Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR1999-00024
EXPIRED SDR1999 - 00024 WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER k - 11Y199,0t .004 t ri CITY OF TIGARD* ,CORP 3 CENt ER �Der'e 120 DAYS = 9/18/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR1999-00024 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. OWNER: Jill Christensen APPLICANT: Ed Christensen, PE 293 SW Cervantes Christensen Engineering, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lots 00500, 01002 and 00401. 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, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION A 41 ye zit _ 011.4 :a el � ich the de ga ,� „.. . NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 1 OF 23 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 evidence that the entrance point will be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit point will be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. 2. Provide evidence in the form of a plan and access easement that the parking lot will be designed to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the west unless it is not feasible. 3. Provide a revised landscape plan that shows street trees to be planted no greater than 30 feet apart. 4. Provide evidence that the refuse storage area is 106 square feet and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler. 5. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secure in a closed and open position. 6. Provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 7. Provide a plan that shows a 12-stall bicycle rack. 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. 9. Provide one loading space that complies with Section 18.765.080.B. (Off-street loading dimensions) of the Tigard Development Code. 10. Submit a mitigation plan for 268 caliper inches of trees. 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 in SW Pfaff le Street, the proposed improvements in SW 78 h Avenue, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Five (5) 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 2 OF 23 13. The applicant shad 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. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a 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 Of 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. A profile of SW Pfaffle Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 17. 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. 18. The applicant's construction plans shall show gn extension of the 8-inch public sanitary sewer line from its present terminus in SW 79 Avenue, to SW Pfaffle Street. A lateral must be provided to this parcel. 19. The applicant's construction plans shall show a new public storm drainage line in SW Pfaffle Street, to be installed with the half-street improvement work. The existing catch basin located to the east of this site shall be connected into the new storm drainage line. 20. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 21. 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. 22. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 3 OF 23 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: 23. 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: 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 $7,150 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 27. 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 Lots (1 S136DD, Tax Lots 00500, 01002 and 00401). Based on this search, no additional land use cases were found. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. The site is bordered on the east, south and west sides by property zoned Professional Commercial (C-P). The property to the north is zoned R-7 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 proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 4 OF 23 SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET Two letters were sent to Staff from Marcheta Craughan, and Sue Rorman. These letters listed the following concerns: • Driveway location should be on the west side of the parcel. • Building height. • Screening. • Property Values. • Traffic Congestion. STAFF RESPONSE: According to the Craughan letter, the Craughan's would like to see the access drive located on the west side of the property. Current plans show the driveway located on the west side of the proposed project. Staff agrees that the location of the access drive will ease congestion for those entering and exiting the parking lot of the proposed building. The zoning of the associated parcels is (C-P) Professional Commercial. According to the Tigard Development Code, the applicant may construct a building to a maximum height of 45 ft. The proposed building is 44.9 feet, which is in compliance with the maximum height of the (C-P) zone. The applicant is required to plant street trees and provide screening of the parking lot from the public right-of-way. The screening of the parking lot is discussed in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). There is no proof that property values may be effected by the proposed development and it is not a requirement for applicants. However, the applicant has met all of the Site Development Review criteria and an office use is allowed in commercial zones. Conditions have been put in place to assure the aesthetic value of surrounding properties to the extent that the Community Development Code allows. Traffic has been addressed under Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). The applicant has provided an undated traffic study for the area, which has been reviewed by the City of Tigard's Engineering Staff. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 5 OF 23 Commercial Zoning Dis11 ict: 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: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD C-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq.ft 52,316 sq.ft. -Detached unit - -Boarding,lodging,rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 260 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 0 ft[6] 80 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots[1] - - -Side yard -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 0/20 ft[3] 15 ft. -Rear yard - - -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. 0/20 ft[3]- 13 ft. Maximum Height 45 ft 44.9 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. 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. 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024NVELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 6 OF 23 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 25 feet from the side property line. The width of the driveway approach is 40 feet. However, the approach is split with a landscaped island in order to preserve a large Sunset Maple. Therefore, the driveway approach will be constructed as two (2) 16.5-foot accessways separated with a 7-foot landscaped island. 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 west facade to the east 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 distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking lot, therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 7 OF 23 Required walkways sh. i be paved with hard surfaced i..aterials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The plan depicts concrete sidewalks, which meets the standard. 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 point of access into the parking lot that provides a 40-foot wide access with a landscaped island in the middle of the access to distinguish two-way traffic entering and exiting the site. Each lane is approximately 16.5 feet in length. 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 servinJ 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 design indicates that one-way access will be used for the site. The site plan shows that the entrance will be separated with a 7-foot wide landscaped island. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide evidence that the entrance point will be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit point will be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. 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; 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 west. Therefore, the applicant is conditioned to provide evidence in the form of a plan and access easement that the parking lot will be designed to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the west unless it is not feasible. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITIONS: • Provide evidence that the entrance point will be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit point will be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 8 OF 23 • Provide evidence in the form of a plan and access easement that the parking lot will be designed to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the west unless it is not feasible. 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) Gambel Oak street trees along SW Pfaffle. The proposed trees are medium-sized trees and are spaced 35 feet apart. However, according to the Street Tree Standards, medium sized trees cannot be planted greater than 30 feet apart. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a revised landscape plan that shows street trees to be planted no greater than 30 feet apart. 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 south are zoned (C-G) General Commercial. Property to the west of the subject site is zoned (C-P) Professional Commercial. Property to the north is zoned R-4.5 and R-7 and is separated from the subject property by SW Pfaffle Street. Therefore, no buffering is required. 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 12-foot wide landscaped buffer with a combination of low-lying ground cover, 19-Rhododendron, 3-Bibernum (vertical shrubbery) and a mixture of Oregon Grape and Autumn Glory. 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 89 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 within the parking lot. The site plan provides 12 trees located in landscaped islands throughout the parking lot in order to create the desired effect. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/wELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 9 OF 23 CONDITIONS: • Provide a revised landscape plan that shows street trees to be planted no greater than 30 feet apart. 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 23,940 square foot building, which will require a 106 square foot storage area. The applicant has proposed a 103 square foot storage area. In addition, 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 evidence that the refuse storage area is 106 square feet and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The refuse container is accessed from the parking lot and is visible in order to enhance security for users. The proposed refuse container will not occupy any parking stalls and screening has been addressed above under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 10 OF 23 The storage area exists in the southwest corner of the proposed parking lot. However the applicant has not addressed the design standards for the refuse enclosure. 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 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. 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 condition listed below, the standards will be met: CONDITIONS: • Provide evidence that the refuse storage area is 106 square feet and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler. • Provide a lan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight- obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six 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 150 feet. The building itself is proposed to be 23,940 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. Therefore, the building is required to provide at minimum 65 parking spaces and a maximum of 98 spaces. The site plan shows the site to have 89 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 ado 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 gfor that use in Section 18.765.060; 3 Subsequent use or g uses, at 80% of th vehicle parkin 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 11 OF 23 The project is not consio,.ed a mixed-use project. Therefore, L. is 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. The site plan shows the site will have a total of 89 parking stalls. According to the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards, a parking lot with 76-100 parkin stalls is required to provide 4 stalls that are ADA accessible. The site plan does indicate 4 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 hapter, 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 12 OF 23 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 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 applicant's narrative indicates that parking stalls will be constructed with a 4-inch high concrete wheel stop with a 3-foot bumper overhang of low lying landscaping. The site plan does not show parking stalls to be constructed with wheel stops. However, the site plan does provide a 3-foot landscaped overhang on all perimeter-parking stalls. Interior parking stalls have a 5-foot landscaped area between the stalls and the 5-foot walkway on the north and west sides of the building. Therefore, the applicant will not be required to provide wheel stops. 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. The applicant's plans indicate that all parking stalls 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 12-stall bicycle rack. The narrative indicates a 12-stall bicycle rack will be provided on the west side of the building, however, the site plan does not show a 12-stall bicycle rack. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan that shows a 12-stall bicycle rack. Bicycle Parkin Design Requirements: Section 18.765-.050.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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 13 OF 23 where required motor ,,.:nicle 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 12-stall bicycle rack. The applicant has been conditioned earlier to provide evidence of a 12-stall bicycle rack. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for General Office 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 23,940 square foot building, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 65 and a maximum of 98 parking spaces. The plans provide 89 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 23,940 square feet. According to the standard, the site must provide one loading space that complies 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 a 12-stall bicycle rack. • Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. • Provide one loading space that complies with Section 18.765.080.B. (Off-street loading dimensions) 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 14 OF 23 FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed and approvea 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 two-thirds of the 402 inches to be removed that are not in poor condition. Therefore, the applicant is required to mitigate for 268 caliper inches. However, it is not clear as to how the applicant plans to mitigate for the required inches. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided a tree removal and protection plan by a certified arborist, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met: CONDITION: Submit mitigation plan for 268 caliper inches of trees. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right- of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained between 3 and 8 feet in height at the vehicular access of the property. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations);); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 (Provision for the Disabled). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 15 OF 23 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. Based on the location of the proposed building the applicant is able to preserve 13 trees over 12 inches in diameter. According to the applicant, the existing grade differential is 7 feet over a 220-foot linear dimension, demonstrating a flat site. The proposed building will not change the existing grade significantly enough to disturb the natural or physical environment. Therefore, the project will not be subject to ground slumping or sliding. Adequate light and air circulation will not be sacrificed due to the placement of the proposed building. The shortest buffer between the proposed building and adjacent properties is 14 feet. Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially 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. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this project and has no objection to it. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. 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 18.520.040.B. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. 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: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 16 OF 23 • 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 street 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 adjacent to this site to provide a minimum of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans show that they will dedicate this ROW as a part of their project. SW Pfaffle Street is currently paved, but not fully improved to current City standards. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half- street improvement across the frontage of this site. The plans indicate they will make these improvements. Other Transportation Improvements The applicant's traffic study points out various deficiencieq, 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 this decision. 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 installing a concrete sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street, the applicant will meet this standard. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 79th Avenue, approximately 130 feet north of SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant's plans indicate they will extend the public sewer line southerly to SW Pfaffle Street to serve this site. There is no need to extend this sewer line uphill to the east in SW Pfaffle Street, as the adjacent properties there are already served with public sewer. 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 17 OF 23 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 properties upstream of this site have already been developed. There is an existing catch basin located in SW Pfaffle Street, just east of this site. That catch basin will be tied into the new storm drainage pipe that will be installed with the half-street improvement across the applicant's 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 plan indicates they will install a pond that will provide treatment and 25-year detention in accordance with CWS standards. The preliminary sizing calculations for the pond indicate the volume will need to be 1,728 cubic feet. The proposed pond will have a volume of approximately 1,750 cubic feet, which will more than satisfy the requirement. 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 bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. No bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 18 OF 23 • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along 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 260 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $7,150.00. 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 May 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. Based on a warrant analysis, Lancaster found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street. This intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the PM peak hour, and will continue to operate at LOS B after this project is fully operational. 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. However„ 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 Pfaff le 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 SDR1999-00024iWELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 19 OF 23 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 is proposing to treat the onsite storm water runoff in an extended dry detention pond. The pond will have a volume of approximately 1,750 cubic feet, which will be adequate for treatment and 25-year storm detention. 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. A grading and erosion control plan will be required prior to construction. Since the site is less than five acres, a NPDES permit is not required. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 20 OF 23 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 $76,686 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 $239,643 ($76,686 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $162,957. 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 $74,750g(1,300 square feet x $12.00 per square foot, $15,600 + 260 feet x $200 per linear foot for half-street improvements, + 260 feet x $27.50 for underground utilities), thus it is roughly proportional to the unmitigated impacts. 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 offered the following comments: • Be sure the public notice clearly states that this is a new application. There have been about 3 notices so far and people may just ignore this if they don't think it is a new application. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 21 OF 23 The City of Tigard Polio Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. 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. Consolidation into 1 parcel is 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 calculations). 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 building (see attached calculations). The hydrant shown on the plans satisfies the 250 foot requirement. Because the building is provided with automatic fire sprinklers, the two additional required hydrants may be located so that the closest portion of the building is within 500 feet. One hydrant shall be within 70 feet of the fire department connection (FDC). The hydrant shown on the plans shall be relocated to the landscaping area adjacent to the FDC. (UFC 903.4) 3. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) 4. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704) 5. A Knox brand key box shall be provided on the building. Contact the Fire Marshal's Office for installation details and an application. (UFC Chapter 9) 6. A building survey and plans, in accordance with TVF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the Fire District web site. To access this information via Internet, go to www.tvfr.com, choose "Fire Prevention", then choose "New Construction". (UFC Appendix III-F) 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 22 OF 23 Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JULY 6, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 21, 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 JULY 20, 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. July 6, 2001 PREPAF'E P a . Mathew Sc ei ger DATE Assistant Planner (A' y Jul y 2 0 6 2001 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewers rff DATE Planning Manager I:\curpin\mathew\sdr\SDR1999-00024.dec.dof NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 23 OF 23 C-61-1117.11 m 1 �� 1 CITY of TIGARD IIN w T �_ J > OIOORA►NIC INFORMATION SYSTEM JII ter► 1 Q ig M e 1 e e VICINITY MAP ,1 0 �m a =^--- �� z,,' � ` _ WELKIN CRP. CT. VE �- 11 -ili••■ 1 w SDR1999-00024 1 as t1 a _, _ � ��>�� Iii „,----- _____ 11 - Oa 4111 414 BEI 11 TE -• MI. 44 ktiM..W,,k;,!, _______- 1t. �d7 I 3 SUBJECT LOT` QP ■ Adit ____ .111111111‘ • • . 1 N 99 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 9,c�/2 t I".378 fast Alk all ill City of Tigard AI Information on this map Is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Swim Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 _ (503)639.4171 http://wmv.atigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:May 23,2001;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT At l A i_ CITY OP TIOAIID SW PFAFFLE STREET 1 — - - - -- - i 30, 1 - o -- - —_ —, 30 ---1 _ 'I VISION I ! . ..- -_-- — _.r—_—. __—_— --- __ __—.-y_—_--_ r_—_—�-- EX 6_ f .4— - -Lils — v e - - -- - - - k N r!1Ci4 , 1�U RIM.171�0' n' lihiiihn„ l REGULAR SPACES it 1 OUTDOOR LIGFJT - Rl -. AR PARKING SPACES t AIL ii.w. A IA 74 b _____,dams -d.:,., A;71' . MI I — ,�- W f t• 4 QQU RETAINING I i °5 d OUTDOOR LIGNTING WALL O` !J i % Q FF..137�0 BIG 5 ,� _ wE1.�av SPORTING TL 600 I q A A. I \N CORPORATE .ID S CENTER GRASS FIELD ' I MOOR II 4 'IL pR LKsNT i i o "AR PARKING SPACES Q• p� .4 RVO =I �> 7307313040 -- • • ��. PROJECT BOUNDARY LINE ' CITY OF TIGARD WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER • ARD SITE PLAN N SDR1999-00024 (Map is not to scale) NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION A, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 1999-00024 TTI CITYY OF TIGARD WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER Shaping Deveooment A Better Community 120 DAYS = 9/18/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR1999-00024 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. OWNER: Jill Christensen APPLICANT: Ed Christensen, PE 293 SW Cervantes Christensen Engineering, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lots 00500, 01002 and 00401. 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, 18.780, 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 JULY 6, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 21, 2001 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. AApe.p. al: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. All persons entitled to notice or who are otherwise adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1 may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2 of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON JULY 20, 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. x,11 woo . - . _��®�e_B a NM VICINITY MAP ml. .. ilU ` — '= WELKIN CRP. CT. = No El"�i Ii ! _ 1999 =Ey ml I' imi =um a= Nom oli P bus ii IN_ VIII — .�111 I`"3 SUBJECT LOTS 14i "I ,_______ k AC. X il '111111111k • ti oit , 9g$ ,.„._ r Coy of��► �, CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SW PPAPFLE STREET -- ------- ------ r� -t_. -s_---- ......_ roil Ar; ffIlMM.,11="..daM. 1 i l}f114}i7httil -. il - Ar4r.„1 I A, f \ i I . ,, • I B BIO s`�'r...”‘ EL CIV SPORT IN G CORPORATE . GOODS L I \ 1 CENTER MO . IL+ 1 2...o. . II_ n `^ , .4...,WH IAN NIIIIII [ CITY OF TIGARD T WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER sazaszzsszzzrzsszsaasoxzs SITS PLAN N SDR1999-00024 (Map is not to scale) azzzzsz=zzzssz NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIE? .DER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIR— r HAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE r . _.vIPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE a APPLICATION CITY TY OF OF TIGARD Community Oe ve I opmen t SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW shaping A getter Community DATE OF NOTICE: May 25, 2001 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 1999-00024 FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. 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 JUNE 8, 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 JULY 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 ' I Use Board of Appeals or Circ court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the releva __ approval criteria are what constitute .dlevant 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." �e�• VICINITY P111� '1111 WELKIN PCT.. •unni ii` '= �. =_ _ SDR1999-00024 mEm MEM mei mum EMI Now wrw *11 :. . Nu aINI Ing 3 SUBJECT LOT- e . • 11‘ 0 City of Tigard gi•rl■ Ah. Ow•■•••..••••■••••110 eri.w• is\cu rpl n\masters\revised\noti ceof.mSt REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • 6 (] Kr '&1 f ca.016sq--nci r , gq 5595 c5 a 3 t'.ell N( / (2 !a la+ ew rutx- itioJ 1c at S.eu n g—d /- 4 /9 a5io of la t 3 9 GO0 re-ce4 n.0717�e. Wed /kadt /-c+- {Id F,&6. [Q-f i-a a ►t.e.e, rxi M t3N (h -ham kr&K,_-.11,.p/tes is r p F `7Nx- by;/6%, at- I'lSi-r d A .3 Nil !S .e� .✓ & , 061-)45 5 g ,s ,, — _LO J cQ.Q. d N . /22ea d ,;t rrnee�rxe was b e.4rnd €emus ,61, . z hal 710 ask_ iVet GET o6ci. b6,18(n y, d /a“,) ceL,. Ow" i rf 6/V --3 r s41 /10-441/10-4412-5 Xe -kl ,f /D oose . ,a '✓ /4'l�act � ?7 Al/2/7 1,0itiz Ca-r- -7 _s LA.)A:_c4, 10.0_3/ P- -eel G AL J� a5 td ok ' xlelae.a.4-- S k t & ✓v 15/1 Judy y ecs N3 G5 -74) c2 bt» lef, e47-. g Eft. r W a4 r Abo aea-feemeee7`-5 /46/14619 oA �b CJSr vz,- ovv/ VaJ.14.0 . ,mil �Yb �� 4 ' 0 Cori c-e-Oud a koo/- sp rdal o-r MZ co?fio6).0J` ` 2-t/Qir'o� Gt s O /6)i 19)7-6 1 S 0 eelv a1ao0-f- - aci(-- <_8l-vt s-lr Si cam- d c f 19 `17 n a� �e o Ca-r("c Ot4rti e-orre-c-P,y) CO s-t-e6 C s� o�s' up ls L37�; pig) az d. paciat ' o ' czarci 44r-e- w - 87-5 r-ov -4,J5(y June 4, 2001 RECEIVED PLANNING Mathew Scheidegger JUN 0 7 2001 Planning Division, City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd CITY OF TIGARD Tigard OR 97223 Re: SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate Center 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 0500, 01002 and 00401 Mr. Scheidegger, I have concerns about the development on Pfaffle. Unfortunately, some sort of development is inevitable, so I am hoping that the Planning Division considers the impact that commercial development has on neighborhoods and will require specific guidelines for developing our neighborhood. I don't necessarily view this development as a bad thing if the business is willing to fit the neighborhood, minimize the impact and act as a part of the neighborhood, rather than an intrusive business. My worry is that Tigard is quickly becoming more like the Clackamas Town Center area and businesses are not required to blend in and work with the community. Below is a list of concerns that I hope will be addressed: What Type Of Business Will Be Operating At This Location? Has the building's usage been guaranteed and confirmed? We have heard horror stories about deceptive development tactics where the actual business is disguised until it is too late. One example is the approval of a furniture store in Aloha that opened as a Mr. Peeps adult store. Kristi (last name?, ext#349)from the City Planners Office assured me over the phone that this would not happen, but did not have details on the actual business. How Tall Is The Proposed Structure? How Many People Will This Building Employ? Will Adequate Parking Be Provided On-Site? Parking should be limited to spaces provided on-site and no street parking allowed. What Type Of Landscaping or Barriers Are Required/Proposed? What aesthetic development is required to assure that the business fits the surroundings and blends with the neighborhood? Substantial landscaping, design and coior specifications shouid be required to give the property a pleasing appearance that compliments, not detracts, from the livability of our neighborhood. The presence of commercial development encroaching on our neighborhood can have a negative impact on the value of the community and our properties if the development makes no investment in the surrounding neighborhood. What Steps Are Being Taken To Avoid Traffic Problems In Adjoining Neighborhoods? Traffic at 78th and Pfaffle already backs up beyond the location of the proposed development lots during the evening rush hour. Drivers take a "short cut"to avoid waiting in line at the stop sign by turning North onto 78th Avenue, pulling a quick u-turn in the neighbors' yards, and returning to the four-way stop from a direction that does not have a line. These inconsiderate drivers create a dangerous situation for pedestrians, children and pets. The hurried drivers'thoughtlessly drive through our lawns and flowerbeds causing additional damage. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or questions. John De Lance 11250 SW 78th Avenue Tigard OR 97223 503-968-8803 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEF .DER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRE., 'HAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE I-,,,.UMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE � ►►, APPLICATIONCITY OF TIGARD Community De ve lopmen t SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW shaping A setter Community DATE OF NOTICE: May 25, 2001 - 7/624—<„ /Y� The L Sc-he !'ct e cep FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 1999-00024- FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER CLLG`I PLO n/'€1 The te.-:-� to - ���_�_ 3 different ..,_...-..,..a;,... order a,. ,.i,...,.�.... rrtwru AL. i he applica�n proposes to consolidate 3 diifeient properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. 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 JUNE 8, 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 SPEC!FIEn IBOUE iB OQDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSmEREnl IN THE DEC!S!OU M,p7r!Hir PRACFCC 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 JULY 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. MIKE CRAUGHAN 11260 S.W.79th TIGARD,OR 9,1223 Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude . subsequent appeals to the L Use Board of Appeals or Circu ourt 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." NMI mg N. 1.1e E _ VICINITY MAP I ,,'�` � WELKIN CRP. CT. ■■ Nunn&& 1: E� SDR1999-00024 Ell I- -■ .ice' 4,414. lin MN 1 3 SUBJECT LOT' '41111k 0 kg, ` Ak . Ciq.of Tigard •My• .• •Asir 1sry 23.2001. VnagO MGC03. •' i:\curpin\masters\revised\noticeof.mst ur ?ce H cn 1 V OPTION A -� a' c�© �!� �nD��Sn� "�� l�b/_ ni�/0 ����� 3.5SPACE5PER1000S.F � / ^_/,,,7� 1�//� _9m?'' C/'Lt ,0,0 �o-> 1ILL ' cy9/ Sl - c fly (7 W� d_o -40,19 ST c) -act poisot4 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 5 82 63 84 65 66 87 68 1 I OM 1.•0• 2 3 44 5 51 50 49 4 70 7 4 SPACES PER 1000 S.F.•US SPACES 175 SPACES PER 1000 S.F.•75 SPACES LS SPACES PER MOO SP.■•TO SPACES 3.25 SPACES PER 100E S.F.•ES SPACES L7 N .32 n N DI.SITE PLAN r•Boa 47 46 45 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 34 PROPOSED 2 STORY BUILDING (20.000 SF) 33 32 31 `fin 3 C `,rya • 9 30 29 28 27 26 25 13 14 17 18 2 22 23 s• OM• LLOZTZ7.£Q4i z A t A1.1As OZO rasswegetfearangegsliweirErffeepaINII-ii;MAO aliD & 11215 c,o 37Fir-c`19 -009011-30 71° 11°4 Jc6-. J'a ! nnr\ ln\1A 'wt91/(' "(10 Ir511-1J' 01 alA 4nri af-uo OPTION B of 6v,t-H -ow t� 3.4 SPACES PER 1000 S.F U 52 53 54 55 56 57 MP CT 58 61 62 83 84 65 68 67 1 3 34 -a 5 .- R 'g 51 50 491 48 1 47 48 45 42 41 40 39 38 37 38 33 68 69 4 SPACES PER 1000 SF..SS OMCER 3.75 SPACES PER 1000 SF..7EEMCES 3.1 SPACES PER 1000 S.F..>1i*ADES 3.26 SPACES PER 1000 35.•YS/YYCRS 5? bG PROPOSED 2 STORY SUE DWG 00.000 SF) Dl.SITE PLAN .,aa sa. !7d 32 31 30 29 28 -. 27 26 25 9 10 _ AMMO SAW >rrmIilf rrlYr .,.••• 14 17 18 19 20 AS....w v 21 22 23 —1 KdNdd-b(A/ M. C Cr N C ir r LLOZTZZRO T Cn z A that A1.1B DATE: PLANS CHECK NO June 28,2001 PROJECT TITLE: COUNTYWIDE Welkins Corporate Center TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE WORKSHEET APPLICANT: (FOR NON-SINGLE FAMILY USES) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY/ZIP/PHONE: TAX MAP NO.: SITES NO.ADDRESS: LAND USE CATEGORY RATE PER TRIP RESIDENTIAL $ 226.00 B• USINESS AND COMMERCIAL $ 57.00 This estimate at rates effective July 1, 2001 X O• FFICE $ 207.00 INDUSTRIAL $ 217.00 INSTITUTIONAL $ 94.00 PAYMENT METHOD: CASH/CHECK C• REDIT BANCROFT(PROMISSORY NOTE) LAND USE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF USE WEEKDAY AVG. INSTITUTIONAL ONLY 710A Office General TRIP RATE WEEKEND AVG.TRIP RATE DEFER TO OCCUPANCY 16.31 BASIS: Applicant proposes construction of a new 23,940 Sq. Ft. office building. CALCULATIONS: TIF = ((Avg. trip rate X T.G.S.F.) - Credits) X Rate per trip $76,686 = ((16.31 X 23.940) - 20 X $207 Transit Amt. = $6,290 X 370 X 17 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION: 370 FEE: $76,686 FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY ADDITIONAL NOTES: Credit applied for 2 single family dwellings ROAD AMT. $70.396 TRANSIT AMT $6,290 PREPARED BY S.S. Casper I:TIFWKST.DOC (DST) EFF: 07-01-98 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: June 28, 2001 TO: Matt Scheidegger, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SDR 1999-00024, Welkin Corporate Center 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 street 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 adjacent to this site to provide a minimum of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans show that they will dedicate this ROW as a part of their project. SW Pfaffle Street is currently paved, but not fully improved to current City standards. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 1 should construct a half-street improvement across the frontage of this site. The plans indicate they will make these improvements. 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 installing a concrete sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street, the applicant will meet this standard. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 79th Avenue, approximately 130 feet north of SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant's plans indicate they will extend the public sewer line southerly to SW Pfaffle Street to serve this site. There is no need to extend this sewer line uphill to the east in SW Pfaffle Street, as the adjacent properties there are already served with public sewer. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 2 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 properties upstream of this site have already been developed. There is an existing catch basin located in SW Pfaffle Street, just east of this site. That catch basin will be tied into the new storm drainage pipe that will be installed with the half-street improvement across the applicant's 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 plan indicates they will install a pond that will provide treatment and 25-year detention in accordance with CWS standards. The preliminary sizing calculations for the pond indicate the volume will need to be 1,728 cubic feet. The proposed pond will have a volume of approximately 1,750 cubic feet, which will more than satisfy the requirement. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 3 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 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 4 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 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 260 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 7,150.00. 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 May 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. Based on a warrant analysis, Lancaster found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street. This intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the PM peak hour, and will continue to operate at LOS B after this project is fully operational. 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 5 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 is proposing to treat the onsite storm water runoff in an extended dry detention pond. The pond will have a volume of approximately 1,750 cubic feet, which will be adequate for treatment and 25-year storm detention. 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, ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 6 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. A grading and erosion control plan will be required prior to construction. Since the site is less than five acres, a NPDES permit is not required. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $ 30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. 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 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate 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 in SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed improvements in SW 78th Avenue, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Five (5) 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. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a site permit. (STAFF CONTACT: Kit Church, Engineering). ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate 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; 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. A profile of SW Pfaffle Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 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 an extension of the 8-inch public sanitary sewer line from its present terminus in SW 79th Avenue, to SW Pfaffle Street. A lateral must be provided to this parcel. The applicant's construction plans shall show a new public storm drainage line in SW Pfaffle Street, to be installed with the half-street improvement work. The existing catch basin located to the east of this site shall be connected into the new storm drainage line. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 9 The applicant shall obtain a permit 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. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 10 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 $ 7,150.00 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 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. 11tig3331 usr1depts\englbrianrl comments lsdrlsdr 1999-00024.doc ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 1999-00024 Welkin Corporate PAGE 11 • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY o TI CITY Community De ve lopmen t Shaping A Better Community DATE: May 25,2001 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Dennis Koellermeier,Operations Manager FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division JUN 1 9 2001 CITY OF TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner Phone: [503)639-4111/Fax: 15031684-1297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 1999-00024 WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401 . ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan,Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement 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: JUNE 8,2001. 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: phi A-en1 Yf -- n1 /LG • • h/99f-- ,z4; Ae--fr.eAcei;a4n - 9O/7-/ -- (P1 ease provide the fol 1 owi ng i nformati on) Name of Person[sl Commenting: I Phone Number[sl: I SDR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MEMORANDUM A-60,4 TO: Matt Scheidegger --� i FROM: Matt Stine, City Forester RE: Welkin Corporate Center DATE: May 29, 2001 As you requested I have provided some comments on the "Welkin Corporate Center" project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments please contact me anytime. 1. TREE PROTECTION DEVICES 18.745.030 E. PROTECTION OF EXISTING VEGETATION. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.g., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the individual trees). 1.1 . All tree protection devices shall be located on the Tree Protection Plan. Any tree that will not be removed onsite that is within the limits of disturbance of this project must be protected. Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 20% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. 1 .2. Details and specifications are required as to how the trees will be protected on site. The details and specifications are included in this memo. 1.3. Provide a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, or installation of sediment and erosion control measures, and other activities that may be required to implement the tree protection measures. 1 .4. Include in the notes on the final set of plans that equipment, vehicles, machinery, dumping or storage, or other construction activities, burial, burning, or other disposal of construction materials must not be located inside of any tree protection device or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees are being protected. No grading, filling or any other construction activity may occur within the tree protection devices at any time or outside of the limits of disturbance where trees are being protected unless approved by the City Forester. 1.5. All tree protection devices shall be: • Visible. • Well-anchored. • Approved in the field prior to clearing, grading, or the beginning of construction. • Remain in place and maintained until all construction is completed and a final inspection is conducted. 1.6. All tree protection devises shall be constructed according to the attached illustrations (Figures D-5 and D-6). 1 .7. To determine the size of the tree protection zone follow the guidelines listed below: • For individual trees follow the trunk diameter method. For every one-inch of diameter at breast height (DBH), or 4 1/2 feet above the ground, allow 9 inches of space from the trunk of the tree. For example, a tree that is 15" at DBH must have at least 12' of tree protection zone around the entire canopy of the tree. • For groups of trees the tree protection zone must be outside of the dripline of the trees on the edge of the stand. If there are conifers with narrow crowns on the edge of the stand follow the trunk diameter method or the dripline method, whichever is greater. 1 .8. Identify, on the Tree Protection Plan, the location of the stockpile area and the staging area (if different from the stockpile area). 