131365008100 151360801700 'Z 101319102300 101360001000 1101360.1103100 CO 1:utceoa:oo laeceoeaol �'1s,a6ceos3oo lslieuoaeoo z FOR: Ed Christensen r / 15138C901800 15188CA05800 1513601301200 131385609400 15126CA02200 1g7eC403700 ulaeceoeaoo mS1J8CB08800 t`- RE: 1 S 136CD, 00600 19156090BS00 13/a8G054o! tme9102100 19136C90610, • ig36CA03600 3808084 0 1313801101900 iSU8CA08801 131380405401 1S 960008500 1'380909810 J 15136c602 0 0 0 1113 6C808e 0 11313601102800 601090a08700 LI 1813601103500 ' 131360005400 • AFFLE N______---__) / Property owner information _ is valid for 3 months from SUBJECT SIT the date printed on this map. �,�� ` ST `�� ata9c9oam 131aec000s13e 1alaeco mot 1513ec000loo III Q, 351360001000 / 31136 0 0 0 010 0 uaeccnsos Al‘ • N 101360001001 0 100 200 300 Feet 1-=233 feel .1.\\ A City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified vAth the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 (503)6391171 hhtp://weev ei.tigard.or.ua Community Development Plot date:May 22,2001;C:Imagic\MAGIC03.APR ' 1S136C11-02300 1S136CD-00500 ALVAREZ ERICK A&DORIS K CHRIS N EN JILL K 11190 SW 82ND AVE 293 SW RVANTES TIGARD,OR 97223 LAK S GO,OR 97035 1st 36CC-02200 1 S 136CB-02400 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT LTD COOLMAN HERBERT R&ENOLA MAE T 11336 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD#103 11160 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CC-00200 is 136CA-03700 ANDRW>MANAGEMENT LTD CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R 11336.\, it3 BULL MOUNTAIN RD#103 11260 SW 79TH AVE TIGA D, 97224 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CC-00100 1S 136CA-03100 BARASCH STEPHEN CURNES MELINDA L& BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE SHELTON DUANE C GENERAL MOTORS CORP M/C483-616-420 11215 SW 79TH AVE 16 E JUDSON ST TIGARD,OR 97223 PONTIAC, MI 48342 1 S 136C8-06800 1 S 136CB-01800 BARKER KENNETH W DAVIS DWIGHT J DONIS L 11263 SW 81ST AVE 11215 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C B-06700 151 36CB-06900 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K DEARMOND JULIA 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01001 1S 136CA-03000 CHEVRON U S A INC DENNY DOUGLAS D& PO BOX 285 SALLY A HOUSTON,TX 77001 11185 SW 79TH ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09400 1 S 136CB-06100 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S DUNN CHARLES A&TAMARA S 11242 SW 81ST 11230 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01002 1S 136CD-00600 CHRISTENSEN JILL K FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 293 SW CERVANTES FINKE LOTTE I TRUSTEE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1 S 136CD-00401 1S 136CA-05400 CHRIS E SEN JILL K FISHER JOHN S SR&RENEE M 293 S RVANTES 10940 SW 95TH LAK OS GO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-05401 1 S 136CA-03200 GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR KING MARVIN FRANKLIN& 11285 SW 78TH AVE KING TRACEE SUE TIGARD,OR 97223 11255 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 is 136CA-03500 is 136CA-03600 GATES MARIE KNIGHT ROBERT W 11300 SW 79TH AVE 11290 SW 79TH TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C B-02200 1 S 136CA-03301 HADDIX BRYAN S LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C B-09100 1 S 136CA-03300 HAMILTON BETTY I LOOS HELEN A 11162 SW 81ST AVE 7935 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136 CB-09200 1 S 136CA-05300 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J LOWRY THOMAS&KATHLEEN 11190 SW 81ST 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136 CB-01700 1 S 136CB-06600 HARTUNG JANICE L LOWY GAIL E 11185 SW 82ND 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136CB-06200 1 S136CD-01000 HEIN JAMES L JANICE L MONAGHAN FARMS INC 11260 SW 83RD AVE 14120 EAST EVANS AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 AURORA,CO 80014 1 S 136CB-01600 1 S 136CB-07200 HUNTER ALISHA M&ERIC V MULDOON MATTHEW J/LESLIE L 11155 SW 82ND AVE 11155 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-06400 1 S 136CB-06300 HUYNH HIEU NGOC OLLISON RANDY L&CINDY A 11320 SW 83RD ST 11100 SW 95TH TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09500 1 S 136CD-00100 INGLE TIMOTHY MARK PACIFIC CROSSROADS PROPERTIES I 11268 SW 81ST AVE BY WYSE INVESTMENT SERVICES CO TIGARD,OR 97223 200 SW MARKET ST STE 345 PORTLAND,OR 97201 1 S 136CA-05402 1 S 136CB-06500 PEEL WILLIAM WICK MURRAY A 11255 SW 78TH AVE 4460 ALHAMBRA STREET TIGARD,OR 97223 SAN DIEGO,CA 92107 1 S 136CB-02800 1S 136CB-09600 PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-01900 PFAFFLE HELEN N TR 8225 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03800 PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W 11250 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-02100 RORMAN JAMES M&SUSAN M 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03900 ROWLES EVERETT R PATRICIA A 11200 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02000 RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC& GERONIMO-RUIZ ROSAURA 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09300 SPIERING COLLEEN A 17815 NE COURTNEY RD NEWBERG,OR 97132 1 S 136C B-07000 TOLLIVER BRADLEY D 11207 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-07100 TULL ALONZO E IV&AMY L 11181 SW 81ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97224 Naomi Gallucci CITY OF TIGARD 11285 SW 78th Avenue EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Tigard, OR 97223 is\curpin\setup\Iabels\CIT East.doc UPDATED: 9-May-01 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 John Snyder 11100 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11043 SW Summerfield Drive, Apt. 3 Tigard, OR 97224-3376 Ellen Beilstein 14630 SW 139th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Jim Petersen 10815 SW 74th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander Crag head 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 MAY-22-2001 09 15 P.01 4 rrnrY Lupus go a.D CITY OF TIGARD • C A, OMMUNITY DEVEIONIENT DEPARTMENT ;sl PLAIRNING DIVISION cm/OF MAID Community iDeveropornt 8125 SW HALL, BODUVARD Sikspaw 43eetrrCommunity TIGARD, OREGON. 97223 MINE 543439-4I/1 NM 5034114-297 GUIs tatty or SM,1iP RUIU[:&T FOR 500-FOOT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING LIST Pro owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your Property Yo request INDICATE ALL PROJECT 11AP & TAX LOT LUMBERS (i.a. 1s134 Tax tot 00100)OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW and INCLUDE A MAP OF ALL LOTS FOR THE PROJECT (preferably assessor's tax map): o c.• �t,J - FL.F E 3 - G t> Y L •�O INDICATE WHETHER YOU ARE REQUESTING 2 OR 3 SETS OF LABELS: (NOTE: A minimum of 2 sea of labels will be provided to place on your 2 sets of eavef'opes that appliants are required to submit at the time of application submittal_ ll a neighbafiood meeting is required and you hare not yet held that meeting,you should request 3 sets) NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: Atz1. 1LZP-17—) PHONE: 54�— / FLo 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 in "Will Call" by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. - The cost of professing 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_ - SI I 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 * * sheets or labels x II/sheet =S IN x L sets = S16.00 T shect(s)of labels z S2/sheet= S '-' x sets Z sheets of labels it SUsheet for CIT arta i j sets = $ 4.00 1 sheet(s) al labels z Si/sheet far f]T area = S ,x. sea= GENEMIE LUST = Si2,�Q GENESATE 151 = TOTAL = $11.00 TOM. = S no liability for variations, if any, In dimensions, areas, and locations ascertained by actual survey. =� SPRUCE ��--�_-L LILL I �. .,IIt! FPII.=/ 1_iacE1 mg ri,---i who we 4.1" in 0 uI. _l••• tom"sti m mon ERN•.. _1NlI.E,.i NIIIII" g....uiIUiI?ji.LI 6 1 i. •Nei — 1 tibh&. SU 1 Ittil 7 %7 I 1111G7' Mill SI tat .°° op „c,A IN iti, r 0 1.5A‘t - ii• ,4 go ., a, a . m F 1 1 r. 6 N . I N N I. / E ` il kfo I ___ /-- _ APPLICANT MATERIALS • SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TYPE II APPLICATION M1•'I I CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: (lATr S.cli,,t pZ.0-1c a DATE OF PRE-APP.: MAY Is, Zoo Property Address/Location(s): <FOCoO 60.4„) AFFL.E- ST- FOR STAFF USE ONLY 1 1 A Ft 2,a D R- -(2-23 Tax Map & Tax Lot#(s): 3C o C n 3 TL_ Cw O0 Case No.(s): 4,D12-94)0I—0061 t, Other Case No.(s):11 n '—O )!,'q Receipt No.: -2 a ► -z-Jo Site Size: Il • n Cs • Application Accepted By: / 3-71 Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: K t fLl. CAM t -11?-0t.S Date: te ,4 -� , Address: 55625 5 k1 MaAvows R ,. Phone: Z97- 10U0 SurTt_ _ 3 City: (��c ns wrtrvr U2 Zi p: � ?0 3S`---- Date Determined Complete: Rev.8/4/2000 i:\curpin\masters\revised\sdra.doc Applicant*: VJ t-e_1_K!t`1 rilt 1�,fr.11"rX�CL! t`lc 1 I raN1 c . Address: gcZXt Sr. Phone: I66 City: I t Ca r4-12._D d 2 Zip: 9'72-2-3 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Application Form must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this 0' Owner's Signature/Written Authorization form or submit a written authorization with this application. Title Transfer Instrument or Deed El' Copy of Pre-Application Conf. Notes PROPOSAL SUMMARY ► Site/Plot Plan The owners of record of the subject property request Site (#of copies based on pre-app check list) Development Review approval to allow (please be specific): [Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81/2"x 11") 9'Z S SF 3 U(L-O/,'J c 7 g Applicant's Statement r� (#of copies based on pre-app check list) 6/0 Tt-t�- L6 iT�C.- �0 f e1C t'v C? ] USA Sewer Use Information Card V Pict E 5 1 ot. l .- 1 U Sk- $ (Distributed/completed at application submittal) USA Service Provider Letter Dz 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped #10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property Owner List Generated by the City < Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits & Notes El Filing Fee: (Under$100.000) $ 800.00 ($100,000-$999,999) $1,600.00 ($1 Million&Over) $1,780.00 (+$51$10,000 over the first million) Urban: (See Washington County fee schedule) 1 ' 1930 • • List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: pp VA-el roc CC_ - F3-2 A ( «S ( Dt r -rC (-4 L- T[) C tE:r13 c-K ( c C_ P 7-0 C_ P . 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 t-k day of u Li (z , 20 0 Owner's ignature 1,212Aec.42...74. Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 VARIANCE A„, t,t. , 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: (lfr-r- c ,Z DATE OF PRE-APP.: 'CIIK C , Property Address/Location(s): x m 51.4..) t`' r-c..i 5T- t r C„-r ftie-0 e R q7 zz Tax Map &Tax Lot#(s): / .0 / 3 Co C. C) l7 L C<,• X ' FOR STAFF USE ONLY Site Size: I, ( A C Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: k,leis C 4,44 44zni3 Case No.(s): V1100 -0f)O13 Address: i,;(cS.5:U M rz,fail IZD Phone: 5L'3 2?? /DG.O Other Case No.(s):. ; City: /,tK ,r_ z.7Z Zip: 97i 35— . Applicant*: Co ' ilia(s 7TcA-9s Receipt No.: 7 oq I — Z- / /T Address: gc'),510 t f- f/,e__ 5r Phone: 59 Application Accep ed By: KSP/ City: 7 - i- , Cry° Zip: 972.2.g Date: 41 *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written Date Determined Complete: authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Rev.8/4/2000 i:\curpin lmasters\revised\variance.doc must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request permission for a Variance to the following provision(s) of the Community Development REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Code(please circle one only): (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) D Administrative Variance: 145 , Special Adjustments: Application Form •Access/Egress Standards Adjustment $ 545 •Parking Adjustments -Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratio $ 545 [� Owner's Signature/Written Authorization Reduction in New Development/Transit Improvement $ J45 Q Title Transfer Instrument or Deed -Reduction in Existing Development/Transit Improvement $ 545 -Increase in Maximum Parking Ratio $ 545 Z Site/Plot Plan -Reduction in Bicycle Parking $ 545 (#of copies based on pre-app check list) -Alternative Parking Garage Layout $ 545 •Sign Code Adjustment $ 545 Z Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/2"X 11") •Tree Removal Adjustment $ 545 a Applicant's Statement •Wireless Communication Facility Adjustment—Setback from Nearby Residence $ 545 (#of copies based on pre app check list) •Street Improvement Adjustment $ 545 Er 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Please state the reason for the Variance request: #10 Envelopes & Copy of 500' Property. Owner List Generated by the City iAL30sCAP/AJ4.7 itiJ Fr/tR (4.11 1)c1Lnell /Si—ri V A C-P A- &g p F ti n ALt 21 Filing Fee (Administrative) $545.00 • ti ..- )7 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: 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 ^ day of ` , 20 Owner's Signature ,— , Owner's Signature Are_ Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 7150 SW Pfaff le Street • Portland,OR 97223 June 22,2001 JO: 01-109.012 Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 RE: CAMERON PLAZA Dear Matt: Welkin Engineering, Inc. is pleased to submit the Cameron Plaza Site Development application. Included in this submittal are 3 sets of: A. Application narrative; B. Project Drawings; C. Traffic Report; D. Storm Analysis; E. Geotechnical Report; F. Arborist Report,and 1 set of: 1. Consent form for Welkin Engineering,Inc. to act as applicant; 2. Neighborhood meeting notes; 3. Affidavit of posting; 4. Affidavit of mailing; 5. USA Pre-Screening report; 6. Utility letter; 7. Pre-Application notes; 8. Title Report; 9. 2 sets of Stamped neighborhood letters and a 10. Letter from the adjoining property owner in favor of the proposed variance. If you should have any questions as to where the information is in this narrative,please call me at 598-1866. Sincerely, WELKIN ENGINE RING,INC. Ed Christensen,P.E. Principal Attachments May 30 01 11 : 12a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 2 •Y . '. .,1"`40-$44:' First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon M ammo:ou;,ry of/TILE INSURANCE COMPANY of OI1:GUN 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 FAX (503) 790-7865 or (503) 790-7868 Preliminary Title Report March 1, 2001 ALTA Owners Stand.Cov. $646,430.00 Premium $1,576.00 ALTA Owners Ext. Coy. $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Stand.Cov. $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Ext. Cov. $ Premium $ Order..Na, : 916541 Indorsement- 100, 1 1 b li 6.1 Premium $ Escrow.No.: 01050669 Other Cost $ Re Saxony-Pacific LLC/Cameron Govt. Serv.Charge Cost 9 50.00 A consolidated statement of all charges and advances in con- . mutton with this order will be provided at closing. . First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon 1 Q26Q SW.Greenburg Road 170' . • and. .OR 97223 Attansipf}; Gloria Miller Telephone No.: (503)244-8323 Fax to (503)244-8377 We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring title to the following described land: For legal description see Exhibit "A" attached hereto; • and as Of February 21, 2001 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in: ALEX FINKE aka ALEX E. and/or ALEXANDER E. FINKE and LOTTE I. FINKE aka LOTTIE and/or LOTTI • FINKE;Trustees U.T.A. dated October 25, 1991, ALEX FINKE TRUST,an undivided one-half interest; and to LOTTE I. FINKE aka LOTTIE and/or LOTTI FINKE and ALEX FINKE aka ALEX E. and/or ALEXANDER C. FINKk, Trustees U.T.A. dated October 25, 1991, LOTTE I. FINKE TRUST, an undivided one-half interest, all as tenants in common; Subject to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form an;.: the following: 1. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. • Note: There are no liens as of February 17, 2001. • • 2; Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency. 3. These premises are within the boundaries of the Tualatin Valley Water District and are subject to the l4vigs.and assessments thereof. y' 4, The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limit ot•,t9Sde, streets or highways. • F :4i•4 M, ?;Thio report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a title insurance policy and shell become void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium paid. May 30 01 11 : 12a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 3 ifr r i ` ' + y - tf. ;fr 918541 ': :`,:. :5. ),,,ease, including the terms and provisions thereof, in which a memorandum was Dated : April 22, 1999 ,,. Recorded : April 30, 1999 as Fee No. 99053400 ' Lessor : Alex Finke and Lotte I, Finke, Trustees uta dated October 25, 1991 (Alex Finke Trust), an undivided one-half interest; and Lotte I. Finke and Alex Finke, Trustees uta dated October 25, 1991 (Lotte I. Finke Trust), an undivided one-half interest Lessee : Sprint Spectrum L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 6. Effect of Bargain and Sale Deed, including the terms and provisions thereof, Dated ; January 19, 2000 Recorded : ::,April 3, 2000 as Fee No. 2000026058 From : Alex Finke and Lotte Finke, Trustees of The Alex Finke Trust U/A dated October 25, 1991 To : Saxony-Pacific, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company 7, Effect of Bargain and Sale Deed, including the terms and provisions thereof, Dated : January 19, 2000 Reg . 7:: April 3, 2000 as Fee No. 2000026059 Fmmi . • ,•: Alex Finke and Lotte Finke (aka Lotti and/or Louie Finke), Trustees of The Lotte I. Finks Trust U/A dated October 25, 1991 To ' : Saxony-Pacific, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company " '= NOTE: '-The property referenced in Exception Nos. 6 and 7 above is only a portion of the property described in Exhibit "A" hereto. We find no evidence that these deeds have been accepted by VNhirngtoft County. .; , tY?.. ,, ,, 8: 'Terms, provisions and conditions of the Trust Agreement of the ALEX FINKE TRUST U.T.A dated October 25, 1991, and any subsequent modifications, a copy of which should be submitted to this office for inspection. 9. Terms, provisions and conditions of the Trust Agreement of the LOTTE I. FINKE TRUST U.T.A. dated October 25, 1991, and any subsequent modifications, a copy of which should be submitted to this office fqr inspection. 10, Any conveyance or encumbrance by SAXONY-PACIFIC, LLC should be executed pursuant to their Operating Agreement, a copy of which should be submitted to this office for inspection. 1.1• :(49recorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any. •• • 12. 'he following matters pertain to Lenders Extended coverage only: (a). 'P#nies in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other than the vestees shown herein. lb) Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appears of record. ' NOTE: This report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the office of the Secretary of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is assumed if a Financing Statement is filed in the office of the County Clerk (Recorder) covering fixtures on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes end bounds or under the rectangular survey system or by recorded lot and block. • May 30 01 11 : 12a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 4 Pias 3' Qs r Na. 916541 NOTE; Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 5, 1982 in Washington County, Oregon, imposes a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property located within Washington County. Certain conveyances may be exempt from said ordinance, in which case, Washington County will require a Correct and timely filing of an affidavit of exemption. For all deeds/conveyance documents which are recorded(including situations to meet lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit a s. ptabe to the county must be filed. NOTE: Taxes fat the year 2000-2001 paid in full. Tax Amount . $2,025.31 Code No, 023.81 Map & Tax Lot No. 1 S136CD-00600 Accovnt No. : R284187 NQTE: We find no judgments or United States Internal Revenue Liens against SAXONY-PACIFIC, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company or KIRK CAMERON. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON • ire/ 11,N/4 110Cdt )E0- JENNIFER L. WATSON Commercial Title Officer Voice (503) 790-7866 Fax (503) 790-7856 E-Mail jewatson @firstam,com Jl.W:alr cg: Saxony-Pacific LLC cc; Kirk Cameron c. ; Cash's Realty :•r r Attn: Gerald Cach Attn:: Closing Coordinator cc: Noryie Beggs & Simpson • . Attn: Keith Young Attn:' Closing Coordinator THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE We look forward to assisting you in all of your title and escrow needs Mai 30 01 11 : 13a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 5 • . R. Recording Information:• Address: Washington County 155 North 1st Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124-3087 • >•Aicooc1 g Fees: $5.00 per page $6.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund) $11.00 per document (OLIS Assessment & Taxation Fee) $5"00 for each additional document title $20.00 non-standard fee •I x �i >:•4. -rye f, .. iiyY..V I • • •. .. 3 • . '. SY' • Mai 30 01 11 : 13a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 6 s � • Order No. 916541 • EXHIBIT "A" • • A tract of land in the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a % inch iron rod with yellow cap inscribed "W.B. Wells" at the Southwest corner of that tract of land described as Parcel II in Deed Document No. 90-31286 recorded at the Washington County Deed Records; thence North 13°20'54" West along the West line of said Parcel II, 323.06 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989", said iron rod being the true point of beginning; thence continuing North 13°20'54" West along said West line, 220.86 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "W.B. Wells" at the Northwest corner of said Parcel II, said iron rod being on the South right of way line of S.W. Pfaffle Street; thence South 89°29'57" East along the North line of said Parcel II and along said right of way line, 130.03 feet to a a4 inch iron pipe protruding 2 feet above the ground at the North-Northeast corner of said Parcel II; thence South 13°26'48" East along the North-Northeasterly line of said Parcel II, leaving said right of way line, 220.95 feet to a point; thence North 89°29'57" West, 130.42 feet to the true point of beginning. ALSO a tract of land in Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the re-entrant corner on the West line of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38; thence South 86°17' East 634.26 feet; thence North 13°20' West 442.25 feet to a point in the South line of Pfaffle Road; thence along the South line of Pfaffle Road South 89°48' East 607.79 feet to an iron pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence South 0°22' East 335.0 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 89°28' West 27.7 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 13°20' West 345.0 feet to an iron pipe in the South line of Pfaffle Road; thence South 89°48' East 105.85 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion in deed to Ted L. Millar, Trustee of the Ted L. Millar Living Trust, an Oregon Trust recorded May 11, 1994 as Fee No. 94-046179, described as follows: • A tract of land in the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 1 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "W.B. Wells" at the Southwest corner of that tract of land described as Parcel it in Deed Document No. 90-31286 recorded at the Washington County Deed Records; thence North 13°20'54" West along the West line of said described Parcel II, 323.06 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989"; thence South 89°29'57" East 186.32 feet to a g inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989" on the East line of that tract of land described in recorded Document No. 93013643, said iron rod being the true point of beginning; thence South 0°22'56" East along said East line, 120.87 feet to the Southeast corner of said tract; thence North 89°37'26" West along the South line of said tract, 27.73 feet to the Southwest corner of said tract; thence North 13°26'48" West along the Westerly line of said tract, 124.59 feet to a point; thence South 89°29'57" East 55.90 feet to the true point of beginning. • .•.• :fir.. . , • • L May 30 01 11 : 14a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 7 :-.44-1r:-A*:``':*::s:'..:',:.. ... . STATE OF OREGON v Cou my er W. , } ss . I. Any Ai... �''�tr of Ate. 6 AFTER nlfrCORGING,IiBTURN TO Gin*for ��+Z+;'1.:- .^•••:'+e.: 1. ..t and . �•w.xg►rcu �, ). awe' • - '1110615 S.W.64 Drive �* � 7 4 : 0.aeaa► 9721 )' � . •.� � ' of TAX STATEMENTS SHALL.BE SENT TO: ,p,. .,i� ,EA- Doc : 2000026058 $' : Sivcopy,pltcifk,L.L.C. sect: 252025 2.00 ��c .`i 10613S.W.646Drive 04/03/2000 04: 1:06pat �, x s .;li.;,;I ,GnlSan 972194664 ::;i4i: t-,; .�,d}ryy:- BARGAIN AND SALE DEED 401•111=1111•1•1111M r'` t ' ' Alex Enke and Lobe Fink*, Trustees of The Alex Finite Trust U/A dated October 25,1991, "On ase,conveys to Saxony-Pacific,L.L.C.,an Oregon limited liability company."Grantee",an undivided sew half innsom in the real mem situated in the County of Washington,State of Oregon sad described on Exhibit A attached hereto. Tbo whole of the consideration for this conveyance is other property. • THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS ;;: DJSTRUMENT 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 DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR . :' FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. 1 Sfs Dated this AL.day of January,2000. THE ALEX FINKE TRUST 3; ..., : : • , i/'''VIedA, l' e.4.c .,Lc..,„. Alex Finite,Trustee QU/A daub October 2 , 1991 Lone 1.Fiake,Trustee U/A dated October 25, 1991 • A : >. Y. • Y /u- c . I r Illarsain and Sale Deed(Washington County) G:1Finke1329 1SarconylWasKlyDesetIcaTnsavc•1/19/2o00.12,•09 PM t May 30 01 11 : 15a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 8 r n I. P:• it $ `t , K{ ,E . .,` . ,;34, A f j -1 'y STATE OF OREGON ) s'jr �,. )a. uPno ..,-.1,.:‘, ;,.rs ....is I �W�+•�tir►•�n-=.��:��3, ����+ : ' ; . 'Ile foregoing instrument was ar,knowledgod before me this la..day of _:...'Jii # " ,:.. January,2000,by Alex Finke and Lotto 1.Finite,h aIoe& . I:") , dc..,.....,,4t, A l.1.4.6.-4-.0 u r/.', , fa 0tegaa _ �. / McrAmPUe i ITV AlIG.7.1043 : DES. 1 .4 ;,;c.'/• F >Wl ti:. ..1; 4' ,' «.. i • ••• ...ii i:„ . . 1 fir: .l �ks i+�:'.K?ti::i r.s b'4, 4.9414' , 2-Bargain and Sala Deed(Washington County) c:Viako1329 anylWasbCgtaaoOAiszTradoo•1/1 •+..n.fig • • r l Ma j 30 01 11 : 16a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 9 • "i' r4lt c• + I I:4„ . • BARGAIN AND SALE DEED January 19,2000 i GRANTOR:ALEX PINKE AND LOTTE I.MIKE,TRUSTEES ;$ r GRANTEE:SAXONY-PACIFIC,L.L.0 . TA- EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Washington County,ton Prom* 1./41 Bldg.Tigard Ih 3a Patten I • f . Beginning at an iron pipe marking the Northeast corner of the South%of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim No.37 in Township 2 South,Range 1 West,Willamette Meridian, Washington County,Oregon,and running thence South 45°00'Weston line between the said John Hicklin Donation Land Claim and the George Richardson Donation Land Claim,a dista,ice of 1807.1 feet to a point;thence South 45°00'East along the Easterly line of that certain tract of land conveyed to Emil A.and Olivia T.Johnson by deed as recorded in Book 118 page 69, Washington County,Deed records a distance of 131.0 feet to the point of beginning of the h=in described tract;thence from the described point of beginning South 45°00'East along the Easterly line of said Johnson tract a distance of 93.0 fast to a point on the Northerly line of the Pacific Highway;thence following said Northerly line of the Pacific Highway on a 5730.0 kot radius curve to the right(the long chord of which bears South 57°31'West 23.5 fat)23.5 ft.-t io a point marked by an iron highway right of way marker;thence South 571'38'West along sonar right of way line 145.0 feet to a point in the center of Fatnno Creek;thence North 36°30'Weal in the titer of Fenno Creek a distance of 78.6 feet to a point;thence North 55°52' West in the center of Farm Creek a distance of 6.1 feet to a point;thence North 55°09' East along the highway right of way line a distance of 156.4 feet to the point of beginning. • k : ,, Parcel No.R.461299 • 'r ( j Parcel 11. • Beginning at as iron pipe marking the Northeast corner oldie South of the John Hicklin Donation Land Claim in Township 2 South,Range I West,Willamette Meridian,Washington County,Oreegon,and running thence South 45° 18' West along the donation land claim line 18145 feet to the most Westerly corner of Lot 15 of Electric Addition to Tigardvilte,a duly rocorded subdivision in Washington County,Oregon;thence South 44°47' East on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 15 and the Northeasterly line of a tract of land conveyed to Er.,:'. Johnson by deed as recorded in Book 118 page 69 of Washington County Deed records, 131.0 feat to the Westerly corner of the Southeasterly �'/ of said Lot I5 and the true point of bcgimiag of the herein described tract;thence from the described point of beginning South 44°47'East on said Southwesterly line of Lot 15 a distance of 96.0 feet to the Northerly line of the Old Taylors Ferry Road;thence North 60° 12' East on said road line 22.2 feet to an iron;thence North 36'10' West 483 feet to an iron;thence North 60° 12'East 40.1 feet to an iron;thence North 36° I J' West 65.0 feet to an iron on the Easterly boundary of the State Highway;thence South 4S' 1�. West along said line,77.24 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel No.R461306 • -t.J Exhibit A- I(Washington County) G:1Fsakc132.91SuoaykWagbCtyDccdMaTrn.dac•1/26/209D.!L' .04 r Ma 30 01 11 : 1Ga Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-91GG p. 10 ••f � � M l+ itt. . ?.:C' i, ' January 19'2000 BARGAIN AND SALE DEED '..F,`fr GRANTOR;ALEX FINKE AND LOTTE 1.FLNKE,TRUSTEES t'!.. GRANTEE:SAXONY-PAC1FIC,L.L.0 ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION Washington CountwOcaion Pte! ; 1 .. 2. Garrett Street House ' T.' ,.• - A portion of Lot 9,F'REWIIrIG'S ORCHARD TRACTS,in the City of Tigard,Washington County,Oregon,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 9,its the center of Garrett Avenue(County Road No. 1067)and running thence South 24'30'East along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9,5426 feet to the true point of beginning of the herein described property;thence North 59'141'East 99.9 feet to a point thence South 24° 30'East 95 fed to a point;thence South 59°41' West 99.9 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9,in the center of Garrett Avenue;thence North 24'30'West along the Southwesterly litre of said Lot 9,a distance of 95 feet to the true point of beginning. Parcel No.R466070 ' 3.Frewing Street House All that part of Lot 18,FREWING'S ORCHARD TRACTS,Washington C u ty,Oregon,that lies North of a line drawn 70 feet Southerly from and parallel with the Y Lot 18;EXCEPT:the portion thereof lying within the boundaries of the County road on the East. Parcel Nos. K465142,K465133 4.Pfeifle Street Land A tract of land in Section 36,Township 1 South,Range 1 West,Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the re-entrant corner on the West lino of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No.38: thence South 86°17'East 634.26 feet;thence North 13°20' West 442.25 feet to a point in the South ling:of Pfeifle Road;thence along the South line of Pfeifle Road South 89°48'East 667.79 feat to an iron pipe at the true point of beginning of the tract herein described;thence South 0°22'East 335.0 feet to an iron pipe;thence North 89°28'West 27.7 feet to an iron pipe;thence North 13° 20'West 345.0 feet to an iron pipe in the South line of Pfeifle Road;thence South 89°48' East 105.85 fat to the true point of beginning.Except-Rights of the public in and to that pan of the herein described premises lying within the boundaries of roads and highways. .. Parcel No.l(284187 Exhibit A-2(Washington County) G:tFisks13294asany lWaseChDa4Alciang.0a•146/24)00•azau PM May 30 01 11 : 17a Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 11 .'s 3 .2'i:l yk .e l?. ti' ,; — fte 1.; ,::#4.141:!. ,. t .i .t.'.;':... Jan 19 2000 °, •' 1.OAROAIN AND SALE DEED ►�' ;.;:• :.`: GRANTOR:ALEX FINKS AND LOTT81.FINKS,TRUSTEES .4.'4,,. ', G... .5AXONY-PACIF1C,L.LC .:.: . .:,' .,.. �' ,;;;, wy. EXHIBIT A >11...4.4...1': . ,f•:f.' s LEGAL DESCRIPTION Washington Co Aty,t�re�o21 rn! • 5. N,4yjrav Street Land The West one-half of Lot 8,MILLARD AND VAN SCI1INVER TRACTS,Washington EXCEPT:Acquisition of road"right of way"by eminent domain by Washington County. Parcel No. 1(250757 '. 7,„C�a:Iorzuf A portion of Lot 9 and Lot 19,FREWINGS' ORCHARD TRACTS,Washington County, Oregon,more particularly.described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 9,in the center of Garrett Avenue(County Ro..:: No. 1067)and running thence South 24°30' East along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 9, 54.26 feet to a point;thence North 59°41'East 99.9 feet to a point;thence South 24°30' East 95 feet to a point;thence North 59°41' East 160.1 feet to a point;thence South 24°38' East 130.97 feat to a point on the Southeast line of said Lot 9;thence North 59°55' East along the Southeast lines of said Lots 9 and 19 to the most Easterly corner of said Lot 19;thence North 49°22' West along the Northeast line of.said Lot 19 to an angle therein;thence North 53° 16'West along the Northeast line of said Lot 19 to the most Northerly corner of said Lot 19;thence South 50° 10' West along the Northwesterly line of said Lots 19 and 9 to the point of beginning. Parcel No. R466061 '.' ;.') .34 r (4-; Exhibit-3(Washington County) G:1Hnko1329 4auonylWasbGtyDectlAlcaTcs_doe•1/262000• d ),;:.,a Jun 06 01 04: 15p Executive Extension, Inc. 503-297-9166 p. 2 Veefeift. (1•91/.1.eellief,f Tee, PLANNERS,CIVIL ENGINEERS,AND SURVEYORS June 6,2001 JO: 01-109.02 Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 RE: CAMERON PLAZA-PREAPP 2001-00037 I, Kirk Cameron,do hereby consent to Welkin Engineering,Inc.acting for me as the applicant for this Site Development at 8060 Pfatne Street, in Tigard,TM 1 S 136CD600. Sincerely, / i f F 1 r" Cameron— tt:/'k l�c� /VeCet 8000 SW Plane Street • Portland.OR 9722:4 • Pim.../KA1.ene v n,, . w - .- June 22, 2001 JO: 97-1 12.03 Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: CAMERON PLAZA- LANDSCAPE VARIANCE SETBACK REQUEST I represent the Welkin Corporate Center adjoining this prosed development. We are in favor of the reduced landscaping buffer for cost. security, and timing reasons. These reasons are outlined as follows: 1. The Welkin Corporate Center property immediately adjoining this parcel will never be able to support residential uses because of the high value of the land does not support residential rents; 2. The additional landscape buffer will provide a hiding area and will be a security problem; 3. This use of the fully entitled property for the Cameron Plaza project should not be restricted because of the timing difference between the Welkin Corporate Center development and itself. Should you have any further issues, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Welkin Engineering, Inc. ';t/ .L_ ___._,, Ed Christensen, P.E. 'e ida &9iiee'i4t9, Ttc1 June 11, 2001 JO: 01-109.01 SUBJECT: S.W. 81ST AVE. & S.W. PFAFFLE ST.,TIGARD,OR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES The meeting was held on: June 8, 2001 at City of Tigard Town Hall Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In attendance were four neighborhood residents. They were shown the site plan and building elevation. They were told the project scope, timing, and who the owner was and that they would occupy the building. Neighborhood Issues: 1. The major focus of one of the residents was to insure that the parking lot landscaping would screen the vehicles, and that street trees would be placed along Pfaffle Street; 2. A proper Traffic report be prepared; and 3. The developers try work together to improve SW 78th Avenue to a 4-lane configuration. The development team assured the residents that the Tigard Community Development Code(CDC) design standards would be adhered to in the development of this site. Though they were concerned that we were not doing enough, we assured them that we were meeting or exceeding the CDC requirements. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM. Cc: Steve Lee, LRS Architects 8000 SW Pfaffle Street,Portland,Oregon 97223 Phone(503)598-1866 Fax(503)598-1868 Email:CEI @CNNW.NET • Name of Applicant Welkin Engineering, Inc. Subject Property: Tax Lot(s) 600 Tax Map(s) 1S1 36 CD Address or General Location 8060 SW Pfaffle Road,Tigard,Oregon AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE I, Edward Christensen , do swear or affirm that I am (represent)the party initiating interest in a proposed Commercial Development affecting the land located at 8060 SW Pfaffle Road,Tigard, Oregon, and that pursuant to Ordinance 2050, Section 126, and the guidelines set out by the Planning Director, did on the 245` day of May, 2001 personally post the notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a City of Tigard Development application. The sign was posted at Pfaffle Road. (state location on property) This 243` day of May,2001. 