1.9. All of this information must be included in the final plan's notes or drawings. • Specifically relating to this project are numerous trees that are designated on the Site Analysis Plan as being protected. • Each tree's Critical Root Zones must be protected from grading, filling, and soil compaction. Tree protection fencing may, therefore, be located within the limits of disturbance. According to the Tree Mitigation Plan, Sheet 7, construction will occur within numerous trees' Critical Root Zones where it cannot be. The trees designated to remain will not be given nearly enough root protection according to the plans that I received. 2. TREE SPECIES SELECTION & PLANTING 18.745.030 C. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. G. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION. The review procedures and standards for required landscaping and screening shall be specified in the conditions of approval during development review and in no instance shall be less than that required for conventional development. 2.1 . It is recommended that all tree planting follow the guidelines set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture's tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' Architectural Graphic Standards, 10th edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturity. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. I recommend that these guidelines be followed and adhered to at all times. 2.2. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite it is recommended that the following guidelines be followed: • No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. • No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. • No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2.3. I recommend that all of this information be included in the final plan's notes or drawings. If you have any questions please call me anytime. Thank you for requesting my comments on this project. • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS A�� CITY OF TIGARD Community De ve I opmen t Shaping A Better Community DATE: May 25,2001 TO: i Roy,Public Works RECEIVED PLANNING FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division MAY 31 2001 STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner CITY OF TIGARD Phone: (5031639-4111/Fax: (5031 684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]1999-00024 WELNIN CORPORATE CENTER: REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan,Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement 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: JUNE 8,2001. 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 t e RroiRoisal and have no objections to it. Please contact ,' 1Alt E of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: -tea 15 ei-/-0',J }t i 5 0E-5 ox� ;AJ -2-ems ®,s (P1 ease provide the foil owi ng i nformati on) Name of Person(s)Commenting: II itiw 1 Phone Numberfsl: 5/ /t7( V A/02-"3 I SDR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITYOF TIIGARD Community De ve 1 opmen t Shaping A Better Community DATE: May 25,2001 TO: Long Range Planning Staff, n Julia Hajduk Duane Roberts n Joel Groves RECEIVED PLANNING FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division MAY 3 0 2001 STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner Phone: 15031639-4111/Fax: 15031684-1291 CITY OF TIGAJ SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)1999-00024 ',WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER: REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan,Vicinity May and Applicant's Statement 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: JUNE 8,2001. 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: (P1 ease provide the fol l owi ng i nformati on) Name of Persontsl Commenting: I Phone Numbertsl: I SDR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS S(ire- // /9apa/1 C/J/loh'(L C.2 f r/ fAleS /4/A1.5 /'s a„vl- 3 1lrss pee tic 0-1,9y l'r no/%< ffr4's ciivs"/friy 4/04;4 k /`.5 /L a✓ r REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community De ve Iopmen t Shaping A Better Community DATE: May 25,2001 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer MAY 3 0 2001 ' FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF T' STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner Phone: (503)639-4171/Fax: (5031684-1297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LSDR11999-00024 PWELKIN CORPORATE CENTER REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 I square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan,Vicinity Map and Applicants Statement 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: JUNE 8,2001. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. Um 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: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person(s)Commenting: JlM W0� Phone Number(s): 4- "). .() SDR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ___ - CITY OF T;ARD Community Deve lopinen t shaping A Better Community DATE: May 25,2001 TO: Gary Lampella,Building Official RECEIVED PLANNING FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division MAY 2 5 2001 STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner CITY OF TiGARp Phone: (5031 639-4171/Fax: 15031684-7297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 1999-00024 >WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER< REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan,Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement 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: JUNE 8,2001. 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: 1) iiQ a Lieraurrt I r✓L p Amu _ 4p"a0`'so Y -'uF2 //vide. 44. ,fie gR (P1 ease provide the foil owi ng information) Name of Perseids)Commenting: f Phone Numberfsl: 312 SDR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 46110,1, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIIGARD Community De ve lopmen t Shaping A Better Community DATE: May 25,2001 TO: Per Attached FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger,Assistant Planner Phone: [5031 639-4111/Fax: (503)684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR]1999-00024 WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan,Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement 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: JUNE 8,2001. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. it 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: (Please provide the following information) Name of Person(s)Commenting: Phone Number[sl: SDR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY TIGARD REQUEST FOR COF ANTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPt.1.AT APPLICATIONS r FILE NOS.: S/ O�i FILE NAME: Gi i , CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS 14-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO CIT AREA: ❑Central East ❑South ['West LProposal Descrip. in Library CIT Book CITY OFFICES '/LONG RANGE PLANNING/Nadine Smith,Supervisor _COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs. 1%POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official ,ENGINEERING DEPTJBrian Rager,Dvlpmnt.Review Engineer 4/WATER DEPT./Dennis Koellermeier,Operations Mgr. • _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder PUBLIC WORKS/John Roy,Property Manager .PUBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine,Urban Forester PLANNER—TIME TO POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM! SPECIAL DISTRICTS — TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.* TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE♦ _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* _ UNIFIED SWRGE.AGENCY Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue Beaverton,OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS CITY OF BEAVERTON * _ CITY OF TUALATIN * _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS Planning Manager Planning Manager 2501 SW First Avenue 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 * 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/Z0A) Larry French(Comp Plan Amendments only) PO Box 2946 _CITY OF KING CITY * _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regional 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(Powedines 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) f71DOT,REGION 1 * Anne LaMountain(IGwuRo) CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) C/Sonya Kazen,Development Review Coordinator Phil Healy(ICA/uRB) David Knowles,Planning Bureau Do Regional Administrator _Carl Toland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) ZSteve Conway(General Apps.) Portland Building 106,Rm. 1002 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Sr.Cartographer(cP,urCA)r s re 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 _Jim Nims(ZCA)us is Portland,OR 97204 Doria Mateja(ZCA)MS 14 —ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A Jane Estes,Permit Speualist 5440 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 350 Portland,OR 97221-2414 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES _PORTLAND WESTERN R/R,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE RJR,OREGON ELECTRIC RJR(Burlington Northern/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Robert I. Melbo,President&General Manager 110 W. 10th Avenue Albany,OR 97321 _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations only) Pat McGann if Project is Whin Y.Mile ofA 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 d PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC .W NATURAL GAS COMPANY — VERIZON /L QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Jim VanKleek,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. Ken Perdue,Engineering Richard Jackson,Engineering 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue PO Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97075-1100 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 —TCI CABLE(Apps E.otHall/N0109W) Marsha Butler,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics&Planning Dept. Diana Carpenter 13137 SW Pacific Highway 16550 SW Mello Road 3500 SW Bond Street Tigard,OR 97223 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Portland,OR 97232 * INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500' OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:\pattyvnasters\Request For Comments Notification List 2.doc (Revised: 8-May-01) • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development SfiapingA Better Community STAA OAF OGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of?igard ) 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) E3 NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDRI 999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER ❑ 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 6,2001, and deposited in the United States Mail on July 6,2001, postage prepaid. 3214,;;ZZ,)'(Person - -rep edNptic Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 rd day of , 2001. OFFICIAL SEAL �r, _ DIANE M JELOERKS �'LJiJ E C.OREGON MY IQPIRES S PT807 ;3 i, �Vih My Commission Exp s: 9777`)3 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 1999-00024 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER ,ShapingA Better Community 120 DAYS = 9/18/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR1999-00024 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. OWNER: Jill Christensen APPLICANT: Ed Christensen, PE 293 SW Cervantes Christensen Engineering, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lots 00500, 01002 and 00401. 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, 18.780, 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 avaiiabie for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (250 per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final. Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JULY 6, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 21, 2001 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal_: 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 JULY 20, 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. mil 6 Nv,` "111111,111 Fli !g. yot nt;n MIR j: gft 111j Z!L �' �� � — WELKIN CRP. CT. gm IIIII SDR99-00024 t IN Isi 111111111111= ' - rI11 _ ., r ° -- -11111 No 1 IM 11111..w • 1 1 ■ 3 SUBJECT LOpwl me 1. I • ■ • IFF r*• ► 1 t* orryr<a M 2001'�C, ' y ynap'KVAAGIC07 APIt r A CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT *IL SW P F A P P L E S T R E E T __----- _—.F_HVr__ u41 I 1 _x-.1L atazi 4' • 1 .r.,.., ti 1 1 I gi.; 1 it'''': - =II=5111Q d W __.c.■..ii I;C ta;0-- --Till:I=1*e., i 1 i "—--— l 1 i, Alb' },s,.1._ .7.1.1A,411 i Y. 1 BIG S t ' WELKIN SPORTING CORPORATE GOODS .11 600 ;Vito�4{ CENTER • . ik IhiskW . "v" IL ,4._ 1 '1, CITY OF TIGARD t I WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER SITE PLAN N SDR1999-00024 (Map is not to scale) SDi. rggq- EXHI: 7T • i S 136CBt 02300 1S136CD-00500 ALVAREZ ERICK A&DORIS K CHRI EN N JILL K 11190 SW 82ND AVE 293 SW RVANTES TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE GO,OR 97035 1 S 136CC-00100 1 S 136CD-01002 BARASCH STEPHEN CHRI E EN JILL K BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE 293 S VANTES GENERAL MOTORS CORP M/C483-616-420 LAK OSWEGO,OR 97035 16 E JUDSON ST PONTIAC,MI 48342 1 S 136CB-06800 1S 136C D-02200 BARKER KENNETH W COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 11263 SW 81ST AVE ATTN:EXCISE TAX DEPT 111 TIGARD,OR 97223 999 LAKE DR ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 1 S 136CD-01000 1S 136CA-03700 BRETTLER REAL ESTATE INC CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R BY CAR TOYS 11260 SW 79TH AVE 20 W GALER ST#300 TIGARD,OR 97223 SEATTLE,WA 98121 15136CD-01800 1S 136CA-03100 BRETTL REAL ESTATE INC CURNES MELINDA L& BY CA TOYS SHELTON DUANE C 20 AL R ST#300 11215 SW 79TH AVE SEATTLE,WA 98121 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136 CA-01000 1 S 136C B-06900 BYRD LISA M DEARMOND JULIA 11220 SW 78TH AVE 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 • S 136CB-06700 1 S 136CA-01100 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K DELANCE JOHN M 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11250 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01001 1 S136CA-03000 CHEVRON U S A INC DENNY DOUGLAS D& PO BOX 285 SALLY A HOUSTON,TX 77001 11185 SW 79TH ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S 136CB-09400 1S 136C D-00600 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 11242 SW 81ST FINKE LOTTE I TRUSTEE TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1 S 136C D-00401 1 S 136CA-05400 CHRISTENSEN JILL K FISHER JOHN S SR&RENEE M 293 SW CERVANTES 10940 SW 95TH LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1,136CA-05401 1 S 136CA-01400 GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR LEE BEN&LAURA LIVING TRUST 11285 SW 78TH AVE 7745 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03500 1 S 136CA-03301 GATES MARIE LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 11300 SW 79TH AVE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-05201 1 S 136CA-03300 GUERRERO RAFAEL ABARCA& LOOS HELEN A ROSARIO MARICELA NAJERA& 7935 SW PFAFFLE DE LA 0 RAFAEL ABARCA TIGARD,OR 97223 11185 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S 136C B-02200 1 S 136CA-05300 HADDIX BRYAN S LOWRY THOMAS&KATHLEEN 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C B-09100 1 S 136CB-06600 HAMILTON BETTY I LOWY GAIL E 11162SW81STAVE 11315SW81STAVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 15 136CB-09200 1 S 136CD-00102 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J MILLAR TED L TRUSTEE 11190 SW 81ST BY WILLIAM C FLOBERG TIGARD,OR 97223 834 SW ST CLAIR PORTLAND,OR 97205 1 S 136CA-01500 1 S 136CD-01000 HAWTHORNE VILLA LTD PARTNERSHIP MONAGHAN FARMS INC BY WASHINGTON CAPITAL 14120 EAST EVANS AVE ATTN: LOAN SERVICES DEPT AURORA,CO 80014 1655 N FORT MYER DR 13TH FL ARLINGTON,VA 22209 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-03200 15136CA-05402 KING MARVIN FRANKLIN& PEEL WILLIAM KING TRACEE SUE 11255 SW 78TH AVE 11255 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 is 136CA-03600 1 S136CB-02800 KNIGHT ROBERT W PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE 11290 SW 79TH 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 73136C8201900 1S136CB-09600 PFAFFLE HELEN N TR WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 8225 SW PFAFFLE 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-03800 PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W 11250 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-01300 ROOT GORDON C 19935 SW CIPOLE RD SHERWOOD,OR 97140 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 S136CB-02000 RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC& GERONIMO-RUIZ ROSAURA 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-09300 SPIERING COLLEEN A 17815 NE COURTNEY RD NEWBERG,OR 97132 1 S 136CB-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 1 S 136CA-01200 WILCOX HEATHER M 11280 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 • Naomi Gallucci CITY OF TIGARD 11285 SW 78th Avenue EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Tigard, OR 97223 i:lcurpinlsetup\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 Crag head 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF TIGARD Community VDeve(opment Shaping A Better Community STATE OAF OREGON ) County of`Was ington )ss. City of r7igard ) I, Patricia L. Lunford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of7rgardd;Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropnate Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER 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 6,2001, and deposited in the United States Mail on July 6,2001, postage prepaid. (Person th. '•repared N i tice) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3 r-d day of 410 S ' , 2001. �',,,_• OFFICIAL SEAL A . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT 07,2003 ")/ft NO Y PUBLIC OF ORE My Commission Expires: 9/7 0 3 EMU . NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 1999-00024 frL' � i CITY OF TIGARD lo WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER Community Development Shaping Better Community 120 DAYS = 9/18/2001 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR1999-00024 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. OWNER: Jill Christensen APPLICANT: Ed Christensen, PE 293 SW Cervantes Christensen Engineering, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR 97035 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lots 00500, 01002 and 00401. 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, 18.780, 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 1 OF 23 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 evidence that the entrance point will be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit point will be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. 2. Provide evidence in the form of a plan and access easement that the parking lot will be designed to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the west unless it is not feasible. 3. Provide a revised landscape plan that shows street trees to be planted no greater than 30 feet apart. 4. Provide evidence that the refuse storage area is 106 square feet and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler. 5. Provide a plan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or hedge at feast six feet in height. Gate openings must be provided at a 10-wide minimum and shall be capable of being secure in a closed and open position. 6. Provide a plan showing at least 5% of the total long-term parking spaces reserved for carpool/vanpool use. 7. Provide a plan that shows a 12-stall bicycle rack. 8. Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.0. of the Tigard Development Code. 9. Provide one loading space that complies with Section 18.765.080.B. (Off-street loading dimensions) of the Tigard Development Code. 10. Submit a mitigation plan for 268 caliper inches of trees. 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 ha�f-street improvement work in SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed improvements in SW 78`h Avenue, and any other work in the public right-of-way. Five (5) 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 2 OF 23 ' 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. The City will then assign suite numbers and the address fee will then be calculated, which must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a 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. A profile of SW Pfaffle Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 17. 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. 18. The applicant's construction plans shall show gn extension of the 8-inch public sanitary sewer line from its present terminus in SW 79t Avenue, to SW Pfaffle Street. A lateral must be provided to this parcel. 19. The applicant's construction plans shall show a new public storm drainage line in SW Pfaffle Street, to be installed with the half-street improvement work. The existing catch basin located to the east of this site shall be connected into the new storm drainage line. 20. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connection prior to issuance of the City's public improvement permit. 21 . The applicant shall provide an on-site water qualit y 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. 22. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, December 2000 edition." NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 3 OF 23 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: 23. Prior to issuance of a building 'permit, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaff le 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: 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 $7,150 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 27. 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 Lots (1S136DD, Tax Lots 00500, 01002 and 00401). Based on this search, no additional land use cases were found. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. The site is bordered on the east, south and west sides by property zoned Professional Commercial (C-P). The property to the north is zoned R-7 and developed with single-family homes. However, SW Pfaff le Street separates properties to the north from the proposed building site. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 4 OF 23 SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET Two letters were sent to Staff from Marcheta Craughan, and Sue Rorman. These letters listed the following concerns: • Driveway location should be on the west side of the parcel. • Building height. • Screening. • Property Values. • Traffic Congestion. STAFF RESPONSE: According to the Craughan letter, the Craughan's would like to see the access drive located on the west side of the property. Current plans show the driveway located on the west side of the proposed project. Staff agrees that the location of the access drive will ease congestion for those entering and exiting the parking lot of the proposed building. The zoning of the associated parcels is (C-P) Professional Commercial. According to the Tigard Development Code, the applicant may construct a building to a maximum height of 45 ft. The proposed building is 44.9 feet, which is in compliance with the maximum height of the (C-P) zone. The applicant is required to plant street trees and provide screening of the parking lot from the public right-of-way. The screening of the parking lot is discussed in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). There is no proof that property values may be effected by the proposed development and it is not a requirement for applicants. However, the applicant has met all of the Site Development Review criteria and an office use is allowed in commercial zones. Conditions have been put in place to assure the aesthetic value of surrounding properties to the extent that the Community Development Code allows. Traffic has been addressed under Chapter 18.810 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). The applicant has provided an undated traffic study for the area, which has been reviewed by the City of Tigard's Engineering Staff. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024IWELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 5 OF 23 ' 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: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD C-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq.ft 52,316 sq.ft. -Detached unit - -Boarding,lodging,rooming house - Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 260 ft. Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 0 ft[6] 80 ft. -Side facing street on corner&through lots[1] - - -Side yard -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 0/20 ft[3] 15 ft. -Rear yard - - -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. 0/20 ft[3]- 13 ft. Maximum Height 45 ft 44.9 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. 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. 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 6 OF 23 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 25 feet from the side property line. The width of the driveway approach is 40 feet. However, the approach is split with a landscaped island in order to preserve a large Sunset Maple. Therefore, the driveway approach will be constructed as two (2) 16.5-foot accessways separated with a 7-foot landscaped island. 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 west façade to the east 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 distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking lot, therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/wELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 7 OF 23 ' Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The plan depicts concrete sidewalks, which meets the standard. 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 point of access into the parking lot that provides a 40-foot wide access with a landscaped island in the middle of the access to distinguish two-way traffic entering and exiting the site. Each lane is approximately 16.5 feet in length. 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 servino 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 design indicates that one-way access will be used for the site. The site plan shows that the entrance will be separated with a 7-foot wide landscaped island. Therefore, the applicant will be conditioned to provide evidence that the entrance point will be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit point will be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. 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; 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 west. Therefore, the applicant is conditioned to provide evidence in the form of a plan and access easement that the parking lot will be designed to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the west unless it is not feasible. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been met. CONDITIONS: • Provide evidence that the entrance point will be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit point will be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 8 OF 23 • Provide evidence in the form of a plan and access easement that the parking lot will be designed to connect to the future parking lot on the adjacent parcel to the west unless it is not feasible. 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) Gambel Oak street trees along SW Pfaffle. The proposed trees are medium-sized trees and are spaced 35 feet apart. However, according to the Street Tree Standards, medium sized trees cannot be planted greater than 30 feet apart. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a revised landscape plan that shows street trees to be planted no greater than 30 feet apart. 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 south are zoned (C-G) General Commercial. Property to the west of the subject site is zoned (C-P) Professional Commercial. Property to the north is zoned R-4.5 and R-7 and is separated from the subject property by SW Pfaffle Street. Therefore, no buffering is required. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screenin of parking, and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials fo 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 12-foot wide landscaped buffer with a combination of low-lying ground cover, 19-Rhododendron, 3-Bibernum (vertical shrubbery) and a mixture of Oregon Grape and Autumn Glory. 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 89 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 within the parking lot. The site plan provides 12 trees located in landscaped islands throughout the parking lot in order to create the desired effect. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 9 OF 23 CONDITIONS: • Provide a revised landscape plan that shows street trees to be planted no greater than 30 feet apart. 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 23,940 square foot building, which will require a 106 square foot storage area. The applicant has proposed a 103 square foot storage area. In addition, 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 evidence that the refuse storage area is 106 square feet and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The refuse container is accessed from the parking lot and is visible in order to enhance security for users. The proposed refuse container will not occupy any parking stalls and screening has been addressed above under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping and Screening). 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 10 OF 23 ' The storage area exists in the southwest corner of the proposed parking lot. However the applicant has not addressed the design standards for the refuse enclosure. 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 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. 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 condition listed below, the standards will be met: CONDITIONS: • Provide evidence that the refuse storage area is 106 square feet and provide a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler. • Provide a lan showing the refuse container area enclosed by a sight- obscuring fence, wall or hedge at least six 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 150 feet. The building itself is proposed to be 23,940 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. Therefore, the building is required to provide at minimum 65 parking spaces and a maximum of 98 spaces. The site plan shows the site to have 89 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 k vehicle park in g 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 11 OF 23 '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. The site plan shows the site will have a total of 89 parking stalls. According to the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards, a parking lot with 76-100 parking stalls is required to provide 4 stalls that are ADA accessible. The site plan does indicate 4 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 12 OF 23 ' 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 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 applicant's narrative indicates that parking stalls will be constructed with a 4-inch high concrete wheel stop with a 3-foot bumper overhang of low lying landscaping. The site plan does not show parking stalls to be constructed with wheel stops. However, the site plan does provide a 3-foot landscaped overhang on all perimeter-parking stalls. Interior parking stalls have a 5-foot landscaped area between the stalls and the 5-foot walkway on the north and west sides of the building. Therefore, the applicant will not be required to provide wheel stops. 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. The applicant's plans indicate that all parking stalls 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 12-stall bicycle rack. The narrative indicates a 12-stall bicycle rack will be provided on the west side of the building, however, the site plan does not show a 12-stall bicycle rack. Therefore, the applicant will be required to provide a plan that shows a 12-stall bicycle rack. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765-.050.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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 13 OF 23 • 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 12-stall bicycle rack. The applicant has been conditioned earlier to provide evidence of a 12-stall bicycle rack. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Table 18.765.2 states that the minimum parking for General Office 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 23,940 square foot building, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 65 and a maximum of 98 parking spaces. The plans provide 89 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 23,940 square feet. According to the standard, the site must provide one loading space that complies 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 a 12-stall bicycle rack. • Provide a plan that shows the bicycle rack designed according to Section 18.765.050.C. of the Tigard Development Code. • Provide one loading space that complies with Section 18.765.080.B. (Off-street loading dimensions) 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/wELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 14 OF 23 ' 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 two-thirds of the 402 inches to be removed that are not in poor condition. Therefore, the applicant is required to mitigate for 268 caliper inches. However, it is not clear as to how the applicant plans to mitigate for the required inches. FINDING: Because the applicant has not provided a tree removal and protection plan by a certified arborist, this standard has not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the standards will be met: CONDITION: Submit mitigation plan for 268 caliper inches of trees. 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 areas all 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 rovisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations);); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100-year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.13 Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.090.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 (Provision for the Disabled). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 150F 23 Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based u on 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. Based on the location of the proposed building the applicant is able to preserve 13 trees over 12 inches in diameter. According to the applicant, the existing grade differential is 7 feet over a 220-foot linear dimension, demonstrating a flat site. The proposed building will not change the existing grade significantly enough to disturb the natural or physical environment. Therefore, the project will not be subject to ground slumping or sliding. Adequate light and air circulation will not be sacrificed due to the placement of the proposed building. The shortest buffer between the proposed building and adjacent properties is 14 feet. Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially 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. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this project and has no objection to it. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. 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 18.520.040.B. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. 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: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 16 OF 23 • 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 street 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 adjacent to this site to provide a minimum of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant's plans show that they will dedicate this ROW as a part of their project. SW Pfaffle Street is currently paved, but not fully improved to current City standards. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half- street improvement across the frontage of this site. The plans indicate they will make these improvements. 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 this decision. 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 installing a concrete sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street, the applicant will meet this standard. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 79'" Avenue, approximately 130 feet north of SW Pfaffle Street. The applicant's plans indicate they will extend the public sewer line southerly to SW Pfaffle Street to serve this site. There is no need to extend this sewer line uphill to the east in SW Pfaffle Street, as the adjacent properties there are already served with public sewer. 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 17 OF 23 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 properties upstream of this site have already been developed. There is an existing catch basin located in SW Pfaffle Street, just east of this site. That catch basin will be tied into the new storm drainage pipe that will be installed with the half-street improvement across the applicant's 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 plan indicates they will install a pond that will provide treatment and 25-year detention in accordance with CWS standards. The preliminary sizing calculations for the pond indicate the volume will need to be 1 ,728 cubic feet. The proposed pond will have a volume of approximately 1 ,750 cubic feet, which will more than satisfy the requirement. 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 bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. No bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. No bikeway is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024iWELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 18 OF 23 • • The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; • The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; • All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and • Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.0 states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under- grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case- by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along 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 260 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $7,150.00. 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 May 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. Based on a warrant analysis, Lancaster found that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street. This intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the PM peak hour, and will continue to operate at LOS B after this project is fully operational. 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. Howeverti 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 19 OF 23 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 is proposing to treat the onsite storm water runoff in an extended dry detention pond. The pond will have a volume of approximately 1,750 cubic feet, which will be adequate for treatment and 25-year storm detention. 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. A grading and erosion control plan will be required prior to construction. Since the site is less than five acres, a NPDES permit is not required. Address Assignments: The City of Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $30.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of the site permit. 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 H DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 20 OF 23 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 projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61 , TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the Collector and Arterial Street system. The applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $76,686 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 $239,643 ($76,686 divided by .32). The difference between the TIFF paid, and the full impact, is considered the unmitigated impact on the street system. The unmitigated impact of this project on the transportation system is $162,957. 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 $74,750(1,300 square feet x $12.00 per square foot, $15,600 + 260 feet x $200 per linear foot for half-street improvements, + 260 feet x $27.50 for underground utilities), thus it is roughly proportional to the unmitigated impacts. 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 offered the following comments: • Be sure the public notice clearly states that this is a new application. There have been about 3 notices so far and people may just ignore this if they don't think it is a new application. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 21 OF 23 ' The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. 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. Consolidation into 1 parcel is 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 calculations). 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 building (see attached calculations). The hydrant shown on the plans satisfies the 250 foot requirement. Because the building is provided with automatic fire sprinklers, the two additional required hydrants may be located so that the closest portion of the building is within 500 feet. One hydrant shall be within 70 feet of the fire department connection (FDC). The hydrant shown on the plans shall be relocated to the landscaping area adjacent to the FDC. (UFC 903.4) 3. Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access roadway that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901 .4.3) 4. Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to stockpiling combustibles on-site or the commencement of combustible construction. (UFC Sec. 8704) 5. A Knox brand key box shall be provided on the building. Contact the Fire Marshal's Office for installation details and an application. (UFC Chapter 9) 6. A building survey and plans, in accordance with TVF&R Ordinance 99-01, Appendix III-F, shall be submitted. A copy of Appendix III-F, the building survey form and the instructions are available on the Fire District web site. To access this information via Internet, go to www.tvfr.com, choose "Fire Prevention", then choose "New Construction". (UFC Appendix III-F) 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 SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 22 OF 23 Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON JULY 6, 2001 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 21, 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 JULY 20, 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. Air July 6, 2001 PREPARE i e . Mathew Sc edegger DATE Assistant Planner ja-c L.P0.- Al July 6, 2001 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bewers rff DATE Planning Manager I:\curpin\mathew\sdr\SDR 1999-00024.dec.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PAGE 23 OF 23 __~___- C I Y o I Ell®B W I ® �B le- ig j GFOOR APHIC IN POECATICE e'IeTEY „ci-r-- ` vaA � B V.• , e B e {_ VICINITY MAP 7 N,,,''� ` --- WELKIN CRP. CT. VE � �1����� ` i =.w SDR1999-00024 In ' a 11111 uj 0--� �I- CO CO LE • IN \ lit L3 SUBJECT LOT` iii, -- I. .41111N1 P 0 AL . N 99 !� _ 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet• �c� l !A t 1"•378 feet �p A 0 --------------_. _ail..:.;fl City of Tigard • Information on this map is for general location only and should G verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 • — , (503)639-4171 http://www.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:May 23,2001;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ;; CRY Of TIGAlO SW PFAFFLE STREET I - - - - - - -- I 30- - 3, I - - o -{T _ — — --••1 1..- 6 — l - SITE „- --- 1 SITE -' --- - -- -- ' - - - L' 1 VISION 1 I VISION-- 1 • F o r — - - - - xi-1_ x UMW �... - DETENTION r!krT .3-.•A.`./ , , ,, -- `• 0 kI 725E0 1_ Kj a i - ° Rr,.u,00 - b REGULAR -• WAGES i! ^ ' OUTDOOR LIGHT' - 1. AI I -.GULAR PARKING SPACES ,:„ Allihb grow IV I�` 74 la' U '. II , . . I a> r`. L.49 ,__ 0 IN ITi L5' kb RETAINING ' �ryry -o> 0_ OUTDOOR LIGHTING WALL Y 9 2 •ri Q. Q. FF.•7300' 0 BIG 5 I , ' a .� WELD - T SPORTING • \\ . CORPOAT GOODS TL 600 116.. E n Alk . + .. CENTER GRASS FIELD ' 74 N r , W e (11111111111.1. .. 19' 1 . TOR LIGHTI W Y J i5/ m- L ___a ..AR PARKING SPACES a a 4-007 73130.40 13Qi0 -\\\-.........\\L__ YI _ii .L------- ■ PROJECT BOUNDARY LINE ' TIGARD CITY OF TIGA - t WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER • SITE PLAN N SDR1999-00024 (Map is not to scale) Ed Christensen, P.E. EXHIBIT B Christensen Engineering, Inc. SDR1999-00024 8000 SW Pfaffle Street WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER Portland, OR 97223 Jill Christensen 293 SW Cervantes Lake Oswego, OR 97035 John De Lance 11250 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Mike Craughan 11260 SW 79th Avenue Tigard, OR 972223 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 1 1 �a mi•mmErilMIIIMMIMEM 1 CITY •f TIGARD W o C O == Om GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ST o „ ,,_ o = _ AL., Q Q o° o = _oo oo° VICINITY MAP Q iuiii � — WELKIN CRP. CT. '� Emoimma _. MEI 111111 =.W SDR1999-00024 11 will > 11111 > IIII a MI cc z mill cv I 1.111 %PP 1111 ii b MI PFAFFLE -• , \ • . ST / 3 SUBJECT LOT". Qr 4 — N• 'MIN 0 _ 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1#3,41t 99 1"=378 feat A 11J. III`, 1 °ilk --__________________ City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 http-//www.