77.x. Signature Subscribed and sworn to, or affirmed, before me this � day of A4 2001. .! • Notary State of on Public for the Statf Ore OFFICIAL SEAL � g N McENTIRE NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.323734 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 23,2003 My commission expires: 57Z3/6320n P:\CLIENT FILES(by job#)\2001\0I-109.02 EEI\Documents\affpost.wpd AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Ei&.s-. .D k. cff.zi sr # 4 eing duly sworn, depose and say that on 512-3/6/ , I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed±20,000 square-foot commercial building located south of the intersection of S.W. 81" Avenue and S.W. Pfaffle Road(Tax map and Tax Lot# 1S1 36 CD TL 600), a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the Lake Grove United States Post Office box located on Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, with postage prepaid thereon. &"7/V. —(1K _ , Signature STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS County of Multnomah ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me this 2� day of , 2001. .-0-----: //.- ---/---C.c.6.------ Notary Public /<yh7-70 My commission expires: 5/Z3/22j Pre-App.No.: Veeka Seeu , lac, • PLANNERS,CIVIL ENGINEERS,AND SURVEYORS We the undersigned interested parties attended the neighborhood meeting review of the presented plan of Cameron Plaza on Pfaff le St., Tigard • Name Address Phone Number act 1.- M / / lea 5LA) 2 .3-e0'6 39' - y72,: r k �C�r;� !%,C. el. I )a-c-{a- 5 Cam. k?/ �-UE sD3r °� "e-ay -7 -)Gt ig . Qpt'mGc.ru 1 a-S v -w 2 Af/4_ - -(0 R.4-SS 9s--- • • • • RAAA SW Pfaffle Street • Portland.OR 97223 • Phone:(603)598-1866 • Fax:(503)598-1868 • 06/21/01 17;02 FAX 5038463641 CLEAN WATER SERVICES — 111001 JUN-06-2001 09:19 ,aG Num 1J2oa1 Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment A g e n c y of Waatingtort County - Jurisdiction t T gC34:3C3.D Date A ° Map&Tax Lot 5Fy Z ZI S,RAW 3 food_ Owner Site Address _ °C4°Lsw r"#--raFFC.�. r — 'r►cz.60o �1- Z3 Contact _Eo Proposed Activity at)eeo (5FFtc- Address OCtb Sr' I4-pG` o¢ 44 o 077._ ,a3 Z2.3 J[A Phone 59 tit Feu �ssz-_- Y N NA Y N NA USA Composite Map Stormwater Infrastructure maps ID ❑ ❑Map t IS I L) ❑ OS# Vi i 0 tr.I Locally adopted studies or maps ❑ ❑ r Ours L Specif�r Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of USA Design and Construction Standards Reaolution and Order 00.7: ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200'of the site.THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM ASITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMI'T.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 PCIRM 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: Reviewed By: �►-( pate: 1 Returned ro licowt Mail Fax Date i-a-D L--a]M . lilt ..tv kel Di hte'n • • F PLANNERS,CIVIL ENGINEERS,AND SURVEYORS June 7, 2001 JO: 01-147.01 Mr. Scott Palmer Mr. Ken Perdue -MCOR030546 NW Natural Gas Verizon Engineering 220 NW 2nd Avenue PO Box 1100 Portland, OR 97209-3991 Beaverton, OR 97076-1100 (503) 226-4211 EXT. 2449 (503) 620-7332 Mr. Dan Dyer Mr. Brian Moore -WR61606 TCI Cablevision Portland General Electric 14200 SW Brigadoon Court 9480 Sw Boeckman Road Beaverton, OR 97005 Wilsonville, OR 97070 (503) 605-4894 (503) 570-4406 RE: CAMERON PLAZA @ 8060 SW Pfaffle St., Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Ladies And Gentlemen: We are requesting utility service for the aforementioned project. It is requested at this time that a joint trench power utility plan be designed for Cameron Plaza at 8060 SW Pfaff le St; the intersection of SW Pfaff le Street and SW 81St Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaff le Street in Tigard. We are requesting that each utility company provide a trenching pan in order that a composite trenching plan can be made. We have enclosed a copy of the approved site plan for your use. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If you should have any questions or concerns, please contact our office immediately. Sincerely, WELKIN ENGINEERING, INC. Edward Christensen-President • ennn ors?r.o_rr+_ea.. _► . t,_ n_-o AT MW1 1 . bt,,,.....Tenn%me reee . t_ /en...lne role - JUN. 13. 2001 10:23AM DISTRIBUTION NO. 4455 P. 1/3 Phone.(503)226-4211 or 721-2449 Fax (503)721-2502 Northwest Natural Gas Fax To: Edward Christensen-Welkin Eng From: G.Scott Palmer Fax: (503)598-1868 Date: June 13,2001 Phone: (503)598-1866 Pages: 3 Re: CAMERON PLAZA CC: O Urgent fl For Review ❑Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle 'Comments,: sketch of Joint Trench detail and sketch of our existing facilities. Any questions feel free to call. JUN. 13. 2001 10:24AM DISTRIBUTION NO. 4455 P. 2/3 JOINT TRENCH !OREGON " PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY Basun E �I�wrRIY� =Age S£t 9CLOw G4 '!(6 IOtra (s A'T&ILS EDpBAbAS uC. ■ i • CAS , i ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ �•♦♦ ♦ I ♦/ i•12' Wk. ♦ •' , ♦ . ♦ 11111./SEC N .CA PH I . POIIER �--tr--S Minimum Depth from Proposed Final Grade NNG Service 18" NNG Main 30" Notes 1. Construction within public rights-of-way must be performed by licensed contractors. 2. The customer shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations, as well as laws of negligence, concerning all activities in the vicinity of the utility's gas lines and equipment. 3. The customer providing the trench shall be responsible for notifying the appropriate utility notification center prior to excavation. 4. The customer shall provide, without cost to the Gas Company, all rights-of-way and easements as deemed necessary for the installation of facilities for supplying gas service, and provide free access at reasonable intervals to maintain the continuity of such service. 5. All other utilities must be contacted for approval of joint trench use prior to construction. 6. The trench bottom shall be smooth and clear of debris. 7. Sand padding under utilities will be required over rocky areas. 8. Other utilities shall be installed and backfilled by the customer with 12 inches of controlled backfill prior to the installation of gas facilities. 9. Ditch width and depth may vary from the above standard depending on size and/or number of ducts to be installed by each utility. Coordinate with a utility field representative for final trench dimensions. 4196 Q.. i♦ vi 21 Q M. CO i Pj`� 15 i t $11260 l4N' - 01 4 20 111255 411215 (n !1r 411220 M) c , �a17 16 #11305 0 (P) 1 C6 6-1111-t"-193 61tzd5 ci..: 0 /1, — ..-- I/'' 19 ter 1182 .s, ' :---0.4 1/1' o Q ' 011250 17 1� 13'" 017360 D BO' le r ..... -\, $ Ell' IL r et 1 L_____ , r 1 !!`rfi PFAFFI,.E ST. ei__ — -` , --- _At R aaCP — --� --�� R-1'lllv)'�7 p-1" 74 r . �� Y . Q 2 PYOtdt ' f , , /0• S 8 i / r tOnrlatlaai s I nra rats a was fat m , f • only. Foe own*____ d w COLLIER=YOU Os o 0s. Ni4M •s Igo.F • a•Ask1 M�csw o-714' ° i.- fl» ' 1 302-2344 —. w Natoli o .co. as„ _ Alin: ilaoseuloa C0a dnat:i. OW91 E 6 220 .W.2nd Avs. 3tr 9^ i -a• OR 1 f 37r teodt X11 E,A •kw ' _ O ° 39W �y Mt Ntt Natural (503)226'4211 �y Flat: 1-042-021 County: WASHINGTON / Township: T01S Range: R01W Section: 36SW 6/13!2001 By: gsp Mapscale: 1 inch � 100 feet Date Printed= , , I . ' ! GRAPHIC SCALE V e vigg 1. � r: f t w 8 ttr-m M1 cD \\.. .--.... f55 CC z r I r e ,y atk I.HaaS1 600 L SW PFAFFL TREET _taboo _I is#m _�—_ t�s __�— tale°——+— ' + iris° +---'51°' ---I---=Y—''' ---.-- - I— ts;w —t—--I ,G.� �'�p, ��,,+� 'U�f oa'o0 _ }aim ' .p, Saf ..—.:l a_''�\. �' �� —f ——- r._....,... _ Ylt- �- �— —— `IA I.. 44.s _- -- __ 59AS:6]LLm _---�_ - k ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i _ , �_ g C en..c o TL B00 cy .d ' \/i \ :e pz\ 15 C. ; _, 1 ®®®om om ■ 11111 (1 I I �, 1 _ ■■■r■■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■,0 1 _ a r _ • r ', I �II s o U) ' X79 °q WELKIN N �@o 1 „� N 14 .G'� J W oNp8 1 CAMERON PLAZA i&1/4 0 ��_ CORPORATE ,�> S3oR 1 FF=232.75 •"�'� °Q C h 500� '; CENTER asig 1 • t Li hs G.M. • I TRAINING CENTER 11 I 1 1 _`� ----- i I PARKING STALL COUNT; Iara'"r' 'aaa CAMERON PLAZA STALLS — 95 REGULAR 3 HANDICAPPED — 2 DOUBLE LONG SEARS HOMELIFE CENTER WELKIN CENTER STALLS — s__ 89 REGULAR , 4 a HANDICAPPED w• ,.o....: ak SHEET 1ll CAMERON PLAZA 8060 SW PFAFFLE STREET TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TAX MAP NO. 1S1 36CA TAX LOT NO. 0600 SW PFAFFLE STREET - ____ ______ ____L -] i• 521 53 54 55 56 57�581 59 60 611 621 631 641 65 I 66 /1 J1 1 I .\‘).. 2 1/, 1 3 . I 4 1 1 1 5 I 1 51 50 49 b 47 46 45 440 43 42 41 401 391 b 37 36 6 1 11 34 I I 7 I I 1 8 I 67 66 33 9 10 1 31 I 1 \\\ N 12 I LT p 13 I WLU 8.4? 14 I PROPOSED 2 STORY 15 BUILDING „ilEri I 16 I % (20,000 SF) 30 17 1 18 28 19 1 27 20 I 1 26 25 21 22 I 1 i a \` 23■ 44 1 uw 1 24 N Dl. SITE PLAN I i SDR2001-00010 YAR2001-00013 CAMERON PLAZA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBMITTAL INDEX: A. PROJECT NARRATIVE B. PROJECT DRAWINGS C. TRAFFIC REPORT D. STORM ANALYSIS E. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT F. ARBORIST REPORT APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & VARIANCE FOR CAMERON PARK PLAZA TIGARD, OREGON JUNE 22, 2001 Applicant: Kirk Cameron 5665 SW Meadows Road, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 p(503)297-1060; f(503)297-9166 Applicant's Representative: Ed Christensen, P.E. Welkin Engineering, Inc. 8000 Pfaffle Street Portland, Oregon 97223 p(503) 598-1866; f(503)598-1868 Architect: Steve Lee,AIA LRS Architects 1121 SW Salmon St., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97205 p (503)221-1121; f(503)221-2077 Comprehensive Plan Designation: C-P;Professional/Administrative Office-Commercial District Zoning Designation: C-P; Professional/Administrative Office-Commercial District Location: Tax Map 1 S 1 36 CD;Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81'Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. Submittal Date: June 22th,2001 1 INTRODUCTION This application is for site development review for a 20,925 square foot professional office building in the C-P district. The development will occur on an existing lot of record; Tax Lot 600, Tax Map 1 S1 36 CD. The current address for this parcel is 8060 S.W. Pfaffle Street. This parcels are currently zoned C-P and professional offices are an allowed use. The site is bordered on the north by SW Pfaffle Street and is at the intersection of SW 81st Avenue. SW Pfaffle Street is a two-lane minor collector street. There are curbs in place along the majority of the opposite side of the street with intermittent sections of sidewalk on both sides of the street. The frontage of this parcel on SW Pfaffle Street is currently unimproved, but as part of this proposal, dedications will be granted to increase the existing 25-foot half-width right-of way to the comprehensively planned 30-foot half-width. The existing pavement will be expanded to ±8 feet. A 5-foot sidewalk and curbs will be provided on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street along the frontage of this property. Access to the proposed site will be via a single 30-foot commercial approach on SW Pfaffle Street. In addition to the half-street improvements along SW Pfaffle Street, street widening improvements are being considered for the intersection of Pacific Highway West and SW 78th Avenue. As indicated in the accompanying traffic study, there is a need at the p.m. peak for more turn lane options to help with traffic queuing onto Pacific Highway West at SW 78th Avenue. The street widening improvements will provide an additional turn lane. The site is bordered on the east by the Welkin Corporate Center parcel, which has a SDR currently pending, and is bordered on the south by the Sears Homelife Center. The Sears Homelife Center maintains a 20-foot setback on its property. Along this south property line, a 10-foot building setback will be maintained. Along the east property line, a 10-foot landscaped setback will separate the building from the adjacent GM Training Center property. From the entrance of the building, which faces east, there will be a north-south five-foot sidewalk pedestrian link directly from the building to the street. The site slopes gently downward from the south to the north. Utilizing this natural topography, the building is placed on the southerly portion of this parcel. All drainage will flow northward to a water quality/detention pond, which will be constructed to collect the surface water generated from all new impervious surfaces. Approximately 25% of the remainder of the site will be landscaped. The site is designed to provide Seventy-three (73) total parking spaces. Forty-five (45) of these spaces will be standard, one designated for loading, and three (3) will be handicapped including one van accessible space. 2 se.ct'on A . DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2.Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. Buildings shall be: (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; Siting the building and parking requires the removal of all of the existing nine (9) trees. These will be mitigated for as required under Tigard code. None of the trees are significant in stature, three (3) do not require mitigation because of their size,and none are in good condition. The proposed building does not alter the existing topography because the existing topography is relatively flat. The existing grade differential is 7 feet over a 220-foot linear dimension, thereby demonstrating a flat site of less than 5% grade. There are no natural drainage ways on-site. These criteria are not applicable. (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; The soil on-site is not subject to slumping or sliding, as indicated in the geotechnical report submitted with this application. (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and The building distance between the proposed building to the east is over 200 feet. The building distance between the Sears Homelife Center to the south is 30 feet. The building distance between the vacant land to the west is greater than 10 feet and no building is existing on that side of the parcel. The building distance between the street to the north is greater than 70 feet. Only one side of the building is adjacent to another and with a thirty foot separation, provides a more than adequate amount of space for light and air circulation. According to TVFR (Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue), the preferred distance between two buildings for fire suppression is 50 feet, while 20 feet is adequate. Therefore, currently the proposed building exceeds the adequate and is greater than the preferred distance on 3 of its 4 sides. (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal The building and parking siting requires the removal of most of the existing trees. 3 All existing trees removed due to development practices will be mitigated on-site per the Chapter 18.790 requirements. If for any reason some caliper inches are not able to be mitigated on-site, a fee in lieu will be paid to the City of Tigard for city-wide tree planting. See narrative, chapter 18.790. 9. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention: a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and Public areas, such as drive-aisles, and parking lots, public gathering places, such as structure main entrances are all in plain and unobstructed view from the adjacent main street, providing a direct line of sight for public and police vehicles passing by the building. There are no areas meant for public occupation (i.e. sidewalks, pathways, entrances) on the west or far side of the building. b. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to: (1) A deck,patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine; As shown on the landscaping plan, no hedges, low walls, decks, patios, or draping vines are proposed to be part of the building. Parking area screening consists of street-side berms and intermittent bushes, not complete hedges. The parking area will be sufficiently screened from the Pfaffle right-of-way, but will not form a complete sight-obscuring barrier. From the parking lot, the building entrances and windows will not be obscured by landscaping or walls and all public gathering areas will be in plain view. (2) A trellis or arbor; No trellis or arbors are proposed as part of this development project. (3) A change in elevation or grade; Severe elevation or grade changes are not part of this project because of the existing flat grade. (4) A change in the texture of the path material; All proposed pathway materials are of cement or will be striped. (5) Sign;or No sign will be located as to allow persons to hide from view and access the building. (6) Landscaping. No landscaping will be located as to allow persons to hide from view and access the building. The parking area will be sufficiently screened from the Pfaffle right-of-way, but will not form a complete sight-obscuring barrier. From the parking lot, the building entrances and windows will not be obscured by landscaping or walls and all public gathering areas will be in plain view. 10. Crime prevention and safety: 4 a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; All windows are of appropriate height and location so that interior building occupants have sufficient view of the area near the window. b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; There are no interior laundry or service areas proposed with this building. c. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; All mail will be brought into the reception lobby, therefore, being inside a controlled area and having frequent pedestrian traffic. d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and The proposed parking lot lighting will angle downward to illuminate vehicles and potentially dark corners. The lighting is located to sufficiently light the exterior of the building and the parking lot without leaving any dark areas. 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. The proposed parking lot lighting will angle downward to illuminate vehicles and potentially dark corners. The lighting is located to sufficiently light the exterior of the building and the parking lot without leaving any dark areas. Fixtures will be on a mast at least seven (7) feet in height or on a building or wall at least seven(7) feet in height. 18.360.090 12. Landscaping: b.This section requires 20% of the gross area be landscaped. The proposed development designates approximately 25% of the gross site area as landscaping as shown in the attached landscaping plan. This criterion is met and exceeded. 13. Drainage: All drainage plans as shown on the attached site plan abide by the criteria in the 1981 master drainage plan. This criterion is met. 14. Provision for the disabled: All facilities provided in the proposed development conform with the requirements prescribed in ORS 447. This criterion is met. 15. Application of all provisions unless modified. The proposed development does require a variance. This is addressed at the end of this document. 5 CHAPTER 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 18.390.040 Type II Procedure: As required a Pre-application conference regarding the proposed development was held on 05/15/01, which covered the requirements for the Type II Site Development procedure. Subsequently, notice of the pending application was mailed to the neighbors within 500 feet on 5/25/01, and a neighborhood meeting was held on 6/8/01, at least two (2) weeks after the mailing per the code. In addition to this narrative, a soils report, traffic impact study, and an arborist report are included in this submittal. Per Staff, a downstream analysis is not required as part of this application because on-site storm water detention is provided. Because all storm water generated by new impervious areas created by the proposed development will be detained on-site, and released at no greater than pre-development levels, no negative impacts will be realized by the proposed development on the city storm water system as previously studied. Sanitary sewer will be provided by extending an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line in SW 81st Avenue to the north of the development site. This sanitary sewer line has sufficient capacity to service the proposed development and will not burden the existing city sanitary sewer system. Therefore, an impact study is not required for the sanitary sewer service of the proposed development. Water service is provided by an existing 8-inch line in SW Pfaffle Street. A main extension of this line is proposed to service the proposed structure. Per the Tualatin Valley Water District, there is sufficient pressure in the existing line in SW Pfaff le Street to serve a structure of this proposed size. Because the water supply is ample, it is not anticipated to not have any negative impacts realized by the proposed development,a water service impact study is not included in this narrative. The proposed structure will be an office use. This use does not generate excess noise like an general commercial or industrial use. The majority of noise will be generated by rooftop air conditioning units and additional traffic. As shown on the attached architectural plans, there is a parapet that extends above the roof that will block the direct noise path of rooftop equipment noise. Because the proposed development does not create excess noise, a noise impact study is not required to be included in this narrative. These criteria are met. CHAPTER 18.520 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 18.520.020.D Uses: Professional and administrative services are an allowed use in the C-P District. 18.520.040 Development Standards In Commercial Zones The minimum lot area in the C-P District is 6,000 square feet; The average minimum lot width is 50 feet. This parcel contains more than 1 acre and has an average lot width of 200 feet,which is in excess of the requirements of this section. Therefore,these criteria are met. No front, side, or rear setbacks are required except where the parcel abuts a residential district. This parcel does abut a residential parcel, which is the subject of the variance. The adjoining residential parcel to the east is currently in review for a residential to C-P zoning change. The parcel to the east is in a state of transformation and will never support residential uses again. However due to timing 6 considerations, this project may be developed first, which would unjustly require the extensive residential to C-P setbacks. The adjoining property owner does not want to constrain this parcel by these setbacks, and supports the C-P to C-P setbacks and the proposed variance. The two property owners are working on many development issues in common. Because the adjoining parcel is residential until redevelopment is started and the existing houses are torn down, the residential to C-P side yard setback govern. However, attached is a letter from the Welkin Corporate Center representative supporting the proposed setback reduction variance. Therefore,this criterion may not apply. No building shall exceed 45 feet in height in the C-P zoning district. The height of the proposed two story building is ±36 feet as shown on the attached elevations, well below the maximum permitted height. This criterion is met. The maximum site coverage in the C-P zoning district is 85% including all buildings and impervious surfaces and the minimum landscaping requirement is 15%. The applicant has provided ±25% landscaping which meets this criterion (11,244 sf of landscaping on the 45,017 sf site). The remaining 75% building coverage and impervious area is less than the required 85%. Therefore, this criterion is also met and exceeded. CHAPTER 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS,AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030.F. Pedestrian Walkway: A walkway extending from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress is required. A five foot sidewalk is proposed on the east side of the building, running north and connecting directly to the public right-of- way,meeting these requirements is shown on the attached site plan. This criterion is met. 18.705.030.I. Minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial use: Commercial and industrial uses require the proposed development of less than 100 required spaces to install one driveway, and a minimum access of 30 feet wide with 24 feet between curbs. The proposed development incorporates a 30-foot wide vehicle access point providing access to SW Pfaff le Street. Within the access way, 24 feet of pavement between curbs is provided, as shown on the accompanying site plan. These criteria are met. CHAPTER 18.730 EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 18.730.040.A Additional Setback Requirements: A. 2. Collector Streets. This section requires any structure adjacent to Collector Streets to be set back 30 feet from the centerline of the roadway. SW Pfaff le is designated as a minor collector. The proposed structure is set back approximately 100 feet from the centerline of SW Pfaff le Street. This setback is much greater than the required 30 foot setback of this section. This criterion is met and exceeded. CHAPTER 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.040 Street Trees: This section requires street trees to be planted on the frontage of Pfaffle street as part of this development. 7 C. Size and spacing of street trees c. On the 250 feet of frontage on Pfaff le Street, 7 trees are being provided. The proposed trees are medium-sized trees, and are spaced 30 feet apart as required in this section. This criterion is met. h. The proposed trees are not located within 20 feet of existing light standards. This criterion is met. k. The proposed street trees are located approximately 7 feet from the curb, therefore not being planted within the two foot minimum requirement from the face of the curb. The accompanying landscape plan identifies 7 newly-planted street. The City of Tigard has supported the planting of 2-inch street trees in the past and, according to the city arborist,does not restrict the planting of 2-inch trees. This criterion is met. 18.745.050.E. Screening: special provisions 1.a.(1) The parking areas are landscaped with a variety of ground cover, low shrubbery and shade trees in compliance with this section. The criteria of this section requiring residential setback buffering do not apply hopefully, because within four to eighteen months no residential zones abut this site. Therefore, the relevant criteria of this section are met,and the other criteria should not apply. I. There are 15 trees either existing or proposed which are within or border the parking area, this provides one tree per 5.9 parking stalls, satisfying the minimum requirement of one tree per seven parking stalls as provided in this section. This criterion is met. II. The dimensions for the landscape islands as shown in the accompanying site plan are a minimum of 5 feet and are protected from vehicular damage by a curb. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.040: Methods of Demonstrating Compliance. 5. Specific Requirements: b. (1): The proposed building contains 20,925 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this g.f.a., 96 square feet of waste storage area is required. Approximately 110 square feet of waste storage area is provided. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS For administrative and professional services, 1 parking space is required for each 350 square feet of gross floor space. For the proposed 20,925 square foot building, as shown on the attached site plan, 60 parking spaces are required. Seventy-three (73) parking spaces have been proposed. Of these 73 parking spaces, 3 are handicapped spaces, including 1 van accessible handicapped stall, are standard and 9 are compact. The ADA requirements of a site providing between 51 and 75 total parking spaces is 3 handicapped spaces including one van accessible space. The regular parking space dimensions are 9 feet x 18.5 feet in depth. The longest loading truck anticipated is your typical parcel carrier whose trucks are 30 feet in length. On approval of the management, larger moving vans may occasionally visit the 8 premisses. The tenants will be advised well in advance of moving vans in the parking lot, or these moving vans will be restricted to weekend relocations. Therefore, these criteria are met. 18.765.040 F. A walkway extending from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress is required. A five-foot sidewalk on the east side of the building entrance, north to the Pfaff le Street has been provided, meeting these requirements is shown on the attached site plan. This criterion is met. G. Parking Lot Landscaping: Parking lots are to be landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.745 1.a. (1) as previously demonstrated. Though no tests have been performed on the soil for growing characteristic, this site appears suitable based upon the size and varieties of plants currently growing on the adjoining lot. This criterion will be met. H. 1. Parking space surfacing: The proposed parking lot will be improved with an asphalt surface as required in this section. This criterion will be met. I. Parking lot striping: The proposed parking lot spaces will be clearly marked as shown on the attached site plan. This criterion is met. J. Wheel Stops: The proposed parking stalls maintain a 4 inch wheel stop with a 3 foot bumper overhang area incorporating low lying landscaping material. All parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks and interior landscaped areas will have these elements. All relevant criteria are met. K. Drainage: The proposed parking lot will be drained to avoid ponding and flow of water across public sidewalks. This criterion will be met. N. Space and aisle dimensions: The proposed compact, standard, and handicapped spaces conform to the dimensions provided in this section: 90-degree standard stalls measure 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet, and compact stalls measure 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet. These criteria are met. 17.765.050. A. Location and Access: Bicycle spaces are being provided at the west side of the building as shown on the attached site plan. The bicycle parking area is within 50 feet of the primary entrance to the proposed structure. The bicycle parking area is not located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways, and is visible from on-site buildings. These criteria are met. 17.765.050. B. Covered Parking Spaces: The bicycle parking area will be covered as provided in this section. Therefore,this criterion is met. 17.765.050. C. Design Requirements: The proposed bicycle racks will be securely anchored to the ground, and designed so that each space will be easily accessible. These criteria are met. 17.765.070 H. Minimum Requirements: Provision for bicycle parking is also required at a ratio of 0.5 space for every 1,000 square foot of building area. Based on 20,925 square feet of building area, 11 bicycle parking spaces are required. The 11 required bicycle parking spaces are provided at the west side of the building as shown on the attached site plan. This criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.790 TREE REMOVAL 9 18.790.030. Tree Plan Requirement. B. 2. 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. A plan is to be provided that includes the identification of all existing trees over 12 inches in caliper and mitigate removal of trees over 12 inches in caliper. The aesthetic character of the site will be greatly enhanced with new trees and hedges as shown on the attached landscape plan. Per the arborist report, trees are identified and inventoried. Their locations were verified by the arborist and compared to the submitted tree plan. The accompanying arborist report lists tree conditions and defines conditions. This criteria is met. CHAPTER 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 18.795.040. B. 2. Non-arterial street visual clearance requirements. The proposed development provided a 30 foot visual clearance area as indicated on the accompanying site plan. The relevant criteria for this section are met. CHAPTER 18.800 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as street, sewers and drainage. SW Pfaffle Street is classified as a 2-lane minor collector with an ultimate right-of-way width of 60 feet. The current half-width of Pfaffle Street on the side of the parcel is 25 feet. An additional 5 feet will be dedicated and pavement expansion improvements will be provided to provide an ultimate 20-foot pavement half-width to the minor collector street standard. Though at this time no curbs or sidewalks exist on the frontage of this property,both curbs and 5-foot sidewalk will be provided with the development of this parcel. The existing pavement will be expanded to 20 feet on the south side of SW Pfaff le Street along the frontage of this property along with curbs and 5-foot sidewalk. Access to the proposed site will be via a single 30-foot commercial approach on SW Pfaffle Street, aligned with SW 815` Avenue. Along with the half-street improvements proposed along SW Pfaffle Street, SW 78th Avenue street widening improvements may be provided between the intersection of Pacific Highway West and SW Pfaffle Street if Tif credits can be used to improve the intersection. As indicated in the accompanying traffic study, there is a need at the p.m. peak for more turn lane options to help with traffic queuing onto Pacific Highway West from SW 78th Avenue. The street widening improvements will allow an additional turn lane. No remedial traffic mitigation measures are required for this development. No on-site above ground utility lines are proposed as part of this development. There are existing overhead power lines along SW Pfaffle as shown on the revised site plan in this package. 18.810.070 Sidewalks. C. A five foot wide pedestrian pathway will be constructed from the front of the building along its east side, connecting the public sidewalk system to the building. This criterion is met. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers. Sanitary sewer service is available from SW 8151 Avenue and will be extended on-site to serve the new building. Sanitary sewer connecting to the existing system in SW 815L Avenue will abide by the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and surface Water Management as adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency. This criterion will be met. 10 Water is available to this site via an existing 8 inch ductile iron water line located in SW Pfaff le Street. Service will be extended from this main to provide both domestic fire and irrigation flows. An additional fire hydrant will be placed on-site and the building will contain an interior sprinkler system. These criteria are met. 18.810.100 Storm Drainage. As indicated on the accompanying site plan, a water quality facility is proposed on-site. A detention pond is proposed on the north portion of the site. Storm water from all impervious area created by the proposed development will drain into these detention areas utilizing a gravity fed system. The existing storm sewer system available for the site is limited to existing roadside ditches. Storm water will be released into these existing ditches from the detention area at no greater than pre-development levels. Provisions for storm drainage will follow the natural contours of the site draining from the south portion of the site, where the building is located, to the north and being collected and treated in a storm water quality detention pond located in the northwest corner of the site. These criteria are met. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS: Proportionality Analysis-Impact Analysis This site has been analyzed in relation to the amount of infrastructure required for its construction versus its impact on adjacent services. According to Resolution 95-61,the Traffic Impact Fee(TIF) is expected to recover 32 percent of the traffic impact of a new development on the Collector and Arterial street systems. For this analysis we have calculated the off-site construction costs for various improvements required by the city and by this development. Per our Traffic Impact Fee(TIF) analysis,the required fee for TIF's will be$52,972. Upon obtaining a building permit,the TIF credits for improvements to Collector street systems may me used to offset building permit fees. In order to cover the total cost of the this projects traffic impacts,the TIF is divided by 0.32 for a total mitigated project impact of$165,537 ($52,972_0.32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact,is considered an unmitigated impact on the Collector and Arterial street systems. Since the TIF paid is $52,972,the unmitigated impact cost can be valued at approximately$112,565 impact on the Collector street system. The owner of this project will construct the outside lane of Pfaffle Street at a cost of±$47,000 (@ $200/1f for 'A street widening),plus the right-of-way(ROW)after dedication on Pfaffle Street of 5 feet x 235 feet at$3.00 per sf, or$3,525. The total cost for the dedication and improvement of Pfaffle Street is $50,527. Given these estimates,the conditions are roughly proportional to the impacts since the unmitigated impact of$52,972 is more than the value of the dedication and improvements of$50,527. 11 DEVELOPMENT& ADMINISTRATION 18.134.050: CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL & C-P ZONES A. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: 1.The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title,be in conflict with the policies of the comprehensive plan,to any other applicable policies and standards,and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; Response: The properties along the south side of Pfaffle Street adjoining this property are all either GC or C-P, except for the parcel immediately to the east which is currently a residential zone,but has applied for SDR(99-00024 "Welkin Corporate Center")and a zone change to C-P. The issue of the zone change for SDR 99-00024 is a matter of timing. The Welkin Corporate Center is slated to go forward in 2001 or 2002,but if the existing houses on the properties are not torn down prior to this development going to construction,then the more restrictive setbacks are required. In order to move forward, the Welkin Corporate Center must obtain some preleases,regardless the property will not sustain residential uses anymore. The developers of the SDR(99-00024)parcel are working closely with the Cameron Plaza developers on many issues and are in favor of granting the variance for the C-P to C-P setbacks (see attached letter). If approved there is a possibility that the two projects may even combine driveways,which because of the timing issues with the setback restrictions that would not be possible. Because the area is in a state of transition, and the value of the property,the Welkin parcel will never be considered for residential uses again. Therefore,this request is applicable to the policies and standards for this zoning district,because it is not a material detriment to the Welkin property to the east. 2.There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape,topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control,and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; Response: The slope of the property and its wedge shaped configuration,pushes the building to the southwest corner of the site,placing the parking areas to the north and east. On the Welkin parcel, the building is proposed to the southeast. The two site plans work together best if the parking area on this proposal is C-P to C-P. By doing so,breaks up the one large landscape area,and offers a more uniform landscaping throughout the two parcels. No other properties are affected by this modification. The applicant and the Welkin Center have no control over the physical constraints,and thus should be granted this exception. 3.The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land; 12 Response: No change in allowable use is requested and the remaining City standards will be maintained. 4.Existing physical and natural systems, such as,but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms,or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the title; and Response: No existing physical and natural systems will be affected by this request. 5.The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Response: The location of this site in relationship to the adjoining underdeveloped Welkin Corporate Center was a hardship that existed prior to this proposal and is not self-imposed. No reduction in excess of what would be allowable under the code if the Welkin Corporate Center was developed. 13 Sect;on �3. mars CAMERON PLAZA � , : 060 SW PFAFFLE STREET tili TIGARD,OREGON 97223 • TAX MAP NO. 1S1 36CA e TAX LOT NO. 0600 l i FOR:EEI SOLUTIONS,INC. ,r,oa,� • r 5665 SW MEADOWS ROAD,SUITE 300 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035-3137 g o 503-297-1060 Oi SW PFAFFLE STREET --- 4 - P. �,.-,. r J La 1 Emma Qom. 4.;._io 01w 61 ji 4 I lUfa o 1 1 . 52Iui54155! Tsemi7i 6o 61! al tat MI,51LL C 1 '�I `d w g caufTw/sm+.c \ I �' 1 t ` '� L' W.A 4 .,Ra ow', L / 3 . �) w i .so–r7 , , 1 1 1 IM • ,. 3 r V P. r , —1 d 1 5,1 48148 471 Iii uj 44 43 a 4I!401.MI 7!1 371 36 I. ( ` j 1J*?° .� s` ,;, --- �I D ..I 1 I t �� - ...�.1–I i „ ss r I PEp1-s j u 19 1 N d.4, ti B!.Br..l•ne Rd.._-...... �� aA• L 31 1 -- ... .,,:.,.... ... sq iiiG 1 .� I VICINITY MAP C m �9_ A is o 125.F t, inn: I s.,(4 14 I W a - 111 1 A1er61oano.. �����\ 16 ENGINEER: SHEET INDEX: ' } IMPS ,,l� $ a; (Wm 6D - le.g�I WEtI(IN ENGINEERING,Inc At.l TITLE SHEET AND SITE PLAN L3 S p • 1^ - 16 1 6000 SW PFAFFLE STREET A2.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN a AWL 0/141".17/499 17 I TIGARD,OREGON 97223 A22 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 _ IS I PHONE 503-598-1868 A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • _ FAX 503596189) 11.1 LANDSCAPING PLAN '� • _ _ 19 C1 EXISTING CONDRIONS PLAN 1 27 70 ARCHITECT: C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 1a ]i — " I LAS ARCHITECTS C3 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER AND UTILITY PLAN -f� 1121 SW SALMON STREET,SUITE 100 s L " 1 27 PHONE 593221-1GON 97205 ___M I_ _ (_____— FAX _ __—__N_ FAX 50.1221-2077 v N ED D1.SITE PLAN f • N S▪ HEET A1.1. R S • • i Q 0 • • • • p - - vL _ • •• lalINI•1 YI•1YJN • M.90.110.31•1 • WI q Pi 1:11 M I 1 LOW e Al I L t Ja t------:aim . loran _1 ,....•1• _ 6 ij all it a,,.r1 AIM 1 Li -1 N Dl.FIRST FLOOR PLAN i 1/8-.1.-o- j Ili-O. i MR li0“4 SHEET A2.1 MI • • 0 0 o o o e o o • _- » _�: -- -- -- ------ :;� 'nom e'' .. a rr m"'kT-�� �""` .�E 1111111111, ' /01111.11111.11111 11111111.1111.1 Babe `i i , ` _ 1 P'P 'II1'PP! ■■■■ 1 1 !J111 ' I! '! '( I1 I1 !PP!JPP!_i'i- -$i • =3az-ti33i$.#°isxasx / . xx- a _.: : 1�-1• o J it 0 1.NORTH ELEVATION B3.EAST ELEVATION W B 1/8-_1' 0- I/8--1'-0- w 0 0 0 0 11° s T Z�� So v Fez d '4.� R i u'.t' i - .. : - '1 s:„:. 3,. ¢ 3 's`r�a o-"` a t{'. Q 9 y 3 t 3_ `'x+r.,.u, �: ., - '� , - acs UgP E JUL■ iP Ui•■I ■■■■■ 1■•1 fi■■■■■a ■1■■■ S s. \_ =ffrif I` T 4T1,�1 -r 't e€ s# n 's €€s `a= `ts a i r� Fi aq4 ed iI —,� .. , r , , ti' s&& k :°°7E 8.:271: " .. tia'. 1 p'! S nyt '`.tom yny ! r A I Dl.SOUTH ELEVATION 03.WEST ELEVATION 1 1/8-=1.-0- 1ie-=1 0- 1 N SHEET A3.1 • R S O © O O — - - - - -_- z- --:1 1131M/Sims • Irml MM rZ I ft..OM I° T-� • r T T T l 0 r- , .l. , 1,1 , I a. I Il. I I II. , .r. , In , — t__ _ • rr.m.Wrrmr .4 N JJJ I O 9 y k O I II I i i 0 a t I t Z .. , .n ( IP c 0• -1- . .. I .n 1 H——H——I 10,i -WV. 1 .r. , — -I ail 1131 11 r—D W —J g II •l• I .r , 1 r , .r. , , .r. , .r. I f--+--I F-±- F--_ --I 1 Ill I r I I l. , III , I , l , L- --J L _J_ _J :21i .1 ■F.' N 1 EDD1.SECOND FLOOR PLAN I 1/8-=1•-0• j p-.- 1 w1 SHEET A2.2 g r .011i0111 i 1 11 �trEr 11itit r 331jjii of : a • .1 • % • 1 ¢ 1 • ii • a : ett :ii ll�,tl1� i,iiltli iiiiiillif j i R o Hill tilt Ii111 i i f€t+1 iIi1i'ltl Pi " d}1 jilt II 1 1,11 1 1 i ri ' 1 i ilt i 'iiiiiiii 1 Ill: l ! ( i`LII1"fl 11 . i r s i i` `1 I IF 1 t t 11 � j ;: f FtII jLI ijl ii1,, • 4 i t ; ir lNt ir 1s r • ;i., i l i o jl j ;a Li li 11 Allrigri4 ''. .- 1 • ,\ ;`\1\ , '`1 I( Y VII ,. el I 4\\I - ",...,,I) 1 � / ' t '�y' I •••7 .4:: \- - „..:s, 1 i; 1 el / ::.1'4 41111ii-N17' NI:114 4 �, , w tit 1 N1 it /•` 1 ii \I • IlL.0 D 71 X40: o _� \� -_.t ►. * ► r no R VVVVVV: w m•4111 Ilk .11” . 1 i�' �i W���:O��1� ......-,1 e WW1 E ..n CAMERON PLAZA 1'81` m i i l 2 080 SW PFAFFLE STREET 11419 q 11GARD.OREGON 27223 LANDSCAPING PLAN S`i I -e; 1 Lr.M`E1EA .• .wart m , . , wm awroo.OR • , , r • + •-• 1 1103i11.1019 1 1 I 1 . I F , n 111 QQQ .0 'T'•'.. {{ 1 �� r �r 1 l � I � � rY 1 , I •p _\ I,d n r _ r/ r \ 1 1 I g 7 �a \ \ 11 ! I �r \%,,, G �N �� ' 9 \ s.\\ i 1 . , 1 , i ,., .,........._ tip 1 s� ,V \AO \ 0 I I \ g SW e1sr 14 i I I, 5,I i1 n I 1 � � ,'� 11 I �1 1 j 1 1 i �`, - �`�� 1 , I .. ' II 1 ,1 2/\ I \ r . \ wit1 % 1 ssessaZell S 111111 1i 1 $ - e;=oe= a S $ s !11' •~ -••• •_••• CAMERON PLAZA q !7 t- x� m EXISTING ! 'XkuiiN .cc 4rt. ��ae. i'S CONDITIONS Ivo n Ip rMOMPI A RAvamaneo�.ro ras rrw.M.00rwwi4U.ar ra MINS Mitrzw0•11111NM IMIMOMa.rwv .r..e�.v-r.. 1srsrrrs� MIMICS •GRAPHIC SCALE ......./A I III ICI- i_� _'-' aae Is IN imn ii■ (•Ms) Fi r _. .._. —_.___._ __-__ .-. _ __ /.�I�/ f✓• CATCH BASIN AREA DRAIN �j g f i ....L .....____________„_.„.......__ SWSTREET _ �"�,,,� 1 .. ucm..A • _ ''/ DITCH INLET i; • ® `!dam+ ,^ I \ fN:.rL.i 4.p.,.t(MW� -�--4n ,(C�•fH CuM.C[wW090M[ .�4^ • O O ../ F,t. �-c—4c _ Z Y C f/ / M�P�L 1 O.111 i.be 1 ■ �r 1 -� 1-1_1-.._I'l JIB. EROSIONCOMTROLNOTES: Z _ .. o A — 1 p �-,-,.,.s,� a... bra I/` .r.,rows I .0 on l•• ' 61111 I 1.10•0.•iw•N 1010..•@•m.. CAMERON PLAZA 1_ 1 1010.. . Ewa. .t 11...li ^^Q�Q�]D/2 q NI= --FF=232?5-- r„, 1 .� .� I �...1010 rc a W o §il_mil_ 11 w 1 - _ Way Sill G.M. 1 *ADO .° TRAINING \ 1 .'I ...a.... .......•O CENTER T i I *cat.,..........• °" _-_ ��_ • � •1010.•m.,.....•...•.,(,CO.a.(. ... - - 1 SEARS HOME LIFE CENTER I ./ • .. • M SHEET C2 • • I OVAMne SCALE 1I V—_ is ...._._....._.. ......... ........�.......w..r i -_.._ g_f SW PFAFFLE STREET j WM. Si MINIM ....er r�— _ .I ()1 my Wr, T ._' e tka 6.� IVI\ /' /.. s.., /TL 600 j ` om W r2 It> I F 1 \ ITL500 U) 1 1 r� 0 q 1 CAMERON PLAZA �_ am° YpA FF=232.75 I I IP 1g6!qgl G.M. \ TRAINING CENTER 1 1 • ., / ! I U1 1 ° 1 // � 1 ISEARS HOMELIFE CENTER I i t +r mmora M SHEET C3 Secton C r ' LANCASTER ENGINEERING Traffic Studies • Planning • Safety MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Christensen COPY: John Nibler /� FROM: Todd Mobley �64>( P Also DATE: June 8, 2001 SUBJECT: Cameron Plaza TIS Ed, At the request of John Nibler at Panattoni Construction, enclosed is a camera-ready fi- nal copy of the traffic impact study for the subject development. If you have any ques- tions or if we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Union Station,Suite 206 • 800 N.W.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 CAMERON PLAZA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TIGARD, OREGON PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING JUNE 2001 ..................... ... .... .... .... ........................ Oi . (¢S FA lA ASTER ENGINEERING ::i7!g[,,,; i<gtudies • Planning • safety ..................... CAMERON PLAZA ..................... ................... ...................... .................... ...................... ................... ...................... .................... ...................... Traffic Impact Study Tigard, Oregon c`' r°('iNFF 'o ; . X805• 9, - • ...................: ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... SO „GOREGON a „? /s R. LANGP Prepared By TOM R. LANCASTER, PE, PTOE TODD E. MOBLEY, EIT June 2001 it?t#trn0t2tion,Suite 206 • 800 N.W.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 i.irCASTER ENGINEERING TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Location Description 4 Trip Generation 9 Trip Distribution 10 Operational Analysis 13 Summary 21 Appendix 22 -2- I STER ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION A 20,000 square foot office building has been proposed for development on the south side of Pfaffie Street, west of 79th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed devel- opment on the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative meas- ures. The analysis will include level of service calculations and a discussion of site ac- cess. Detailed information on level of service, traffic counts, trip generation calcula- tions, and level of service calculations is included in the appendix to this report. -3- CASTER ENGINEERING • LOCATION DESCRIPTION The site is located on the south side of Pfaffle Street, west of 79th Avenue in the city of Tigard, Oregon. The site of the former General Motors training facility borders the subject site on the west. The site is proposed to be developed with a two-story of- fice building with a total of 20,000 square feet. An area map showing the site location is on page six, and a vicinity map showing the existing lane configurations at the study area intersection is shown in the drawing on page seven. The site is proposed to have a direct, full-movement access to Pfaffle Street. As prescribed by the City of Tigard, the study area includes the following inter- sections: 1. Hall Boulevard at Pfaffle Street 2. Pfaffle Street at 78th Avenue 3. Highway 99W at 78th Avenue/Dartmouth Street Hall Boulevard is a three-lane arterial roadway. Curbs are in place on both , sides of the road with sidewalk only on the east side. There is a southbound left-turn lane in place, as well as striped bike lanes on both sides of the road north of the "T" shaped intersection with Pfaffle Street. At the intersection, traffic on Pfaffle is con- trolled by a STOP sign. A westbound left-turn lane is in place on Pfaffle Street, al- though there is less than 40 feet of storage available—room for no more than two cars. The posted speed limit on Hall Boulevard is 40 mph. Pfaffle Street is a two-lane minor collector street. There are curbs in place along the majority of the street with intermittent sections of sidewalk on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on Pfaffle Street is 35 mph. SW 78`h Avenue is a three-lane roadway with two southbound lanes and one northbound lane south of its all-way STOP controlled intersection with Pfaffle Street, and an unstriped two-lane roadway north of the intersection. There is an eastbound right-turn lane on Pfaffle Street, but all other approaches have a single lane. Curbs and sidewalks are in place on 78th Avenue only to the south of Pfaffle Street. The posted -4- MASTER ENGINEERING speed limit on 78th Avenue is 25 mph and speed humps are in place north of Pfaff le Street. Highway 99W is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and is classified as a highway of statewide level of importance. Highway 99W is a five-lane facility with two through lanes in each direction and a continuous center turn lane. The posted speed varies from 35 to 45 mph in the vicinity of the site. The intersection of 78th Avenue and Highway 99W is controlled by a six-phase actuated traffic signal, with a cycle length of 140 seconds during the evening peak hour. There are protected left-turn lanes and phasing on both approaches of Highway 99W. Dartmouth Street forms the southern leg to the intersection. Dartmouth Street and 78th Avenue have direction-separated phasing. The nearest public transit routes to the site are Tri-Met routes 12, 95X, and 64X, which pass near the site on Highway 99W. Routes 12 and 95X offer service be- tween Sherwood and Downtown Portland. Route 64X offers service between Tigard and Marquam Hill. Manual turning movement counts were made at the study area intersections in April 2001, from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hours for the study area were approximately 7:20 to 8:20 AM and 4:35 to 5:35 PM. The volumes for the morning and evening peak hours are shown in the traffic flow diagram on page eight. -5- ) v jf ftSTNUTJI I I ST. ' i ,r ELMW000 ST. /� o+. — r BORDERS I ST. 1� i I--- 01ESf1NT GROVE Il COVERT 1i LEHMAN ST. �.� HEMLOCK f ST 151 / ■ M.P. 4.C+! I TIGER Car LARCH r ST. < ` , `uILLR •• CORAL ST. 26 PARK �— . LANDAU ('—^ ( --1—i 1 ST. - Jo � o Metzger 35 3 �, LOCUST > > >• ,� — -- 1 ST. < LOCUST a ST, a 1...•L........„_ a 13.,,n a~i TZG 2 •vi MAPLELEAF 57 W w r <� o> If MAPLELEAF ST. " [ MAPLEL'EAF m I ��/OAKwaY 5T. ST. I .%'...N.N3 °p\ ST. m)I 1 OAK 1 R 57. OAK I r • vi Z. L5::: L m LL 'LS1I . ... .1 L.::,- , r - 7 .i THORN ST. �'A u.i \ °° f L < a THOS LONGSTAFF \9y ,STEVE ST. > a .� v+ a W \ 4,. • NORTH DAKOTA °�`� ST. \ ~ Z ri N m ,- b-cal `~' ui . m m ^ ^ y\`-gy 1Q. \ —�� r a PFAFFLE ST. j,/"....:in R a C f ENBURi a=N+ a o = \ \* QQ TANGELA m �P a F a ST. z �i`P = 1 a, J N > �L cn n Of LONDON TANGELA CT. ,- o 9,0\ \ S'(• ct CT. ANGEL m N \\/� s PL o+ _ rki 35 .36 0 ....„.... ,,. ..... Isk,ri."\ ,5", 43 + ,;,.. •� C�4 P t• ,�. �� �cS GARDEN P� \ v ST \ ik ��S KNpL \ �w 0 C \� HEREMLaONSA HAY � FP� ,� T� o °a . BEVO ST./ �G � P y+ • Sl ; B9 > N 9\ SCA LENS wKfR �sr.WNW( � /I► ` Gl3 \\9 k. ► 301. L� y, �y u ter AREA MAP Iror rov ' ,STER ENGINEERING -6- . LEGEND • Study Area Intersection - - - - Site Boundary II Stop Sign •or Traffic Signal a, L c c a> o o S^�\ T, 4 V1''� � 1 � z �y F Pfaffle Street \ ■ 1 ■ ti� PROJECT SITE • c 7_ o. 9�� g \II ei YA 1 /0 WI No Scale VICINITY MAP Existing Lane Configurations LANCASTER ENGINEERING & Traffic Control Devices cer 1.dwg -7- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ;�� 199 rn� 234 Q, 1 16 v-_ In rnno E- 148 ^��" E— 156 1 4 .0 31 .0 35 EJ .--29 <-11 4 .0 59 Try Tf� 9 � F1T1� 32-T is r--> �� Nub 4 --) o')u1 13 -j ooet "�N �r� 216 v 254 N"-) - fp b 3 o ku 3 CU D ›. c cv Q > O t O CD cn t O n 2 / \ j Pfoffle Street \\` i PROJECT SITE ° 9,.5i. 9934 r, oar AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR (- ,--:".„ 5 :o t_ 18 N--N E- 1 179 v- CO E- 1610 Ej .I,y \F 1 O , -_J 14 \F 68 At 7� tTI> 1 46� t1" r> NI 1659-4 'nN�- 1477 210-4, °pn~ 427 n�C0 No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions `:-:LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours cei 1.d w -8- �rY gg STER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed office development, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, published by the In- stitute 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 floor area. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 31 trips generated by the development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 27 will be entering and 4 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour 30 trips are expected with 5 entering and 25 exiting the site. A weekday total of 220 trips are ex- pected with half entering and half exiting. A summary of the trip generation calculations is shown in the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Cameron Plaza Entering Exiting Total Trips Trips Trips AM Peak Hour 27 4 31 PM Peak Hour 5 25 30 Weekday 110 110 220 -9- STER ENGINEERING TRIP DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of the trips generated by the proposed development was estimated based on the distribution of population areas in relation to the site. Also considered were the easiest routes between the site and major arterials such as Highway 217 and Highway 99W. The traffic flow diagram on page 11 shows the distribution of the projected site trips for the morning and evening peak hours. The diagram on page 12 shows the as- signment of the site trips from the proposed development. -10- 5 � C c Ql 0 ti Q 9941 0 m 0 z Pfa(tie Street ,20Z 40 yY 609 ■ L _ _ _ _ J c 41 PROJECT 2� SITE e l' 0 � t ?,, , _9 A, ,,,,, ,, Dorl,,Quo, Street `DO_ �a I c� Pi° Tx, AI lkir No Scale PRIMARY SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4 Inbound & Outbound Percentages 9 LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours cep 1.dwg -11- I AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR iL p t1 t0 t_0 (---Orn 0^ 000 5 000 f- 1 Try Try off' Ei Tr-> o1' � Tr> 000 0� p-j ^00 p -> v00 2 ---, 15 -I / / / ai z L o > c a) cp z L Q 0 m cii t CO T O \ II( Pfaffle Street / \\\ I 1 17. PROJECT • SITE 9-% 9gq cDj \XxQr AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR -o- E-0 °ow) E—0 EJ .I. 1-> .C° EJ .I. -) .C° _ 11i\ EITr> 3 �' EITr> \T p 00o p ._) 000 N/ o -, o -I No Scale ......... ....... .................. ...... .... ... TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Trips AM & PM Peak Hours �-r��� �STER ENGINEERING ?'v3:.: -12- ■ 99 -r CASTER ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Background Traffic Historical traffic counts were examined at the study area intersections to deter- mine growth rates in the area. In this case, morning and evening peak hour counts made in October of 1997 were available at the two intersections on Pfaffle Street. Eve- ning peak hour counts from January of 1998 were available at the intersection of High- way 99W and Dartmouth Street. Comparing the 1997/98 counts and the recent 2001 counts shows a very small amount of growth during the morning peak hour and an overall reduction in traffic volumes in the project study area during the evening peak hour. At the intersections of 78th and Hall with Pfaffle, the growth rates for the morn- ing peak hour were zero and 1.8 percent per year, respectively. For the evening peak hour the intersection of Hall and 78`h showed a growth rate of negative 1.8 percent per year, and the remaining two study area intersections showed a growth rate of negative 0.8 percent per year. It is important to note that the recent counts were made in April 2001 after the opening of the nearby Lowe's Home Improvement store and several other smaller developments in the nearby Tigard Triangle. Christensen Engineering is currently proposing construction of a similar sized office building immediately east of the subject site. The traffic impact study for the Christensen development was prepared recently by Lancaster Engineering and traffic from that development was added to the existing volumes to comprise the background traffic. Traffic was not included from the nearby Tri-County Center project given the uncertain status of that project. The background traffic volumes for the morning and evening peak hours are shown on page 14. The sum of background traffic plus site trips from the proposed development are shown on page 15. -13- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR - rn LC)`11 t 199 'IN'N' 1-23 7 Q, t- 1 t- 16 :1- - nN rn, o E— 155 -n^ E- 157 .L 4 .0 33 4 44 E-J 14 .G 29 E .0 59 Tr) Try 9 � (1T r> 32 --1' Tr> ^� Nn 4 � nn� 13 Nov f� �� 218 - "' 272 `s`n - cu c 7 o C _q z L Q o 0) S r. 0 N 2 \ 117 Pfoffle Street 11 / \\\\ 1 1 PROJECT 6 SITE 1 r4os! AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR N in 5 ^-O L 18 V.-N F- 1 179 Lo--r- E- 1610 --II 4 - 10 E-1 .1/ 4 .V68 1659-> €1Tr 14787- E:T ) �N cocq I N/ 210 - �, ^ 427 rn^ 0 No Scale ` ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES < ; y ` Background ItANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours cei 1,d wg -14- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ( '-- ------`53,1,0 t 199 (-T.----r)c°srn 238 rn t- 1 nN t16 "1N O^70 E— 160 rnr■ E- 158 .l, 4 NC-35 .1,1-) 55 <-114 X 29 El .k 1-3 .0 59 Tr-) Tr> 9-1\ <--iTr> 32 -T E-ITr> erg Nap 4 -j ,7,n Li 13 - �otr n a^ 220 - `D 287 "� a) z b cu o c Q co j t Q o 0 I \ 417 Pfoffle Street 1 1 i KZ' PROJECT • SITE 01 9q AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR cv z 'C 5 - 19 � .-v- E- 1179 -- (- 1610 E L .0 1° EJ .,L .0 68 _ 31-' � T � 51-7' � Tr> T 1659 -� n`v� 1477--j ,NIF 210 °per^ 427 r7-`° No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES a Background + Site Trips LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours ce;1.dwg -15- L.7.° STER ENGINEERING Traffic Signal Warrants A traffic signal warrant comparison was made to determine if a traffic signal will be warranted at either of the study area intersections. The Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant, and the Peak Hour Warrant from the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, published by the Federal Highway Administration, were examined. Seventy percent of the stan- dard warrants were used for the intersection of Hall and Pfaff le because the 85" percen- tile speed on Hall was observed to be in excess of 40 mph. One hundred percent of the standard warrants were used for the intersection of Pfaff le and 78th Avenue. When evaluating the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant and the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant, it is assumed that the evening peak hour is 10 percent of the average daily traffic (ADT) and that the 8th highest hour is 5.3 percent of the ADT. At the intersection of Hall and Pfaff le, existing traffic volumes are sufficient to satisfy three signal warrants during the evening peak hour. As discussed in the follow- ing section, levels of service will be acceptable at the intersection and a traffic signal is not recommended. For background traffic plus site trips from the proposed development, none of the warrants examined were satisfied at the intersection of Pfaff le Street and 78`h Ave- nue. A traffic signal is not recommended. Left-Turn Lane Warrants A left-turn lane warrant analysis was made to determine whether a left-turn lane will be warranted on Pfaff le Street at the site access. The warrants used were those de- veloped in the HIGHWAY RESEARCH RECORD NO. 211, published by the Transpor- tation Research Board as adapted by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The warrants for two-lane streets consider through volumes, left-turning volumes, and speeds. The left-turn lane warrants will not be satisfied during either peak hour with the project in place. A left-turn lane is not recommended. • -16- a STER ENGINEERING 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 existing conditions and existing traffic plus site trips from the proposed development. The study area intersections were analyzed using the signalized and unsignalized intersection analysis methods in the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board. The results of the capacity analysis show that the intersection of Pfaffle Street and 78th Avenue is currently operating at level of service A during the morning peak hour and between levels of service A and B during the evening peak hour. For back- ground traffic conditions the intersection will remain at level of service A during the morning peak hour and will operate at level of service B during the evening peak hour. These levels of service will not change with the proposed development in place. The operation of this intersection is occasionally hindered by traffic queues from the nearby intersection of 78th Avenue and Highway 99W. The "T" shaped intersection of Hall Boulevard and Pfaffle Street is currently operating at level of service C during both the morning and evening peak hours. This level of service will not change for background traffic conditions either with or without the proposed development in place. The level of service refers to traffic turning left from Pfaffle Street since this movement experiences the most delay. Since the intersection of Highway 99W and Dartmouth Street is under ODOT jurisdiction, the capacity analysis was done with respect to volume-to-capacity (v/c) ra- tios. However, for informational purposes for the City of Tigard, the delay and level of service is also reported. Highway 99W is classified by ODOT as a Statewide High- way, and the maximum allowable v/c ratio is 0.90, as shown in Table 7 the 1999 Ore- gon Highway Plan (OHP). This standard is a two-hour v/c ratio, and in accordance with the OHP, it is calculated by dividing the peak two-hour volume by twice the hourly capacity. Detailed calculations showing this procedure are given in the appendix to this report. The intersection of Highway 99W and Dartmouth Street is currently operating at a two-hour v/c ratio of 0.72 during the morning and 0.88 during the evening. For background traffic conditions the two-hour v/c ratio at the intersection will increase by 0.01 during both peak hours. With the development in place the v/c ratios will increase -17- ',CASTER ENGINEERING by another 0.01 during both peak hours. The intersection will still meet ODOT stan- dards with the proposed development in place. 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 delay and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Cameron Plaza AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Pfaffle Street at 78th Avenue Existing Conditions A 9 - A/B 10 - Background Traffic A 9 - B 11 - Background + Site Trips A 9 - B 12 - Pfaffle Street at Hall Boulevard Existing Conditions C 17 - C 22 - Background Traffic C 17 - C 23 - Background + Site Trips C 17 - C 25 - Hwy 99W at Dartmouth/78th Ave Existing Conditions C 31 0.72* D 47 0.88* Background Traffic C 31 0.73* D 48 0.89* Background + Site Trips C' 32 0.74* D 49 0.90* * Peak two-hour v/c ratio. See appendix for calculations LOS = Level of service Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds v/c = Volume-to-capacity ratio -18- STER ENGINEERING Cut-Through Traffic and Traffic Calming Measures Much of the existing traffic on Pfaffle street is "cut-through" traffic, or traffic travelling between Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W that uses Pfaffle Street to avoid the congested intersection of Hall and Highway 99W. To discourage high speeds and cut-through traffic along Pfaffle Street, it may be appropriate to install traffic calming features on the street. There are a variety of traffic calming measures that are avail- able. Cul-de-sacs and other traffic barriers can be installed to partially or fully close streets to through traffic, but this defeats the objectives of providing connectivity. A common traffic calming technique is to install curb extensions at intersec- tions. These extensions are usually located at the intersection crosswalks and extend through the parking lane to the edge of the traffic lane. Curb extensions assist pedestri- ans by reducing the curb-to-curb width of the street that must be crossed. For this rea- son extensions are most often used at locations that are frequently used by pedestrians, particularly school children. Curb extensions can sometimes reduce traffic speeds slightly due to the narrowing of the street width. Speed humps are used to reduce traffic speeds. The humps can be designed for the speed zone on the street. For residential streets the speed humps would normally be designed for 25 mph. For collector streets they are usually designed for 35 mph. They are typically installed at spacings of about 300 to 400 feet to maintain relatively consis- tent traffic speeds. Speed humps have been found to be effective in controlling speeds. Speed humps are sometimes used in combination with curb extensions at cross- walks. The combination is typically used at intersections with unusually high pedes- trian volumes such as near schools, or at locations where crosswalks would not nor- mally be expected such as at mid-block locations. A specialized version of this combi- nation is a raised intersection, where the level of the entire intersection is raised by a few inches. This has the effect of a speed hump that encompasses the intersection in- cluding all the crosswalks. Raised median islands can be installed in streets to assist pedestrians crossing the street. This enables pedestrians to cross the street one-half at a time. Raised medi- ans are typically used on collectors or arterials where speeds are high. The medians typically have little effect on traffic speeds. On residential streets, medians interfere with parking and can cause circulation difficulties with school buses and other large ve- hicles. -19- (CASTER ENGINEERING Stop signs should be used only sparingly for traffic calming purposes. Stop signs installed for speed control typically result in high violation rates, and often pro- duce higher traffic speeds between Stop signs than would occur without the Stop signs. Better results will usually be obtained if the traffic calming devices are planned, designed, and installed as part of the original street construction. If the devices are ret- rofitted at a later date they sometimes are not as attractive and can create drainage prob- lems. For a traffic calming program to be effective along Pfaffle Street, the street pat- tern in this part of the City should be examined before the exact types and locations of the devices are determined. This would include locations of connections to future de- velopments and areas with potentially high pedestrian volumes. -20- CASTER ENGINEERING SUMMARY 1. The proposed Cameron Plaza office building is expected to generate approximately 31 trips during the morning peak hour peak hour, with 27 of these entering the site and 4 exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, 30 trips are expected with 5 entering and 25 exiting the site. A weekday total of 220 trips are expected with half entering and half exiting. 2. At the intersection of Hall and Pfaff le, existing traffic volumes are sufficient to sat- isfy three traffic signal warrants during the evening peak hour. Levels of service will be acceptable at this intersection and a traffic signal is not recommended. None of the three warrants examined were satisfied at the intersection of Pfaff le Street and 78th Avenue. 3. The intersections of Hall Boulevard and 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during both peak hours. The intersections will continue to operate acceptably with the addition of traffic from the proposed develop- ment. 4. The intersection of Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street currently meets ODOT mobil- ity standards during both the morning and evening peak periods. The intersection will continue to operate acceptably with the proposed development in place. -21- STER ENGINEERING 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 signifi- cant 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. • Imo` STEA*NEERN6 LEVEL 'c°R S/GNCF SERV/CE ALi 0ENTERR' ' /4 SECT�QNS LEVEL OF CONT SERVICE PER ROL DELA Y A VEHICLE (seconds) c10 111111111filiesE 10-20 2035 5580 80 LEVEL 'SCR� /S'CVF S6-RV/CE C AL/ZED 1/47 /7-ER�q LEVEL S`cCTlCNS OF PER SER SCE CoArxRoL 2)EL A y A R V E ICLE (seconds) c10 D 10-is 3S-so 50 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT HALL BOULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREET A T= 3 .8% P=.862 N 1583 DATE OF COUNT: 4W/25/01 . O 1513 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R • 0 431 152 TIME STARTED: 07 : 00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H —0 4-) I L. 4-230 0 - L199 T= 0% T= 4 . 9% 0 —► 4-0 P=0 . P=.845 0 1 31 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • • t T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 4-1 I r• P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —' 0 314 23 175 —' DJQO Peak Hour 07:35-08:35 Traffic Smithy - 1462 T= 5 .7°% P=.834 1337 TEV=1150 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND • TIME PERIOD AI TO _► 3 /J , L' ', r' r ' L 1 ALL 07 :00-07 :05 0 0 0 0 23 5 0 15 2 1 0 7 53 07:05-07 :10 0 0 0 0 24 11 0 20 1 2 0 3 61 07 :10-07 :15 0 0 0 0 14 12 0 11 4 3 0 7 51 07:15-07 :20 0 0 0 0 41 6 0 16 5 7 1 7 83 07 :20-07 :25 0 0 0 0 23 20 0 14 3 4 0 8 72 07:25-07 :30 0 0 0 0 32 8 0 24 1 0 0 15 80 07 :30-07 :35 0 0 0 0 28 11 0 20 3 5 0 8 75 07 :35-07 :40 0 0 0 0 37 12 0 23 2 7 0 13 94 07:40-07 :45 0 0 0 0 57 13 0 20 3 5 0 21 119 07:45-07 :50 0 0 0 0 31 19 0 31 2 3 0 9 95 07:50-07 :55 0 0 0 0 33 14 0 21 4 1 0 28 101 07 :55-08 :00 0 0 0 0 48 17 0 32 3 0 0 20 120 08 :00-08 :05 0 0 0 0 33 9 0 19 2 2 0 17 82 08 :05-08 :10 0 0 0 0 37 9 0 24 0 2 0 24 96 08 :10-08 :15 0 0 0 0 24 14 0 23 1 2 0 11 75 08 :15-08 :20 0 0 0 0 35 12 0 29 0 3 0 20 99 08 :20-08 :25 0 0 0 0 36 10 0 29 6 2 0 11 94 08:25-08 :30 0 0 0 0 27 8 0 37 0 1 0 15 88 08:30-08 :35 0 0 0 0 33 15 0 26 0 3 0 10 87 08 :35-08 :40 0 0 0 0 22 13 0 26 6 0 0 9 76 08 :40-08 :45 0 0 0 0 30 10 0 21 3 7 0 8 79 08 :45-08 :50 0 0 0 0 26 8 0 30 0 2 0 6 72 08 :50-08 :55 0 0 0 0 23 12 0 16 2 2 0 9 64 08 :55-09 :00 0 0 0 0 23 5 0 17 3 1 0 14 63 . Total Survey 0 0 0 0 740 273 0 544 56 65 1 300 1979 pHF 0 0 0 0 .86 .76 0 . 83 .64 . 52 0 . 77 .909 Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 .5 1.8 0 5 .7 5.4 3 . 1 0 5 . 3 4 .5' 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 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 0 0 0 0 391 148 0 247 33 38 1 146 1004 07: 15-08 :15 0 0 0 0 424 152 0 267 29 38 1 181 1092 07: 30-08 :30 0 0 0 0 426 148 0 308 26 33 0 197 1138 07:45-08 :45 0 0 0 0 389 150 0 318 27 26 0 182 1092 08 : 00-09:00 0 0 0 0 349 125 0 297 23 27 0 154 975 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR REPORT HALL BOULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREET • T. 4 .2% P=. 885 N +1574 • DATE OF COUNT: 25/01 O 1505 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 426 148 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09 : 00 H 4-0 4J L► 4-230 • • • 0 j L197 T= 0% T= 4 .3% 0 _■ • r0 P=0 . P=.942 0 - r33 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • • • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 4_, I . r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 -► 174 -* DJQO 0 308 26 Peak Hour 1459 07:30-08 : 30 Traffic Smithy • T= 6 .9% P=.826 1334 TEV=1138 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND FIOM -PERIOD TO O T A A FROM OD 1 —► 3 43 I Li. 41 I r4" r '— L • + ALL ALL VEHICLES 07:30-07 :45 0 0 0 0 122 36 0 63 8 17 0 42 288 07 :45-08 :00 0 0 0 0 112 50 0 84 9 4 0 57 316 • 08:00-08 :15 0 0 0 0 94 32 0 66 3 6 0 52 253 08 :15-08 :30 0 0 0 0 98 30 0 95 6 6 0 46 281 LIGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 07:30-07 :45 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 11 07:45-08 :00 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 6 0 0 0 1 14 08 :00-08 :15 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 14 08 :15-08 :30 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 14 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE. UNIT > 2 AXLES) 07:30-07:45 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45-08 :00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 :00-08 :15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 08 :15-08:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:45-08 :00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 08:00-08:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 08 :15-08 :30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCT,FS 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0' 0 2 07:45-08:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 08:00-08 :15 0 0 0 0. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 08:15-08:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P T)ESTRIANS CROSSWALK USEAGE ALL SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 0 07:45-08 :00 0 0 0 0 0 08:00-08:15 0 0 0 0 0 08:15-08:30 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour by Movement PHF 0 0 0 0 .87 .74 0 .81 .72 .49 0 .86 .900 % Trucks (all) 0 0 0 0 4 .7 2 .7 0 7.1 3 . 8 3 0 4.6 5 % Trucks (M+H) 0 0 0 0 . 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 .4 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08: 00 0 0 0 0 391 148 0 247 33 38 1 146 1004 07:15-08 : 15 0 0 0 0 424 152 0 267 29 38 1 181 1092 07:30-08:30 0 0 0 0 426 148 0 308 26 33 0 197 1138 07:45-08 :45 0 0 0 0 389 150 0 318 27 26 0 182 1092 08:00-09 :00 0 0 0 0 349 125 0 297 23 27 0 154 975 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT HALL BOULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREET • T= 1.6% P=. 927 N +1631 DATE OF COUNT: (1.25/01 • O 1716 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 395 236 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-1 4-1 •' Lo. • 4-270 • 0 1 L234 T= 0% T= 1.7% . 0 —► • 4-1 P=0. P=.888 0 r35 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • i T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH .4-1 I �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —► 0 482 75 311 —' DJQP Peak Hour 1430 16 :40-17 :40 Traffic Smithy + T= 1. 1% •P=. 886 1557 TEV=1458 ' (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUT1i BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • FROM - TO —► t .-J 1 L► 41 1 f' r 1— L ♦ ALL 16:00-16 :05 0 0 0 0 23 22 0 31 3 1 0 15 95 16:05-16 :10 0 0 0 0 34 16 0 39 5 1 0 15 110 16:10-16 :15 0 0 0 0 44 23 0 30 5 4 0 18 124 16:15-16 :20 0 0 0 0 32 12 0 59 2 1 0 24 130 16:20-16 :25 0 0 0 0 35 27 0 29 3 5 0 16 115 16:25-16 :30 0 0 0 0 28 12 0 22 3 5 0 14 84 16 :30-16 :35 0 0 0 0 31 18 0 44 6 0 0 7 106 16:35-16 :40 0 0 0 0 29 13 0 34 4 0 0 16 96 16 :40-16 :45 0 0 0 0 36 19 0 40 3 2 0 16 116 16 :45-16 :50 0 0 0 0 36 16 0 31 5 7 0 24 119 16 :50-16 :55 0 0 0 0 33 21 0 37 12 3 0 17 123 16:55-17 :00 0 0 0 0 31 17 0 36 6 0 0 17 107 17:00-17 :05 0 0 0 0 40 22 0 46 8 0 0 20 136 17:05-17 :10 0 0 0 0 34 24 0 39 8 4 0 26 135 17:10-17 :15 0 0 0 0 31 19 0 51 5 1 0 20 127 17 :15-17 :20 0 0 0 0 33 26 0 45 4 2 . 0 23 133 17:20-17 :25 0 0 0 0 32 16 0 32 6 3 1 16 106 17:25-17 :30 0 0 0 0 24 15 0 39 4 7 0 18 107 17:30-17 :35 0 0 0 0 31 28 0 47 7 1 0 19 133 17:35-17 :40 0 0 0 0 34 13 0 39 7 5 0 18 116 17:40-17:45 0 0 0 0 40 12 0 40 3 2 1 14 112 17:45-17 :50 0 0 0 0 34 22 0 39 4 0 0 17 116 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 0 28 18 0 44 9 1 0 15 115 17:55-18 :00 0 0 0 0 28 16 0 35 8 2 0 12 101 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 781 447 0 928 130 57 2 417 2762 PHF 0 0 0 0 .94 .86 0 .89 .72 .67 . 25 . 85 . 915 Trucks 0 0 0 0 2 .4 .2 0 1 2 . 3 7 0 1 1.4 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17 :00 0 0 0 0 392 216 0 432 57 29 0 199 1325 16:15-17:15 0 0 0 0 396 220 0 468 65. , 28 0 217 1394 16:30-17 :30 0 0 0 0 390 226 0 474 71 29 1 220 1411 16:45-17 :45 0 0 0 0 399 229 0 482 75 35 2 232 1454 17 :00-18 :00 0 0 0 0 389 231 0 496 73 28 2 218 1437 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR REPORT HALL BOULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREET • T= 1 .4% P=.923 N 16 2 8 • • DATE OF COUNT: *47125/01 O 714 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 399 229 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-2 4-1 L► 4-269• p • L232 T= 0% T= 1.1% 0 —• 4-2 P=O. P=.947 0 35 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 4-1, r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —► 304 —► • DJQP 0 482 75 Peak Hour i434 16 :45-17:45 Traffic Smithy •T= 1.1% P=.886 1557 TEV=1454 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND ME FOMPTOD ; —► J .4J 1 4 'i AI r► r •_ L • ALL ALL VEHICLES 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 100 54 0 104 23 10 0 58 349 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 105 65 0 136 21 5 0 66 398 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 89 57 0 116 14 12 1 57 346 17:30-17:45 0 0 0 0 105 53 0 126 17 8 1 51 361 LIGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 16:45-17 :00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 4 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17:30-17:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT > 2 AXLES) 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:30-17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:30-17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLES 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 17:30-17:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 PEDESTRIANS CROSSWALK USEAGE ALL SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 17:30-17:45 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour by Movement pHF 0 0 0 0 .95 .88 0 .89 .82 .73 .5 .88 .913 • Trucks (all) 0 0 0 0 2 .4 0 .8 2 . 7 5 .7 0 .4 1.2 % Trucks (M+H) 0 0 0 0 .3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 16: 00-17:00 0 0 0 0 392 216 0 432 57 29 0 199 1325 16 :15-17 : 15 0 0 0 0 396 220 0 468 65 28 0 217 1394 16 :30-17 :30 0 0 0 0 390 226 0 474 71 29 1 220 1411 16:45-17 :45 0 0 0 0 399 229. 0 482 75 35 2 232 1454 17 :00-18 :00 0 0 0 0 389 231 0 496 73 28 2 218 1437 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT SW 78TH AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREET • T= 2 . 9k P=.631 `' "r N �48 • DATE OF COUNT: 04/25/01 O I13 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 9 39 0 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 08:30 H —197 i L. 4-178 • • 9 J L1 T= 1.6% T= 5.2% 4 —► 4-148 P=.763 P=.824 216 - r29 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 'l r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 229 —► 40 3 5 9 —► WCBI Peak Hour 4,284 • 07:20-08 :20 Traffic Smithy T= 2.9% P=.8 I48 TEV=503 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO ; —► J 4J I 14. 4l I r• r 4_ L i ALL 07:00-07:05 14 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 23 07:05-07:10 11 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 21 07:10-07:15 19 0 0 1 4 0 3 1 0 4 8 0 40 07:15-07 :20 20 1 1 2 2 0 4 0 1 4 5 0 40 07:20-07:25 19 0 2 1 3 0 4 0 0 2 12 0 43 07:25-07:30 19 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 34 07:30-07:35 14 0 0 2 7 0 4 0 1 2 6 0 36 07:35-07:40 14 0 1 0 3 0 4 1 2 5 9 0 39 07:40-07:45 24 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 0 2 15 .0 51 07:45-07:50 26 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 5 7 0 45 07:50-07:55 21 1 3 1 4 0 6 0 1 2 18 1 58 07:55-08 :00 10 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 14 0 31 08:00-08 :05 18 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 16 0 41 08:05-08 :10 13 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 17 0 40 08:10-08 :15 16 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 0 3 13 0 41 08:15-08 :20 22 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 14 0 44 08:20-08 :25 14 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 6 0 28 08:25-08 :30 11 1 0 0 3 0 5 2 0 4 10 0 36 Total Survey 305 7 10 14 55 0 57 6 6 44 186 1 691 PHF .76 .33 .56 .45 .61 0 .91 .38 .42 .6 .77 .25 .816 % Trucks 1 0 20 14.3 0 0 3 .5 0 0 15. 9 2 .7 0 3 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 11 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08 :00 211 4 9 11 40 0 36 2 6 31 110 1 461 07: 15-08 :15 214 5 10 11 39 0 40 1 6 33 139 1 499 07:30-08 :30 203 5 6 7 40 0 42 5 5 31 145 1 490 I INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR REPORT. SW 78TH AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREET • T= 2% P=.657 N 150 • DATE OF COUNT:'. /25/01 0 �12 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 11 39 0 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T H -190 ii 1r L. 4-173 TIME ENDED: 08 :30 • •10 - L1 T= 1.30 T= 4 .6% 5 —► 4-139 P=.894 P=.800 214 , r33 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH a Ai r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 229 —► 11 WCBI 40 1 6 Peak Hour 1286 • 07:15-08 :15 Traffic Smithy T= 2. 1% P=.783 (47 TEV=499 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • a • FROM - TO ; —► J .4J 1 4 t t r• r r L ALL ALL VEHICLES 07:15-07:30 58 2 4 5 7 0 9 0 1 7 24 0 117 07:30-07:45 52 0 1 3 16 0 11 1 3 9 30 0 126 07:45-08 :00 57 2 4 1 9 0 10 0 2 9 39 1 134 08 :00-08 :15 47 1 1 2 7 0 10 0 0 8 46 0 122 LIGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 07:15-07:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:30-07:45 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:45-08 :00 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 , 08 :00-08 :15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT > 2 AXLES) 07:15-07:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45-08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 08:00-08:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) 07:15-07:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45-08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 :00-08:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCI S 07:15-07:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45-08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00-08:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PEDESTRIANS CROSSWALK USEAGE ALL SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 07:15-07:30 0 0 0 1 1 07:30-07:45 1 0 0 0 1 07:45-08:00 0 0 1 1 2 08 :00-08:15 0 0 2 2 4 Peak Hour by Movement PHF . 92 .63 .63 .55 .61 0 .91 .25 .5 .92 .76 .25 .930 % Trucks (all) 5 0 20 9.1 0 0 2.5 0 0 12.1 2 . 9 0 2 .6 % Trucks (M+H) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 .7 0 .8 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 211 4 9 11 40 0 36 2 6 31 110 1 461 07:15-08 :15 214 5 10 11 39 0 40 1 6 33 139 1 499 07 :30-08 :30 203 5 6 7 40 0 42 5 5 31 145 1 490 : - R [ INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT I SW 78TH AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREET • T= 9 .3% P=.764 WI- 0 N OF COUNT: 04/25/01 �52 X78 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 13 32 7 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-289 /J L.* •• • i-231 32 -� L16 • T= .9% T= 1.2% 13 -4. 4-156 P=.859 P=.849 254 59 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • r T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 4.-i � r• P=PHF BY APPROACH 299 -. 120 30 14 34 Peak Hour WCBJ 4,345 • 16 :35-17:35 Traffic Smithy T= .3% P=.872 � 1-64 TEV=746 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • FROM - TO ; -► J 'J 1 1.4„ •41 I r' r . _ L ALL 16:00-16 :05 17 0 0 2 4 0 6 1 4 5 7 0 46 16:05-16 : 10 20 0 5 1 4 0 12 3 1 7 8 1 62 16 :10-16 : 15 21 1 1 0 3 0 10 1 4 4 12 0 57 16 :15-16 :20 16 1 0 1 2 0 13 1 0 6 11 1 52 16 :20-16 :25 20 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 13 0 46 16 :25-16 :30 13 1 2 4 5 0 4 5 3 7 7 3 54 16:30-16 :35 16 2 1 2 1 0 9 4 1 3 7 2 48 16 :35-16 :40 18 2 5 0 1 0 9 2 4 3 13 0 57 16 :40-16 :45 16 1 1 2 6 2 8 3 0 3 16 1 59 16:45-16 :50 16 2 2 0 2 1 9 3 1 6 17 1 60 16:50-16 :55 22 3 3 1 1 2 8 3 2 10 9 3 67 16:55-17 : 00 23 1 0 0 1 0 13 4 2 5 10 1 60 17:00-17 :05 24 0 4 1 3 0 4 4 0 6 15 0 61 17:05-17: 10 27 0 1 3 3 1 11 2 0 5 16 1 70 17:10-17:15 28 1 2 1 1 0 8 3 1 4 19 2 70 17 :15-17 :20 23 1 4 1 2 0 10 3 0 2 11 4 61 17:20-17:25 17 1 2 1 5 0 14 1 0 3 9 0 53 17:25-17:30 21 0 5 1 5 0 14 0 0 6 11 2 65 17:30-17 :35 ' 19 1 3 2 2 1 12 2 4 6 10 1 63 17:35-17:40 17 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 4. 11 2 44 17:40-17:45 15 1 0 3 3 0 9 4 1 5 10 0 51 17:45-17 :50 16 1 3 1 7 0 10 4 1 3 12 1 59 17:50-17 :55 18 1 0 1 3 0 12 0 0 5 7 2 49 17 :55-18:00 _ 15 3 1 4 1 0 5 5 3 1 13 2' 53 Total Survey 458 28 46 32 68 8 215 60 35 113 274 30 1367 PHF .8 .54 .73 .65 .67 .35 .75 .68 .7 .7 .78 . 57 . 927 % Trucks 1.1 0 0 6 .3 11.8 0 .5 0 0 0 1.5 3 .3 1 .5 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 13 0 0 14 0 . Hourly Totals 16:00-17 :00 218 15 20 13 31 6 103 32 24 63 130 13 668 16:15-17 :15 239 15 21 15 27 7 98 36 16 62 153 15 704 16:30-17 :30 251 14 30 13 31 6 117 32 11 56 153 17 731 16:45-17 :45 252 14 27 14 30 5 115 29 12 62 148 17 725 17:00-18 :00 240 13 26 19 37 2 112 28 11 50 144 17 699 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR REPORT SW 78TH AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREET l A T= 8% P=.833 N 150 A DATE OF COUNT: 25/01 O 179 DAY OF WEEK: We R 13 31 6 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H *-283 4J 1 L► *-226 30 J L17 T= 1.4% T= 0% 14 —► 4-153 P=.847 P=.830 251 - r56 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 41 I r• P=PHF BY APPROACH 295 —► 31 —► WCBJ 117 32 11 Peak Hour 1338 16 :30-17:30 Traffic Smithy • T= .6% P=.888 1160 TEV=731 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME FROM PEIR,OIOD • 4J 1 Lo. .41 1 r• r '— • L ' ._.0. • ALL - ALL VEHICLES 16 :30-16 :45 50 5 7 4 8 2 26 9 5 9 36 3 164 16 :45-17:00 61 6 5 1 4 3 30 10 5 21 36 5 187 17 :00-17:15 79 1 7 5 7 1 23 9 1 15 50 3 201 17:15-17:30 61 2 11 3 12 0 38 4 0 11 31 6 179 LIGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 16 :30-16:45 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 :45-17:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17:00-17:15 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 17:15-17:30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT > 2 AXLES) 16 :30-16:45 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 :45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) 16 :30-16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 :45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLES 16:30-16:45 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16:45-17:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEDESTRIANS CROSSWALK USEAGE ALL SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 16:30-16:45 0 0 1 3 4 • 16:45-17:00 0 3 1 0 17:00-17:15 0 4 4 1 9 17:15-17:30 0 0 1 3 Peak Hour by Movement PHF .79 .58 .68 .65 .65 . 5 .77 .8 .55 .67 .76 .71 .909 Trucks (all) 1.6 0 0 0 12 .9 0 . 9 0 0 0 0. 0 1.2 % Trucks(M+H) 0 0 0 0 3 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 Stopped Buses 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 218 15 20 13 31 6 103 32 24 63 130 13 668 16: 15-17:15 239 15 21 15 27 7 98 36 16 62 153 15 704 16:30-17:30 251 14 30 13 31 6 117 32 11 56 153 17 731 16 :45-17:45 252 14 27 14 30 5 115 29 12 62 148 17 725 17: 00-18:00 240 13 26 19 37 2 112 28 11 50 144 17 699 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT HIGHWAY 99 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STREET • T= 1 .8% P=.789 N 1278 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: Q44.25/01 O +' �44 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 42 112 124 TIME STARTED: 07 :00 T TIME ENDED: 09 :00 H i-1306 .4J 1 L. 4-1194 7 - L5 T= 4 .4% T= 6 .5% 1659—► i-1179 P=.951 P=.899 210 10 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME + * T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 4-i I r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 1876—► 1794—► HRBO 85 32 11 Peak Hour 1332 ♦ 07 :20-08 :20 Traffic Smithy - T= 4.5% P=.727 1128 TEV=3476 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD ♦ ♦ L FROM - TO 1 —► J 4J 1 Lo. ii I r' r '— • • ALL 07:00-07:05 9 136 0 4 5 7 4 1 3 0 63 1 233 07:05-07:10 8 125 0 4 3 6 1 0 1 0 84 0 232 07:10-07:15 12 154 0 1 11 23 10 3 0 0 80 1 295 07:15-07:20 18 126 0 3 4 15 9 2 0 0 91 0 268 07:20-07:25 12 144 0 3 13 10 6 3 0 0 85 0 276 07 :25-07 :30 21 147 0 3 7 9 2 1 0 3 81 0 274 07:30-07 :35 12 140 1 6 8 12 7 3 0 2 78 2 271 07:35-07:40 19 152 1 5 4 9 1 3 1 0 101 1 297 07:40-07:45 18 120 1 6 12 17 6 1 1 1 105 0 288 07:45-07:50 34 146 0 4 7 7 9 2 1 0 114 0 324 07:50-07 :55 24 129 0 5 19 11 7 5 4 0 93 1 298 07:55-08 :00 14 145 0 2 9 4 10 2 0 0 119 0 305 08 :00-08 :05 14 135 0 1 12 10 5 3 1 4 114 1 300 08 :05-08 :10 11. 129 0 6 6 7 9 4 0 0 89 0 261 08 :10-08:15 14 142 0 1 7 15 12 3 0 0 82 0 276 08 :15-08 :20 17 130 4 0 8 13 11 2 3 0 118 0 306 08 :20-08 :25 15 133 0 1 9 9 8 2 1 1 88 1 268 08:25-08 :30 9 133 1 3 4 6 4 7 1 1 89 0 258 08 :30-08 :35 15 126 3 2 7 16 8 5 0 0 74 0 256 08 :35-08 :40 9 158 0 2 9 4 3 1 0 2 118 0 306 08:40-08 :45 17 159 1 3 8 9 10 2 2 1 68 0 280 08 :45-08 :50 15 117 0 2 5 4 7 1 2 0 90 0 243 08:50-08 :55 19 112 2 5 9 13 10 1 2 0 105 1 279 08:55-09 :00 9 97 2 3 3 6 4 1 1 3 95 0 224 40g Total Survey 365 3235 16 75 189 242 163 58 24 18 2224 9 6618 PHF . 69 . 94 .44 .62 .7 . 82 .66 .8 .46 . 5 . 9 .42 . 937 % Trucks 4 .4 4 .4 12 .5 2.7 . 5 2 .5 5 .5 3 .4 0 5 .6 .6 .6 0 4 . 9 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 ' 5 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08 :00 201 1664 3 46 102 130 72 . 26 11 6 1094 6 3361 07 : 15-08 :15 211 1655 3 45 108 126 83 32 8 10 1152 5 3438 07:30-08 :30 201 1634 8 40 105 120 89 37 13 9 1190 6 3452 07 :45-08 :45 193 1665 9 30 105 111 96 38 13 9 1166 3 3438 08 :00-09 :00 164 1571 13 29 87 112 91 32 13 12 1130 3 3257 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR REPORT HIGHWAY 99 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STREET • T= 1 . 1% . P=.838 N 1265 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 25/01 O � 51 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 40 105 120 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T J I �► 4-1205 TIME ENDED: 09 :00 H 4-1319 < • 8 J • L6 T= 4 .4% T= 6 .5% 1634-► : • 4-1190 P=. 936 P=. 921 201 ; r9 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME V T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH <4-1 I♦ f► P=PHF BY APPROACH 1843-► 1767-► HRBO 89 37 13 Peak Hour 315 • 07 :30-08 :30 Traffic Smithy - T= 5% P=.868 7139 TEV=3452 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND A TIME PERIOD • • L FROM - TO i -► J <J 1 Lo, .41 I f► r <- ALL •ALL VEHICLES 07 :30-07:45 49 412 3 17 24 38 14 7 2 3 284 3 856 07:45-08 :00 72 420 0 11 35 22 26 9 5 0 326 1 927 08 :00-08:15 39 406 0 8 25 32 26 10 1 4 285 1 837 08 :15-08:30 41 396 5 4 21 28 23 11 5 2 295 1 832 LIGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 07 :30-07 :45 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 33 07:45-08:00 0 9 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 13 0 25 08 :00-08:15 2 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 24 08 :15-08 :30 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 17 0 29 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT > 2 AXLES) 07:30-07:45 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07:45-08:00 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 08:00-08:15 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 08:15-08 :30 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 6 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) 07:30-07:45 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 10 07:45-08:00 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 8 08:00-08 :15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 08 :15-08 :30 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 BICYCLES 1` 07:30-07:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07:45-08 :00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00-08:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08 :15-08:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PEDESTRIANS CROSSWALK USEAGE ALL SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 07:30-07:45 0 0 1 0 1 07:45-08 :00 0 0 1 0 1 08 :00-08 :15 0 0 1 1 2 08:15-08:30 0 0 1 2 3 Peak Hour by Movement PHF .7 .97 .4 .59 .75 .79 .86 .84 .65 .56 .91 .5 .930 % Trucks(all) 5 4 .3 0 0 1 1.7 5.6 5.4 0 11. 1 6. 5 0 4 .9 % Trucks (M+H) 2 1. 5 0 0 0 0 3 .4 0 0 0 2.2 0 1.7 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08 :00 201 1664 3 46 102 130 72 26 11 6 1094 6 3361 07:15-08 : 15 211 1655 3 45 108 126 83 32 8 10 1152 5 3438 07:30-08 : 30 201 1634 8 40 105 120 89 37 13 9 1190 6 3452 07:45-08 :45 193 1665 9 30 105 111 96 38 13 9 1166 3 3438 08:00-09:00 164 1571 13 29 87 112 91 32 13 12 1130 3 3257 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT HIGHWAY 99 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STREET • T= 1.4% P=.828 N +'1371 • DATE OF COUNT: 25/01 O X180 DAY OF WEEK: We R 45 146 180 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H -1966 � 1 L. i-1696 4-1 46 -1 L18 T= 2.20 T= 2 . 3% 1477—► 4-1610 P=. 954 P=. 970 427 ; ;68 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 4-1 r► • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH . P=PHF BY APPROACH 1950—► 1723—► HRBP 311 116 66 Peak Hour 641 16:35-17:35 Traffic Smithy - i T= .3% •P=.893 1493 TEV=4510 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME OOM PERIOD � --► A 41 I L► 1 1 I r• r ` L ALL 16:00-16 :05 28 116 1 1 12 7 24 11 6 8 99 2 315 16:05-16 :10 36 107 7 5 10 17 43 11 3 10 144 1 394 16:10-16 :15 31 93 5 8 15 18 21 11 7 11 148 2 370 16:15-16 :20 37 119 2 6 7 12 19 10 8 5 148 2 375 16:20-16 :25 32 103 3 4 9 14 17 3 5 3 140 0 333 16 :25-16 :30 40 120 3 5 11 10 21 7 8 6 107 1 339 16:30-16 :35 35 106 4 3 13 7 23 10 11 10 139 3 364 16:35-16 :40 35 108 4 3 11 10 20 11 5 9 142 0 358 16:40-16 :45 27 118 3 4 8 6 32 11 4 6 135 3 357 16:45-16 :50 32 121 4 4 15 23 20 6 6 2 115 2 350 16:50-16 :55 37 106 6 6 9 15 26 5 9 3 135 2 359 16:55-17:00 44 133 2 5 9 9 31 12 6 11 142 1 405 17:00-17 :05 35 112 3 4 13 18 27 4 7 4 129 2 358 17:05-17 :10 42 130 4 2 14 15 25 9 9 7 139 2 398 17:10-17 :15 35 130 5 3 16 13 36 15 6 6 124 0 389 17:15-17 :20 33 126 4 5 19 21 22 8 3 8 136 1 386 17:20-17 :25 27 125 5 2 14 19 21 8 6 1 128 0 356 17:25-17 :30 40 145 2 4 9 14 26 14 2 5 154 3 418 17:30-17 :35 40 123 4 3 9 17 25 13 3 6 131 2 376 17:35-17 :40 35 129 1 2 10 16 14 3 14 7 126 1 358 17:40-17 :45 21 114 3 5 8 11 18 8 5 7 106 3 309 17:45-17 :50 43 108 2 1 11 7 21 8 3 7 132 0 343 17:50-17 :55 36 102 0 3 15 21 26 12 9 3 127 2 356 17:55-18 :00 26 99 4 1 14 11 16 8 7 4 116 4 yn{y309 Total Survey 827 2793 81 89 281 331 574 218 152 149 3142 38 8675 PHF .88 .93 .82 .75 .74 .83 .88 .83 .75 .77 . 96 .64 .961 sk Trucks .5 2 .8 1.2 5 .6 1.1 . 6 .3 0 .7 .7 2 .5 0 2 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 7 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17 :00 414 1350 44 54 129 148 297 108 78 84 1594 19 4319 16: 15-17:15 431 1406 43 49 135 152 297 103 84 72 1595 18 4385 16: 30-17:30 422 1460 46 45 150 170 309 113 74 72 1618 19 4498 16:45-17 :45 421 1494 43 45 145 191 291 105 76 67 1565 19 4462 17:00-18 :00 413 1443 37 35 152 183 277 110 74 65 1548 19 4356 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR REPORT HIGHWAY 99 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STREET • T= 1. 9% P=.852 N 1365 • DATE OF COUNT: QL25/01 O . 1178 DAY OF WEEK: We d R 45 150 170 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H -1972 4J l L► i-1709 46 J L19 T= 2 .3% T= 2.6% 1460-► • 4-1618 P=.950 P=.955 422 72 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME A r T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH <� 1 r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 1928-► 1704-► HRBP 309 113 74 Peak Hour i - 644 A 16 :30-17:30 Traffic Smithy T= .2% P=.898 1496 TEV=4498 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD •FROM - TO -_p. i 4 AJ I 43 1 r' r '_ L• ALL ALL VEHICLES 16 :30-16:45 97 332 11 10 32 23 75 32 20 25 416 6 1079 16 :45-17:00 113 360 12 15 33 47 77 23 21 16 392 5 1114 17:00-17:15 112 372 12 9 43 46 88 28 22 17 392 4 1145 17 :15-17:30 100 396 11 11 42 54 69 30 11 14 418 4 1160 LIGHT TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT 2 AXLES) 16 :30-16:45 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 20 16 :45-17:00 0 11 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 22 17 :00-17:15 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 14 17:15-17:30 0 6 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 16 MEDIUM TRUCKS (SINGLE UNIT > 2 AXLES) 16 :30-16:45 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 16 :45-17:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 :00-17:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 17 :15-17:30 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 HEAVY TRUCKS (SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER) 16 :30-16 :45 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 16:45-17:00 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 17 :00-17:15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 17:15-17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLES 16 :30-16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 :45-17:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 17 :00-17:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17:15-17:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PEDESTRIANS CROSSWALK USEAGE ALL SOUTH WEST EAST NORTH 16 :30-16 :45 1 0 0 2 3 16 :45-17:00 1 0 1 3 5 • 17:00-17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17 :15-17 :30 1 0 2 0 3 Peak Hour by Movement PHF .93 .92 .96 .75 -.87 .79 .88 .88 .84 .72 . 97 .79 . 969 • Trucks (all) .7 2 .8 2 .2 4 .4 2 1.2 .3 0 0 0 2. 7 0 2 .2 % Trucks (M+H) .2 .8 0 0 .7 0 0 0 0 0 .7 0 .6 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 16 :00-17 :00 414 1350 44 54 129 148 297 108 78 84 1594 19 4319 16 :15-17 :15 431 1406 43 49 135 152 297 103 84 72 1595 18 4385 16 :30-17 :30 422 1460 46 45 150 170 309 113 74 72 1618 19 4498 16 :45-17:45 421 1494 43 . 45 145 191 291 105 76 67 1565 19 4462 17 :00-18 :00 413 1443 37 35 152 183 277. 110 74 65 1548 19 4356 atN�,ASTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 20.0 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.56 Trip Rate: 1.49 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 88% 12% Directional 17% 83% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends »> >> >< «< <»» >>>>_ <<>` Trip Ends ><` ''' WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 11.01 Trip Rate: 0.98 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Directional Distribution Distribution 50% 50 Trip Ends Trip Ends : Source:TRIP GENERATION,Sixth Edition > iNCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Hall Blvd Minor Street: Pfaff le Street Badeground---+-Site-T-Fips '46 co Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more - 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,1{)0 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note: ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used 100 percent of standard warrants used X 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 11,880 7,400 Minor Street* 2 2,690 2,500 Yes Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 11,880 11,100 Minor Street* 2 2,690 1,250 Yes Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant-AM Peak Hour Major Street 2 920 Minor Street* 2 131 170 No Warrant 11: Peak Hour Warrant-PM Peak Hour Major Street 2 1,188 Minor Street* 2 269 105 Yes * Minor street right-turning traffic volumes reduced by 50 percent ANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Pfaff le Street Minor Street: 78th Ave Background + Site Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRAN 1 T Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8850 6,200 J 2;650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350. • 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used X 100 percent of standard warrants used 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 1 5,650 8,850 Minor Street* 1 1,700 2,650 No Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 1 5,650 13,300 Minor Street* 1 1,700 1,350 No Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant-AM Peak Hour Major Street 1 423 Minor Street* 1 72 450 No Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant-PM Peak Hour Major Street 1 565 Minor Street* 1 170 390 No * Minor street right-turning traffic volumes reduced by 25 percent . LEFT—TURN LANE WARRANTS VOLUME WARRANTS FOR LEFT—TURN REFUGES ON TWO—LANE STREETS AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 700 IL . __ . SPEED = 40 MPH Warrants adopted by ODOT from Highway Research Record No. 211 Intersection: PFAFFLE ST ® SITE DRIVEWAY 1 1 Scenario: BACKGROUND + SITE TRIPS 600 AM PEAK HOUR PM 218 VPH THROUGH .292 16 VPH TURNING LEFT 3 0 VPH TURNING RIGHT 0 500 ; 234 VA (VPH) 295 N....... Iiiii z 7% ,Z' LEFT TURNS 1% j ' _ 210 VO (VPH) 325 p NO REFUGE REQUIRED? NO 400N .10 0 Q - O 300 - - - 200 • _ . No Left—Turn I i Lone Required 1�, 43 53 ` w �2 , _-, _4 \ , 100 s, w N 1 s. 9 'A ' 0 Advancing Volume (VA) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY • Genear ormatFon, st#e information - .• Analyst TEM Intersection HALL @PFAFFLE Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year EXISTING (2001) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25. .-,:1 ,,. �, 7'x,-._ 'r .� rilW° ygy,�r�'!� a' $ - -. s K14'Espm Major Street ( Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 314 23 152 431 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 345 25 167 473 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles) 0 1 -- J — 1 2 — — 1 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 1 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration I TR L T Upstream Signal 0 . 0 Minor Street ( Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 L T R L T R Volume 31 0 199 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 0 218 0 1 0 1 0 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 _ 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0- 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration Ly R _ l€ tiff`�'. r e f'w. 3 sSC. itAW. " ,u�P. �"!'' °c. .0- 6§M.5 y, 5.514 Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 167 I 34 218 C (m) (vph) I I 1189 I 340 680 v/c 0.14 0.10 0.32 95% queue length 0.49 0.33 1.38 Control Delay 8.5 16.8 12.8 LOS I A C B I Approach Delay -- — 13.3 Approach LOS -- -- B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ;s ti w*a rz paw , 0El £�dt!rnlaorri tEDF1 `` 'r; Si* l� 4 a v z t7.f sg . ` ' ', . . n��'}ire-- :.--�,,��.$: Analyst TEM Intersection HALL @PFAFFLE Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year EXISTING (2001) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 :'S � .,w+a r 3Q"`SXl."S� ..u'w' a,w1y-{,' ., m v r.. .•�`';y>t.a nY.s ,' > ,y-'�s "�.°r+ `Yt g '� r2 � t ,re r off.>fr' es a!ncr # -Ie� -tom ; . az1, 2 P .. Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 _ 482 75 I 236 395 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 _ 523 81 256 429 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 1 _ -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 I 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street I Westbound _I Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 0 234 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 38 0 254 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 • Flared Approach N I N Storage I 0 0 RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L _ R .,. xy�,. K -�.r r t�tr- '.1ne4'�`�' t a z ^yc� iz Delay,�Queue ten i,and L.e<vei O Sen ict w.:`� _ ::;!T `;at .�,#-`Y'.k.. :t,. *:>;, , .V Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L j R v (vph) 256 38 254 C (m) (vph) 979 245 527 v/c I 0.26 0.16 0.48 95% queue length 1.05 0.54 2.59 Control Delay 10.0- 22.4 18.0 LOS A C _ C Approach Delay -- — 18.6 Approach LOS -- -- C TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Infor'matiorr Analyst TEM Intersection HALL @PFAFFLE Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments .- ,__ Major Street 1 Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 314 33 155 431 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 345 36 170 473 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 2 -- -- _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 I 0 Lanes _J 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 f 12 L T R L T R Volume 33 0 199 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 36 0 218 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 5 0 0 0 , Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R 11.4r4430 liTfe Length r.and Level of Service . 1 A „ ig, ' 4 s r emuk, A Approach NB I SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L I R v (vph) 170 36 218 C (m) (vph) I 1177 336 675 v/c 0.14 0.11 0.32 95% queue length 0.50 0.36 1.40 Control Delay 8.6 17.0 12.9 LOS A C B Approach Delay -- -- I 13.4 Approach LOS -- -- B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information (Site Information Analyst TEM Intersection HALL @PFAFFLE Agency/Co, LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period PM PEAK TRAFFIC Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE _North/South Street: HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and*. tw - . ..=F�" a. ..._ ..-.a �. b'� .. E-•v�'?��r--''�'ry ;54M�..��cara? ...^iP<���n'�.'�S°x' ."�,.+�'."si.'� Major Street I Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 482 77 237 395 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR I 0 523 83 I 257 429 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 1 -- -- _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration I TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street I Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 44 0 237 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHFI 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 0 257 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach I NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 257 47 257 C (m) (vph) 977 243 527 v/c 0.26 0.19 0.49 95% queue length 1.06 0.70 2.65 Control Delay 10.0- 23.3 18.2 LOS A C C Approach Delay -- -- I 19.0 Approach LOS -- -- C TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General lnfarmation Site Information Analyst TEM Intersection HALL @PFAFFLE Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BG+SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE (North/South Street: HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South ]Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street ( Northbound I Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 314 41 158 431 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 345 45 173 473 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 I 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 I 0 Minor Street I Westbound I Eastbound Movement 7 8 J 9 10 11 I 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 0 199 0 0 0 — Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 1 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 38 0 218 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 , Flared Approach N N I Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 _ 0 _ Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay,Queue Length, and Levelof Ser`v'ice ' ' . -,--'1: Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 173 38 218 C (m) (vph) 1169 333 671 v/c 0.15 0.11 0.32 95% queue length 0.52 0.38 1.41 Control Delay 8.6 17.2 12.9 LOS A C B Approach Delay -- -- 13.6 Approach LOS -- -- B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst TEM Intersection HALL @PFAFFLE Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BG+SITE Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Northbound I Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L I T R L T R Volume 0 I 482 78 238 395 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 523 84 258 429 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street 1 Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 55 0 238 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 59 0 258 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue-UNgth,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound I Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 I 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 258 59 258 C (m) (vph) 976 242 I 526 vlc 0.26 0.24 0.49 95% queue length 1.07 0.93 2.67 Control Delay 10.0+ 24.6 18.3 LOS B C C Approach Delay -- I -- I 19.4 Approach LOS -- -- C ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Gerrerak'tizfnrrnatr+oiiwraiz-sRKAM W _RPYeKAtrr attnig-Mt .. • ' �"� . .�,.��-,-:�` Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLEc78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/8/01 Analysis Year EXISTING(2001) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project'ID CEI HEADQUARTERS lEast/West Street: PFAFFLE (North/South Street: 78TH r4u n 01"„�e . ��e ail iyyC zW -.�` q a r Noq - Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L ( T I R _I L T R ) Volume 9 4 216 29 _ 148 1 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L f T R L L_- T R Volume 40 I 3 I 5 0 39 9 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 _I L2 L1 L2 Li r- L2 Configuration LT R LTR I LTR LTR P H F 0.82 0.82 0.82 I j 0.82 0.82 Flow Rate 14 263 _ 216 57 57 _ %Heavy Vehicles 2 2 5 3 3 No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 I 4a 2 2 Duration,T 0.25 ..xR"a€°uiratiort Headway Adjt stmeiit Wodc heetn: _ Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 I 0.2 0.8 j _ J 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 I 0.0 I 0.1 0.2 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0. hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 j 1.7 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 ] 1.7 hadj,computed 5.18 5.18 i 5.18 , 5.18 5.18 Departure:Headway and Servrce.Ttrrre' : _ , - - hinitial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x,initial 0.01 0.23 0.19 0.05 = 0.05 hd,final value 5.18 5.18 5.18 5.18 5.18 x.final value 0.02 0.32 0.28 0.08 0.08 Move-up time,m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.9 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.9 2.1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I L1 U L1 L2 ! L1 L2 L1 I U Capacity 264 513 466 307 307 Delay 7.98 9.23 9.59 8.74 8.49 _ LOS A A A A A Approach:Delay I 9.17 9.59 8.74 8.49 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay I 9.21 Intersection LOS A ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS i t•.v;. � _ a err ; r we°�^" K '„ ° p;� s.'- 7 i o .i°":• +y^?s" - �y- Genr�ra�irt�ar�a�a� ,_. . a ::�:n._ �. :�...����,...,.� ...__ . _. �.� .._ �. .,T... �_�' .. � Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year EXISTING(2001) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CEl HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: 78TH S-a w -i ...:+'E..'