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date: May 23,2001;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR I CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ___________Ailts_ SW PFAFFLE STREET I 3p' I , 30,' , - - ■ -3 - - - - -- — - T� --- --1-- SITE I --- i t: a t-_ � I VI510N 1 - - ,- - •_L -- I VISION 1 . EX i'GUY Y 9- W rami IIII�da�d$da_ ,X1- -- - - -- -— — - I dik _ k. x. Y /---�-9292211'.-r 9 , S89' ,57E 160.00 i ( I� g I6' , x DETENTION ■ �� '� _ - - ■ BOTTOM ,, I - - - _ , - k 77500 C t- �j , w , 1 r RM.1ITDm' o .4 • t .t 111 j 18 REGULAR -•-• SPACES 1;: •_ OUTDOOR LIGHT r 1' _v.I A i $.I .GULAR PARKING SPACES 1.., • 6I /' # B5 I I• ., 24 b o / a I. ii A, - i ■ aff it- Y RETAINING 0 w -o^ ` Time •- LIGHTING WALL ` Y -( - .. #I `� '9 Nly Q Q 4 4 % FF..737 BIG 5 I 4 1 8' Q ,6i I SPORTING TL 600 = c _• _ � ., CORPORATE GOODS GRASS FIELD I a .G CENTER 74' bit? r is. 1111. 166. i.1 i,,2 0 _ L ' TDOOR LIGHTI W LL y- I5' a 0' Ift -1 AR PARKING SPACES 0. S&Y453PEI30A0 R� h __ _- , _ PROJECT BOUNDARY LINE ' CITY OF TIGARD T WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER SITE PLAN N SDR1999-00024 (Map is not to scale) r L_______ �_`¢l I.� Q o0000 °o0 0 00 CITY of TIGARD oC o =O Do =o Q C O O O O O_ C r GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION STET EN N o o r•-.ti AREA NOTIFIED STEVE ��lii�� (500') ` � Q > 1 1 S 136CD, 500 .3{6{t{,..,,,,Ne7� ---- 1002, 401 i•W W5N0 1{/NCABSi{7 0 CC ZN{{1N{ Ie71N{»N 6{N7{I,t,t{tA{tat / RE: S� co--N DN.N»' i.1M•A.».. ,co CO 1{1NCN5{N kv{w>.•t _ IttNC{e0{{ N,C,,iINNN». 7t17tG0t/t{ I"' _ YTNC{{NN I— IivtCNSN! ONtCAOTN{ • II 1{1NCtMN YTNCN01•{ =MUM NW{Ne%INCefNt COMM ISU6CAS,tS.---- OA{Ge{N W N 1{1NCense 1{WCAe5NI 16D6C605I00 I iun•eum PFAFFLE — \ L iSIM UM Property owner information 11111141 is valid for 3 months from \`�\\\\\\\ '1�\�♦ T the date printed on this map. 1t1NC{N{N 4T. " k,"`4.,,x,§ 13136CDO0102 • \\\ AgN{N1N C\���NIN1 10156C00 10 0 0 �� 1E1365506100 hiiiiiiiiia lt1{{E{{M{1 9g� Iiilli • N / awe{e»{ li.,... 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1'=372 feet 0 A, LA, 1111LI 1111A1 City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be venhed with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 http://wnw.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:May 18,2001;C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR 1 S 136CB-02300 1 S 136CD-00500 ALVAREZ ERICK A&DORIS K CHRI EN N JILL K 11190 SW 82ND AVE 293 SW RVANTES TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE GO,OR 97035 1 S136CC-00100 1 S136CD-01002 BARASCH STEPHEN CHRI E EN JILL K BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE 293 S VANTES GENERAL MOTORS CORP M/C483-616-420 LAK OSWEGO,OR 97035 16 E JUDSON ST PONTIAC, MI 48342 1 S 136CB-06800 1 S 136CD-02200 BARKER KENNETH W COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 11263 SW 81ST AVE ATTN:EXCISE TAX DEPT 111 TIGARD,OR 97223 999 LAKE DR ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 1 S 136CD-01900 1 S 136CA-03700 BRETTLER REAL ESTATE INC CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R BY CAR TOYS 11260 SW 79TH AVE 20 W GALER ST#300 TIGARD,OR 97223 SEATTLE,WA 98121 1 S 136CD-01800 1 S 136CA-03100 BRETTL REAL ESTATE INC CURNES MELINDA L& BY CA TOYS SHELTON DUANE C 20 AL R ST#300 11215 SW 79TH AVE SEATTLE,WA 98121 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136CA-01000 1S136CB-06900 BYRD LISA M DEARMOND JULIA 11220 SW 78TH AVE 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-06700 1S136CA-01100 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K DELANCE JOHN M 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11250 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136CD-01001 1 S136CA-03000 CHEVRON U S A INC DENNY DOUGLAS D& PO BOX 285 SALLY A HOUSTON,TX 77001 11185 SW 79TH ST TIGARD,OR 97223 15136CB-09400 1 S 136CD-00600 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 11242 SW 81ST FINKE LOTTE I TRUSTEE TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1 S136CD-00401 15136CA-05400 CHRISTENSEN JILL K FISHER JOHN S SR&RENEE M 293 SW CERVANTES 10940 SW 95TH LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-05401 1S136CA-01400 GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR LEE BEN&LAURA LIVING TRUST 11285 SW 78TH AVE 7745 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-03500 1S136CA-03301 GATES MARIE LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 11300 SW 79TH AVE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-05201 1S136CA-03300 GUERRERO RAFAEL ABARCA& LOOS HELEN A ROSARIO MARICELA NAJERA& 7935 SW PFAFFLE DE LA 0 RAFAEL ABARCA TIGARD,OR 97223 11185 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C B-02200 1S1 36 CA-05300 HADDIX BRYAN S LOWRY THOMAS&KATHLEEN 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-09100 1S136CB-06600 HAMILTON BETTY I LOWY GAIL E 11162 SW 81ST AVE 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-09200 1S136CD-00102 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J MILLAR TED L TRUSTEE 11190 SW 81ST BY WILLIAM C FLOBERG TIGARD, OR 97223 834 SW ST CLAIR PORTLAND,OR 97205 15136CA-01500 1S136C0-01000 HAWTHORNE VILLA LTD PARTNERSHIP MONAGHAN FARMS INC BY WASHINGTON CAPITAL 14120 EAST EVANS AVE ATTN: LOAN SERVICES DEPT AURORA,CO 80014 1655 N FORT MYER DR 13TH FL ARLINGTON,VA 22209 1 S 136 CB-09500 1 S 136C D-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 1S136CA-03200 1S136CA-05402 KING MARVIN FRANKLIN& PEEL WILLIAM KING TRACEE SUE 11255 SW 78TH AVE 11255 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136 CA-03600 1 S 136 C B-02800 KNIGHT ROBERT W PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE 11290 SW 79TH 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-01900 1 S 136C B-09600 PFAFFLE HELEN N TR WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 8225 SW PFAFFLE 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03800 PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W 11250 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136 CA-01300 ROOT GORDON C 19935 SW CIPOLE RD SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1 S 136CB-02100 RORMAN JAMES M&SUSAN M 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 is 136 CA-03900 ROWLES EVERETT R PATRICIA A 11200 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S1360B-02000 RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC& GERONIMO-RUIZ ROSAURA 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-09300 SPIERING COLLEEN A 17815 NE COURTNEY RD NEWBERG,OR 97132 1S136CB-07000 TOLLIVER BRADLEY D 11207 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-07100 TULL ALONZO E IV&AMY L 11181 SW 81ST AVE PORTLAND,OR 97224 1 S 136CA-01200 WILCOX HEATHER M 11280 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 N CITY OF TIGARD Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Tigard, OR 97223 is\curpin\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 Crag head 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY O T GARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Shirley L. Treat, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist l for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appopnate Box(s)Below) ® NOTICE OF: PENDING APPLICATION FOR: SDR1999-00024/WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (Type/Kind of Notice) (File No/Name Reference) (14-Day Comment Period) © City of Tigard Planning Director NOTICE OF TYPE I DECISION FOR: AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) (Date of Public Heanng) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council I I NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER FOR: , ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) (Date of Public Hearingl ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICES] of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", on May 25, 2001, and deposited in the United States Mail on May 25, 2001, postage prepaid. ,j/UALLA,J (Person teat Prepared Notice) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 3/ day of 44 , 2061 . SCI J `�►,., OFFICIAL�FJ4L NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON SIiEPlMAN s.CRSPER NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: /May i'3 ?ON? COMMISSION NO.323409 (/ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES€:".4Y 13,2003 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN' .DER,VENDOR OR SELLER: XHI IT 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 CITY OF TIGARD Commun i ty De ve 7opmen t SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Shaping A Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: May 25, 2001 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 1999-00024 FILE NAME: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single-family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. 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 JUNE 8, 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 JULY 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 addref a relevant approval criteria with cient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Li., Use Board of Appeals or CircuiL 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." '114 g A NM VICINITY MAP L 01 '419B B 111 WELKIN CRP CT.' ��1U N. INN �� �i =. -11•11 SDR1999-00024 S-s- tiff /Mom ME MI AIM "MI= MOM 11. MN IIMIN 1.11/ r11•1■11 mob Am ime■ I IN 1111 111111. • [3 SUBJECT LOTS v 0 -` . • ,k Aftbi PO NO FM ICIO'of l fgard ifick?\ ms mov ✓"'�' --"" •d.a.May 27.2001.C Vna961.1AGIC03 A�fi is\curpin\masters\revised\noticeof.mst • EXHIBIT B Christensen Engineering, Inc. 8000 SW Pfaffle Street SDR1999-00024 Portland, OR 97223 WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER Ed Christensen, P.E. Christensen Engineering, Inc. 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 Jill Christensen 293 SW Cervantes Lake Oswego, OR 97035 1 S 136CB-02300 1 S 136CD-00500 ALVAREZ ERICK A&DORIS K CHRI EN N JILL K 11190 SW 82ND AVE 293 SW RVANTES TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE GO,OR 97035 1 S 136CC-00100 1 S 136CD-01002 BARASCH STEPHEN CHRI E EN JILL K BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE 293 S VANTES GENERAL MOTORS CORP M/C483-616-420 LAK OSWEGO,OR 97035 16 E JUDSON ST PONTIAC, MI 48342 1S 136CB-06800 151 36CD-02200 BARKER KENNETH W COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 11263 SW 81ST AVE ATTN:EXCISE TAX DEPT 111 TIGARD,OR 97223 999 LAKE DR ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 1 S 136CD-01900 1 S 136CA-03700 BRETTLER REAL ESTATE INC CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R BY CAR TOYS 11260 SW 79TH AVE 20 W GALER ST#300 TIGARD,OR 97223 SEATTLE,WA 98121 1 S 136CD-01800 1 S 136CA-03100 BRETTL REAL ESTATE INC CURNES MELINDA L& BY CA TOYS SHELTON DUANE C 20 AL R ST#300 11215 SW 79TH AVE SEATTLE,WA 98121 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-01000 1 S 136CB-06900 BYRD LISA M DEARMOND JULIA 11220 SW 78TH AVE 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-06700 15136CA-01100 - CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K DELANCE JOHN M 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11250 SW 78TH 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 136CD-00600 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 11242 SW 81ST FINKE LOTTE I TRUSTEE TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1 S 136C0-00401 1 S 136CA-05400 CHRISTENSEN JILL K FISHER JOHN S SR&RENEE M 293 SW CERVANTES 10940 SW 95TH LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-05401 1 S 136CA-01400 GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR LEE BEN&LAURA LIVING TRUST 11285 SW 78TH AVE 7745 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03500 1 S 136CA-03301 GATES MARIE LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 11300 SW 79TH AVE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 is 136CA-05201 1 S 136CA-03300 GUERRERO RAFAEL ABARCA& LOOS HELEN A ROSARIO MARICELA NAJERA& 7935 SW PFAFFLE DE LA 0 RAFAEL ABARCA TIGARD,OR 97223 11185 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02200 1 S 136CA-05300 HADDIX BRYAN S LOWRY THOMAS&KATHLEEN 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-09100 1 S 136CB-06600 HAMILTON BETTY I LOWY GAIL E 11162 SW 81ST AVE 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C8-09200 1 S 136CD-00102 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J MILLAR TED L TRUSTEE 11190 SW 81ST BY WILLIAM C FLOBERG TIGARD,OR 97223 834 SW ST CLAIR PORTLAND,OR 97205 1 S 136CA-01500 1 S 136 CD-01000 HAWTHORNE VILLA LTD PARTNERSHIP MONAGHAN FARMS INC BY WASHINGTON CAPITAL 14120 EAST EVANS AVE ATTN: LOAN SERVICES DEPT AURORA,CO 80014 1655 N FORT MYER DR 13TH FL ARLINGTON,VA 22209 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-03200 1 S 136 CA-05402 KING MARVIN FRANKLIN& PEEL WILLIAM KING TRACEE SUE 11255 SW 78TH AVE 11255 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03600 is 136CB-02800 KNIGHT ROBERT W PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE 11290 SW 79TH 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-01900 1 S 136CB-09600 PFAFFLE HELEN N TR WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 8225 SW PFAFFLE 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03800 PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W 11250 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-01300 ROOT GORDON C 19935 SW CIPOLE RD SHERWOOD,OR 97140 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 136CB-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 1 S 136CA-01200 WILCOX HEATHER M 11280 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci CITY OF TIGARD 11285 SW 78th Avenue EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Tigard, OR 97223 is\curpin\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 Crag head 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW �Vay! TYPE II APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 /0 - 1 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: fill OF PRE-APP.: Property Address/Location(s): 11/72 0 /2/ 29/CPZ FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map & Tax Lot#(s): /5/ 317 Co T/l,/ / C/J Case No.(s): G''— /77 — CbG.2c/ Other Case No.(s): Site Size: /�tl'ge> /f'�/9r�Lr S2, 3/6 .S /- Receipt No.: - ✓/�I/ ' Application Accepted By: Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: /1/- 71.-/c/—'f t .50€6 / t Date: �° � l Address:�/1�2 it MG9//J,9f Phone: City: L/7K% 6D ©,2 Zip: 7o3, Date Determined To Be Complete: O /J C.O f w e,c i f f L-J- Applicant*: //€/$t//!1 c1 A) l.NC7//Lit-L jem/ej S 2 G Comp Plan/Zone Designation: Address: 7/j v $c4/ f/i9/!/'f/,e4/ Phone: Ste../J i/ -l%' City: fcA'%L/4Au/ d,/_' Zip: "722 CIT Area: * When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession Rev.11/26/98 hairpin\ma ters\sdra.doc with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS application. ✓ Application Elements Submitted: PROPOSAL SUMMARY ❑ Application Form [ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization The owners of record of the subject property request Site ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed Development Review approval to allow (please be specific): 7 ' __ El Site/Plot Plan 23 Q i� /DI777r G 2 L//96 ��'/" 1C L Ig t'1" /A/0 (#of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/2"x 11") ❑ Applicant's Statement (#of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Construction Cost Estimate ❑ USA Sewer Use Information Card (Distributed/completed at application submittal) ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes "▪ Filing Fee (Under$100,000) $ 800.00 ($100,0004999,999)....$1,600.00 ($1 Million&Over) $1,780.00 (+$51$10,000)._ 1 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, 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 , 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 OCT-07-1999 16 52 -)ISTENSEN ENG/DIKING P.01 . SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIE AWAY... TYPE II APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GEPIE RAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: II DATE OF PRE-APP.: Property Address/Location(s): 7P2 0 fa/F l9//ZJ is �, FOR STAFF lise_o LY Tax Nil.p &Tax Lot#(s): ii/3‘,-f,/) y4/ 1 PTf Case No.(s): `j /ol I y* Other Case No.(s): Site Size: ff 6/,722 19l zY 52,J/� ,s.r . F>epeipt No:: • A►pplica(lion.Accepted By:_ :: : ' "Pro per y OwnerfDead Holde r(s r: if ,12 �r JO&, .-Date: Addre4s 2 iie 19Qa//t./�� Phone: _ .::., City: :846' DJiJ 4 d D/' zip: 03,E Date Determined ToB Cdrtlille e . Appli:.nt : ('wets Tfi� S A) Al6 ill/E' ,n jiti ... .... . pE.-224 Comp Plan/Zone Designigirial;-:•s:.: .... ... Addre- : 7/Tv j c✓ 1//7.MP/D/tl Phone: S. )/ifd-144 City. °Q'- j d d l zip: f7z 3 CiT Area: the owner and the applicant are different people, the appli t must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession �" 11/26/88 I. q" @�°` with ' n authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The ner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back i if this form or submit a written authorization with this REQUIRED SilftMLITAr E EMENTS appliation. Application Elements Sub itted: PRORO SUMMARY ❑ Application Form ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization The rs of record of the subject property request Site ❑ Title Transfer Instrument Deed Deveipment Review approval to allow (please be specific): ❑ I� _ Site/Plot Plan _Zij i y0 (0,-,7,771;-,g Ufa 0�r'"ic " /'"€7 (Y}of copies based on pre app check list) i ■ ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/ x 11") , ❑ Applicant's Statement (#or copies based on pre-app check fist) El Construction Cost Estimate ❑ USA Sewer Use Information Card (Distributed/completed at applica-on submittal) ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/ re-Stamped I ! - _ Legal Size Envelopes ❑ Filing Fee (under 5100,000)_.., ...$ 800.00 (E100,0005986,999) ...$1,600.00 (3,Million a ov"r).......$1,180.00 (t ss l$10.000) a 1 OCT-07-1999 16 52 -'ISTENSEN ENG/VIKING P.02 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as pall of this application: AF'PUCANTB: Tol consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENT$ as d&Scribed 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.) *Eli APPLICANT(S)SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request doers not viols deed recta ions that may be attached to or Imr�osed upon the subtect rooerty1 • 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. I • 'The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and un.;rstands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this -2 T' day of a rof3cia. . 19_. -7-.)------- O+�ner's Sign Owner's Signature • • ' , s Signature Owner's Signature 2 • TOTAL P.02 JUN-11-2001 08 33 P.01 ?4'eláât S • , Tate. FAX DATE: (e! (1/0 I JO: TO: M A-TC ��� t 16-4∎C.IE�L FAX NUMBER (SD3) Cfl�S�-^ 7287 FROM 1C7-0 )ti2 C 5Te 5F- CJ RE: E4-1 (g0V-A4T� —9 9 - UOU NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: MESSAGES: t-j- W r s Cr-r--/I`1 R-1— Vu Kr X0-2 Ar i rc._ " S v P TAE_c-i— ,ti" 01- / 4nOL,l G r.-..4-T; fci? 8000;SW Waffle Street,Portland,Oregon 97223 Phone(503)598-1866 Fax(503)598-1868 TOTAL P.01 • CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL.DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS = 9/18/01 FILE NO.: SDR1999-00024 FILE TITLE: WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER APPLICANT: Christensen Engineering, Inc. APPLICANT REP.: Ed Christensen, P.E. 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Christensen Engineering, Inc. Portland, OR 97223 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 OWNER: Jill Christensen 293 SW Cervantes Lake Oswego, OR 97035 REQUEST: The applicant proposes to consolidate 3 different properties in order to develop a 23,940 square foot office building. Two of the properties are developed with single- family homes that will be removed in order to complete the proposed office building. LOCATION: 7920 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot, 0500, 01002 and 00401. ZONE: C-P; Professional Commercial. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, CRITERIA: 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. CIT AREA: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request L DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ® TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: MAY 25, 2001 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: JUNE 8, 2001 ❑HEARINGS OFFICER [MONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑PLANNING COMMISSION IMONJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL ETUESJ DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:30 PM ® STAFF DECISION [TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: JULY 6, 2001 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION ® VICINITY MAP ® LANDSCAPING PLAN ® ARBORIST REPORT ® SITE PLAN ❑ ARCHITECTURAL PLAN ® TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Z NARRATIVE ❑ GEOTECH REPORT ® OTHER: WATER CALCS. STAFF CONTACT: Mathew Scheidegger, Assistant Planner (503) 639-4171 Ext. 317 SDR1999-00024 WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER LAND USE PROPOSAL • PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN CHECKLIST Project: JV -41.1 Csg--OAT CC.,.ir � FOR Date: 12i I LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTALS '4-6—c-k-ker-kc.eD ot,i. (011Z-160 ❑ COMPLETE INCOMPLETE ' 4_1 ING WIPP Existing and proposed contours shown? — ?dR Are adjacent parcels impacted by proposed grading? ❑ Yes ❑No a Adjacent parcel grades shown? STREET ISSUES Right-of-way clearly shown? Centerline of street clearly shown? Name of street(s) shown? ©�Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown? [ji PK Profiles of proposed streets [jpc Future Streets Plan provided? (subdivisions and some partitions) ❑ profiles M ❑ topo shown on adjacent property?rip ❑ ' -- (a —r.t, u/ " 4;F1uAc- Traffic study required/submitted. — t sms " ►C-T Do proposed street grades comply with City standards? EY Check widths proposed on public streets [ A Are private streets proposed? ❑ under 6 lot minimum? ❑ commercial driveway entrance required. ❑ width appropriate? ❑Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES a- Existing/proposed lines? i '+ Stubs to adjacent parcels required? - WATER ISSUES Er Existing/proposed lines? Existing/proposed fire hydrants? C/?rJT ND STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES Existing/proposed lines? Iii�■� Preliminary sizing calculation of water quality provided? la Water quality facility shown on plan? [r does area provided match calculations for size requirement? Et R Stubs to adjacent properties required? Water quality and/or detention shown outsidc of any wetland buffer? i leng\bnanAmasters\public facility plan checklisL0oc _ __ _scene /qatle ups (cA a 0147. ` �� • DEC-27-1999 16 40 CHRISTENSEN ENG/VIKING P.01 HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, C;VIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS Oy"ii yo 6661 �ifr"/ C FAX 4' 04, DATE: 12/27/99 JO: 97-112.01 TO: Karen Fox FAX NUMBER: 684 7297 FROM: Mark Mead RE: VCC waiver NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 2 MESSAGE:Thanks Karen,sorry for the mix-up. , - r 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 Portland,Oregon 97223 Phone(503) 598-1866 Fax(503) 598.1868 DEC-27-1999 16:40 CHRISTENSEN ENG/VIKING P.02 HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLAN ERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS RECEIVED PLANNING K. en Fox DEC 2 7 1999 Ci , of Tigard CITY OF TIGARD 13 25 SW Hall Boulevard Ti - d, OR 97223 D: WAIVER OF 30-DAY COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND 120-DAY SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIREMENT OF VIKING CORPORATE CENTER D Karen: C 'stensen Engineering and Viking Construction know that development projects are co. plex. It is in the best interest of all stakeholders to take the necessary time to produce a b-tter product. To allow the City of Tigard and all other relevant agencies to conduct a mo e comprehensive and detailed analysis of this project, Christensen Engineering and Vi ing Construction hereby, waive their rights of the required 30-day completeness re ew and the 120-day site development review for preliminary approval. Si cerely, ditgrema', M k R. Mead Pr."ect Planner 7150 3 W Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Pofllund,OR 97223 •Phone:(503)598-1866 -Fax:(503)59R-1868 email:cciCecybemw.com TOTAL P.02 December 28, 1999 Alela 3 - /f ihI1/ t 51 e.ff venhy CITY OF TIGARD t.4,1 A ��d`7 h42 OREGON Ed Christensen firees - '`!6n p......4 4, ikpu- .ed ;.. Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton Portland, Oregon 97223 RE: Viking Corporate Center SDR 1999-00024 Incompleteness letter ______.--"P flt ui,r1r�r S 9 no e(c,,.5,e 7i, r-x./j Dear Mr. Christensen: /�- . 5/A.tAt•�`7 The City of Tigard-is in receipt of your waiver of the 30 day completeness review and the waiver for the 120 day rule for development review for the Viking Corporate Center at 7920 and 8000 Pfaffle Road. After a preliminary review of the application submittal items, Staff has determined that the following information or items are necessary before tapplication can be deemed complete and scheduled for review: Abed ,b/---) Submit the final Traffic Impact Study report. Only a draft was submitted. I(Jeec 2) Provide proposed contours for the site. Only existing contours are shown on the '-, plans submitted. , 4~ - /ice 1,1491 by ckce, t/,.' 'S r 3) e Provide a complete Tree Presery ation/Mitigation Plan by a certified arborist in � ��'accordance with Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.790. The l � lft'arborist must certify the actual tree mitigation plan showing location of trees prepared by Christensen Engineering. Provide a protection program defining i-4 rj standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees before, «, sit, ix. during and after construction. Revise arborist report'to indicate difference it..P • between its description of tree in po condition'', and a hazardous tree as c, n P,e-defined in CDC Chapter 18.790 for purposes of determining mitigation required. Note that trees over 12 inches in caliper proposed for removal, except currently hazardous trees (by reason of disease, infestation, age or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property), shall be included in the count for determining the total mitigation • required. N= #'�"c 4) Provide evidence of notification of the proposed project to all property owners 5vinyl,, within 500 feet of the subject property and conduct a new Neighborhood Meeting according to the guidelines provided in the enclosed packet prepared by the City of Tigard Planning Division. Please indicate in your notification to surrounding property owners that this is a new proposal. ./5 )5 On a vicinity or site plan, provide the locations of the buildings on adjacent properties. Provide the distance between the Big 5 Sporting Good Building to the immediate east of the proposed building. Page 1 of 2 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 - 6) Address all relevant Sections of the Site Pe opm9f t Review Standards under Chapter 18.360 including Criteria #2, 9, and 10 in narrative form. It is particularly important to carefully and completely address Criteria #2 Relationship to the natural and physical environment. , 1 7) Confirm whether or not there are any existing easements on the subject parcels 6vYI4" -1 in this application and any easements on adjacent parcels that may be affected / by the proposed development. Show any easements on the site plan. Tie/ .... J Revise the parking plan with the correct minimum stall depth space which is 18.5 feet not 18 feet as shown on the plans. Show location of proposed truck loadin ( % t p�r sh�rc�Y spaces and loading area. Provide length of longest loading truck anticipated do !' site. 7 ( 9, The subject proposal will require a legal lot consolidation. Please revise your narrative and plans accordingly. . V10) Show size of trash enclosure on the site plan. - 11 Provide proposed lighting plan. G0164 e (Pot (6�' '11156ri ,�.4-4[ r 12) In landscape narrative, indicate how plant selections were derived for soil o conditions, plans for soil treatment such as stockpiling of the topsoil and erosion control measures that will be used. . 13) Show bicycle rack locations on the site plan. ` 14) Indicate location of any above ground utility lines on plans. CProvide floor plans drawn to scale for the building, indicating square footage. 16) Provide reference and size classification data for determination of size of proposed street trees in accordance with 18.745.040, Size and Spacing of Street rt,oiti'r Trees. Note that with a frontage of 237 feet, a minimum of 8 medium size trees 1- -- spaced no greater than 30 feet apart is required. Pled 17 Provide current ownership records, and owner signature on land use application. � � tr*,"�^t 8)2 Please contact Patty Lunsford in the Planning Division at 503-639-4171 ext. 320 ffl to obtain a current property owner notification list and mailing label sheets for the notification process. Our office is currently charging $11 plus $2 per sheet (x2) for the list and labels; and Ms. Lunsford will determine the total fee required. Upon payment of the fee and receipt of the list and labels, please provide 2 sets of . addressed and stamped envelopes (do not provide dated postmarked envelopes) along with your revised land use application. Once the information listed above has been submitted, staff can deem the application complete and schedule it for review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x 315. Yours truly, a 6X K ren Fox Associate Planner c: SDR1999-00024 file I:curpin\karen\sdr\sdr99-24inc-doc SDR1999-00024 Incomplete Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED H RI STEN S EN NGINEERING, INC. FEB 9 2000 PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL TO: DATE 02/09/00 I JOB NO. 97-112.01 City of Tigard ATTENTION Karen Fox RE: Viking Corporate Center WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING BY: Mail x Messenger Other Item No. Description I I Final Draft of the Traffic Impact Analysis AS INDICATED BELOW: x For approval x For your use _ As requested _ For review and comment REMARKS: Karen:If you require additional copies,inform me of the quantity and I will supply them within one day. CC: FILE SIGNED: BY: Mark Mead 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 Portland,Oregon 97223 Phone(503)598-1866 Fax(503)598-1868 cERISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS February 24, 2000 CEI Job# 97-112.01 RE: VIKING CORPORATE CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Dear Property Owner, We are writing this letter to inform you of a neighborhood meeting regarding the property located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 78th Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. As you may know, this commercial office has been previously approved for the parcel of land directly to the west of this subject parcel. We are proposing to change the appearance and location of the office building. This letter is to solicit your response regarding this new plan at a neighborhood meeting. All property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel have received this same notice. We have held a pre-application conference with the City of Tigard regarding this change and have applied for a Site Development Review regarding these changes. We would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with members of the Community Involvement Teams and surrounding property owners and residents. Therefore, you are cordially invited to attend a meeting on: Monday, March 6th,2000 Christensen Engineering Conference Room 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 7:00 p.m We look forward to seeing you at the meeting and hearing your ideas regarding the proposed project. Sincerely, ,= CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Mark R. Mead Project Planner 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,OR 97223 •Phone:(503)598-1866 •Fax:(503)598-1868 • e-mail:cei@cybernw.com I/ewJN!i I �1�J+ SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE Facsimile To: sf Company: 2 y /rc Phone: � 3 - J Fax: X03 - c-% - /F6,/,From: Company: City cif Tigard Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 Date: is/a6/DJ Pages including this page: 7 l COMMENTS: / 2 : 62,x-7<e-C-} D City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** June 13, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering OREGON 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 RE: Viking Corporate Center SDR 1999-00024 Incompleteness letter Dear Mr. Christensen: The City of Tigard is in receipt of your application re-submitted on May 24, 2000. After a preliminary review of the application submittal items, Staff has determined that this application is still incomplete. The following items from the December 28, 1999 Incompleteness Letter were not submitted or the information submitted was insufficient to be deemed complete, therefore, these items are necessary to consider your application complete: Items #1,2,3,4,7,9,12,16, 17, and 18 (from December 28, 1999 Incompleteness letter). On item #3, the arborist must verify which trees are truly hazardous (not just poor condition) according to the Tigard Community Development Code definitions for hazardous tree in Section 18.790.020. The definition of "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. Please provide a letter from the arborist to this effect identifying which trees are hazardous according to TDC definition. Your May 24, 2000 submittal also did not include preliminary sizing calculation of the water quality facility. Please submit. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x 315. Yours truly, ren Fox Associate Planner C: Land Use Casefile No. SDR1999-00024 I:curpin\karen\sdr\sdr99-24inc2.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 SUMMARY OF ITEMS FOR COMPLETENESS REVIEW OF VIKING CORPORATE CENTER SDR 99-00024 1) Per city staff correspondence, two (2) final Traffic Impact Studies are submitted to the City of Tigard as part of this application submittal. 2) Preliminary contours are provided on the revised `Grading and Erosion Control Plan'. 3) A complete Tree Preservation and Mitigation Plan by a certified Arborist is contained in this package. Existing tree preservation measures are contained in the application narrative. 4) A new neighborhood meeting was conducted on March 2"1, 2000. The relevant mailing and attendance forms are contained in this package. 5) The locations of buildings on adjacent properties are shown on the vicinity map contained in this package. 6) See additional sections contained in the application narrative. 7) According to the previously submitted title information and according to a surface research effort, there are no existing easements on the subject property. The correct property lines are shown on the accompanying"Existing Conditions"plan. 8) The parking stall depth is shown on the site plan as 18.5 feet. See page 10 of the application narrative for further information. 9) The accompanying revised narrative identifies the lot consolidation on page 2. 10) The refuse area is shown on the site plan in detail therein. 11) The lighting is shown in sufficient detail on the previously submitted site plan. 12) The plants selected for this project are similar or an exact copy of plant species previously planted within the City of Tigard. An oversized hole will be dug for the ball & bulap plants, and will be filled back in with a nursery-specified amendment. Many of the plants on-site will be reused. The proposed plants chosen for this site are appropriate for the regional soil and climate. Specific plants have been chosen for aesthetic and screening applications from those plants thriving in this environment and soil type. Therefore, the proposed plants and trees are appropriate for the region and are appropriate for the project. The native soil will also be stockpiled for backfill in the landscape areas regraded for this project. 13) Bicycle racks are now shown on the site plan and are discussed in further detail in the narrative on page 7. 14) No on-site above ground utility lines are proposed as part of this development. There are existing overhead power lines along SW Pfaff le as shown on the revised site plan in this package. 15) The building will be subject to tenant improvements. A floor plan showing bathroom and public areas is contained in this application. 16) The accompanying landscape plan identifies 7 newly-planted street trees and the retention of 1 existing tree. 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. (see page 9 of application narrative) 17) The new land owner signature is on the submitted land use application in this package. 18) A copy of the mailed property owner list is contained in this package. 04/04/00 CEI JOB#97-112.01 Page I of 1 COMPLETENESS ITEM RESPONSE VIKING CORPORATE CENTER March 1, 2001 JO: 97-112.01 Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 99-00024 VIKING CORPORATE CENTER I, Jill Christensen, do hereby consent to Christensen Engineering, Inc. acting for me as the applicant for this Site Development at 8000 Pfaff le Street, in Tigard. Sincerely, . / ILA l∎ /.I/,At Jill 'stensen March 1, 2001 JO: 97-112.01 Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 99-00024 VIKING CORPORATE CENTER I, Jill Christensen, do hereby consent to Welkin Engineering, Inc. acting for me as the applicant for this Site Development at 7920 and 8000 Pfaff le Street, in Tigard. Sincerely, Ji ; 'stensen HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS,CIVIL ENGINEERS,AND SURVEYORS March 1, 2001 JO: 97-112.01 RECEIVED �``/Y\ I • Matt Scheidegger MA R i ?.[I City of Tigard COMMUNITY DEVELO 471,_ 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 99-00024 VIKING CORPORATE CENTER Enclosed are the responses to the completeness items posed to us by Karen Fox, who is no longer working with the city. In speaking with Dick Bewersdorf,he mentioned you would be the planner of record for the remainder of our application. He also stated that we would need to submit 5 copies of the additional review materials. Therefore,the additional materials resubmitted for your review per Karen's June 13, 2000 letter that have not been responded to are: 1. Response summary; 2. Traffic Report(2 copies); 3. Site contour map; 4. Arborist's statement about Hazardous Trees; 5. SDR Narrative; & 6. Current Ownership. The application narrative contains all of the response information and more. If you should have any questions as to where the information is in this narrative, please call me at 598-1866. Sincerely, Ed Christensen, P.E. Principal Attachments 8000 SW Pfaffle Street • Portland,OR 97223 • Phone:(503)598-1866 • Fax:(503)598-1868 • e-mail:cei @cnnw.net March 16, 2001 4414'11\ Ed Christensen -' -°'i Christensen Engineering CITY OF TIGARD 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 OREGON RE: Viking Corporate Center SDR 1999-00024: Completeness Review Dear Mr. Christensen: The City of Tigard is in receipt of your application materials submitted on March 1, 2001 in response to the completeness letter sent on May 24, 2000. After a preliminary review of the application submittal items, Staff has determined that this application is still missing a few key items. The following items were not submitted, or the submitted information was insufficient to be deemed complete. Condition#4: Please provide evidence of notification of the proposed project to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Please submit the relative mailing and attendance forms for the neighborhood meeting you conducted on March 2"d, 2000. This information was not found in your latest submission. Condition#18: Upon receipt of the current property owner notification list and mailing label sheets for the notification process, please provide 2 sets of addressed and stamped envelopes. These were not found in your latest submission. Please contact Patty Lunsford, Current Planning Secretary, in order to set up a time to replace and/or update old plans. Also, please resubmit 20 copies of the updated plans for comment. Once the information listed above has been submitted, staff can deem the application complete and schedule it for review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please feel free to contact me at(503) 639-4171 ext. 317. The engineering department also did a completeness review of your application. Please refer to the attached Public Facility Checklist for information and comments about what is still needed. Pay special attention to the needed items marked with yellow. If you have any questions about this checklist, please feel free to contact Brian Rager at (503) 639-4171 ext. 318. Sincerely, Matthew Scheidegger Assistant Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN CH. :LIST Proje vl14- - ( N-A1 2.3 FOR Date: LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTALS III I COMPLETE H INCOMPLETE GRADING ❑ Existing and proposed contours shown. by{Y for +° I I Are adjacent parcels impacted by proposed grading? ❑ Yes ❑ No -- -�- ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. STREET ISSUES Er Right-of-way clearly shown? [' Centerline of street clearly shown? Er Name of street(s) shown? Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown? 0\P Profiles of proposed streets Future Streets Plan provided? (subdivisions and some partitions) I I profiles ❑ topo shown on adjacent property? ❑ Traffic study required/submitted? —S-1-`)DA i5 W pMv n Do proposed street grades comply with City standards? ; Widths of proposed public streets shown? -- u�r-,'o-eP. ❑ Widths of streets appropriate? 11-1* Are private streets proposed?;.. ❑ under 6 lot minimum? ❑ width appropriate? ❑Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required? WATER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? I I Existing/proposed fire hydrants? Proposed meter location and size shown? (� Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES n Existing/proposed lines? [� Preliminary sizing calculation of water quality and/or detention provided? I—I Water quality and/or detention facility shown on plan? U does area provided match calculations for size requirement? �I Stubs to adjacent properties required? I ] Water quality and/or detention shown outside of any wetland buffer? \eng\bnanr\masters\public facility plan checklist.doc REVISED: 03/13/01 April 6, 2001 Ed Christensen ''�i I Christensen Engineering CITY OF TIGARD 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 OREGON RE: Viking Corporate Center SDR 1999-00024: Completeness Review Dear Mr. Christensen: The City of Tigard is in receipt of your application materials submitted on April 3, 2001 in response to the completeness letter sent on March 16, 2001. After a preliminary review of the application submittal items, the planning staff has all materials necessary to proceed with the application process. Unfortunately, the engineering department also did a completeness review of your application. Please refer to the attached Public Facility Checklist for information and comments about what is still needed. Pay special attention to the needed items marked with yellow. If you have any questions about this checklist, please feel free to contact Brian Rager at (503) 639-4171 ext. 318. Sincerely, 7i2° its C' Matthew Scheidegg Assistant Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 1-> 1 `-,-co C-- PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN CHECKLIST Project: vt - C c� FOR Date: t 2S G( LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTALS ❑ COMPLETE INCOMPLETE 4-\0\o1 Existing and proposed contours shown. - -£lrff Er:__ Are adjacent parcels impacted by proposed grading? ❑ Yes to - -"r 10 Adjacent parcel grades shown. STREET ISSUES R Right-of-way clearly shown? -- nT Er-�-,� Centerline of street clearly shown? LK Name of street(s) shown? Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown? j2 P Profiles of proposed streets cAp. Future Streets Plan provided? (subdivisions and some partitions) ❑ profiles ❑ topo shown on adjacent property? ❑ Traffic study required/submitted? --Stva`( IS Wes( o.1r. Onto 2�,-/ Do proposed street grades comply with City standards— ?1 L Widths of proposed public streets shown? . UK Widths of streets appropriate? jr' Are private streets proposed?� ❑ under 6 lot minimum? ❑ width appropriate? ❑Other: NITARY SEWER ISSUES Existing/proposed lines shown? N� uE - W�T 1 S SMSi►J(9 —V - P� ,,( Stubs to adjacent parcels required? ,c.Q.Cta 1,4 <.W 1`1-4" Ave. . rER ISSUES Existing/proposed lines w/sizes noted? [V-Proposed� Existing/proposed fire hydrants? meter location and size shown? roposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES 7 Existing/proposed lines? t4�r{tl.14 Siiow It.) Sw PF�-t. SI. -- " wu, T+ Cie T ❑ Preliminary sizing calculation of water quality and/or detention provided? Water quality and/or detention facility shown on plan? I ❑ does area provided match calculations for size requirement? - e"e"-.4 -C w- o-'r. -x-- ❑^/ Stubs to adjacent properties required? L� Water quality and/or detention shown outside of any wetland buffer? i.englbnar imastersfpubhc facility plan checklist doc REVISED: 03/13/01 HRISTENSEN RF�FIV�n NGINEERING, INC. MAR F' -lin PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS TRANSMITTAL viten' 1 llA l E JOI3 NO. TO: ( March 30,2001 I 97-112.01 City of Tigard ATTENTION Matt Scheidegger 13125 SW Hall Blvd. RE: Viking Corp Center Tigard,OR 97223 I WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING BY: Mail Messenger X Other Hand Deliver Item No.of Copies 1)escriptien 1. 