!YS'Y' 21 .Ta �llRlad _...A• - - Approach ) Eastbound Westbound Movement L I T I R L I T I R Volume 32 13 254 59 156 16 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 50 _ Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L j T R L T I R Volume 120 _ 30 14 7 32 13 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT R LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Flow Rate 47 273 247 I 176 I 54 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 9 No.Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 4a 2 2 Duration,T I 0.25 Saturation Hea Hirai d1usf iiii Wbrkfiee �.. . k, -::� t Y r Prop.Left-Turns 0.7 j 0.0 1 0.3 0.7 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj,computed 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 MI 6Of i*"Fiii " . xf.rt tliA s: aqt Zp : M nz & h J t ta. , tat;k f A hd,initial value I 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 I 3.20 x,initial 0.04 0.24 0.22 0.16 0.05 hd,final value 5.61 I 5.61 5.61 5.61 I 5.61 I x,final value 0.07 i 0.37 0.35 1 0.27 0.08 Move-up time, m I 2.3 2.0 I 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.3 2.6 3.3 1 2.6 _ 3.3 2.6 3.3 2.6 aSt .,. - -•ir w�rnt Xv,�S'�'�ttg.*+'�T4S "_cs�a Ti s. a �,y' +,x' x ",.�« »� Capaj tt `and Level of`Servrce .; ,f"Ar�,s. ,V f;. s tiµ$.T -:.x � ',.. ak �s;�;. �,a>r�. ,,. .a��,°. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 1 L2 L1 L2 L1 1 L2 ` Capacity 297 523 497 426 304 Delay 8.76 10.37 10.84 10.47 9.16 LOS A B B _ B A Approach:Delay 10.14 10.84 10.47 9.16 LOS B B B A Intersection Delay 10.36 Intersection LOS B ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General:Information ' Site Information ..--;e ...-:< . . a.,.. Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CE1 HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: 78TH J r gxywi wq ^^r« rr M^3 t m iv r1 era. "vGj�' ,, ;� z° s Volume Adjustments and`Site ia'a a sNc ' Approach 1 Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 9 4 218 29 155 1 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 53 3 5 0 39 9 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT R LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 I 0.82 Flow Rate 14 265 225 73 57 Heavy Vehicles 2 2 5 3 3 i No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 4a 2 2 Duration,T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 ] 0.1 0.2 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 I -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 I -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj,computed 524 5.24 5.24 I 5.24 ( 5.24 DepartureHeadway and:Service Time ,;'',. :',. .:"..,..,,--7'.,,,,, .r ., -.1 hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x,initial 0.01 0.24 0.20 0.06 0.05 hd,final value 5.24 5.24 5.24 5.24 5.24 x,final value 0.02 0.33 0.30 I 0.11 0.08 Move-up time,m 2.3 2.0 ( 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 Capacity;and level of Service ._ .,�� ... _ .y . . Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 Capacity 264 515 475 323 307 Delay 8.05 9.40 9.81 8.97 8.58 LOS A A _ A A A Approach:Delay 9.33 9.81 8.97 8.58 LOS A I A A - A Intersection Delay • 9.39 Intersection LOS A ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ..u•' .,' rs,._ r Site Information . =. .?: >., „''. Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BACKGROUND Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CE!HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: 78TH Vfaiiiiataf ai t1..„_.,. Ind Site Characteristics _ rT''` t, 2; Approach I Eastbound Westbound Movement L I T 1 R L T R Volume 32 13 i 272 59 157 16 %Thrus Left Lane I 50 I 50 I Approach 1 Northbound Southbound Movement L f T R L f T R Volume 122 30 14 7 32 _ 13 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT R LTR LTR LTR PHF I 0.93 I 0.93 _ 0.93 I 0.93 I 0.93 I Flow Rate 47 292 248 178 54 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 _ 1 1 9 No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 4a 2 2 Duration,T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet , .,q.K 5 1 .7' ; F Prop.Left-Turns 0.7 I 0.0 j 0.3 I 0.7 I 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.0 I 1.0 0.1 0.1 I 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 0.1 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 I 1.7 ( 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 hadj,computed _ 5.63 5.63 5.63 I 5.63 5.63 I Departure Headway and;Service Time hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x,initial I 0.04 0.26 I 0.22 0.16 I 0.05 hd,final value 5.63 5.63 5.63 5.63 5.63 x,final value 0.07 0.40 _ 0.35 0.27 0.09 Move-up time,m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.3 I 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 . 2.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 1.1 L2 Capacity 297 542 498 428 304 Delay 8.78 10.74 10.95 10.60 9.24 LOS A B B I I B I A Approach:Delay 10.47 10.95 10.60 9.24 LOS B B B A Intersection Delay 10.56 Intersection LOS B ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General information ._ .,..� . ... --Srte ai` omfiod` . Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BG+SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: 78TH Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics - - Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 9 4 220 29 160 1 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L ( T i R Volume 64 3 5 0 39 9 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Configuration LT R _ LTR LTR I LTR PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 ' 0.82 0.82 Flow Rate 14 268 I 231 I 87 57 Heavy Vehicles 2 I 2 5 3 3 No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 4a 2 2 Duration,T 0.25 Saturation.Headway Adjustment Worksheet ,4j { ¢ , Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.9 =0.0 I Prop.Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 I 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed I 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 I 5.30 Departure.:Headway,?and:Service-.Time ;. =, hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x.initial 0.01 0.24 0.21 0.08 0.05 hd,final value 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.30 x,final value 0.02 0.34 0.31 0.13 0.08 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.0 2.3 I 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 Capacity and Leveii of Service . . >>` '. K. '., - .:. -' Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li L2 Li L2 L1 L2 Capacity 264 518 481 337 307 Delay 8.11 9.56 10.01 9.17 8.65 LOS A A B , A A Approach: Delay 9.49 10.01 I 9.17 8.65 LOS A B A A Intersection Delay 9.56 Intersection LOS A ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information (Site-Information = -..-.°- Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year BG+SITE •Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: 78TH VolumeAdjustments`and Site Characteristics ;x Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T 1 R Volume 32 13 287 59 258 16 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R ] L T ' R Volume 126 30 14 7 32 13 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Li I L2 Configuration LT I R I LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 I 0.93 0.93 0.93 Flow Rate 47 308 357 _ 182 54 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 9 No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group I 5 I 4a 2 2 Duration,T I 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet ..'` - Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 0.2 I 0.7 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ 0.0 0.1 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj,computed 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83 Departure,.Headway and Service Time . hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 I 3.20 x,initial 0.04 0.27 I 0.32 0.16 0.05 hd,final value 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83 x,final value 0.08 0.43 0.52 0.30 0.09 Move-up time,m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.5 2.8 3.5 2.8 3.5 2.8 3.5 2.8 Capacity and LeveLof Service .. '2. . IEastbound Westbound l Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 297 558 607 432 304 Delay 9.02 11.63 13.80 11.36 9.74 LOS A B B B A Approach:Delay 11.28 13.80 11.36 9.74 LOS B B B A Intersection Delay I 12.16 Intersection LOS I B I FULL REPORT .. _ rzir r _S;gg_ ;..?:al ,. ... z - 7�'C �. .sa r .="S� 7 ......�4.. Analyst TEM Intersection HWY 99W @ DARTMOUTH Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/8/01 Jurisdiction TIGARD Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year EXISTING (2001) rai WaiFt iWein i* .a f 1,�... r -y. .� t .:+4 t' '47MV ay .vm'a er��.s n9 i g Grade= 0 0 1 1 ! : ; I 115 ; In AI . i 1 , tom'4 i . : Will 1 ( , j � ! 1 Grade= 0 '.; ; 1 ! 1 ■ 1 : I ! Sham North Arrow sal RIMIIIMAil .1 = T , ill , --T-F IIMI111111111M ° r. = R ; ilr ' ! i i 1 . L ! t ; ! ; , 1 iw! ./RED® 1 = T Grade= 0 L T 1 I ! i I ' , ICI® ` - L R L'. i 1' } t ° Grade= 0 A 1 1 1 Y' = L T R d Volume.:anc Timings Input , ,_.y ' ,t. .._. .. .. „'7. �"��i<,:vt ` i r 'e„ };e�.fx�a4Vra�,`'�r�. .), :4 3 s gd..; EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 7 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 124 112 i 42 % Heavy veh 13 4 4 6 1 7 0 6 3 0 3 1 3 P H F 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A AA A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 , 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N i N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ped timing 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 3.0 1 0.0 I Excl. Left 1 Thru & RT 1 03 I 04 SB Only NB Only 07 1 08 G = 4.0 G = 65.0 G = G = G = 17.0 G = 18.0 G = I G = Timing 1Y= 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y= _ Y = Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = I Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS a EB WB NB SB - LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 1 TH RT Volume 7 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 124 112 42 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow Rate 7 1765 223 11 1254 5 90 34 12 132 119 45 Lane Group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj, flow rate 7 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 132 164 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 10.00.4 0.000 - 0.0...00 0.000 -- 0.274 Sturation FIow Ra7 e i t llfef N ^ h�� tra Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 11900 11900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.885 0.962 0.962 0.943 0.935 0.943 0.971 1.000 0.971 0.985 fg 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLT 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 1 -- _10.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - -- - fRT - 1.000 0.850 - 0.-999 -- 1.000 0.850 - 0.959 fLpb 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 - fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 -- 1 1.000 11.000 - 1.000 Adj. satflow 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1794 Sec. adj. satflow - - - -- CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Gene�raf kn,formation t ; Project Description CE1 HEADQUARTERS .tea.; �.-.,, �� � rY � _ am, � "'r..'*',S'S;ti -r.-�"�� "�r_s Mr`Ca'`rta'4. ��-'?r� ,g�.sca'c`t�"'��^>'^�.i._:,.,gym r. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T _ R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 7 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 132 164 Satflow rate 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1794 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 Lane group cap. 53 1880 841 57 1827 1 255 277 242 248 254 v/c ratio 0.13 0.94 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.53 0.65 Flow ratio 0.00 0.51 0.14 0.01 0.37 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.09 Crit. lane group N ] Y IN j Y IN I Y N IN IN K Y Sum flow ratios 0.66 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c -atio 0.76 t.ane'nGroup Capacity,-`Contr©l Frelay�;:aiioca I i ;. -_` „ ; _`' =r; 4 EB 1 WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L 1 TR Adj. flow rate 7 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 132 164 Lane group cap. 53 11880 841 57 1827 255 277 242 1 248 254 v/c ratio 0.13 0.94 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.53 0.65 Green ratio 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 Unif. delay d1 56.3 25.6 14.7 56.4 20.1 45.8 44.2 43.7 47.8 48.7 , Delay factor k 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.22 Increm. delay d2 1.1 9.8 0.2 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 2.2 5.6 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 57.4 35.4 14.9 58.1 21.2 46.6 44.4 43.8 50.0 54.2 Lane group LOS E D 8 E C D D D D D Apprch. delay 33.2 21.5 45.8 52.4 Approach LOS C C D D Intersec. delay 31.2 I Intersection LOS ` C HCS2000T" Copyright'0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 I r_ LANCASTER ENGINEERING TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Existing Conditions (2001), AM Peak Analyst: TEM From 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, first note under Table 7: The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two-hour consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity. Nomenclature V/C, Critical one-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection V/C2 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection Ch Hourly capacity TEV, Total entering vehicles, peak one hour TEV2 Total entering vehicles, peak two hours Known Variables TEV, = 3476 TEV 1 = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.76 Calculations VIC, = TEV, / Ch then Ch = TEV, /V/C1 Ch = 3476 / 0.76 Ch = 4574 TEVZ = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) ,TEV2 = 6558 V/CZ = TEV2/2xC,, V/C2 = 6558 / 9147 VIC2= 0.72 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio • FULL REPORT I Geneva aaffilttariMTiMti4-AW = 'i V , c T4 g Analyst TEM Intersection HWY 99W @ DARTMOUTH Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/8/01 Jurisdiction TIGARD Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year EXISTING (2001) rirCeis> t eo[t1Btx S/ - .. y,t .2.;� & : 7441 i',..� y grail y"xw¢ IIM zy Grade= 0 0 1 1 • F i - , r ' ` I I", i ! Grade= 0 III i ' I Li I ' • Show North Arrow - T 2 WIMI -1 2 11 1.1 ill L Lamm rir - TR Grade= 0 _44.4....4.1.424.{ f L r H-4-44-4-i _--_ i !'�tl� - L R Grade= 0 ,� 1 1 1 Y' = LTR Volume and.Timing Input.. - _ ;,i ,4 =^±r+ :,: `°= :gv"Z °"^ i._ ...�tl" EB I WB I NB j SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 146 11477 1 427 168 1610 118 311 116 66 1 180 146 45 % Heavy veh 1 3 _ 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A A , A A A ' A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 _ 2.0 ' 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 _ 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr I Bus stops/hr 10 10 10 10 10 I 0 10 10 0 10 I Ped timing 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 I 04 I SB Only NB Only. 07 I 08 Timing G = 8.0 G = 71.0 G = _ G = , G = 18.0 G = 27.0 G= G = Y= 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = Y = Y= 4.0 Y= 4.0 Y= Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 !Cycle Length C = 140.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET £ j�,Q�r... �„'Sw'R47 xE.. 4t.. .., k w'.2{ ix�' a ,� ?. .y s e 'F7 a c,.:� .fj# , aft`.,-. 44 ..�`t`B �4 .� S .'-.'a".� u^>.a.. --5. fv k s'1"' 'sti' nit al s^.+ '"`.+M1'yg Sett ` A ."'r T`��' �����59.y.i nf.,".�`.�'�:*v .uSktG:"k�4 . „�,'l..r'�^-t r�" �' �•r Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS 5 WTAT75 ''� g.1 7, 65 x 3 7- ' art *ter EB WB NB S8 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 46 1477 427 68 1610 18 311 116 66 180 146 45 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow Rate 48 1539 445 71 1677 19 324 121 69 188 152 47 Lane Group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 48 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 188 199 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.011 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.236 Saturation Ftow_Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1 1900 1900 1900 11900 1 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.990 0.971 0.990 0.990 0.971 0.990 1.000 0.990 0.990 0.979 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 fLT 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 - Secondary fLT - - - fRT - 1.000 10.850 - 0.998 - 1.000 0.850 - 0.965 fLpb 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 - 11.000 Adj. satflow 1787 3505 1599 1787 3500 1787 1900 1599 1787 1794 Sec. adj. satflow -- - -- -- CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET 176764f-aWtH, , r^ a r + c d [ Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS 04a. 4r f 5 `S k V -.�'acW"Wt.h�r »fnA. i y.. 'f°2 r.+s...,a ,- EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 148 1539 1 445 71 11696 1 324 1 121 169 188 199 Satflow rate 1787 3505 1599 1787 3500 _ 1787 1900 1599 1787 1794 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.51 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 Lane group cap. 102 1778 811 102 1775 _ 345 366 308 230 231 v/c ratio 0.47 0.87 0.55 0.70 0.96 0.94 0.33 0.22 0.82 0.86 Flow ratio 0.03 0.44 0.28 0.04 0.48 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.11 Crit. lane group N N N Y Y Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.82 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.92 I ,,� ., ': fi 1-,+'.!s .n �,a;°ik;` .�a". e`S r�, .'�"i,.-+ - { sr -s- G' lwv C �: a .0 an�el(�raupw;! ap rcr 4, i; Q .I' g g�it tf ' e #&. .j4 ' `T'' ; `x r . t EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR I L LT R L I TR Adj. flow rate 48 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 188 199 Lane group cap. 102 1778 811 102 1775 1345 366 308 230 231 v/c ratio 0.47 0.87 0.55 0.70 0.96 0.94 0.33 0.22 0.82 0.86 Green ratio 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.51 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 Unif. delay dl 63.9 30.3 23.6 64.8 33.0 55.7 48.7 47.7 59.4 59.8 Delay factor k 0.11 0.40 0.15 0.26 0.47 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.39 Increm. delay d2 3.4 4.8 0.8 18.7 12.5 33.0 0.5 0.4 20.1 26.6 Pr factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 67.4 35.1 24.4 83.5 45.5 !88.7 49.2 48.0 79.5 86.4 Lane group LOS E D I C F I D I F D D E F Apprch. delay 33.5 47.0 74.0 83.1 Approach LOS C D E F Intersec. delay 47.1 Intersection LOS D HCS2000''M Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version d.1 ,..,,, E it.,: LANCASTER ENGINEERING TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Existing Conditions (2001), PM Peak Analyst: TEM From 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, first note under Table 7: The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two-hour consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity. Nomenclature V/C, Critical one-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection V/C2 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection Ch Hourly capacity TEV, Total entering vehicles, peak one hour TEV2 Total entering vehicles, peak two hours Known Variables TEV, = 4510 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.92 Calculations , V/C, = TEV,I C,, then Ch = TEV, /V/C, Ch = 4510 / 0.92 Ch = 4902 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2= 8673 V/C2 = TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 8673 / 9804 V/C2 = 0.88 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio FULL REPORT General,Information - iSite Information , . r , Analyst TEM Intersection HWY 99W @ DARTMOUTH Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/8/01 Jurisdiction TIGARD Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Intersection Geometry Grade= 0 0 1 1 1 ! ! t 1.17_1_,_±._ Ali '1-1-1-I-3 ---j- iT j I ; i Grade= 0 Mr '• ; ii I i Sham North Arrow t 1 = T i 1 _..; i i t + 1 t , 0 (-1-, ' I ; i i o ! i ! j - R .. !.+_.__! __L..t�_ I 2 1 4;.71.r 2 v.\ , , 1 1 1 i 1 . :41 1 Grade= 0 .-1__1_. + ..-__4 4_i L-. = LT i I i• = LR I -4-7-1 ! ! ! ! 1 Grade= 0 „Irtr 1 1 1 = LTR .Volume and Timing Input 7, . EB WB I. NB , SB LT TH 1 RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 20 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 125 112 43 % Heavy veh 13 4 4 6 7 _ 0 6 3 0 3 1 3 P H F 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A AA A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 i 2.0 Arrival pe 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) I N 1 N N 1 N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Ped timing 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1 Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G = 4.0 G = 65.0 G = G = G = 17.0 G = 18.0 G = G = Timing Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = Y = Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 (Cycle Length C = 120.0 I VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS Volum. djustri ent ` . - .. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 20 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 125 112 43 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 10.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow Rate 21 1765 223 11 1254 5 90 34 12 133 119 46 Lane Group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 21 1765 223 10. 000 11 1259 90 34 12 133 165 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.004 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.279 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.885 0.962 0.962 0.943 0.935 0.943 0.971 1.000 0.971 0.985 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLT 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- -- fRT -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.999 -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.958 fLpb 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1793 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET .e, Project Description CEl HEADQUARTERS Capacity Anal sis „ . . r =`�,i§�.�.�,_::�..4.r.au,�= .; G.iSa.4.lf-..,i,1.s_2�s-.Kt�#r:s`�;:�za ' 3.,.f'°''�' a ..�:.§i t .€ •. i tp*'..r�, -tk. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L 1 TR Adj. flow rate 21 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 133 165 Satflow rate 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1793 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 Lane group cap. 53 1880 841 57 1827 J 255 277 1 242 248 254 v/c ratio 0.40 0.94 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.54 0.65 Flow ratio 0.01 0.51 0.14 0.01 0.37 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.09 Crit. lane group Y Y N N N Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.67 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.77 M any l:QU°,..., t4*. cj:!; g .v ,. ... . .. , P � Y d1 i� �'. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 21 1765 223 11 1259 1 90 34 12 1133 165 Lane group cap. 53 1880 841 57 1827 255 ( 277 242 248 254 v/c ratio 0.40 0.94 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.54 0.65 Green ratio 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 Unif. delay dl 56.8 1 25.6 14.7 56.4 20.1 45.8 44.2 43.7 147.8 48.7 Delay factor k 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.23 Increm. delay d2 4.8 9.8 0.2 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 2.3 5.7 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 61.6 35.4 14.9 58.1 21.2 46.6 44.4 43.8 50.1 54.4 Lane group LOS E D B E C DD 0 0 0 Apprch. delay 33.4 21.5 45.8 52.5 Approach LOS C C D D Intersec. delay 31.4 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Background Traffic, AM Peak Analyst: TEM From 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, first note under Table 7: The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two-hour consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity. Nomenclature V/C1 Critical one-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection V/C2 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection Ch Hourly capacity TEV, Total entering vehicles, peak one hour TEV2 Total entering vehicles, peak two hours Known Variables TEV1 = 3491 TEV1 = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C1 = 0.77 Calculations V/C, =TEV1/Ch then Ch = TEV, /V/C, Ch = 3491 / 0.77 Ch = 4534 TEV1 = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 6586.8 V/C2 =TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 6586.8 / 9068 V/C2= 0.73 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio FULL REPORT General Information Site Information,. Analyst TEM Intersection HWY 99W @ DARTMOUTH Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/8/01 Jurisdiction TIGARD Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Intersection Geometry Grade= 0 0 1 1 ! i ! i i i i --I-1 , i i Grade= 0 IPF ! s -�t- , = T I : 1 -; ! i 1 ! f (-1- = R ' Ili ; ' 0 2 1-!._ ,_t-i_ _..._L.,`'`tt _....--L ! 2 1' ill 1-4 I---;- ' I E = L I *Him us. 1 i lop 1 !.__l-..4._{-- -- -.1-.. = T R 1 Grade= 0 -?-�--� ! '-j--t----!- V = L T 7-1-H T-7-7'. ,i .1 j !lam = L R -- ---h 1 Y-- Grade= 0 A Y' - LTR 1 1 1 r� Volume and Timing Input`, 11 ." ? ,`, - EB 1 WB NB I SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 48 1477 427 68 1610 ] 18 311 116 66 186 146 57 % Heavy veh 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Actuated (P/A) A A AA A . A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N I I N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 0.0 I 0.0 3.0 0.0 I Excl. Left I Thru & RT 03 _I 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G = 8.0 G = 71.0 G = G = G = 18.0 G = 27.0 G = G = Timing Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y= Y= Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 _Cycle Length C = 140.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information , Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS Volume.Adjustmenf ;`'.` : w» N z zr TrAi'' w ::±. a 3.,�^z e . EB WB 1 NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 48 1477 427 68 1610 18 311 116 66 186 146 57 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow Rate 50 1539 445 71 1677 19 324 121 69 194 152 59 Lane Group L TR L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 50 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 194 211 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.011 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.280 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.990 0.971 0.990 0.990 0.971 0.990 1.000 0.990 0.990 0.977 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLT 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 -- 10.950 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- -- fRT -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.998 } -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.958 fLpb 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1787 3505 1599 1787 3500 1787 1900 1599 1787 1778 Sec. adj. satflow - -- -- -- yy CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET G C 9 >µ. 4,-wi •-..1,:l• .t. '.... f ...,. 5 <''°,1-' !- # ] x �r^.±.;i. iA ene , it „ matio g} >a". ,.v t y ,, : �,s, : r . � , = -..F to. Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS +. 3f ?,%,.4 it `+. ,,t.i t s�`'`-t:w n' A5% 1 , 'e , c' ;. I.2 i3'u[.+ '.. s` a s kl . ,..iu 4 u i i r .<. ° i S -� kie.. ;,r ,.r. fX�' _ ,,} „.. »a �a9u���:7��..._ .,.€:�.....,��rz��r a=4Y�....sr.^- ,�,�Yi�.r.<_ :,�.. �: r�..r, a_aue3�.. ��.,s...� =.�.�s�.. •.Y mss... EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L 1 TR L LT R L TR 7 Adj. flow rate 50 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 194 211 Satflow rate 1787 3505 1599 1787 3500 1787 1900 1599 1787 1778 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.51 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 Lane group cap. 102 1778 811 102 1775 345 366 308 230 229 v/c ratio 0.49 0.87 0.55 0.70 0.96 0.94 0.33 0.22 0.84 0.92 Flow ratio 0.03 0.44 0.28 0.04 0.48 1 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.11 1 0.12 Crit. lane group N N N Y Y Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.82 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.93 Lane G au Ca act % , _Dela, and:LOS etermE' ! 11 ti .r^ �ra, EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 50 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 194 211 Lane group cap. 102 1778 811 102 1775 345 366 308 230 229 v/c ratio 0.49 0.87 0.55 0.70 0.96 0.94 0.33 0.22 0.84 0.92 Green ratio 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.51 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 Unif. delay dl 64.0 30.3 23.6 64.8 33.0 155.7 48.7 47.7 159.6 60.3 Delay factor k 0.11 0.40 0.15 0.26 0.47 10.45 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.44 Increm. delay d2 3.7 4.8 0.8 18.7 12.5 33.0 0.5 0.4 23.8 38.6 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 67.7 35.1 24.4 83.5 45.5 88.7 49.2 48.0 83.4 98.9 Lane group LOS E D C F D F D D F F Apprch. delay 33.5 47.0 74.0 91.5 Approach LOS C D E F Intersec. delay 48.0 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-HOUR V!C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Background Traffic, PM Peak Analyst: TEM From 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, first note under Table 7: The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two-hour consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity. Nomenclature V/C1 Critical one-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection V/C2 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection Ch Hourly capacity TEV, Total entering vehicles, peak one hour TEV2 Total entering vehicles, peak two hours Known Variables TEV, = 4530 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.93 Calculations V/C, = TEV,/Ch then Ch= TEV1 /V/C1 Ch = 4530 / 0.93 Ch = 4871 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 8711.5 V/C2 = TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 8711.5 / 9742 V/C2= 0.89 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio FULL REPORT General'information Site Information Analyst TEM Intersection HWY 99W @ DARTMOUTH Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/8/01 Jurisdiction TIGARD Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE Intersection Geometry Grade= 0 0 ' lli i Ka 4---i--- , i i J i ii ! Grade= 0 4111, I ' ■ , Shun North Array I = T / rifinlini MRES o ! r = R 2 , -1-..'.j _�. -_ -:. ._ t 2 ,r1 I i f i ' . 1 1 1 HT-H-1 I I. ' = T Grade= 0 -4- 1 { f-=_i--I•_..1..- ,f,4 _ ( I IIlulatiaa /ib.!n! /iIi = L R --4--. t '---p•--' Grade= 0 ,4- ,� 4 - 1f LTR r > 1 - - - -- ----- Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 31 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 126 112 44 Heavy veh 13 4 4 6 7 0 6 3 0 3 1 3 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 10.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A AA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 , 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr 1 1 Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 G = 4.0 1G = 65.0 1G = i G = G = 17.0 G = 18.0 G = 1G = • Timing Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = Y = Y = 4.0 Y= 4.0 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 i VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information - - ` :;. Project Description CE! HEADQUARTERS VolumeAdjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 31 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 126 112 44 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow Rate 33 1765 223 11 1254 ] 5 l 90 34 12 134 119 47 Lane Group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 33 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 134 166 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.004 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.283 Saturation Flow Rate -: :, .,, Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.885 0.962 0.962 0.943 0.935 0.943 0.971 1.000 0.971 0.985 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLT 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- - fRT -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.999 -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.958 fLpb 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 - fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1791 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information 7-` , 7 s,,r F% U:. Project Description CE!HEADQUARTERS Capacity Analysis . . ,., :-, 1 EB I WB NB I SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 33 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 134 166 Satflow rate 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1791 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.03 0.54 0.54 10.03 0.54 1 1 0.15 0.15 10.15 0.14 0.14 Lane group cap. 53 1880 841 57 1827 255 277 242 248 254 v/c ratio 0.62 0.94 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.54 0.65 Flow ratio 0.02 0.51 0.14 0.01 0.37 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.09 Crit. lane group Y Y N 1 N N Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.67 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.78 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB I NB I SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj flow rate 33 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 134 166 Lane group cap. 53 1880 841 57 1827 255 277 242 248 254 v/c ratio 0.62 0.94 0.27 0.19 0.69 0.35 0.12 0.05 0.54 0.65 Green ratio 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 Unif. delay dl 57.3 25.6 14.7 56.4 20.1 45.8 44.2 43.7 47.9 48.7 Delay factor k 0.21 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.23 Increm. delay d2 20.6 9.8 0.2 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 12.4 5.9 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 77.8 35.4 14.9 58.1 21.2 J 46.6 44.4 43.8 50.3 54.6 I Lane group LOS E D B E C D D D D D Apprch. delay 33.9 21.5 45.8 52.7 Approach LOS C C D D Intersec. delay 31.6 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T M Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Background + Site, AM Peak Analyst: TEM From 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, first note under Table 7.' The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two-hour consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity. Nomenclature V/C, Critical one-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection V/C2 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection Ch Hourly capacity TEV, Total entering vehicles, peak one hour TEV2 Total entering vehicles, peak two hours Known Variables TEV, = 3504 TEV, = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.78 Calculations V/C, = TEV,/Ch then Ch =TEV, /V/C, Ch = 3504 / 0.78 C,, = 4492 TEV, = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 6611.3 V/C2= TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 6611.3 / 8985 V/C2 = 0.74 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio FULL REPORT General Information `.. r "Site Information Analyst TEM Intersection HWY 99W @ DARTMOUTH Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/8/01 Jurisdiction TIGARD Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE � _ ..^.rt�'f°Y'�£ -.+'i'�,` ��{< `�" @-.,,�sh°'�'�,s'O�`� Hk*r `W ,s rcii.�`xC"F. 'x<+. �7 S � Ihterrsecttbn Geometry k_. ,. �,c�.,S:rM '. i'sr"-.1 ;a , ` ,,. _." �<f�", « -. 1''.' ', Grade= 0 0 1 1 I� 1 44-1 (16. Aft i , �IT Grade= 0 IIIII i ' l ' ' 11 Siva'Korth Arrow r 1 - I ! t , / --1--jr-.... -1.--i- IrlITITKEI o IIIRRIUMII 2 • !!-===?=i1` >_.-. .l. 2 'K ti { , i i / _l_ , _ • Grade= 0 _H_ ..4-44J '4 _ L7 --1-1- ■11111Nl111 iry. iii�1 = L R - ; t- ,-r . , Grade= 0 •rte _ Li R i 1 1 'Volume anfd'Timing Input . , x L' Ff e" < . `' ;*% -,+i r A tit EB WB 1 NB SB ' LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT . TH RT Volume (vph) 51 1477 427 68 11610 19 311 116 66 191 146 67 % Heavy veh 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Actuated (P/A) A A A I AA A J A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 l 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 j 04 SB Only NB Only I 07 08 G = 8.0 G = 71.0 G = G = G = 18.0 G = 27.0 G = G = Timing Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y = Y= Y = 4.0 Y = 4.0 Y= Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 I Cycle Length C = 140.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information .`' Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS Volume Adjustment �°` '; l'''-1"-'2;.:... .,...• EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH l RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 51 1477 427 68 1610 19 311 116 66 1 191 146 67 PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow Rate 53 1539 445 71 1677 20 324 121 69 199 152 70 Lane Group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 53 1539 445 71 1697 324 121 69 199 222 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 1 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.012 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.315 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.990 0.971 0.990 0.990 0.971 0,990 1.000 0.990 0.990 0.975 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLT 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- -- fRT -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.998 -- 1.000 0.850 -- 0.953 fLpb 1.000 11.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1787 3505 1599 1787 3500 1787 1900 1599 1787 1765 Sec. adj. satflow - - -- -- I' CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General;Information `. :. 1 Project Description CEI HEADQUARTERS Capacity Analysis-, -.-. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 53 1539 445 71 1697 324 121 69 1 199 222 Satflow rate 1787 13505 1599 1787 3500 1787 1900 1599 1787 1765 Lost time 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.06 1 0.51 10.51 0.06 0.51 1 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 Lane group cap. 102 1778 811 102 1775 345 366 308 230 227 v/c ratio 0.52 1 0.87 10.55 0.70 0.96 10.94 0.33 1 0.22 0.87 0.98 Flow ratio 0.03 0.44 0.28 0.04 0.48 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.13 Crit. lane group N N IN I Y I Y Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.83 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.94 Lane Group Capacity,.Control Delay, and LOS•Determination, EB WB NB SB Lane group L T I R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 53 1539 445 71 1697 324 121 69 199 222 Lane group cap. 102 1778 811 102 1775 345 366 308 230 227 v/c ratio 0.52 0.87 0.55 0.70 0.96 0.94 0.33 0.22 0.87 0.98 Green ratio 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.51 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 Unif. delay dl 64.1 30.3 23.6 64.8 33.0 55.7 48.7 47.7 59.8 60.8 Delay factor k 0.13 0.40 0.15 0.26 0.47 0.45 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.48 Increm. delay d2 4.7 4.8 0.8 18.7 12.6 33.0 0.5 0.4 27.3 53.3 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 168.8 35.1 24.4 83.5 45.6 88.7 49,2 48.0 87.2 114.1 Lane group LOS E ID I C F D F D I D F F Apprch. delay 33.6 47.1 74.0 101.4 Approach LOS C D E F Intersec. delay 49.0 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Background + Site, PM Peak Analyst: TEM From 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, first note under Table 7: The volume to capacity ratios in the table are for the highest two-hour consecutive hours of weekday traffic volumes. This is calculated by dividing the traffic volume for the average weekly two-hour PM peak by twice the hourly capacity. Nomenclature V/C, Critical one-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection V/C2 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio for intersection Ch Hourly capacity TEV, Total entering vehicles, peak one hour TEV2 Total entering vehicles, peak two hours Known Variables TEV, = 4549 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.94 Calculations V/C, = TEV,/Ch then Ch = TEV, I V/C, Ch = 4549 / 0.94 Ch = 4839 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 8748.1 V/C2 = TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 8748.1 / 9679 V/C2 = 0.90 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio 1 JOB NO. 01-109.02 DATE: 6/11/01 DESIGNED BY: RH CHECKED BY: EKC PROJECT: CAMERON PLAZA 4 .‘) Pen TOTAL SITE AREA: 45,017 SF= 1.04 ACRES 16,1 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: 0 SF=0.00 ACRES / /k. - TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 33,773 SF=0.78 ACRES - TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: 11,244 SF=0.26 ACRES OREGON y, 15,1E K.ciiR/� WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: ;: °. tZ( 3 I/o Z USA REQUIREMENT IS TO TREAT THE 4 HR,2 YEAR STORM HAVING RAINFALL OF 0.36"WITH AN AVERAGE RETURN TIME OF 48 HRS. 4 HR,2 YEAR STORM W/96 HOUR RETURN =0.36" TOTAL STORM VOLUME RETAINED FOR WATER QUALITY(WQV): WQV =TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA * 0.36"/(12,IN./1 FT.) =33,733 SF* 0.36"/(12 IN./1 FT.) a 1,012 CF WATER DETENTION CALCULATIONS: METHODOLOGY: KING COUNTY HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM UTILIZING SANTA BARBARA UNIT HYDROGRAPH PLEASE FIND THE ATTACHED HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM RESULTS FOR THE: --ON SITE 10 YEAR-STORM UNDEVELOPED --ON SITE 25 YEAR-STORM DEVELOPED DETENTION REQUIREMENT IS DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE ON-SITE POST DEVELOPED PEAK FLOW OF THE 25 YEAR-STORM TO THE PRE-DEVELOPED PEAK FLOW OF THE 10-YEAR STORM. P:\CLIENT FILES(by job#)\2001\01-109.02 EEI\Documents\200 I HYD-REP.wpd 3 RESIDENTIAL @ 1/4 ACRES LOT: 39%CN 83 (TRUSS) RESIDENTIAL @ 1/4 ACRES LOT: 20%CN 80(TRUSS) URBAN COMMERCIAL: 11%CN 94 BRUSH/WEED/GRASS: 30%CN 65 COMPOSITE CURVE NUMBER: COM: (83*0.:9)+(80*0.20)+(94*0.11)+(65* 0.30)=78.2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION,TC: 15.60 MINUTES EXISTING FLOW(Please see attached Hydrograph Program Results) 25-YEAR STORM,24 DURATION YIELDS A PEAK FLOW OF Qpeak: 3.42 CFS EXISTING PIPE: 12" WHICH IS LAID @ 0.009 CAN HANDLE THE PIPE LOW WITH V=4 FT/SEC EXISTING 12"DOWNSTREAM IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE. P:\CLIENT FILES(by job#)\2001\01-109.02 EEI\Documents\2001 HYD-REP.wpd CEI RR 11: 05 05-Jun-01 Project 01-109.02 EEI PFAFFLE STREET RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH 10 YEAR STORM PRE-DEVELOPED total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period = 10 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.60 in. pervious area = 1.04 A CN = 79 GpC:Res, 1-A.lots impervious area = 0.00 A CN = 98 total site area = 1.04 A peak flow = 0.41cfs @ 7.83 hr. runoff volume = 6,207 cu.ft. CEI RH 11:03 05—Jun-01 Project 01-109.02 EEI PFAFFLE STREET RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH 25 YEAR STORM POST-DEVELOPED total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS TypelA return period = 25 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 4 .00 in. pervious area = 0.26 A CN = 79 GpC:Res, 1-A.lots impervious area = 0.78 A CN = 98 total site area = 1.04 A hydrograph file: c: \program files\quick3\shucks\2pre.hyd peak flow = 0. 95cfs @ 7.E'3 hr. runoff volume = 12, 514 cu.ft. • CEI RE 10:30 11-Jun-01 Project 01-109.02 EEI PFAFFLE STREET HYDROGRAPH DETENTION VOLUME load C:\Program Files\QUICK3\EEI\25post.hyd detention for 0.41 cfs 1.00 0.80 0. 60 0.40 I ' 0.20 10 20 30 peak flow = 0. 95 cfs @ 7.83 hours volume = 12,558 cu.ft. detention volume = 791 c.f. to limit flow to 0.41 cfs 5ec.,t'on E . Carlson Geotechnical Main Office Salem Office Bend Office P.O. Box 23814 4060 Hudson Ave., NE P.O. Box 7918 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Tigard,Oregon 97281 Salem,OR 97301 Bend,OR 97708 Geotechnical Consulting Phone (503)684-3460 Phone(503)589-1252 Phone(541)330-9155 Construction Inspection and Related Tests FAX(503)670-9147 FAX (503)589-1309 FAX(541)330-9163 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon CGT Project: G0101779 Prepared for Mr. John Nibler Panattoni Construction 1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 810 Portland, Oregon 97201 June 1 , 2001 Carlson Geotechnical MainOtfice Salem Office Bend Office P.O. Box 23814 4060 Hudson Ave.,NE P.O. Box 7918 A Division of Carlson Testing, Inc. Tigard,Oregon 97281 Salem,OR 97301 Bend,OR 97708 Geotechnical Consulting Phone (503) 684-3460 Phone(503)589-1252 Phone(541)330-9155 Construction Inspection and Related Tests FAX(503)670-9147 FAX(503)589-1309 FAX(541)330-9163 June 1, 2001 John Nibler Panattoni Construction 1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 810 Portland, Oregon 97201 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon CGT Project G0101779 INTRODUCTION Carlson Geotechnical (CGT) is pleased to present the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed office building to be located on Pfaffle Street in Tigard, Oregon, as shown on Figure 1. We have performed our work in general accordance with our proposal dated May 1, 2001. CGT performed a geotechnical investigation for this site in 1998. The purpose of our current work was to explore subsurface conditions at the site in order to update geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. Our specific scope of services was as follows: • Explore subsurface conditions at the site by excavating four test pits to depths of up to 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs), using a track-mounted excavator. • Classify the materials encountered in the explorations by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Visual-Manual Method. Collect representative soil samples for laboratory testing and to verify our field classifications. • Complete moisture content determinations on representative samples from the test pits. • Provide a limited written report summarizing the results of our geotechnical investigation and providing updated recommendations, as appropriate. PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION Project Information The site is located on the south side of Pfaffle Street, just north of the existing General Motors training facility, and is currently undeveloped. We understand that development will include Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 construction of a two-story, wood-framed or concrete tilt-up building, and have assumed that site grading will be limited to cuts and fills of less than 3 feet, and that building loads will be less than 70 kips for columns, and 4 kips per lineal foot for walls. We have also assumed that development will include construction of appurtenant pavement and utilities. Regional Geology The site is located in the Willamette Valley geologic provenance in Tigard, Oregon. The Willamette Valley was formed when the volcanic rocks of the Oregon Coast Range, originally formed as submarine islands, were added onto the North American Continent. The addition of the coast range volcanic rocks caused inland downwarping, forming a depression in which various types of marine sedimentary rocks accumulated. Approximately 15 million years ago, these marine sediments were, in turn, covered by Columbia River Basalts that flowed down the Columbia River Gorge and Willamette Valley, as far south as Salem, Oregon. Later uplift and tilting of these Columbia River Basalts, the Oregon Coast Range, and the western Cascade Range caused extensive faulting and formed the trough-like character of the Willamette Valley that we observe today. During this same time period, local volcanic activity produced the Boring Lavas through several localized vents including nearby Mt. Sylvania, and also Mt. Scott and Mt. Tabor. Catastrophic floods later washed into the Willamette Valley approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago and deposited coarse and fine-grained sedimentary assemblages mapped throughout the area. Site Geology The available mapping (Madin, 1990') indicates that the site is underlain by fine-grained silt, clay and sand (Pleistocene Flood Deposits). An inferred fault is mapped roughly 1/2-mile north of the site. The fault does not appear to cut the Pleistocene flood deposits; however, it may produce ground shaking at the site. Site Surface Conditions The site is relatively level and is currently covered with short grasses, occasional trees, and blackberries. The west side of the site is bordered by asphalt parking associated with the GM training facility, and the south and east sides of the site are bordered by commercial and residential developments. Pfaff le Street borders the site to the north. Madin, 1990. Earthquake-Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area,Oregon. State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open File Report 0-90-2. Carlson Geotechnical Page 2 of 11 V Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 Site Subsurface Conditions Field Exploration We excavated four test pits to a depth of 10 feet bgs on May 22, 2001. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. A member of CGT's staff logged the test pits and collected samples. Logs of the test pits are presented in the attached Figures 3 through 6. Our laboratory staff visually examined all samples returned to our laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, in order to refine the field classifications. Subsurface Materials In general, we encountered 4 to 6 inches of soft silt topsoil underlain by 1 to 3 feet of medium stiff to very stiff silt fill and very dense gravel fill. The fill was underlain by stiff to very stiff native silt to the full depths of our explorations. We encountered minor ground water seepage near the bottom of test pits TP-2 through TP-4. We anticipate that ground water levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations in precipitation, changes in site utilization, or other factors. Additionally the site silt soils are conducive to the formation of a perched water table. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our explorations and analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed structure with the assumed building loads can be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on the medium stiff to very stiff silt fill, the very dense gravel fill, the stiff to very stiff native silt, or on structural fill that is properly installed during construction. Based on the consistency of the fill encountered in the test pits, we do not anticipate that this material will need to be overexcavated, as recommended in our 1998 report. If soft soils are encountered during site and foundation preparation, they should be excavated as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. The following recommendations are applicable for the current planned project. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation Where present, existing roots should be stripped and removed from proposed building and pavement locations, and for a 5-foot margin around such areas. Based on our explorations, the Carlson Geotechnical Page 3 of 11 Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 depth of stripping will be approximately 4 inches. A representative of CGT should provide recommendations for actual stripping/overexcavation depths, based on observations during site stripping. Stripped material should be transported off site for disposal or stockpiled for use in landscaped areas. Silt fences, hay bales, buffer zones of natural growth, sedimentation ponds, and granular haul roads should be used as required to reduce sediment transport during construction to acceptable levels. Measures to reduce erosion should be implemented in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules 340-41-006 and 340-41-455 and Washington County regulations regarding erosion control. After site grading and prior to excavation for footings, a representative from CGT should observe a proof roll of the existing site subgrades to identify areas of excessive yielding. If areas of soft soil or excessive yielding are identified, the material should be excavated and replaced with compacted materials as recommended for structural fill. Areas that appear too soft and wet to support proof-rolling equipment should be prepared in accordance with recommendations for wet weather construction given below. Wet Weather Considerations The site soils contain silt and may be susceptible to disturbance during wet weather. Trafficability of the site soils may be difficult and significant damage to subgrade soils could occur if earthwork is undertaken without proper precautions at times when the exposed soils are more than a few percentage points above optimum moisture content. For construction that occurs during the wet season, the site preparation activities may need to be accomplished using track-mounted equipment, loading removed material into trucks supported on granular haul roads, or other methods to limit soil disturbance. The subgrade should be evaluated during excavation by a qualified geotechnical engineer by probing rather than proof rolling. Soils that have been disturbed during site preparation activities, or soft or loose areas identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Haul roads subjected to repeated heavy construction traffic will require a minimum of 18 inches of imported granular material. Twelve inches of imported granular material should be sufficient for light staging areas. The imported granular material should consist of crushed rock that is well-graded between coarse and fine, contains no unsuitable materials or particles larger than 4 inches, and has less than 5 percent by weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. The Carlson Geotechnical Page 4 of 11 Pfeifle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 imported granular material should be placed in one lift over the prepared, undisturbed subgrade and compacted using a smooth-drum, nonvibratory roller. We recommend that a geotextile be placed as a barrier between the subgrade and imported fill in areas of repeated construction traffic. The geotextile should have a minimum Mullen burst strength of 250 pounds per square inch (psi) for puncture resistance and an apparent opening size (AOS) between the U.S. No. 70 and No. 100 Sieves. Structural Fill On-site Soils Use of the on-site silts as structural fill may be difficult because the silt is sensitive to small changes in moisture content and is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately compact during wet weather. We anticipate that the moisture content of the on-site silts will be higher than the optimum moisture content for satisfactory compaction. Therefore, moisture conditioning (drying) should be expected in order to achieve adequate compaction. When used as structural fill, the on-site silts should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of 8 inches and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. If the on-site soils cannot be properly moisture-conditioned, we recommend using imported granular material for structural fill. Imported Granular Material Imported granular structural fill should consist of angular pit or quarry run rock, crushed rock, or crushed gravel and sand that is fairly well-graded between coarse and fine particle sizes. The fill should contain no organic matter or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and have less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve. The percentage of fines can be increased to 12 percent of the material passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve, if placed during dry weather and provided the fill material is moisture-conditioned, as necessary, for proper compaction. The material should be placed in lifts with a maximum uncompacted thickness of 12 inches and be compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. During the wet season or when wet subgrade conditions exist, the initial lift thickness should be increased to 24 inches and should be compacted by rolling with a smooth-drum, nonvibratory roller. Carlson Geotechnical Page 5 of 11 Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 Shallow Foundations We recommend that spread footings be founded on the medium stiff to very stiff silt fill, the very dense gravel fill, the stiff to very stiff native silt, or on structural fill that is properly installed during construction. We recommend that all spread footings have a minimum width of 24 inches, and the base of the footings be founded at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Excavations near foundation footings should not extend within a 1 H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) plane projected from the bottom of the footings. Bearing Pressure and Settlement Footings founded as recommended should be proportioned for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This bearing pressure is a net bearing pressure and applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads, and may be increased by 1/3 when considering seismic or wind loads. For the recommended design bearing pressures, total settlement of footings is anticipated to be less than 1 inch. Differential settlements should not exceed %2-inch. Lateral Capacity We recommend using a passive pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot for design (pcf), for footings confined by the medium stiff to very stiff silt fill, the very dense gravel fill, the stiff to very stiff native silt, or on structural fill. In order to develop these capacities, concrete must be poured neat in excavations, the adjacent grade must be level, and the static ground water must remain below the base of the footing throughout the year. Adjacent floor slabs, pavements, or the upper 12-inch-depth of adjacent, unpaved areas should not be considered when calculating passive resistance. A coefficient of friction equal to 0.32 may be used when calculating resistance to sliding. Retaining Structures For walls not restrained from rotation, we recommend using an equivalent fluid pressure of 33 pcf for design. We recommend using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for design of walls restrained from rotation. When computing resistance to lateral loads, we recommend using a base friction coefficient of 0.32. Footings for the retaining walls should be designed for Carlson Geotechnical Page 6 of 11 Pfeifle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 a maximum bearing pressure of 2,500 psf, in accordance with the recommendations given for shallow spread footings. Wall drains should include perforated drainpipe wrapped in a non-woven geotextile filter installed behind the walls at the base. Walls should be backfilled with imported granular material, as described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. The above design recommendations are based on the assumptions that: (1) the walls consist of conventional cantilevered retaining walls or embedded building walls, (2) the walls are less than 10 feet in height, (3) the backfill is level and drained and consists of imported granular materials, and (4) no surcharges are imposed behind the wall. Reevaluation of our recommendations will be required if the retaining wall design criteria for the project vary from these assumptions. Floor Slabs Satisfactory subgrade support for building floor slabs supporting up to 350 psf areal loading can be obtained from the medium stiff to very stiff silt fill, the very dense gravel fill, the stiff to very stiff native silt, or structural fill when prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Site Preparation" section of this report. A minimum 6-inch-thick layer of crushed rock should be placed over the prepared subgrade to assist as a capillary break. A subgrade modulus of 175 pounds per cubic inch can be used for the design of the floor slab. Floor slabs constructed as recommended will likely settle less than 1/2-inch. We recommend that slabs be jointed around columns and walls to permit slabs and foundations to settle differentially. Pavements We recommend a pavement section of 2.5 inches of asphalt-concrete over 6.0 inches of aggregate base be used in paved areas that will be exposed to passenger car traffic only. For paved access roads that will be exposed to less than 50 trucks per day, we recommend a pavement section of 3.5 inches of asphalt-concrete over 10 inches of aggregate base. Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 00745 of the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, Oregon State Highway Division, 1996 Edition, for light-duty asphalt concrete. The design of the recommended pavement sections is based on an assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 4, and the assumption that construction will be completed during an extended period of dry weather. Increased base rock sections may be required in wet conditions to support construction traffic and protect the subgrade. Aggregate base should conform to Carlson Geotechnical Page 7 of 11 Pfeifle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 Section 02630 of the same specifications. Place aggregate base in one lift and compact to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Drainage Considerations We recommend that subsurface drains be connected to a tightline leading to the storm drain. Pavement surfaces and open space areas should be sloped such that the surface water runoff is collected and routed to suitable discharge points. We recommend that the ground and paved surfaces adjacent to the buildings be sloped to drain away from the buildings. Utility Trenches Utility Trench Excavation Trench cuts should stand near vertical to a depth of approximately 4 feet in the silt provided no ground water seepage is observed in the sidewalls. If seepage is encountered that undermines the stability of the trench, the sidewalls should be flattened or shored. Trench excavations extending into the gravel will likely require shoring or flattening for stability during construction. Trench dewatering may be required to maintain dry working conditions if the invert elevations of the proposed utilities are below the ground water level. Pumping from sumps located within the trench will likely be effective in removing water resulting from seepage. If ground water is present at the base of utility excavations, we recommend placing trench stabilization material at the base of the excavation consisting of 1 foot of well-graded gravel, crushed gravel, or crushed rock with a minimum particle size of 4 inches and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve. The material should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material and should be placed in one lift and compacted until well-keyed. While we have described certain approaches to the trench excavation, it is the contractor's responsibility to select the excavation and dewatering methods, to monitor the trench excavations for safety, and to provide any shoring required to protect personnel and adjacent improvements. All trench excavations should be in accordance with applicable OSHA and state regulations. Trench Backfill Material Trench backfill for the utility pipe base and pipe zone should consist of well-graded granular material containing no organic material or other deleterious material, have a maximum particle size of%-inch, and have less than 8 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve. Carlson Geotechnical Page 8 of 11 Pfeifle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 Backfill for the pipe base and within the pipe zone should be placed in maximum 12-inch-thick lifts and compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557 or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. Backfill above the pipe zone should be placed in maximum 12-inch-thick lifts and compacted to not less than 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Trench backfill located within 2 feet of finish subgrade elevation should be placed in maximum 12-inch-thick lifts and compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Permanent Slopes Permanent slopes should not exceed 2H:1 V. Adjacent on-site and off-site structure and surfacing should be located at least 5 feet from the top of slopes. Footings constructed within slopes should have a minimum of 5 feet between the face of the slope and the outer edge of the footing. Seismic Design Dynamic Soil Response We anticipate that the static equivalent lateral force procedure will be used to determine lateral base shear and dynamic design criteria for the proposed development. Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions, the UBC soil profile that best characterizes the site is "SD." We recommend using a seismic coefficient of Ca = 0.36 and Cy= 0.54 for site conditions corresponding to the amplification of an So soil profile. OBSERVATION OF CONSTRUCTION Satisfactory pavement and earthwork performance depends to a large degree on the quality of construction. Sufficient monitoring of the contractor's activities is a key part of determining that the work is completed in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications. Subsurface conditions observed during construction should be compared with those encountered during subsurface explorations, and recognition of changed conditions often requires experience. We recommend that qualified personnel visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect whether subsurface conditions change significantly from those observed to date and anticipated in this report. Carlson Geotechnical Page 9 of 11 Pfeifle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 We recommend that site stripping, rough grading, foundation and pavement subgrades, and placement of engineered fill are observed by the project geotechnical engineer or their representative. Because observation is typically performed on an on-call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually responsible for scheduling observation. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by the owner/developer and other members of the design and construction team for the proposed development. The opinions and recommendations contained within this report are not intended to be, nor should they be construed as, a warranty of subsurface conditions, but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. We have made observations based on our explorations that indicate the soil conditions at only those specific locations and only to the depths penetrated. These observations do not necessarily reflect soil types, strata thickness, or water level variations that may exist between explorations. If subsurface conditions vary from those encountered in our site exploration, CGT should be alerted to the change in conditions so that we may provide additional geotechnical recommendations, if necessary. Observation by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. The owner/developer is responsible for insuring that the project designers and contractors implement our recommendations. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. If design changes are made, we request that we be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written modification or verification. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied, should be understood. Carlson Geotechnical Page 10 of 11 Pfaffle Street Office Building Tigard, Oregon June 1, 2001 We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, CARLSON GEOTECHNICAL fe C. Ranney, G.I.T. ✓ A eologist 1 . t , Li , il. \' ''-r-- ., , A. ,.. , Je- ne M. Nieme , P.E. 7\---\\ A~ - z Princ •ale eotec nical Engineer ,\,.__ ?��� �,'�', Attachments: Figures 1 through 6 cc: Josh, Pacific Crest Construction Doc.ID: P:IGEOTECH\Projects(Engrec)12001 Projects\Pfaffle Street Office Building11779geor.DOC Carlson Geotechnical Page 11 of 11 PFAFFLE STREET OFFICE BUILDING SITE LOCATION f� .d. J �! i/ 4 7tK ✓ • r. , N 'I ,.- •z " ■ ■..'''...\2,2_, .--1. ,r��,�v.♦:..1_..,`N_� :-....-..%!} �` `"� � � ) t r >:� Al`,� \,;!...,:\ ``'.�'"`�,..,� ��� �"�&jJ NORTH i r.7.- ..1.'x= r ..15 .y r ti. . `'_ 'f" ., s°_ ate, ,. , _ Q'.,l -J N-,.. f 1t(/! ''1J3�'����j,,'_•IC t, , 1, �:I</'llii �1- x l iir ' i 1 ' t " 0 '1 &enter .t.<,..-;.',i{ ,/`/Nt -- I — ' { +--�- I F r.,,e 1' , ' a ;''` 4` .ti 52 `> ... 7 7,, _ I ..,� t �\�y O'r s' y 3" 70:72,i.....:17{<yAr" j 12,;____:..".....,_):: (.._.:_i ill�' �. 2==-.'7`� ."•_.:,!....,,'7��,}r• ';�• ''y SITE LOCATION ,� °• : I �, � _.�'A { f � ■. ^.� i ` ,:I • 1sf£nF :, y r >��. I T7'.K./ rff .;. 'r q 1 s '^ rS• S, `i , Lt's 6 F 1; .I. : Ly:: it. /f♦',i♦� 7 1,-b,,i R A W ♦:t♦ V�4 k A ♦ :Ser - •'..t•• --t4tiA'N:z•-.4.'- '. (://1:41s7 - -.11:4;11:f-/':(''r-''.-'sd.1.------A \ 1 I ,71 4::1: ""' i :•:1: : 1 1: Virlille„ i, l.",,i/ - .,-.,.r.74 :::I% •-.` 1. '-'"- I.' '...:' i' '‘.....',,,I• r- ' Sh ; • j\. ' I ,\ Sett ! i. {^ -.. ,\ �,• F� , f c.' - ',/ •w. **� '::., the 1 '►••,r„f 1 I `1i .... ,v .,,-*.r„-..t ...1,-, di \-,, i f it;i t ` �.“ ri ( ; �i� If u l so ` 1 w ii- ��`+v� �� ( Sao ``Z 1 0(0(\(:\:.1,- << 7'i _1. S „0.... „ 0,..5 ;'F.•l 4 j O 9 7r LO_ t r ��4 ty �^`�N "i��Y� -'- ' l it - \ ..I 1•017, 7 -~ Ll . , w!: + 'CJ. 9ry --a ! - ��. }p 11 1 r d i ' �',et-. I3{lA1 t ..t , % _.np - t ue ,p o,/' 1Gi j� d1 e .� RA • '-{���+ so i 'i.i r r r. Map created with TOPO!T''@2000 Wildflower Productions(www.topo.com) Scale 1 Inch=2,000 feet USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Lake Oswego, OR Quadrangle 1984. milimilmom Sec.36, T.1 S, R.1W 0 2000 4000 C L8p Carlson Geotechnical c-' ey P.O.Box 23814 CGT Job No. G0101779 FIGURE 1 TING INLTigard, Oregon 97281�WIQ0 S.W. PFAFFLE STREET . „ . _ :FT_ _ - rt.. F NORTH FT 1 1 ! ,.., t. . 1 1 6.c 44-1 ) 51 s ._. ' 56 57 58 59 ! 60 6 1 62 - _ . ,2 53 54 .1 .g ; ; , . \ , .. .--„, I 1 , —I - , •,: . 1 r. -.A UM 1 • TP-1 TP-4 M 2 /11 3 I 1 • .,.,.. ... 46 1 45 44 1 43 42 41 40 l'e9 it III 37 36 35 34 I 33 32 31 Millal..i ,i----. a \ ' . '-.:: I./ •• I I 11111 _____ , • , Y y' .._ _ ‘ 29 6 \ v i 2.a __ ____ 7 PFAFFLE STREET 1 C a I OFFICE BUILDING SITE PLAN a ,6 10 11 i 05/23/01 FIGURE 2 1 \ I? Proposed 2 Story Building ______, A 4-5 f, . 12 , CGT JOB NUMBER (20,000 SF) ' G0101779 \ •s's ,,1 . _. 1 27 14 LEGEND 26 15 TP-1 \ , Approximate location of Test Pit 25 16 NI 1 24 17 1 Scale 1 inch =40 feet TP-2 • _ 23 TP-3 18 immle■mmimi 0 40 80 % n 19 --- N 21 20 I All locations are approximate. \\ I ----- -v:, .-r---.. ,4 Ir__Xli ) '.r •;--;i I, .,,e7-----7i, Site Plan provided by Panatoni Development Corp. The drawing has been reproduced and modified by CGT staff. CARLSON GEOTECHNICAL Locations of all features are approximate. A DIVISION OF CARLSON TESTING INC. P.O. BOX 23814 TIGARD, OR, 97281 INNI■ ■111■11•111■ I PFAFFLE STREET OFFICE BUILDING Logged by: Brian Ranney Date Excavated: 05/22/01 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:Unavailable w n a o... E E m .�m w Material Description 0 a C (nZ m Mj 2 2 a cn 0 DO ML Soft brown SILT TOPSOIL with sand; moist. 4 inch root zone. — 0.25 1 — 1.0 ML Medium stiff brown SILT FILL with trace sand; moist. — 0.5 2— 1.0 S-1 — 1.0 S-2 GW Loose grey-black sandy GRAVEL FILL; moist. 3— >4.5 ML Stiff grey sandy SILT; moist. — 2.0 S-3 6 4— 1.5 grades to orange-grey mottled below 4 feet. 5- 6- 7— S-4 8- 9— S-5 10_ Test Pit terminated at 10 feet. 11- 12- 13- 14- 15— NOTE: No ground water seepage or caving observed during excavations. 16- 17— Job No. G0101779 Log of Test Pit 1 Figure: 3 Carlson Geotechnical-P.O. Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 670-9147 664 3460 PFAFFLE STREET OFFICE BUILDING Logged by: Brian Ranney Date Excavated: 05/22/01 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:Unavailable a o m _ o m o 11; m 1.>_"' 2 r .o F• n m w Material Description o c • m NZ E V 2 Cm ML Soft brown SILT TOPSOIL; moist. 4 inch root zone. — 0.25 ML Medium stiff to stiff brown SILT FILL with sand; moist. 1 — 1.0 — 1.5 2— >4.5 GW Very dense clayey GRAVEL FILL with sand; moist. — >4.5 3— >4.5 — >4.5 S-1 la ML Very stiff brown orange-grey mottled sandy SILT; moist. 4— 3.5 5- grades to medium stiff below 5 feet. 6- 7— grades to stiff below 7.5 feet. 8— S-2 °g 0 44 9-- 10 - Test Pit terminated at 10 feet. 11- 12- 13- 14- 15— NOTE: Minor ground water seepage observed at 8 feet. No caving observed 16— during excavations. 17— Job No. G0101779 Log of Test Pit 2 Figure: 4 G 0+ ,E . Carlson Geotechnical-P.O. Box 23814-Tigard, Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 670-9147 eeaae PFAFFLE STREET OFFICE BUILDING Logged by: Brian Ranney Date Excavated: 05/22/01 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:Unavailable Em C . m _ ° L xo� an I- �c 3 u � • 8 �' E E m . m w Material Description O acv (oz E � � a 2 2 m m U c S.2 a Cl) 0 DO ML Soft brown SILT TOPSOIL; moist. 4 inch root zone. — 0.0 1 — 1.0 ML Stiff to stiff brown sandy SILT FILL; moist. — 4.0 grades to very stiff below 1.5 feet. 2— >4,5 ML Very stiff dark brown sandy SILT; moist. — 3.5 3— 2.5 S-1 grades to light brown below 3 feet. — 2.0 4— 1.5 grades to stiff and orange-grey mottled below 4 feet. 5— 6— 7— S-2 09 1 9~ Qa0 — 0 10— Test Pit terminated at 10 feet. 11- 12- 13- 14- 15— NOTE: Minor ground water seepage observed at 9 feet. No caving observed 16— during excavations. 17— Job No. G0101779 Log of Test Pit 3 Figure: 5 OO+ � YGt,C Carlson Geotechnical-P.O. Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 670-9147 114-3450 PFAFFLE STREET OFFICE BUILDING Logged by: Brian Ranney Date Excavated: 05/22/01 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation:Unavailable . \ m0 ;� . o 2 N E E a y• . Material Description p a c in z E o p !t m cv - Cl] U 0 U ML Soft brown SILT TOPSOIL; moist. — 0.25 1 — 2.0 ML Very stiff brown sandy SILT FILL; moist. — 3.5 S-1 2— 4.0 ML Very stiff dark brown sandy SILT with some organics; moist. — 3.5 3— 2.5 S-2 grades to light brown below 3 feet. — 2.5 grades to medium stiff and orange-grey mottles below 3.5 feet. 4— 0.5 S-3 a 5- 6- 7- 8— 9— (p0 0 10 Test Pit terminated at 10 feet. 11- 12- 13- 14- 15— NOTE: Minor ground water seepage observed at 9 feet. No caving observed 16— during excavations. 17— Job No. G0101779 Log of Test Pit 4 Figure: 6 a�o4. Carlson Geotechnical-P.O. Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 670-9147 664-3460 • DAVID D. HUNTER Consulting Arborist 55250 SW Date Street Gaston , Oregon 97119-7737 (503) 985-1117 May 30, 2001 Mr. John Nibler Project Manager Panattoni Construction, Inc. 1400 SW 5th Ave., # 810 Portland, Oregon 97201 (503) 345-0649 (503) 274-5485 fax RE: Arborist Consultation and report for the Pfaffle Street Project in Tigard, Oregon. Dear Mr. Nibler, The following is a consulting arborist report concerning the tree inventory and health assessment for the trees at the Pfaffle Street project site, as per the requirements of the City of Tigard. Definition of the assignment. My assignment was to assess the health of the trees on the site, measure and report condition, and to write up a report of my findings. Purpose of this report. The purpose of this report is to advise you of the results of my field examination and observations . This report describes field conditions as found and interpreted, and provides a rationale for the conclusions/recommendations. Assumptions and limiting conditions. Date of consultation. The field examination was made May 24, 2001 and observations and conclusions are as of that date. Limit of Scope. This report was for tree health, size, and identification purposes. Panattoni/DDH Mr. Nibler May 30, 2001 page two of four General tree and field conditions. The site was walked on May 24, 2001. The site was open with some scattering of trees. There were numerous smaller trees less than four inches in diameter along the south and west borders. The trees were identified and measured. Tree Identification Tag# Species DBH Condition Remarks 60 Cottonwood 19" Fair Branching problems 61 Spruce 28" Dead 62 Cherry 8" Dead 2 stems 63 Cherry 14" Poor 3 stems at 3', tree is dying 64 Cottonwood 19" Fair Full of English Ivy 65 CC et 9" Fair " " " " 66 " " 10" Fair " " " " 67 " " 17" Fair " " " `C 68 Linden 16" Fair DBH at 4' , multiple leaders. Common Name Scientific Name Cherry Prunus species Cottonwood Populus deltoides Linden Tilia americana Spruce Picea pungens DBH: This is a measurement of tree diameter at breast height. A standard measurement taken at 4.5 feet above ground. Condition Good: Trees rated as good are in apparent good health and appear structurally sound. No apparent problems or immediate concerns. Fair: Trees rated as fair are in a state of decline. It can be possible to remedy some of the trees' problems, but the fact is, once a tree decline starts, it is difficult to remove all aspects of the tree decline. Panattoni/DDH I I Mr. Nibler May 30, 2001 page three of four Poor: Trees rated as poor are in poor health or have structural problems that make it difficult, if not impractical to save the tree. Dead: These trees are dead and may pose an immediate risk due to the extent of decay in the main trunk stem or larger branching. Questions about this report, please give my office a call. I certify that all of the statements in the foregoing arborist report are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. 6:11'‘6Vv14-'(1: r 1 ,rte 3/364/. David D. Hunter, Consulting Arborist Date ISA Certified Arborist#PN-1068 American Society of Consulting Arborists-member Panattoni/DDH III Exhibit May 30, 2001 _ S+ page four of four SW Pfafle Street . oI be 0 0 � J 60 d 0 6 \ 0 0 P t 1 ___.- 0 e 5 -h Sr e -- ' ss - a '(D3H Drawing is not to scale. For illustration only. David D. Hunter, Consulting Arborist Panattoni/DDH 0 - CITY OF TIGARD Community Deve(opment ShapingA Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL DESK " 120 DAYS = 1112712001 FILE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2001-00010 Type II Land Use Application VARIANCE (VAR) 2001-00013 FILE TITLE: CAMERON PARK PLAZA APPLICANT: Welkin Engineering, Inc. OWNER: Saxony-Pacific, LLC 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Kirk Cameron, EEI Solutions Tigard, OR 97223 5665 SW Meadows Road, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 PHONE/FAX: (503) 598-1866 (503) 297-1060 REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,925 square foot professional office building with 70 associated parking stalls. A Variance has also been requested to reduce the required landscape buffer from 20 feet to 10 feet between the subject site and the residential property to the east. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81St Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. ZONE: C-P: Professional/Administrative Commercial District. The C-P zoning district is designed to accommodate civic and business/professional services and compatible support services, e.g., convenience retail and personal services, restaurants, in close proximity to residential areas and major transportation facilities. APPLICABLE 1 016 REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.745, CRITERIA: 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. go 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: JULY 31, 2001 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: AUGUST 14, 2001 ['HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ❑CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ® STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® VICINITY MAP ® LANDSCAPING PLAN ® IMPACT STUDY ® SITE PLAN ® ARCHITECTURAL PLAN ❑ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ® NARRATIVE ® GEOTECH REPORT ® OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger, Assistant Planner (503) 639-4171, Ext. 317 S'©Q a6o 1 - to 3- VA i I - ( 3 LAND USE APPLICATION D teec h -'a a 0. COMPLETENESS REVIEW I COMPLETE 1 INCOMPLETE STANDARD INFORMATION: �ed/Title/Proof Of Ownership Neighborhood Mtg.Affidavits, Minutes, List Of Attendees Impact Study(18.390) 'PG' I ^�U Service Provider Letter ❑ Construction Cost Estimate ? # Sets Of Application Materials/Plans lam' Pre-Application Conference Notes ©" Envelopes With Postage (Verify Count) PRO CT STATISTICS: [' - ing Footprint Size % Of Landscaping On Site 0� ❑ %Of Building Impervious Surface On Site Lot Square Footage 9 g ,r�a:F t tr2 PLANS DIMENSIONED: 12(13yilding Footprint "rking Space Dimensions(Include Accessible&Bike Parking) Loading Space Where Applicable Building Height inir Access Approach And Aisle Visual Clearance Triangle Shown ADDITIONAL PLANS: ; Vicinity Map Itectural Plan Tee Inventory 2 ' ting Conditions Plan Landscape Plan v1ca Ozob- d Site Plan III Lighting Plan e, CATy -v? TREE PLAN/MITIGATION PLAN: std>V Ora'tl1 t' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ADDITIONAL REPORTS: (list any special reports) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: ❑ 1 8.330(Conditional Use) ❑ 1 8.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ,jt 1 8.165(OH--Street Parking/Loading Requirements) ❑ 18.340(Directors Interpretation) ❑ 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) ❑ 18.715(Sensitive Lands Review) 18.350(Planned Development) 18.105(Access/Egress/Gralation) ❑ 18.180(Signs) < 18.360(Site Development Review) 4-- E 18.110(Accessory Residential Units) ❑ 18.185(Temporary use Permit) ❑ 18.310(Yariances/Adpatments) ❑ 1 8.715(Density Computations) Zi 18.790(Tree Removal) ice-'. ❑ 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) ❑ 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) .■ 18.195(Visual Clearance Areas) <-"`' ❑ 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) El 18.725(Environmental Pedonnance Standards) 4- El 18.797(Water Resources(WR)Oveday District) K1 8.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) j 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) ❑ 18.198 fireless Communication facilities) 18.410(Lot line Adjustments) ❑ 18.140(Historic Overlay) W 18.810(Street&utility Improvement Standards) <' ❑ 1 8.420(Land Partitions) U 1 8.142(Home Occupation Permits) ❑ 18.430(Subdivisions) 18.745(landscaping&Screening Standards) <--• ❑ 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) ,;11,... 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) 4- , j. 18.155(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 4- ❑ 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) ❑ 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) ADDITIONAL ITEMS: I:\curpin\masters\revised\land use application completeness review.dot REVISED: 17-Jan-01 RECEIVED PLANNING July 23, 2001 JUL 2 6 2001 jUi„ �Q,�� II�I � �,G® rl � , T CITY OF TIGARD �� IN OF IGARD Welkin Engineering, Inc. OREGON 8000 SW Pfaffle St. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Notice of Incomplete Submittal-SDR2001-00010 (Cameron Plaza) To Whom It May Concern: The City received your request for Site Development Review (SDR) approval for the above-referenced project on 8060 SW Pfaffle Street. Based on a preliminary review of your application materials, Staff has determined that your submittal is incomplete for the purposes of continuing with Site Development Review. The following clarifications and additional information are required before Staff can consider your application complete and begin the review: ,� 1 . Provide a plan showing how the parking lot will connect to the adjoining Welkin Corp. Center. 2. Submit the additional 21 copies of review material. Once the required information has been submitted, Staff will deem the application complete and begin the review process. If you have any questions about the information contained in this letter, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x317. Sincerely, MN/ Mat -w Scheidegge - Assistant Planner is\curpin\mathew\sdr\SDR2001-00010.acc.doc.dot c: SDR2001-00010 Land Use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN CHECKLIST Project: CA ERc)N P IAA FOR Date: -1(235., LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTALS 1 .j COMPLETE ❑ INCOMPLETE GRADING • Existing and proposed contours shown. Q Are adjacent parcels impacted by proposed grading? ❑ Yes pNo LA Adjacent parcel grades shown. STREET ISSUES R' Right-of-way clearly shown? DV Centerline of street clearly shown? E Name of street(s) shown? Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown? ...2-1-)P, Profiles of proposed streets .2-x'14' Future Streets Plan provided? (subdivisions and some partitions) ❑ profiles ❑ topo shown on adjacent property? Q' Traffic study required/submitted? Er Do proposed street grades comply with City standards? Er Widths of proposed public streets shown? Er Widths of streets appropriate? Are private streets proposed? [� under 6 lot minimum? ❑ width appropriate? ❑Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES I 4 Existing/proposed lines shown? R Stubs to adjacent parcels required? WATER ISSUES Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? aExisting/proposed fire hydrants? V. Proposed meter location and size shown? (� Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES [r Existing/proposed lines? Preliminary sizing calculation of water quality and/or detention provided? EY. Water quality and/or detention facility shown on plan? -� does area provided match calculations for size requirement? Stubs to adjacent properties required? eWater quality and/or detention shown outside of any wetland buffer? \eng\bnanr\masters\pubhc facility plan checklist doc REVISED: 03/13/01 i,„,„ggi„,,ci�\ CITY OF TIGARD OREGON July 30, 2001 Welkin Engineering, Inc. 8000 SW Pfaffle St. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Notice of Complete Application Submittal — SDR2000-00010 To Whom It May Concern: The City has reviewed your submittal material and finds that your application is complete. Staff will now review your application for Site Development Review. A decision will be rendered within 6-8 weeks. I am available to answer questions and otherwise assist you as may be required at 639-4171, extension 317. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If I am not available, please leave your name and phone number so that I can call you as soon as possible. Sincerely, '7% - =Pr Al Ma ew 'WO Ma Assistant Planner i:\curpinlmathew1sdr\SDR2000-00010.acc.acc.doc.dot c: SDR2000-00010 Land Use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 saloN DNEflI4MOD lNiOI ,I,VDI'IddV ilild CITY OF TIGARD Ak1 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES rFrTO1t®' EQ0i1 Community(Deue(opment (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) Shaping A(Better Community NON-RESIDENTIAL PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: IS-4.0°A/ STAFF AT PRE-APP.: ,,,5/0?�/ �1 mom. 200( - OOU3� APPLICANT: t--+Y'k ectmPAcry AGENT: `fin (UtloiL/t. Phone: (.4%5 ) q210(10 Phone: (93) 3 1,5— DOI q PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: iO(fl 0 S W TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): 1 S 13(o CA) DO laOb m o,,e (4.S S F3 1-v 0.04. 3 0(0 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: _15 t o tea. u/ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: la bu.\ct 0. a Spry 20}000 1uOA/uL - OW �. IoQ;lk►x1 pn .1..t 5w corm of . s;te—I1 Oral 63 F' AJLin9 s -Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN �/ MAP DESIGNATION: C? ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: C- P L2sut. Lis N J C-Gr {o S) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: e 0.ra `1 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. S 2O l MINIMUM LOT SIZE: (6ft.D) sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: 50 ft. Max. building height: '/.s ft. Setbacks: Front v ft. Side '2e ft. Rear 0/?Olt. Corner l, } ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: ' % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: l5 %. 2Zi fit uf-u-✓t Qh •r1,•-wl } fl) 4 t :-\ corms NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) J THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S) 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 I of 9 NON-Resdentul Apphotion/PInning Dnisian Section NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 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. IMPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) 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 18.765] Minimum number of accesses Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: ;-)it ' c.;r, re Li ,r-t A 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 developments. SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.730] D STREETS: ._)Li feet from the centerline of cA c- s- L. D LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. D FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. N/A.- 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: D A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; D. All actual building setbacks will be at least half (1/2) of the building's height; and D The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.745] 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 9 NON Residential Application/Planning Dimon Section The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: gTh/L4-1444444146e feet along north boundary. 0 -sooncko.AA oJ), feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: . Oil -,,�� \ok \, - -0 ,,,„ , LANDSCAPING Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.7051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR 'C� PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must J 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. � x 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. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.755) 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 18.165.040) REQUIRED parking for this type of use: 'I N,b vn.,n / l6a z\-s Y►'ttxncrn„ , 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: 6e ), 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. LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.165.080) 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 9 NON-Re,denuil Application/Planning Division Section BICYCLE RACKS [Refer to Code Section 18.7651 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. SENSITIVE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.715) 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 18.715.080.C1 When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be OPC 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. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY[USA)BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R&0 96-44/USA Regulations-Chapter 3) LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a 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: USA DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA4 CORRIDOR PER SIDE5 • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 10 to <50 acres 15 feet >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 9 NON-Resdentiil Appiuuon/Plennmg Dnision Seaton 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 USA 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. USA Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a USA 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, USA must still issue a letter stating a USA Service Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) 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, ��JJ 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: 0 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; 0 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.; 0 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; D Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and D 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. MITIGATION (Refer to Code Section 18.790.060.0 (..f.)- REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: Y A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. D If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages 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 9 NON-Residen I Apphauon/Phoning Division kwon • 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: 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. CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 183951 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. WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT (Refer to Code Section 18.791.030] The WATER RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while \ establishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs). ➢ Major streams in Tigard include FANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback Area: This AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). ➢ The standard TUALATIN RIVER RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 75 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ The MAJOR STREAMS RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 50 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 NOR Residential Application/Planning[Wm Section ISOLATED WETLANDS AND MINOR STREAMS (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.1911001 The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.797.100 that demonstrates all of the following: • Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; The tree canopy currently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; • That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.797.100 regulating removal of native plant species; ➢ That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and ➢ The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) 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 21/2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1Y2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330(Conditional the) 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) I8.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) 18.780(Signs) X 1 8.360(Site Development Review) 1 8.7 10(Accessory Residential Units) 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) 18.370(Vanances/Adjustments) 1 8.715(Density Computations) 'x 18.790(Tree Removal) 18.380(Toning Map/Text Amendment) 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) - 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) 18.385(Miscellaneous Permit) x 18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) - 18.797(Water Resources(WR)Overlay District) 8.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) 18.410(Lot Line Adjustments) 18.740(Historic Overlay) -)( 18.8 1 0(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) 18.420(Land Partitions) 1 8.742(Home Occupation Permit) 18.430(Subdivisions) 7 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) 18.510(Residential Toning Districts) 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.520(Commercial Toning Districts) y 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.530(Industrial Toning Districts) 1 8.760(Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 9 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: - 7- ke`„2`5 • ,84,C;14, iff-#4—/-• - -�- -S:4-• • • .S/r,� 1 "re: 6L. • g r c{• itz4.r41,[.efw fd sc rez r1s6-4`kt►^q /v' • 7- ,-lc-'- z,/ /7_ t•-eyAde- / /7.5* • 5. ,« 44eP � -740 SZd ylee PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. 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 8 of 9 NON-Revdentul Apphauon/Phoning DlnNUn 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 alllllajj se decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard . -.'- —. /— . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is avail Sle from 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. SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION (County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-8884] PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. 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: t) I , - — - CITY OF IGARD LANNI . (VISION - STAF "1"o' 'I DING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7291 E-MAIL: (staffs first name)@ ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18(CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE)INTERNET ADDRESS: ci.tigard.or.us H:\patty\masters\Pre-App Notes Commerual.doc Updated: 18-Jan-2001 (Engineering section:preapp.eng) CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 NON•Nes,dentul Appliaoon/Phn,,ng Drrumn Section • CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please read this form carefully in conjunction with the notes provided to you at the pre- application conference. This checklist identifies what is required for submittal of a complete land use application. Once an application is deemed complete by Community Development staff, a decision may be issued within 6-8 weeks. If you have additional questions after reviewing all of the information provided to you, please contact the staff person named below at the City of Tigard Planning Division, (503) 639-4171. Staff: eeO ¢�<ea-'" Date: S //5/ ®/ 1. BASIC INFORMATION ALL LAND USE APPLICATIONS REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING: Completed Application Form with property owner's signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed Written summary of proposal Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria (as specified in the Pre-Application Conference notes) Two (2) sets of stamped, addressed #10 envelopes for all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. Mailing envelopes shall be standard legal-size (#10), addressed with 1" x 4" labels (see envelope submittal requirements). Property owner mailing lists must be prepared by the City for a minimal fee (see request for 500' property owner mailing list form). Documentary evidence of neighborhood meeting (if required) Impact Study per Section 18.390.040.B.2.(e) Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes Filing Fee 2. PLANS REQUIRED In addition to the above basic information, each type of land use application will require one or more of the following maps or plans. PLEASE SUBMIT EACH OF THE PLANS CHECKED BELOW WITH YOUR APPLICATION (Section 5 of this checklist provides details on what information to include on each plan): In Vicinity Map ❑ Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan 1 Existing Conditions Map Na Preliminary Utilities Plan ❑ Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map eiEt Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan ❑ Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan .ska Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan II Site Development Plan ❑ Architectural Drawings L Landscape Plan ❑ Sign Drawings a Public Improvements/Streets Plan 3. NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED The City requires multiple copies of submittal materials. The number of copies required depends on the type of review process. FOR AN APPLICATION SUCH AS YOU ARE PROPOSING THE CITY REQUIRES .9._4-7 COPIES OF ALL APPLICATION MATFRIAI S City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 1 of 5 4. SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS Because of the nature of your project and/or the site you propose to develop, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL STUDIES WILL BE REQUIRED. These studies must be prepared by certified professionals with experience in the appropriate field: ❑ Traffic Study ❑ Local Streets Traffic Study ❑ Wetlands/Stream Corridor Delineation and Report ❑ Habitat Area Evaluation ❑ Storm Drainage System Downstream Analysis ❑ Preliminary Sizing Calculations for Proposed Water Quality and/or Detention Facility ❑ Geotechnical Report ❑ Other 5. PREPARING PLANS AND MAPS Plans and maps should be prepared at an engineering scale (1" = 10/20/50/100/200') and include a north arrow, legend and date. The same scale should be used for all your plans. Where possible the City prefers the use of a scale that allows a site plan or subdivision plat to be shown on a single sheet. Architectural drawings may be prepared at an architectural scale. One copy of each plan must be submitted in photo-ready 8'/2 x 11 format. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR EACH TYPE OF PLAN (If the plans you submit do not include all of the information requested because you feel it is not applicable, please indicate this and provide a brief explanation). Vicinity Map Showing the location of the site in relation to: • Adjacent properties ❑ • Surrounding street system including nearby intersections ❑ • Pedestrian ways and bikeways ❑ • Transit stops ❑ • Utility access ❑ Existing Conditions Map Parcel boundaries, dimensions and gross area ❑ Contour lines (2' intervals for 0-10% slopes or 5'for slopes >10%) ❑ Drainage patterns and courses on the site and on adjacent lands ❑ Potential natural hazard areas including: • Floodplain areas ❑ • Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24" of the surface for three or more weeks of the year ❑ • Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ • Unstable ground ❑ ♦ Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ • Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ • Locations of resource areas including: ♦ Wildlife habitat areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan ❑ • Wetlands ❑ Other site features: ♦ Rock outcroppings ❑ • Trees with >_6" caliper measured 4'from ground level ❑ Location and type of noise sources ❑ Locations of existing structures and their uses ❑ Locations of existing utilities and easements ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 2 of 5 Locations of existing dedicated right-of-ways ❑ Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map The proposed name of the subdivision ❑ Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer surveyor and designer(as applicable) ❑ Scale, north arrow and date ❑ Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided Names of adjacent subdivisions or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land ❑ Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2' intervals for 0-10% grades and 5' intervals for grades greater than 10% ❑ The purpose, location, type and size of all of the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): • Public and private right-of-ways and easements ❑ • Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ❑ • Domestic water mains including fire hydrants ❑ • Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ • Watercourses ❑ • Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ • The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level ❑ • The location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting ❑ Supplemental information including: • Proposed deed restrictions (if any) n • A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands and marsh areas The proposed lot configurations, lot sizes and dimensions, and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots ❑ • If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application materials ❑ Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan The owner of the subject parcel ❑ The owner's authorized agent ❑ The map scale, north arrow and date ❑ • Proposed property lines ❑ Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ Contour lines (2' intervals for slopes 0-10% or 5' for slopes >10%) ❑ Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑ Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25' of all property lines ❑ Location and width of all water courses ❑ Location of any trees with 6"or greater caliper at 4' above ground level ❑ All slopes greater than 25% ❑ • Location of existing and proposed utilities and utility easements ❑ Any applicable deed restrictions ❑ Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ Future street extension plan showing existing and potential street connections ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 3 of 5 Site Development Plan The proposed site and surrounding properties Contour line intervals ❑ The locations, dimensions and proposed names of the following: • Existing and platted streets and other public ways ❑ • Easements on the site and on adjoining properties U • Proposed streets or other public ways and easements on the site ❑ ♦ Alternative routes of dead-end or proposed streets that require future extensions n • The locations and dimensions of the following: • Entrances and exits on the site ❑ ♦ Parking and circulation areas ❑ ♦ Loading and service areas ❑ • Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ❑ • Outdoor common areas ❑ • Above ground utilities ❑ • Trash and recyclable material areas ❑ The locations, dimensions and setback distances of the following: • Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25' of the site ❑ • Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ❑ • Sanitary sewer facilities ❑ ♦ Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements ❑ ♦ Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions ❑ Locations and type(s) of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques ❑ The locations of the following: ♦ All areas to be landscaped ❑ • Mailboxes • Structures and their orientation ❑ Landscape Plan Location of trees to be removed ❑ Location, size and species of existing plant materials ❑ General location, size and species of proposed plan materials n • Landscape narrative that addresses: • Soil conditions and how plant selections were derived for them ❑ • Plans for soil treatment such as stockpiling the top soil ❑ • Erosion control measures that will be used ❑ Location and description of the irrigation system where applicable ❑ Location and size of fences, buffer areas and screening ❑ • Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ Public Improvements/Streets Plan Proposed right-of-way locations and widths ❑ A scaled cross-section of all proposed streets plus any reserve strips ❑ • Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 4 of 5 • Grading/Erosion Control Plan The locations and extent to which grading will take place ❑ Existing and proposed contour lines ❑ Slope ratios ❑ Utilities Plan Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans ❑ Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the locations of valves and fire hydrants ❑ Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow ❑ Location, width and direction of flow of all water courses and drainageways ❑ Location and estimated size of proposed storm drainage lines ❑ Where applicable, location and estimated size and dimensions of proposed water quality/detention facility ❑ Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees ❑ Program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal (Section 18.790.030) ❑ A protection program defining standards and methods to be used during and after construction ❑ Architectural Drawings Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures and their proposed use ❑ Elevation drawings for each elevation of the structure ❑ Sign Drawings Specify proposed location, size and height ❑ is\;curpin\masters\revised\checklist.doc 5-Jun-00 City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 5 of 5 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES s 4 J .�f Ir ➢ ENGINEERING SECTION Q City ofmlgard,Oregon Development Shaping A Better Community PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Maids): 1S136CD Tax Lottsl: 600 Use Type: 2-Story Office Bldg. 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 Pfaffle Street to 30 feet from centerline (minor collector) ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet 1 1 SW to feet Street improvements: ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW Pfaffle Street, to include: ® 20 feet of pavement from centerline to curb (minor collector standard) ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk (with planter strip, unless existing alignment in the area is curb- tight). ® street trees spaced per TDC standards. CITY OF TICADD Pro-Application Conference Noes Page 1 of 6 Womb*lei Mint seen.. street signs, trait )ntrol devices, streetlights and a tw ear streetlight fee. ® Other: The driveway apron for the site shall align across from SW 81st Avenue. [ I street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: [ feet of pavement concrete curb [ I storm sewers and other underground utilities [ -foot concrete sidewalk [ [ street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. [ I Other: street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: feet of pavement concrete curb 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 concrete curb storm sewers and other underground utilities -foot concrete sidewalk street trees [ I 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 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 Engineering Department Section _ I I -foot concr sidewalk street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. I 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 execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: }X 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 Pfaffle Street. Prior to final inspection, 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 north of the site in SW 81st Avenue. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to extend the 8-inch public sewer line southerly to SW Pfaffle Street. There is no need to extend the sewer line to the east, as the parcels east of this site are presently served. 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 TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 Engineering Department Section information regarding the quacy of circulation systems, thr red for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire proteuuon. 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. 1) Onsite detention will be required submit preliminary sizing calculations with the land use 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: X 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 impact report will be required. Critical intersections to include in the analysis include SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street, SW 78th Avenue/SW 99W, and SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfeifle Street. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon CITY OF TIGARU Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 Engineering Department Section the number of trips which a rojected to result from the propos 'evelopment. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the pi„sect, 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. SW Pfeifle Street improvements are eligible for TIF credits. PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. This type of permit requires a non-refundable $150.00 fee. In certain cases, where City costs may exceed the $150.00 fee, an administrative deposit will be required. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. Compliance Agreement (CAP). This permit covers more extensive work such as main utility line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. This type of permit requires a deposit to be submitted with the construction plans. The amount of the deposit depends upon the overall value of the public improvements. 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, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Engineering Department Section The_.following is a brief ove w of the type of permits issued b' Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the LL.velopment 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. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. 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: ►∎11"- E'GINEERING DEP RTMENT STA F Phone: 15031639-4171 Fax: 15031684-7297 ilenglbnanr\templates\preap notes-eng.dot Revised: April 21,2000 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 Engineering Department Section ■ I)RE-APPLICATION 1``,.�lf,•i COIVFERENCE REQUEST CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION r , _ - ORS' 4FFL)SEONLLY. Applicant: KIRK CAMERON - ress: 5665 SW MEADOWS RDSUITErno e. (503)292-1 060 "case,NQ# '- 4 _"" w� ��� Add - R"QtgIt Q�=�:r$ 6E- ea r, 4 City: L� . • .r _ _. Zip: 97035-3137 s T ApPii4��1,�AAccep' y; .�.� cX•G �. c -� 1 IL Contact Person: JOHN NIBLER Pone: (503)3/45-0649 p g ,r 0 = x+ i ''� t4 Property Owner/Deed Holder(s): :4 J.K { ,e it1 -`` 3A1 ER P t _ '_ . ALEX FINKS TRUSTS Tllt(I F `-gip :74!_ -' .. ZY.' r .at Phone: bell- 1-EA13'1 T, i - Address: pp Roy 235 2 `aa r -_ Alr.z t mss:' �-"`` Cil Z 97281 2ti;0:-/W 1 rs :9- e*. 369-esti-O Y=FORT' AIJD OREGON P iti , ,.--.4s..,-;ss-,y Property Address/Location 8060 SW PFAFFLE ST V TIGARD, OREGON 97223 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will flat be accepted without the required submittal elements) Tax Map & fax Lot#(s): PARCEL 1 S 36CD006Q0 ty i MAP 655F3 TRACT 306 ,' [ i Pre-Application Conf. Request Form 2 COPIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING_ Site Size: 1.06 ACRES �� 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 a Site Plan. The site plan must show the submitted by the applicant and received by the Planning Division a proposed lots and/or building layouts minimum of one (.1) week prior to ?fficially scheduling a drawn to scale. Also, show the location pre-application conference date/time to allow staff ample time to of the subject property in relation to the prepare for the meeting nearest streets; and the locations of driveways on the subject property and A pre-application conference can usually t e scheduled within 1-2 / across the street. weeks of the Planning Division's receipt of the request for either � �� The Proposed Uses. Tuesday 01 Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences are one (1) hour long and are typically held between the hours of Ei Topotoraphic I f Possion. Include 9:00-11.00 AM. If the Pre-Application Conference is for a PRE-APPL1CATION CONFERENCES M1.1.-1- BE SCHEDULED IN \ MONOPOLE project, the applicant must PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER FROM attach a copy of the letter and proof in 5:00-4:00/MONDAY-FRIDAY_ the form of an affidavit of mailing, that the collocation protocol was completed s IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE (see Section 18.798.080 of the Tigard Community Development Code). PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM 0 Filing Fee $240.00 ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE _. ___ _ _ -- —___ GROUP. PANATTONI r c h i t e c t s I n 6 CONSTRUCTION,INC. 1400 S.W.FIFTH AvE. 1121 S.W. Salmon !iii C O N T R Panattoni U C T I U N SUITE 810 Suite 100 S PORTLAND,OR : Portland, OR 97205 97201 JOHN NI1iLER PH 503/274-4442 C a Office 503.221.1121 FX 503/274-5485 y „ Direct 503.265.1533 Ri gional.1laxager EM Jen.panconinccom Fax 503.221.2077 OR LICENSE•140755 IA a. slee @lrsarch.com 1 _ i j � a r e h i S e c t s i n c. a r c h i t e c t s i n c. N 1121 S.W. Salmon q 1121 S.W. Salmon ce Suite 100 Suite 100 le Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97205 J J i C E °u Office 503.221.1121 = tl Office 503.221.1121 .e r Direct 503.265.1531 I W E `, Direct 503.265.1518 d — Fax 503.221.2077 U I. c Fax 503.221.2077 ff1 0. smileham@lrsarch.com 2 0 mgorman@lrsarch.com PRE-APP. NOTES ROUTING SLIP Initial after viewing and route to the • next person on the list Dick Bewersdorff ' � Kevin Young �/_ Matt Scheidegger Julia Hajduk ✓/ Sherman Casper 1 7 I} Pere sileI N PLEASE RETURN TO PATTY TO FILE /o Pre-Apps (CD Meetings) May 2001 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Tuesday, May 15, 2001 8:00 8:30 9:00 Pre-app 9:30 10:00 Pre-app appt Kirk Cameron 292-1060 8060 sw Pfaffle, Comm. Bldg. 10:30 11:00 Pre-app 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 3:50PM Thursday, May 03, 2001 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Uik1h9 becipt. Fqk NO. . 1S036569603 7. erte4e, Sep 0? 2�04 r : 1 09:S2q FE.• e M P1 1o, • RP. ' ` es' �Gr rK, PAX Artm1214.11: le N / '4 03 R pFPACES INC -�} Z -S- 7z 9 �,,�. YCXpjNG c pVg '� d .� 1 .� �tI C�Ty-, R SHEET � ,--e-e..7.— e,.-27€_ /f„.6 it..ikj 8000 sh, z die Strew A Z t - t`3 gon 4114 u ceiBQ 3 Phone( O3)59$`2866 F (503)599.1866 FROM : Viking Devpt. FAX NO. : 15036569603 Sep. 07 2001 09:52AM P2 09/07/2001 U9. 40 50324 ,61 :ANCASTER PAGE 02 • le? MEMORANDUM 11\(• I■ engineering To: Ed Christensen From: Catriona Sumrsln L. Date: September 7, 2001 Subject: Cameron Park development Mr. Christensen, This memc is to follow-up the traffic study for Cameron Plaza prepared by Lancaster Engineering. Apparently there is a discrepancy between the analysis pr Vpared by Lancaster Engineering and a separate analysis prepared by Kittleson and Associate's. This memo ad- dresses the discrepancy and reanalyzes the intersection of Tall Boulevard 21 Pfaffle Road. The original Lancaster study assumed that westbound left-turning vehicles would use the center striping on Hall Boulevard as a two-way left-turn lane to make a two-stage left turn. The Kit- tleson study apparently assumed that the vehicles would make the Left turn in one maneuver. These two different methods calculated significantly different levels of service. The analysis was recalculated with Hall Boulevard as an undivided road. This is the type of analysis that assumes the vehicles make the left turn in one maneuver. This calculation showed that there would be a significant delay for the westbound left-turning vehicles. To ver- ify this result, the actual delay was measured in the field. Field observations An observation was made of the intersection of Hall Boulevard at Pfaffle Road. The evening peak hour at the intersection was found to he from 4:40 PM to 5:40 PM. The obser- vations were done on September 5 from 4:55 PM to 5:40 PM. A total of 22 vehicles were ob- served to make the westbound left turn. The first four vehicles that were observed making the westbound left-turn were not measured, however, I noted that the delay for three of the vehi- cles was short and the delay for one of the vehicles was long. This data seems to fit with the measured data. AU of the westbound left-turning vehicle. from 5:00 PM to 5:40 PM were used for the delay calculations. A total of 18 vehicles were measured. The total average measured delay was 25.9 seconds. The worksheet used to calculate the measured delay is in- cluded at the end of this memo. Union Station,Suite 205 r 100 NW a°'Avenue•Portland,OR 97200•Phone 603.249.0313•Fax 503.24.9251 FROM : Viking Devpt. FRX NO. : 15036569603 Sep. 07 2001 09:53AM P3 09/07/2031 09:46 5@32 _51 LANCASTER ENGIN PAGE 03 Ed Christensen September 7, 2001 Page 2 of 2 It was also noted during the observations that none of the vehict-s made a two-stage left-turn using the center striping on Hall Boulevard as a two-way left.-turn lane. All west- bound left-turning vehicles made the turn in one maneuver, Revised analysis Then the calculations procedures were adjusted to arrive at a delay comparable to what was observed at the intersection, The critical gap and the follow-up time were adjusted so the calculated delay was the same as the measured delay. The critical gap is the minimum amount of time (or opening) that a driver will accept in the major street traffic flow in order to cross or merge into traffic. The follow-up time refers to the time between the departure of one vehicle and the departure of the next vehicle using the same gap in the major street traffic flow. The results of the adjusted calculations show that the westbound left-turning movement has a delay of 25.8 seconds which is level of service D. When the traffic volumes from the site are added, the westbound left-turning delay becomes 2s.7 seconds and the level of service remains 1). The level of service calculations are included at the end of this memo. Based on this analysis, the level of service at the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Pfaff le Road will be acceptable with the addition of traffic from Cameron Plaza without the installation of a traffic signal. If you have any further questions about this memo, please do not hesitate to call me at (503)248-0313. CS att. FROM : Uiking Dept. FAX NO. : 15036569603 Sep. 07 2001 09:53AM P4 09/07/2001 09:40 5032~_,251 LANCASTER ENGIN.-,AI55 PAGE D4 • arrive depart delay 5:05:33 5:06:22 700:49.0 5:13:23 5:13;27 00:04.0 5:15;54 5;15:68 00:04.0 5:18:02 5.18:36 00:34,0 5:19:38 5:20:16 00:360 5:21:32 5:21:36 00:04.0 5:23:00 5:23:42 00;42.0 5:23:57 5:24:37 00;40.0 5:24:40 5:24:43 00:03.0 5:25:29 5:25:44 00:15.0 5:25:50 5:25;54 00;04.0 5:25.55 528:32 00:37.0 5:26:25 5:20:48 00:23.0 5:29:36 5:29:59 00:23.0 5:29;44 520:06 002.0 5:31:26 5:32:20 00:54.0 5:35:31 5:35:38 00:05.0 5:35:34 5:36:39 01;05.0 average delay 00:25.9 FROM : Viking Devpt. FAX NO. : 15036569603 Sep. 07 2001 09:54AM P5 09.107/2051 e9:40 503 151 LANCASTER ENG',,__RI- PAGa 05 , � TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY � Analyst TEM Intersection F IALLQI'FAFFLE Agency/Co. LANCA37ER JuristliCtion 1/GARI) Date Performed 5 9 Analysis Year EXISTING(2001) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CAMERON PLAZA - ADJUSTED DELAY ______ Ea3t/We!st Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street HALL Intersection Orientation: North-South . Period hra : 0.25 Viti 'C-iVi 6 iii M ` g - ;.. ,,,,.. , . „,4 — + �Or.itreCt .; Northbound Movement 1 2 4 7 3 - - �outhbourtd. 5 6 iL T R L T R Volume 0 482 76 236 396 0 Peak-Flour Factor PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hours Flow Rate, f-4FR 0 523 81 258 4Z9 0 Percent Hesv Vehicles 0 — 1 Median Type _ UndM aeC/ •. RT Chenne!ized 0 D Lanes 0 7 Conti•uratian YR L T j 0 U Stream Si,naI 0 i Minor Street Westbound E_aetbaund M•vernent 7 E3 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 95 0 234 0 0 0 Peak-Hojr Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourlow Rate, HFR 38 0 254 0 0 0 Percent l-leav Vehicles 7 0 1 I 0 L 0 0 Percent Grade % 0 0 Fl Approach N _ N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 9 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration ill i F? 1*' Qa»iie Lin%tlt Arf4 j�l1t� ...,r i s "ro N”" . . • '''r,'w s, i ,�R Approach N8 SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L 1. 1 R v(vph) _ 256 38 254 C (m)(vph) 979 1 211 527 ____4 v/c 0.28 0.18 0.48 1 95%queue length 1-05 0.64 _ 2.58 Control Delay 10,0- , 25.8 18.0 LOS A 13-- C Approach Data -- _ 19 0 Approach LOS .,. _ C -I -1 NCSJOGOTM Copyright-0 2000 liiiMu ity of Florida.All Welt,Reserved Verstr14 1 FROM : Viking Devpt. FAX NO. : 15036569603 Sep. 07 2001 09:54RM P6 09/07/2001 €39:413 5032~ _51 LAN(14STER E:NGIr,,..■,�IG PAGE DS ' 'General' 'TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY i • Llz i oI'fTlaftoll :' Analyst TEM Intersection HALL©PPAFFLE • AgencylCo_ LANCASTER I Jurisdiction :%GARCJ Pete Performed MVO/ Anaiysts Year fie +SJTE Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CAMERON PLAZA - _ _ f DJUSTED DELAY East/West Street; PFAFFLE _ !Nord /h South Street HALL intersecction Orientation: North-South Stud Perlcd hrs'' 0.25 � 6. ' ciVo ' AS ii. M i' ..'''-_M1 i , • 41,,wr�t, r Ma or Street _ Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L '- T R - Volume 0 482 78 238 395 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,92 0.92 0.92 092 075 0.92 _ 1 HotMy Flew Rate,Vehicles 0 523 84 25$ 429 0 Percent! eay. Vehicles 0 _- -. I -- — Median T .e Undivided RT Chennerized '0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 Ccnfi.oration - a TR L '7' Minoir Street westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T ! R L T R Volume 55 0 238 0 0 0 pea4-Hour Factor, PHF -- 0,92-- 0.92 '� 0.92 r 0.92 -0.92 0.92 ' Hourly Flow Rate, HFR `59 0 258 0 0 --° 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 7 - 0 1 0 1 0 0 Percent Oracle (%) _ ' 0 0 Flared Approach _'�..� N --......__________T, Storage a — a RT Channelized 0 0 ,_Laces 1 1 0 j 1 0 0 0 Confl■uratlon L 1 R a.:.*uQUe L'h.Ci1 a i .>.J �,.; , - '7. . .r1".rr, .ro�.`141.���. , .�'t"taw..,.,.r 7. ''. ••.roach NS S6 Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 = 9 • 10 11 12 Lane Conti!uratlon I 1- a . V von) 258 59 258 G (m)(vph) 978 210 526 v/c 0,26 0,28 0.49 �� 95% queue length 1.07 1.11 2.67 Control Delay 10.04 28.7 48.3 LOS 8 0 C IIIIIIIIIIIII Approach Dela •- -- 20,2 Approach LOS _ _ C HCS2J0O1 M CapyrighI C 2000 University of Florida.All Righia Reserved Vvvaion 4,1 Folsom Blvd., Suite 150 Panattoni 8745 Sacramento,CA 95826 T14 ji , (916)340-2400 CONSTRUCTION Fax(916) 340-0565 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Matt Scheidegger Date 10/11/01 Job No. 09-0102-0100 Company: Permit Department Job Name Cameron Plaza Address: City of Tigard 8060 SW Pfaffle Street City, State: Tigard,OR 97723 WE ARE SENDING YOU 51 Attached El Sent Via ❑ Subcontract Agreement ❑ Change order ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Submittals ❑ Samples COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 3 Cameron Plaza Office Building Building Permit Drawings(Revision#1) RECEIVED Q9 ANNINQ Dated October 5,2001 OCT 1 1 2UQ1 CITY OF f It.GARD 11 For Your Use ❑ l: For Approval ❑ For Review and Comment ❑ Approved as Noted ❑ Return Copies for Distribution ❑ FOR BIDS DUE: ❑ Resubmit Copies for Approval Please let me know if you need any additional information. Eric Meeuwsen Panattoni Construction 503-345-0647,or cell#503-887-7350. I Sent By: r ic Meeuwsen Title: Project Manager 10/11/01 1 City of Tigard Permit App-Rev. Bldg 10.11.01 10/11/2001 Conditions A icia`cad with Case #: SDR2C •00010 3:11:33 ,M Cond. Stat. Changed Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By Tag Updated By 0001 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 0001 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 0001 PARKING LOT TREES 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one(1)tree to each seven(7)parking spaces. 0001 FRANCHISE HAULER 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 0001 PROPOSED REFUSE CONTAINER 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 0001 REFUSE CONTAINER AREA 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscurring fence,wall or hedge at least six(6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 0001 CARPOOL/VANPOOL 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5%of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 0001 BICYCLE RACK 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0 of the Tigard Development Code. 0001 TREE MITIGATION 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 0001 LIGHTING PLAN 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 0001 PUB. IMP. PERMIT/COMP.AGRMT. 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six(6)sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or.us). 0018 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation,limited partnership, LLC,etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 0001 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS 0 Met 10/10/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 0001 SUITE LAYOUT 0 Not Met BR 10/3/2001 ST 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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 CONTAACT: Kit Church, Engineering). Page 1 of 2 107'16/2001 Conditions , ;;ociated with Case #: SDR2 1-00010 9:33:38 AM Cond. Stat. Changed Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By Tag Updated By 0001 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 0001 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 0001 PARKING LOT TREES 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one(1)tree to each seven(7)parking spaces. 0001 FRANCHISE HAULER 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 0001 PROPOSED REFUSE CONTAINER 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 0001 REFUSE CONTAINER AREA 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscurring fence,wall or hedge at least six(6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 0001 CARPOOLNANPOOL 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5%of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 0001 BICYCLE RACK 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0 of the Tigard Development Code. 0001 TREE MITIGATION 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 0001 LIGHTING PLAN 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 0001 PUB. IMP. PERMIT/COMP.AGRMT. 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six(6)sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or.us). 0018 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation,limited partnership, LLC,etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 0001 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS 0 Met 10/10/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 0001 SUITE LAYOUT 0 Not Met BR 10/3/2001 ST 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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 CONTAACT: Kit Church,Engineering). Page 1 of 2 SENT BY: PANATTONI CONST INC; 503 219 3747; OCT-15-01 17:43; PAGE 6 ip/o3i01 06:37 tT503 69" '1179 PRIDE DISPOSAL IiJoo1/004 7-1-tra g *141516. P *R *I *D*E DISPOSAL COMPANY P.O. Box 820 Sherwood, OR 97140 (503)525-6177 FaX 503-625-6179 To: L tZ 1--‘1 c- Prom: .a.,1 Fax: 563 )--z/ -.o 7 7 Date: 1° - 3 - o Phone: _ _ Pages: S Re: ken: M -e_s Comments: -7'L s cJ!/( v-d-c. - Pr`120-e-- 10/sPO5 S fr° 1.6)-(1 A 4- -e-55 5 L4.14-e-f-7 alp _,� Printed an 100% recycled paper. SENT BY: PANATTONI CONST INC; 503 219 3747; OCT-15-01 17:43; PAGE 7 10/03/01 06:38 $503 6 1179 PRIDE DISPOSAL u02/owl 1r.1'02/01. 14:43 FAX 150322122. LRS ARCRITEC7S. INC• - IQ001%001 • T R A N S M I T T AL Mt Lanny Hind Pride Refuse Hauling _ Cameron Plaza Office 6u1ding Pnrlad norther: x01030 Darc r Tuesday OetoDer 02,2001 Nr tuber cif pages brdudtna aux shear 4 FAY»umber..503.625.6179 _Telcritoac'u.mber: 503.625.61 TT .._, . We trammit: ®`Far ❑ U9 Jlfall ❑ Marsar�er {r]_Ovrrnl2hr ❑ Other —. . co r�.w Date Deiertpttrrs I 0 02.01 site Plan and Datails ti e. 1b bl u w Cd 0 y L v N ) r- ra V retr:,.1. File 212 T■afrmltted by; day O z � f.SITE PLAN tj v ! -- , _ --- lc m SLEEVED HOt.ES TO -1 co ® RECEI�E LIDING6G TTE /131--- 1 \ POx,TYP EA GATE LEAF o \ / / ;; / • o Z \ /STEEL FRAMED GATE �' -1 1 / WITH GALV CHAIN LINK o 1 C9 MESH AND VINYL SLATS co ~' 1 a \ / 2 1 co ti 1 I SLEEVED HOLES TO RECEIVE / 4 II ` ■ ` r SLIDING GATE POSTS , I T- -1 r S'CONC CURB 7 m I I I I I I o CO � I I t N to I I o `P IN Q w GALV CHAIN LINK FENCE I b ° x i W!VINYL SLATS 6 `. i 4 z a'OD GALV STL E to tv I I I g POST,TYP. I I c ria j L J L rC) w------.) , - - - -. ` . - - - - -- _ . _ o V r co o 2D'-D' CLEAR 2O'-4" M „n' F4. TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN 1� m SCALE, 1I4"= 1'.p" G m d't ,. 0 G ,F fir/ r r m . z •o { o 13 w D o Z r D -♦ 0 o co 1--I G 0 oft 0 Z Co v v v \/~ y y �f 'V STEEL w. FRAMED GATE WITH 0 Z 3' OD GALV ST POST,TYP. GALV CHAIN LINK MESH AND 0 (3)HFA1lY-DUTY HINGES ,.., EA GATE LEAF 1 �j J�a::::::::::::::.? id j�'���•++{�^r''1 R!�. 'rr��IN�O>ti. -Ci 4.N ., iliVI;a7.,:_,.s..:tA.:T.7s.: _________,„ .;; cTl 4. tip 1 1.}�1 li •�l / f�� 1•■ Z 41f ;i - / \ \ !// \ m C 1/r •V• II M Ge I II 0 EA, GATE LEAF 10 HAVE 3'DIA :I k E 0 GALV SLIDING POSTS FOR �c �D' -i SECURING IN SLEEVED HOLE IN PAVEMENT • 1 V E5. TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"• 1=O" i 0 k -u • # til D O rn .P (D O• s 0 La 10/16/2001 Conditions A 3ciated with Case #: SDR2C -00010 :33:5'2 AM Cond. Stat. Changed Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By Tag Updated By 0001 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 0001 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 0001 PARKING LOT TREES 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one(1)tree to each seven(7)parking spaces. 0001 FRANCHISE HAULER 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 0001 PROPOSED REFUSE CONTAINER 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 0001 REFUSE CONTAINER AREA 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscurring fence,wall or hedge at least six(6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 0001 CARPOOLNANPOOL 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5%of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 0001 BICYCLE RACK 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0 of the Tigard Development Code. 0001 TREE MITIGATION 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 0001 LIGHTING PLAN 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 0001 PUB. IMP. PERMIT/COMP.AGRMT. 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six(6)sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or.us). 0018 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO READ 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC,etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 0001 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS 0 Met 10/10/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 0001 SUITE LAYOUT 0 Not Met BR 10/3/2001 ST 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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 CONTAACT: Kit Church, Engineering). Page 1 of 2 SENT BY: PANATTONI CONST INC; 503 219 3747; OCT-15-01 17:44; PAGE 10/13 I I 5 I I 1 1 1 i e I" I" I I 1 1 g N 1 2"GALV SCHED 40 PIPE A a I 6 r 1 GALV COVER PLATE I ANTI-ROTATION BOLTS BY RACK MFR 1 CONC WALK q A a° I ` I a I i 4 4 I QI 1 1 I I ' I I FULLY ENCASE POSTS L J° d L 1 IN CONC a a v 10" 10' DETAIL OF BIKE RACK SCALE: 112"=V-0" I r C h i 1 PC t .s i n c _ fa1sirs✓.,. • 1m• Anrtls.4 OR Mal . fel 50i 221 1121 - Fat 5012212071 CAMERON PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT NUMBER:201030 DATE: 5 Oct 2001 1 .04 REVISION:D PM 10/16/2001 Conditions A )ciated with Case #: SDR20(-00010 9:34.38 AM Cond. Stat. Changed Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By Tag Updated By 0001 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 0001 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 0001 PARKING LOT TREES 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one(1)tree to each seven(7)parking spaces. 0001 FRANCHISE HAULER 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 0001 PROPOSED REFUSE CONTAINER 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 0001 REFUSE CONTAINER AREA 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscurring fence,wall or hedge at least six(6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 0001 CARPOOL/VANPOOL 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5%of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 0001 BICYCLE RACK 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0 of the Tigard Development Code. 0001 TREE MITIGATION 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 0001 LIGHTING PLAN 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 0001 PUB. IMP. PERMIT/COMP.AGRMT. 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six(6)sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or.us). 0018 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC,etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 0001 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS 0 Met 10/10/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 0001 SUITE LAYOUT 0 Not Met BR 10/3/2001 ST 14. Prior to issuance of the site permit,the applicant shall submit a suite layout map to Kit Church, 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 CONTAACT: Kit Church, Engineering). Page 1 of 2 SENT BY: PANATTONI CONST INC; 503 219 3747; OCT-15-01 17:42; PAGE 3 MAUD w M E M O R A N D U M w 10: Cameron Plaza Project Team _. Panattoni Construction A Frain: Michael Jones Proiecr: Cameron Plaza Office Building Project number 201030 Date- Friday. September21, 2001 h Re: SDR Comments from City of Tigard i- 4 el To Cameron Plaza Project Team Members: O O After reviewing the SDR comments from the City of Tigard, there are a few items we will need to revise in the drawings to meet the conditions of approval_ There were a couple of items that I was unsure of, so i had a brief discussion with Matt Scheidegger, (MS), at the City of Tigard a Planning Department to get clarification. Here is a synopsis of the Conditions of Approval: Z v : Comment Item Description Action by No. C s 1 Joint drive access. This has already been accomplished,just need LRS/Weikin o to add note on Site Plan designating this area as an access i. easement between properties. `" A t. 1 C2 2 Drive access throat needs to be 30'-0"in width. Need to revise LHSNVelkln L"°3 c, Site plans to indicate this required dimension. o V rtIp(,,, 3 Supply parking lot trees at a ratio of(1) tree per(7)parking stalls. None V y,4tr— We currently have (15)parking lot trees for(73)total spaces. This is Required V s, 12zol S a (1)per(5) ratio which should be sufficient. In discussions with ,.. MS, he said that he was willing to sign off on this condition based on W N our Permit drawing submittal. M i d 4 Letter from local refuse hauler. LEIS has done some preliminary LRS planning with this agency already, need to follow up with them. 5 Refuse container location needs to be moved to side or rear 1 LRS/Welkin f T A / yard. This one is the most troublesome. When talking with MS, I , noted that by City of Tigard Development Code, we do not have a 1- required front yard setback. Therefore, the container already resides in a side yard. His initial response was that although the p vd-( , front yard is not required, we still have one by locating the building p away from the street. He suggested moving it to the south and of P the east parking aisle. i pointed out that this location was initially d ; investigated, but rejected as beint too visible from the initial site SENT BY: PANATTONI CONST INC; 503 219 3747; OCT-15-01 17:43; PAGE 4 Th • entry. He seemed to agree that its current location is probably more appropriate visually, and that he would work on a way to waive this requirement. If he is unable to find a loophole in the code, we may need to apply for an appeal to this, or face the challenge of �--, relocating and re-striping the parking lot. A I. { 6 Refuse container site-obscuring fence. This has already been None vwn 5" provided in the permit drawings. required --_____ 7 5% long-term parking. We will need to designate(4)spaces as LRS 'GO�• ^ Car Pool spots. My suggestion would be the double-loaded spaces at the northwest parking aisle. IVtW ('m 8 Bicycle Parking rack design. Need to include a details) of the LRS ,.r+a:[1-04 bicycle parking racks _________ 9 Tree Mitigation Plan. This is currently noted on Landscape Plans. LRS/Freshley '_ scioe Need to verify that Permit documents have satisfied this Ls• requirement. _ ---- 10 Parking lot lighting plan. Christenson will need to prepare a Christenson parking lot lighting plan and submit to Jim Wolf at Tigard Police Electric 't• , Department. vrwcn+1 11 Half-street improvement permit. This simply requires that the Panattoni/ 411;cootn1 half-street improvement must precede issuance of the Site Work Welkin Permit for the building. • it��� 12 Exact legal name and address. Need to file name and address Panattoni information to the Engineering Department for individual or corporate entity responsible for compliance with public improvement -- standards and assurances. LL P(i-r1 13 Construction vehicle access and parking plan. Panattoni will Panattoni 1,70 P.,14 + need to provide this to the City Engineer for approval. re I 14 Suite Layout Plan. Need to provide proposed Suite Layout to Kit Eei/LRS Kam/.C� _ Church at Engineering for calculation of address fees. 15 i Requirements for half-street improvement. Need to verify that Pariat:onv � half-street improvement documents meet these requirements. Welkin .t..si 16 Improvements to SW 78m"Avenue. If there are planned improvements in this area, we will need to submit and acquire 1 approval for this work prior to issuance of Site Work Permit. 17 Construction plans to show extension of sanitary sewer at SW Welkin 79'" and Pfaffle. Need to include this on the Site Utility Plan- e n 18 Obtain approval from Tualitin Valiey Water District for Panattoni/ a.-.11J% connection. Need to obtain letter from this agency prior to Welkin _ ! issuance of public improvements permit_ 2, e 3 19 On-site water quality. Need to verify that Permit Documents Welkin p�0 5. address all these issues. Z 20 Public right-of-way expanded to 30'from centerline of street. Welkin 04"..n• Current documents show this correctly, will need to provide dimension verifying this. SENT BY: PANATTONI CONST INC; 503 219 3747; OCT-15-01 17:43; PAGE 5 27 Public Work Acceptance. This item requires public work None acceptance by the City and assurances of one-year maintenance by required I Contractor, to be completed prior to final building inspection. No need for action at this time. 22 I As-built drawings. Contractor must provide City with None i documentation, both electronic and hard copies of public required. J ,i improvements prior to final building inspection. No action required l .n4 at this time. Pr',)t .23 Placement of public utilities. Contractor needs to relocate existing None overhead utility lines underground as part of half-street required. I improvement, or pay a fee of$6,463.00 prior to final building i inspection. No action required at this time. i 24 Water quality inspection. This requirement states that the design None i engineer observe the installation and operation of all water quality required. features to ensure they comply with local standards. Engineer needs to provide letter to this effect prior to final building inspection. No action required at this time. Please review these items and notify me if there will be any problems completing any of the requirements for approval. Obviously, we will want to expedite this matter so as not to delay the permit process. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Sincerely, D. Michael Jones LRS Architects, Inc. c„n,e: /0: 21 1 10/16/2001 Conditions Associated with Case #: SDR2001-00010 3:22:57 PM Cond. Stat. Changed Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By Tag Updated By 0001 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 0001 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 0001 PARKING LOT TREES 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one(1)tree to each seven(7)parking spaces. 0001 FRANCHISE HAULER 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 0001 PROPOSED REFUSE CONTAINER 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 0001 REFUSE CONTAINER AREA 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscurring fence,wall or hedge at least six(6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 0001 CARPOOLNANPOOL 0 Met MS 10/11/2001 MAS 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5%of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 0001 BICYCLE RACK 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 MAS 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0 of the Tigard Development Code. 0001 TREE MITIGATION 0 Not Met MS 10/3/2001 ST 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 0001 LIGHTING PLAN 0 Met MS 10/16/2001 PLN 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 0001 PUB. IMP. PERMIT/COMP.AGRMT. 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six(6)sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or.us). 0018 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD 0 Met 10/11/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC,etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 0001 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS 0 Met 10/10/2001 BDR 10/10/2001 BDR 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Page 1 of 2 • 1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 810 Pan�l t t o n 1RECEIVED P�ANING GL V (503)274-4442 CONSTRUCTION OCT 16 2001 Fax(503)274-5485 CITY OF TIGARD LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Jim Wolf Date 10/16/01 Job No. Company: Tigard Police Department Job Name Cameron Plaza Office Building Address: 8060 SW Pfaffle St. City, State: Tigard,OR WE ARE SENDING YOU Gk Attached ❑ Sent Via El Subcontract Agreement ❑ Change order ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Submittals ❑ Samples COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 Site Electrical Drawings of the exterior lighting for the Cameron Plaza Office Building As required to obtain a Sitework/Building Permit ❑ For Your Use ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ For Approval a For Review and Comment ❑ Approved as Noted El Return Copies for Distribution ❑ FOR BIDS DUE: ❑ Resubmit Copies for Approval Please call me if you have any questions at 503-345-0647. AOT f i yliotyicy -it - 01 Tigard police be \ II Cd v ParrmeRt 684.4c,2:. Cntfpn Sent By: ric Meeuwsen Cxr•??Q Title: Project Manager 10/16/01 1 Documentl 10/18/01 Cord;±ions Associated with Case #: SDR2001-00010 3:34:54 PM Cond. Stat. Changed Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By Tag Updated By 0001 ACCESS EASEMENT 0 Met MS 10/16/01 MAS 1. Provide an access easement that will allow the parking lot to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the east. 0001 30-FOOT WIDE ACCESS 0 Met MS 10/11/01 MAS 2. Provide a plan showing a 30-foot wide access at the throat of the drive with 24 feet of pavement. 0001 PARKING LOT TREES 0 Met MS 10/11/01 MAS 3. Provide a plan showing parking lot trees to be planted within landscaped islands distributed on the basis of one(1)tree to each seven(7)parking spaces. 0001 FRANCHISE HAULER 0 Met MS 10/16/01 MAS 4. Provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler regarding the refuse facility compatibility. 0001 PROPOSED REFUSE CONTAINER 0 Met MS 10/11/01 MAS 5. Provide a site plan showing the proposed refuse container to be located within an interior side yard or rear yard. 0001 REFUSE CONTAINER AREA 0 Met MS 10/11/01 MAS 6. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscurring fence,wall or hedge at least six(6) feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-foot-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. 0001 CARPOOLNANPOOL 0 Met MS 10/11/01 MAS 7. Provide a plan showing at least 5%of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 0001 BICYCLE RACK 0 Met MS 10/16/01 MAS 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0 of the Tigard Development Code. 0001 TREE MITIGATION 0 Met MS 10/18/01 MAS 9. Provide a plan showing which trees are to be planted to satisfy the required tree mitigation of 71 inches. 0001 LIGHTING PLAN 0 Met MS 10/16/01 PLN 10. Provide a detailed lighting plan to Jim Wolf of the Tigard Police Department. 0001 PUB. IMP. PERMIT/COMP.AGRMT. 0 Met 10/11/01 BDR 10/10/01 BDR 11. Prior to issuance of a site permit,a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the half-street improvement work and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six(6)sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall and the City's web page(www.ci.tigard.or.us). 0018 COMP AGRMNT/$ASSURANCE INFO REQD 0 Met 10/11/01 BDR 10/10/01 BDR 12. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal,the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name,address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement(if one is required)and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example,specify if the entity is a corporation,limited partnership, LLC,etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 0001 CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS 0 Met 10/10/01 BDR 10/10/01 BDR 13. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. The purpose of this plan is for parking and traffic control during the public improvement construction phase. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. Page 1 of 2 ' f • IPanattoni C O N S T R U C T I O N June 5, 2002 Mr. Sherman Casper City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Cameron Plaza Office Building Driveway Easement Dear Sherman, Please find the attached "Easement for motor vehicle driveway on adjoining parcels for commercial use". This is for the Cameron Plaza project located at 8060 SW Pfaff le St, Tigard, OR. Reference BUP2001-00345. Please call 503-345-0647 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Panattoni Construction Inc. Eric Meeuwsen Project Manager cc: Brian Cameron Panattoni Construction, Inc. 1400 SW Fifth Avenue,Suite 810,Portland,OR 97201 TEL 503/274-4442 FAX 503/274-5485 OR Lic#140755 CITY OF TIGARD War 1 County,Oregon 2001.115262 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1110, 10:18:04 AM D•DD Cnta1 8tna13 I REED Tigard,OR 97223 $15.00 50.00$11.00 •Total:532.00 PARTNERSHIP 1 11111111 11111111111 V1111111 11111 File No. soo1 -pQOtO 00001949200101152620030033 I,Jerry Hanson,Director of A merit and Taxation and Ex• nklo County Clerk for Washington County, Yd do hereby certify that the within Instrument of writing was received and recorded In the book of records of rri= ',: said county. 'l_ �� .� DEDICATION DEED 4e.4 Jeny R.Hanson,Director aseasment and Taxation, 'v Ex-Officio County Clerk FOR ROAD OR STREET PURPOSES Space above reserved for Washington County Recording information Saxony—Pacific, L.L.C. does hereby dedicate to the public a perpetual right-of-way for street,road,and utility purposes on,over,across,under,along,and within the following described real property in Washington County,Oregon: Attached Exhibit"A" To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the public forever for uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantors hereby covenant that they are the owner in fee simple.and the property is free of all liens and encumbrances, they have good and legal right to grant their right above-described, and they will pay all taxes and assessments due and owing on the property. The true consideration for this conveyance is $ 0.00 . However, the actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is the whole consideration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto set my hand on this 26 da of October ,20 01 Saxony—Pacific, L.L.C. .aL , Name of Partnership :igna e 10615 S.W. 64th Drive .ei— 1 Address Title Portland , Oregon 97219-6664 Signature Tax Statement Mailing Address(if different from above) Title 111 111011111 11 EXHIBIT "A" 5' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION A parcel of land lying in the Southwest quarter of Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and the State of Oregon, intending to be a right-of-way dedication for the improvement of SW Pfaffle St., more particularly described as: Beginning at an iron rod with a yellow plastic cap marked"W.B. WELLS"marking the Northeast corner of the tract of land described in Deed Document 916541; thence S 13°20'54"E 5.15'; thence S89°29'57"E—234.73'; thence N00°22'56"W— 5.00'; thence N89°29'57"W 235.88'; to the Point of Beginning, containing 1175 square feet. r 1 EXHIBIT "B" 5' RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION 976547 ) ,...... co I-11 c.f) (I) SW PFAFFLE STREET • ____ Ex. EOP D o �� N o _ Ex. EOP 5/8 INCH IRON ROD W TH a E' w; YPC MARKED "W.8. WELLS o r ∎.,. a N 00'22'56" W 5.00' �� — — e ; 89'29'57" W - 235.88' _ N ■ �� S 89'29'57" E - 234.73' =� S 13'20'54" E 5.15' a r; In 6) o ��m o ��N \ 1 • 1 veme,„ S9cteer4t9. lox,.\' PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS SCALE: " = 30' 8000 &W. WAFFLE STREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 9rg7223 PHONE (503) 598-1866 FAX (503) 998-1868 01-109.02 11097XBT.DWG KS 10/22/01 ' ■ I