20 plan sets 2. 2 sets stamped envelopes and mailing labels 3. 1 New address info. for 500'radius 4. 1 Old address info.&neighborhood meeting sing-up sht. I AS INDICATED BELOW: For approval X For your use _ As requested _ For review and comment REMARKS: Matt: Here is the additional information you requested for the March 6,2000 neighborhood meeting and plan sets. Please call if anything is missing. c CC: FILE SIGNED: c:. BY: Edward K.Christensen,P.E. 8000 S.W.Pfaffle Street,Portland,Oregon 97223Phone(503)598-1866Fax(503)598-1868 i March 16, 2001 G,,, ;;ii 'Il1j\ Ed Christensen •--- Christensen Engineering CITY OF TIGARD 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 OREGON RE: Viking Corporate Center SDR 1999-00024: Completeness Review Dear Mr. Christensen: The City of Tigard is in receipt of your application materials submitted on March 1, 2001 in response to the completeness letter sent on May 24, 2000. After a preliminary review of the application submittal items, Staff has determined that this application is still missing a few key items. The following items were not submitted, or the submitted information was insufficient to be deemed complete. 0, /Condition#4: Please provide evidence of notification of the proposed project to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Please submit the relative mailing and attendance forms for the neighborhood meeting you conducted on March 2"a, 2000. This information was ,,,, not found in your latest submission. aJCondition#18: Upon receipt of the current property owner notification list and mailing label sheets for the notification process,please provide 2 sets of addressed and stam a envelopes. These were not found in your latest submission. g Please contact Patty Lunsford, Current Planning Secretary, in order to set up a time to replace and/or update old plans. Also, please resubmit 2�0 c_opiiess of the updated plans for comment. .— Once the information listed above has been submitted, staff can deem the application complete and schedule it for review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project,please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 317. The engineering department also did a completeness review of your application. Please refer to the attached Public Facility Checklist for information and comments about what is still needed. Pay special attention to the needed items marked with yellow. If you have any questions about this checklist, please feel free to contact Brian Rager at (503) 639-4171 ext. 318. Sincerely, AO,/ , At Matthew Scheidegger Assistant Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN G.__CKLIST Proj. ct: Vv- L1 C -iv-re c-r. FOR Date: z3 of LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTALS ❑ COMPLETE INCOMPLETE GRADING ✓ LJ Existing and proposed contours shown. — bycY4-16, r sk-k. ❑ Are adjacent parcels impacted by proposed grading? Li Yes ❑ No — r --17 '-- ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. STREET ISSUES Fr- Right-of-way clearly shown? -- Nsf `--e-7 Er Centerline of street clearly shown? Name of street(s) shown? Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown? E113\?' Profiles of proposed streets Future Streets Plan provided? (subdivisions and some partitions) ❑ profiles ❑ topo shown on adjacent property? ❑ Traffic study required/submitted? --5�0°--{ 'S '4/4 °Jr DPr(c -- Do proposed street grades comply with City standards? ❑ Widths of proposed public streets shown? — N T L-Affo--eP. I I Widths of streets appropriate? Are private streets proposed?Nz • under 6 lot minimum? ❑ width appropriate? 'Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required? WATER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? ❑ Existing/proposed fire hydrants? ❑ Proposed meter location and size shown? ❑ Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines? ❑ Preliminary sizing calculation of water quality and/or detention provided? ❑ Water quality and/or detention facility shown on plan? I I does area provided match calculations for size requirement? ❑ Stubs to adjacent properties required? [J Water quality and/or detention shown outside of any wetland buffer? i.lenglbrianrlmasters\public facility plan checklist doc REVISED: 03/13/01 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS City of Tigard ) I, (�Lei f-e vcse,\ , being duly sworn, depose and say that on 2/L4 4! o v , I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed±23,940 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 TL500,401, 1002), 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 United States Post Office box located at 7150 SW Hampton Street, Tigard, Oregon, with postage prepaid thereon. Signature Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me this day of /)/1- -ok- n . OFFICIAL SEAL (e,�w JULIE DETHLEPS b'-a/ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON , :� t COMMISSION N0.311302 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR 5,2002 otary ' blic My .mmission expires: Pre-App.No.: /9/S — xDOZ"/ HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS February 24, 2000 CEI Job # 97-112.01 RE: VIKING CORPORATE CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Dear Property Owner, We are writing this letter to inform you of a neighborhood meeting regarding the property located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 78th Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. As you may know, this commercial office has been previously approved for the parcel of land directly to the west of this subject parcel. We are proposing to change the appearance and location of the office building. This letter is to solicit your response regarding this new plan at a neighborhood meeting. All property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel have received this same notice. We have held a pre-application conference with the City of Tigard regarding this change and have applied for a Site Development Review regarding these changes. We would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with members of the Community Involvement Teams and surrounding property owners and residents. Therefore, you are cordially invited to attend a meeting on: Monday, March 6th,2000 Christensen Engineering Conference Room 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 7:00 p.m We look forward to seeing you at the meeting and hearing your ideas regarding the proposed project. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Mark R. Mead Project Planner 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,OR 97223 •Phone:(503)598-1866 •Fax:(503)598-1868 • e-mail:cei @cybernw.com N�A-4' (j, 20 c e� HRISTENSEN NGI N EERI NG, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS We the undersigned interested parties attended the neighborhood meeting %�ss�.:�� `:3 :.,:� '�:-. ��: . _• _ . . 6 i ng a i• • - enter Name Address Phone Number 9_2i • ter. .7l" 6 y-�y:� y(aa_o_ zeci.3 ciirivnk r v4-A7 768-2(-{a7 CA oasu gpc- Ila 5o sw Z"- t lM Co yo 1 I Z Lc1 Su.) 7d-14- Ke <B4r(« J I ,2. d 3 s Q is t '4 '-c 62 `f Y x'29 112.2 s•w• 8I s A of . Za.c./ - 413'3/ J N 1 S L- 7Jaq ucs //01 16 Sc,U g wo A-WE 639- 5& 4 DD-y, 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,OR 97223 •Phone:(503)598-1866 •Fax:(503)598-1868 email:cei @cybernw.com km I O &+ ) „Jr_ HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS We the undersigned interested parties attended the neighborhood meeting 6 to : rfer ti p egarding the plan of Viking Corporate Center Name Address Phone Number 1-11 SA P 4S y ,, /1/f_Z1 1 7/ 2 S GtJ A/ --e-/5/3 kio/97, ze) 7-rx E>ey yz)r--/2 ciess-- y 546. 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,OR 97223 •Phone:(503)598-1866 •Fax:(503)598-1868 email:cei @cybemw.com M kru-tr C.0 245vo 7 1 S 136CA-01000 1 S 136CA-01100 06? COX TIMOTHY J II DELANCE JOHN M 1220 SW 78TH ST 11250 SW 78TH AVE `� ( t'IGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 i�d/(j V 1S136CA-01200 1S136CA-01300 WILCOX HEATHER M ROOT GORDON C 11280 SW 78TH AVE 19935 SW CIPOLE RD TIGARD,OR 97223 SHERWOOD,OR 97140 1 S 136CA-01400 1 S 136CA-01500 LEE BEN H LAURA M HAWTHORNE VILLA LTD PARTNERSHIP 7745 SW PFAFFLE RD 1655 N FORT MYER DR 13TH FL TIGARD, OR 97223 ARLINGTON,VA 22209 1S136CA-03000 f 1S136CA-03100 1`' DENNY DOUGLAS D CURNES MELINDA L& 11185 SW 79TH AVE 11215 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 3 136CA-03200 1 S 136CA-03300 BRANCH LUTHER 0 AND LOOS HELEN A 11255 SW 79TH AVE 7935 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CA-03301 1 S 136CA-03500 LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA ROBINSON THOMAS V&SUSAN E 11305 SW 79TH AVE 1527 LAKEFRONT RD TIGARD, OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 1S136CA-03600 1S136CA-03700 KNIGHT ROBERT W CRAUGHAN MICHAEL J&MARCHETA R 11290 SW 79TH 11260 SW 79TH AVE X TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-03800 1S136CA-03900 PIDGEON KAREN G&JOHN W ROWLES EVERETT R 11250 SW 79TH AVE 11200 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-05201 1S136CA-05300 JONES BERTRAM M &LORI J LOWERY THOMAS &KATHLEEN 11185 SW 78TH 11225 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CA-05400 1S136CA-05401 FISHER JOHN S SR& RENEE M GALLUCCI NAOMI ALVIA TR 10940 SW 95TH 11285 SW 78TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 15136CA-05402 1 S136CB-01900 IC) PEEL WILLIAM PFAFFLE HELEN N TR '1255 SW 78TH AVE 8225 SW PFAFFLE ,1GARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-02000 1S136CB-02100 RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC& RORMAN JAMES M&SUSAN M 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136C8-02200 1 S 136CB-02300 HADDIX BRYAN S SCHOENEMAN THOMAS J AND 11220 SW 82ND AVE 11190 SW 82ND TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-02800 1S136CB-06600 PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE WEBB NORMAN A 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST 11315 SW 81ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-06700 1S136C8-06800 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L& DEBRA K BARKER KENNETH W 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11263 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-06900 1S136C8-07000 DEARMOND JULIA TOLLIVER BRADLEY D 11235 SW 81ST AVE 11207 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-07100 1S136CB-09100 PALAZZO RANDALL A HAMILTON BETTY I 33 MORNINGVIEW CIR 11162 SW 81ST AVE LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-09200 1S136CB-09300 HARTE MELVYN C AND DORIS J SPIERING COLLEEN A 11190 SW 81ST 17815 NE COURTNEY RD TIGARD,OR 97223 NEWBERG,OR 97132 1 S 136CB-09400 1 S136CB-09500 CHONGWAY FRANK U&CHRISTINE S INGLE TIMOTHY MARK 11242 SW 81ST 11268 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S136CB-09600 1S136CC-00100 WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON BARASCH STEPHEN 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE 485 W MILWAUKEE AVE RM 904 TIGARD,OR 97223 DETROIT,MI 48202 1S136CD-00100 1S136CD-00102 PACIFIC CROSSROADS PROPERTIES I MCGRATH STANLEY R ET AL '0 SW MARKET ST STE 345 834 SW ST CLAIR JRTLAND,OR 97201 PORTLAND,OR 97205 1 S 136CD-00401 1 S 136CD-00500 PFAFFLE ROAD PARTNERS SORG N JEFFREY ET AL 13612 SW 130TH PL 24 AQUINAS TIGARD,OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 1 S136CD-00600 1S136CD-01000 FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE MONAGHAN FARMS INC PO BOX 23562 14120 EAST EVANS AVE PORTLAND, OR 97281 AURORA,CO 80014 1S136CD-01001 1S136CD-01002 CHEVRON U S A INC PFAFFLE ROAD PARTNERS PO BOX 285 13612 SW 130TH PL HOUSTON,TX 77001 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CD-01800 1 S 136CD-01900 BRETTLER REAL ESTATE INC BRETTLER REAL ESTATE INC 307 BROAD ST 307 BROAD ST SEATTLE,WA 98121 SEATTLE,WA 98121 1S 136CD-02200 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 999 LAKE DR ISSAQUAH,WA 98027 2Ueel uz Ea9igeet449, Tic, 7150 SW Pfaff le Street • Portland, OR 97223 May 17, 2001 JO: 97-112.01 Matt Scheidegger City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 99-00024 VIKING CORPORATE CENTER Dear Matt: As you can see, Christensen Engineering, Inc. consolidated and has change its name to Welkin Engineering, Inc. In addition, enclosed are the FINAL responses to the completeness items posed to us: 1. Storm Water Detention and Quality Calculations; 2. May 2001 -Traffic Report(1 copy); 3. Off-site sewer location(no extension required per 5/15/01 preapp.for adjoining parcel);and 4. New consent form for Welkin Engineering, Inc. If you should have any questions as to where the information is in this narrative, please call me at 598-1866. Sincerely, WELKIN ENGINEERING, INC. 7;( Ed Christensen, P.E. Principal Attachments P:\CLIENT FILES(by job#)\1997\97-112.01 Welkin\Planning file\Correspondence File\FINAL APP COMMENTS.wpd 8000 S.W. PFAFFLE STREET • PORTLAND, OR 97223 PHONE: (503) 598-1866 • FAX: (503) 598-1866 • Email: cei @cnnw.net June 13, 2000 Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 RE: Viking Corporate Center SDR 1999-00024 Incompleteness letter Dear Mr. Christensen: The City of Tigard is in receipt of your application re-submitted on May 24, 2000. After a preliminary review of the application submittal items, Staff has determined that this application is still incomplete. The following items from the December 28, 1999 Incompleteness Letter were not submitted or the information submitted was insufficient to be deemed complete, therefore, these items are necessary to consider your application complete:d ` mm '*— Items #1„Y0,4\, ,1sand 18 (from December 28, 1999 Incompleteness letter). c tack On item #3, the arborist must verify which trees are truly hazardous (not just poor condition) according to the Tigard Community Development Code definitions for hazardous tree in Section 18.790.020. The definition of "Hazardous tree" means a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. Please provide a letter from the arborist to this effect identifying which trees are hazardous according to TDC definition. Your May 24, 2000 submittal also did not include preliminary sizing calculation of the water quality facility. Please submit. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x 315. Yours truly, Karen Fox Associate Planner C: Land Use Casefile No. SDR1999-00024 I:curpin\karen\sdr\sdr99-24inc2.doc A CITY OF TIGARD May 22, 2001 OREGON Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 Portland, OR 97223 RE: Notice of Complete Application Submittal — SDR1999-00024 Dear Mr. Christensen: 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 503-639-4171, 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 I can call you as soon as possible. Sincere) 7/ / M the', c idegger Assistant Planner :\curpl n\mathew\sdr\S DR 1999-00024.acc.doc.dot c: SDR1999-00024 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 El . Q Q . CI Lii. . Z �� CO CNI H _ N- I, I- C7 MI (__ __,,__N4" _____ 1S136C000401 15136C000500 1S136C0 1002 G)\, \C' C- ��� Q�`Gir, 1 \ i \ -------"I • o i 1 Community Development 4 SOR 1191- aao,2 y STATE OREGON r SS RECORDING REQUE STED BY County of Washington Fidelity National -nth Company of Oregon ; I, .:.(Dint r of Assess- ment and i axatrfin.a'n& Offil io County Clerk for .d county, doll:- rtify that GRANTOR'S NAME: Clerk with'r•' >Frurnent of writi 9 eceived � Christensen EnginF E ring, Inc. and r- ed In book of A:01,-% J f said county(� ,„ t_w GRANTEE'S NAME °I`', . ' � '"t'• r /Jill K. Christensen �• ." irector of SEND TAX STATEMENT S To: �raxation,Ex- Jill K. Christensen rf�ir - 'clerk 293 SW Cervante:; Doc : 2000063505 Lake Oswego, OR '17035 Rect: 260529 27. 00 0B/08/2000 03: 19: 29pm AFTER RECORDING RE IT JRN TO: Jill K. Christensen 293 SW Cervante , Lake Oswego, OR 17035 - •• • :•Y • [ 1 •• •-• • STATUTORY BARGAIN and SALE DEED Christensen Engineer ng, Inc., Grantor, conveys to Jill K. Christensen, Grantee, the following described real property, 3 situated in the Count r of Washington, State of Oregon, r 5 SEE EXHIBIT ONE /'-TACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF r THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACOUIRIF C FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTF TENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FORE: T PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. THE TRUE ,a'JD ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS $0.00 (See ORS 93.030) DATED: August 4, ?000 Christensen Eng'neering n By: . /TS /"esge(c_nr STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF t+�_Jc ( ��\c - l * FFiacE%SEAL v. �'�'►+ USA FREp1ry8URG NOTgRy pUE3LIC•OREGON , OMMISSION NO 329542 This i. trument was acknowledged before me on /J��COMMISSIONMMIS SIGN NUARY21 20 by c. Q a.0 as (' Ft\c.)1.-Q> .nC NOTARY(PUBLI OR;;'3EGON L f MY COM ON EXP F.S: ��� ( CJ 7 FORD-309 (Rev 2/96) STATUTORY BARGAIN AND SALE DEED / Escrow No. 1 2-12964E-L F -28 Title Order No. 0012964.E EXHIBIT ONE 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 Willi mette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follow:3: Beginning at a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap marked "W.B. Wells" at the Southwest corner of that tract of land described as PE:ri:el 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 described Parcel II, a distance of 323.06 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic ci p marked "G & L PLS 1989"; thence South 89°29'57" East leaving said West line, 316.24 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap marked "G & L PLS 1989"; thence North 00°22'56" West 27.00 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap marked "G & L PLS 1989", said iron rod being the true point of beginning; thence continuing North 00°22'56" West, 12.46 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989"; thence outh 89°29'57" East 8.03 feet to a point; thence North 00°22'56" West 175.00 feet to a point in the South right-o'-Nay line of SW Pfaffle Street, said point being 25.00 feet from the center line of said SW Pfaffle Street when measured at right angles to said center line; thence South 89°29'57" East, along said South right-of-way line, 100.00 feet to ii point; thence South 0°22'56" East 5.00 feet to a point being 30.00 feet from the center line of said SW Pfaffle Street when measured at right angles to said center line; thence South 89°29'57" East 22.00 feet to a point; thence S )uth 0°22'56" East 182.46 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989"; thence North 89°29'57" West, 130.03 feet to the true point of beginning. a T STATL OREGON 1 RECORDING REQUE:�TED BY � County of Washington SS Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon I, Jerry ,F �kel "r if r of Assess - Fidelity and/rax�ation and -; CC�fifI io County Clerk for`said courity do, ►eTeby6ertify that GRANTOR'S NAME the within instrument of writing was received 1 Christensen Enginerr ing, Inc. and recorded Icy.book pf -records,'pf said county U' � 4 . GRANTEE'S NAME r. r �\ Jill K. Christensen i`r; 1,',. *k�Q , F fi t. (rector of , SEND TAX STATEMENT TO: � Ssessme0.;4-'axation, Ex- V Jill K. Christensen OCo'Ai-Clerk 293 SW Cervantes Doc, : 2000063509 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Rect: 260529 27.00 08/08/2000 03: 19: 29pm AFTER RECORDING RE-1 RN TO Jill K. Christensen 293 SW Cervantes Lake Oswego, OR .E 7035 :•'I • 1 •' • ••• ' U STATUTORY BARGAIN and SALE DEED Christensen Engineeri ig, Inc., Grantor, conveys to Jill K. Christensen, Grantee, the following described real property, situated in the Count' of Washington, State of Oregon, SEE EXHIBIT ONE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF C6 THIS INSTRUMENT PfILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND IISE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE °=PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST 03 FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. v; THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS $0.00 (See ORS 93.030) C-- 1 a DATED: August 4, : 000 Christensen Engineering I by: ___ _ 7 ./"4- -7– : /�S;IC-,,--/-- 6"�1T�—'1 `'7I7x1177--"�"s4'1) e'°;�� OFFICIAL SEAL O (j _ LISA FREDINBURG O 0 NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON 1 1 COMMISSION NO 329542 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 21 2004 1 STATE OF OREGOIJ COUNTY OF 'OA-)-a7\tl%+'1 S O This instrument was acknowledged before me on c \c-mod _ 1`A , Kit- _, by i �� . C_ ■-_; ,■ Soft') as y)c`Q5,\ _ of C,..‘_1C c - t' ,1(1 L.. . f I ,cr1 k-AC - 41.. IMF >? � t ,i.? NOTARY,'UBLI •• D 1EGON MY COMMI ON EXPIRES: _ (1' FORD-309 (Rev 2/96) STATUTORY BARGAIN AND SALE DEED / —z Escrow No. 12-129647-IF-28 Title Order No. 001 29647 EXHIBIT ONE Parcel I: Commencing at the re-entrant corner of the West line of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 38 in Township 1 South, Range 2 West, of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence Northerly along the West line of the said Donation Land Claim 417.78 feet; thence South 89°48' East 1,203.82 feet along the original North line of the C.H. Pfaffle property to the point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence South 0°22' East 360.15 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 89°28' East 130.03 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 0°22' West 360.91 feet; thence North 89°48' West 130.03 feet along the original North line of the C.H. Pfaffle property to the true point of beginning. Excepting therefrom a strip of land 25.91 feet wide on the East and 25.15 feet wide on the West along the North end of the above described property lying in the county road. Further excepting therefrom, the property legally described as follows: Beginning at a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "W.B. Wells" at the Southwest corner of that tract of land described in 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 described Parcel ll, a distance of 323.06 feet to a 5/8 inch rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989"; thence South 89°29'57" East 186.32 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989" on the West line of that tract of land described in recorded Document No. 8201 1866 said iron rod being the true point of beginning; thence continuing South 89°29'57" East 129.92 feet to a 518 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L PLS 1989" on the East line of said tract; thence South 0°22'56" East along said East line, 120.59 feet to the Southeast corner of said tract; thence North 89°37'26" West along the South line of said tract, 129.91 feet to the Southwest corner of said tract; thence North 0°22'56" West along the West line of said tract 120.87 feet to the true point of beginning. Parcel II: A strip of land commencing at the beginning point of the portion of land conveyed to Norman Otto Sorg by deed recorded July 1, 1958 in Book 406, Page 346; thence North 89°48' West along the original North line of the C.H. Pfaffle property 8.03 feet; thence South 0°22' East along the Easterly line of the C.H. Pfaffle property 175 feet to a point; thence South 89°48' East 8.03 feet to the Southwest corner of the said portion of land conveyed to Norman Otto Sorg; thence North 0°22' West 175 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting, however, that portion of said strip of land lying within the right-of-way of said Pfaffle Road. //4 rrOJT✓e 1 APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VIKING CORPORATE CENTER TIGARD, OREGON Applicant: Christensen Engineering, Inc. 8000 Pfaff le Street Portland, Oregon 97223 p (503) 598-1867 f(503) 598-1868 Applicant's Representative: Ed Christensen, P.E. Christensen Engineering, Inc. 8000 Pfaffle Street Portland, Oregon 97223 p(503) 598-1866 f(503) 598-1868 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 500, 1002 and 401. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 79th Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. Submittal Date: April 20th, 2000 Resubmittal Date: March 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION This application is for site development review for a 23,940 square foot professional office building in the C-P district. The development will occur on three existing lots of record; Tax Lots 1002, 500, and 401 on Tax Map 1S1 36 CD. These lots are to be consolidated into one tax lot of record to be determined by the Washington County Surveyor, but will retain the 8000 Pfaff le Street address. Two of the lots contain houses. One of the houses is a residential rental, the other is proposed as the interim offices of the project applicant. All three parcels are currently zoned C-P and professional offices are an allowed use. In the interim and during the construction of the project, the project applicant requests to use one of the houses for their professional offices. The current address is 8000 Pfaffle Street and the existing structure is located approximately 35 feet north of the proposed office building. During construction the existing building can be retained while building the new office. Upon completion of the new 23,940sf office structure and approximately 35 parking spaces, the applicant proposes to relocate their offices, tear down the existing structure, complete the parking and landscaping improvements, and obtain the final occupancy permit. No interim off-site street improvements are proposed between the SDR approvals and the beginning of the office building. The applicant proposes an occupancy ratio based upon the number of parking spaces finished upon occupancy and the completion of the required off-site improvements. The site is bordered on the north by SW Pfaffle Street at the intersection of SW 79th Avenue. SW Pfaffle Street is a two-lane minor collector street. There are curbs in place along the much 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 will be performed to the intersection of Pacific Highway West and SW 78`" 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 Big 5-anchored Crossroads Shopping Center 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 APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 2 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER building setback will be maintained. This setback is not encroached by parking. Along the east property line, a 15-foot landscaped setback will separate the building from the adjacent retaining wall and property. From the front of the building and within the landscaping buffer on the east side, there will also be a five-foot sidewalk providing a pedestrian link 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 swale and a detention pond, which will be constructed to collect the surface water generated from all new impervious surfaces. Approximately 30% of the remainder of the site will be landscaped. The site is designed to provide 89 total parking spaces. Eighty-five (85) of these spaces will be standard, 4 will be handicapped including one van accessible space. DEVELOPMENT RE•UIREMENTS 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; The building requires the removal of 11 existing trees. Therefore, it does not require an inordinate number of trees to be removed in order to enable its construction. 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. No natural drainage ways are found 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 the original application. (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and The building distance between the Big 5 Sporting Goods to the east is 25 feet. The building distance between the Sears Homelife Center to the south is 70 feet. The building distance between the vacant land to the west is greater than 150 feet. The building distance between the street to the north is greater than 150 feet. Therefore, the only two sides of the building adjacent to others are the south and east. 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,the proposed APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 3 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER • 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 requires the removal of 11 existing trees. Therefore, it does not require an inordinate number of trees to be removed and many trees are preserved to the greatest extent possible. All existing trees removed due to development practices will be mitigated on-site to the most practical extent. Caliper inches not able to be mitigated on-site will be paid for as a fee in lieu to the city of Tigard for citywide tree planting. See original 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; APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 4 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER 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 other City engineer approved surface. (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: 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 has 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. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 5 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER 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 7 feet in height or on a building or wall at least 7 feet in height. The lighting scheme is shown on the accompanying `lighting plan'. 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 not require any variances or adjustments. Therefore, this section does not apply. CHAPTER 18.390 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 18.390.040 Type II Procedure: A Pre-application conference regarding the proposed development was held on 02/09/00. An attached traffic impact study and an arborist report are included in the submittal. Per City 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. Sanitary sewer will be provided by extending an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line in SW 79`h Avenue to the north of the development site. This 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 Pfaff le 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 APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 6 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER 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 such as an 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 which extends above the roof which 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 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 not abut a residential parcel. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. No building shall exceed 45 feet in height in the C-P zoning district. The height of the proposed building is 44 feet 9 inches, as shown on the attached elevations, 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. 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 on the east side of the lot adjacent to the retaining wall, meeting these requirements is shown on the attached site plan. The sidewalk is allowed to be contained within the 10 foot landscape buffer to the east. This criterion is met. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 7 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER 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 inch curbs. The proposed development incorporates a 30-foot wide vehicle access point providing access to SW Pfaff le Street. Along the access way, 24 inch curbs are 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 109 feet from the centerline of SW Pfaffle 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 Pfaff le street as part of this development. C. Size and spacing of street trees c. On the 237 feet of frontage on Pfaff le Street, 7 trees are being provided, and one is to remain. The proposed trees are medium-sized trees, and are spaced 30 feet apart as required in this section. The remaining tree is a large Deadora cedar. 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 trees and the retention of 1 existing tree. 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 because APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 8 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER no residential zones abut this site. Therefore, the relevant criteria of this section are met, and the irrelevant criteria do not apply. 1. 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. A. The dimensions for the landscape islands as shown in the accompanying site plan are 3 feet, and are protected from vehicular damage by a curb. This criterion is met. B. On-site soils will be stockpiled for reuse in the landscape planters. The trees and plants will be planted in an oversized hole. The root ball in burlap will be surrounded with planting mix in conformance with the needs of the plant species. No special soil amendments will be used. 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 23,940 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this g.f.a., 96 square feet of waste storage area is required. Approximately 103 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 23,940 square foot building, as shown on the attached site plan, 64 parking spaces are required. Eighty-nine parking spaces have been proposed. Of these 89 parking spaces, 4 are handicapped spaces, including 1 van accessible handicapped stall, and 85 are standard. The ADA requirements of a site providing between 76 and 100 total parking spaces is 4 handicapped spaces including one van accessible space. The regular parking space dimensions are 9 feet x 18.5 feet in depth (including bumper overhang allowances). 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 might occasionally move tenants to the premisses. The existing 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 eastern side of the lot adjacent to the retaining wall, meeting these requirements is shown on the attached site plan. The sidewalk is allowed to be contained within the 10 foot wide landscape buffer to the east. This criterion is met. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 9 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER I 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 characteristics based on our conversation with the landscape architect, Robert Foster, this is unnecessary at this time. The site appears suitable based upon the size and varieties of plants currently growing on the lots. On-site soils will be stockpiled for reuse in the landscape planters. The trees and plants will be planted in an oversized hole. The root ball in burlap will be surrounded with planting mix in conformance with the needs of the plant species. No special soil amendments will be used. 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 23,940 square feet of building area, 12 bicycle parking spaces are required. The 12 APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 10 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER • 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 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. As indicated on the site plan, 15 existing trees are to remain. These trees include: one 48 inch Deodar Cedar, seven Douglas Firs ranging from 30 to 48 inches, one 30 inch Western Red Cedar, three Deciduous trees ranging from 6 to 12 inches, one 16 inch Juniper, a 10 inch Shore Pine, and one 26 inch Cherry tree. In lieu of total on-site tree mitigation, $15 per diameter inch not mitigated on-site will be given to The City of Tigard for street trees. Per the updated arborist report, poor trees are identified and inventoried. Their locations were verified by the arborist and compared to the submitted tree plan. The arborist has identified a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees, before, during and after construction. The accompanying arborist report lists tree conditions and defines conditions. These criteria will be 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 Pfaffle 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 79`h Avenue. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 11 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER Along with the half-street improvements proposed along SW Pfaff le Street, SW 78`h Avenue street widening improvements will be provided between the intersection of Pacific Highway West and SW Pfaff le Street. 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 78`h Avenue. The street widening improvements will allow an additional turn lane. These criteria are met. 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 and along the east lot line connecting the public sidewalk system to the building. This criterion is met. 18.810.090 Sanitary Sewers: Sanitary sewer service is available from SW 79`h Avenue and will be extended on-site to serve the new building. Sanitary sewer connecting to the existing system in SW 79th 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. Water is available to this site via an existing 8 inch ductile iron water line located in SW Pfaffle 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 the 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. The existing catch basin to the east of the site will be relocated downhill to the maximum crest, to catch basin flow distance allowable by the code. These criteria are met. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 VIKING CORPORATE Page 12 of 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CENTER i---z_A i srt t--1 CI SA-As( T71.12-Y 5 r.._Irt---. • E-t.4.3 soot L. • I-- ?) ril '....\,,.... E.r,‘sr/t-)c-,,_ iti . i Z I,r• - 0....s rrikez7T- : zi ; u, 1 il 'Ai 1 • 8 III, . E . SW PFAFFLE TREET I ci614 ,r -f_r_ 1 t _ _ , ....... \ ricrtly c 'Art•-.-.• :•••,..t.---ZPA .:. ''';•:f?-:,;:::..-vAt.tft„ ..: s.:. :.t2Ar..2:41::,-...„,•7....'r .,.st,-.746 i - ' - cce ''' 1-7i ,,, 7.4-7.,,,..,...,--.. ..'.-."- 1 --7-T-- ,......__ :.,' Z IIATUR PAW, W MO(.I.PEO.,4•3 0173-r- 0,roms 1 va.-leao cr k; 111i1 / 1111111 l • *7 rat-tv.ad p z 4 tf.ti" Q n 1 ,I il .).... • 0- Ct D .••• . P4r..,..3! 0 F i t i , 0 = Z 1 11.-L 1.. . I .—.....1— .:' ,% • k 2 Ri IV 1/ MW-0( ......- , , 54"\-anixot Uaran r•.•!,•,] • .. • ..f.) (11 ER.near BIG 5 ill ... SCALE: 1.=20. ._ WELKIN SPORTING 0 2 5 i *- 1 CORPORATE • GOODS CENTER GRASS FlIaD _.... ,. • i r7.1 i E — _....... Oh . a L.M110 11 .r......--- ■N''''''''' -a- '0 • . n 1 1 !: ,_..,.„--1--PROZCT ROUNDARY UNE I■1 i 4:-1 k,c.....) _.) ---I ---. .- -■ -—---J i N\ PlOWSTC.INAl SW1010,1**7 C3M1 ! I L 8 SEARS HOMEUFE RETAIL STORE 1:1:1 1 11 44 8 I. sHEET 6 ' \... ..") •r•-•-..../' ;/ , (3, SW PFAFFLE STREET - - - i 30- --I I 30,- -I - - - - 0 - -�F - -t - - — ell --— — 2-------------.� ------- .----1--- ----L-_ I SITE I —VI51oN I _ VISION Y n ° I. n. -_ Ex 6 CI w—E- 1 laMIIII 7 x srsz —=11=E:: o T k t 'ii" — 'r� — x taMy� sa9 Qaav— — — — 16' • DETENTION v• I I N AGLI .r4 7./.k._ PowD BOTTOM ., I l■_ RM.22T.00 I - PR(18 REGULAR- SPACES OUTDOOR LT 4- ' KsH TAX r 7' �� I .GULAR PARKING SPACES TAX L /� 85' J.,1 d �, SITE <`' 18 24 , ,, BUILD �� c �. a�1�.� _,.� SCI.FT a . . � �b BUILD INE� ,,.-. . -:���� ;;•� PARK'Atall I a + �� �' LAND; a a R/Ill Df I�TAINING ` `n , —m 4 - LKaNTING WALL 9 4. Q 4 Na a a % FF..23200' BIG 5 P` +�E SCALE: r=za L ,� WELKIN -, SPORTING - TL 600 tV Ar � � CORPORATE GOODS ° 'T I SPA( GRASS FIELD ' v .L CENTER ER 24' 18:4 r r ° W -I° ° 19' Mb. . TDOOR LIGH �TI • g' V i't lik8 r 7. AR PARKING SPACES C m ' .S m9.473477 130.40 –– — — — — — — — -maw. I PROJECT BOUNDARY LINE S89'29'STE 186.37 —— — — - S89'291TE 129.97 0 I Thursday,June 29,20001:13 PM David D.Hunter(503)985-1117 p.01 DAVID D. HUNTER Consulting Arborist 55250 SW Date Street Gaston,Oregon 971 19-7737 (503)985-1117 June 28 ,2000 Mr. Edward Christensen Viking Development LLC 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 (503)598-1866 RE: Arborist Consultation,Viking Corporate Center Tigard,Oregon. Dear Mr. Christensen, As per our discussion on June 28,2000,you requested I write a letter to verify the trees that I called hazardous at the Viking Corporate Center. This is in response to a letter you received from the City of Tigard on 6/13/2000. The survey was certified on 4/28/00 and I wrote a letter to state such,on 5/01/2000. Tree#338 has a broken top and is a hazardous tree and should come out before construction. Tree# 152 is very hazardous,has a lean and is held up by another tree. This tree is an immediate safety hazard,and should be removed as soon as possible.It is a hazardous tree by any definition and is an immediate safety concern. I am an ISA Certified Arborist,#PN-1068,and a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists. Sincerely, David D.Hunter,Consulting Arborist David D.Hunter,Certified Arborist • DAVID D. HUNTER Consulting Arborist 55250 SW Date Street Gaston , Oregon 97119-7737 (503) 985-1117 January 18, 1999 Mr. Edward Christensen Viking Development LLC 7150 SW Hampton Street , Suite 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 598-1866 RE: Tree Survey Mr. Christensen, The following is a certified arborist report and tree survey as required by the Tigard municipal code for the lots sites at 7920 and 8000 Pfaffle Street in Tigard. The plot numbers on the report correspond to the plot numbers that we given to me from your maps that showed plot locations of the buildings and trees. The field exam took place on January 18, 1999. Arborist Report Plot Number refers to the site map number given. Trees were flagged with pink ribbon that also was marked with plot number. People in homes were not too happy with idea of ribbons in their view, so do not know how long the pink ribbons will be in view after the plots were done. Plots were broken up by site of 7920 and 8000 Pfaffle as seen on page three of the report. Diameter is in inches, measured at breast height, which is approximately four and half feet above ground level. Condition is rated as good, fair, poor or dead. Other noticeable conditions are mentioned in remarks. Species are reported in common name. Please see attached reference sheet for the corresponding scientific name. No investigation or determination was made as to specific variety or cultivar since it was not necessary within the scope of the assignment. Mr. Edward Christensen January 18, 1999 page two of four A plan detailing location of trees should be provided to the city of Tigard by Viking Development LLC. Questions about the report please give me a call. I am an ISA Certified Arborist, #PN- 1068, and a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists. Sincerely, David D. Hunter Enclosures David D. Hunter, Consulting Arborist Plot Number Species DBH Condition Remarks 392 Linden 17 Fair Begin 7920 survey 393 Linden 15 Poor 394 Linden 14.5 Fair 399 Shore Pine 11 Poor 398 Shore Pine 11.7 Fair 397 Shore Pine 10.3 Poor 396 Shore Pine 9.2 Poor 395 Shore Pine 10 Fair 403 Paper Birch 20.5 Fair 400 Shore Pine 8 Fair 401 Apple 12 Poor 461 Noble Fir 10 Good 462 Douglas Fir 28 Fair 457 Paper Birch 19 Fair Bad Base-stump 457 11 Poor 2nd stem 458 Paper Birch 16 Fair 468 Linden 16 Fair 460 Big Leaf Maple 18.8 Fair End 7920 survey 545 Cherry 20.5 Good Begin 8000 survey 544 Deodar Cedar 37 Good 539 Douglas Fir 22 Fair 542 Juniper 9 Fair 541 Grand Fir 14.3 Poor no viable top 540 Grand Fir 12 Poor no viable top 538 Blue Spruce 19 Fair 543 Linden 8.5 Fair three stems 536 AL Yellow Cedar 6 Fair 534 West Red Cedar 17.4 Fair one of two stems 534 10.2 Fair second stem 537 Blue Spruce 23.5 Poor 514 Dougals Fir 21.2 Fair 533 Juniper 14.5 Poor ice damaged 513 Douglas Fir 28 Fair 512 Dougals Fir 27 Fair 511 West Red Cedar 15.8 Fair raccoon damage 510 Douglas Fir 20.2 Fair poor root support 509 Dougals Fir 22.7 Fair 508 Douglas Fir 19.5 Poor held up by 509 524 Douglas Fir 26 Poor no top ,broken 1/2 530 Douglas Fir 12 Poor 4 tops at 10 feet 507 Douglas Fir 30 Good 455 Douglas Fir 38.4 Good 519 Juniper 15 Fair two stems 519 10 Fair stem attachment 518 Juniper 12 Poor 518 14 Poor 517 Juniper 14 Fair 516 Linden 10.6 Poor 515 Douglas Fir 33 Good 548 Juniper 9.5 Fair 4 stems End 8000 survey David D. Hunter Certifed Arborist 1/18/99 Survey Complete Page three of four • Mr. Edward Christensen January 18,1999 page four of four Tree Species Report Common Name Scientific Name Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Linden Tilia americana Big Leaf Maple Acer Macrophyllum Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Shore Pine Pinus contorta Noble Fir Abies procera Grand Fir Abies grandis Apple Malus species Cherry Prunus species Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata Alaskan Yellow Cedar Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Blue Spruce Picea pungens Juniper Juniperus species Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara David D. Hunter Consulting Arborist at 1 JOB NO. 97-112.01 DATE: 5/16/01 DESIGNED BY: EKC CHECKED BY: E.K.C. PROJECT: WELKIN PROFESSIONAL CENTER TOTAL SITE AREA: 52,367 SF= 1.2 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: 11,575 SF=0.3 ACRES TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 35,189 SF=0.8 ACRES TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: 8,903 SF=0.20 ACRES WATER OUALITY CALCULATIONS: USA REQUIREMENT IS TO TREAT THE 4HR,2 YEAR STORM HAVING RAINFALL OF 0.36"WITH AN AVERAGE RETURN TIME OF 48 HRS. 4HR,2 YEAR STORM W/96 HOUR RETURN=0.36" TOTAL STORM VOLUME RETAINED FOR WATER QUALITY(WQV): WQV =TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA *(036")_ 12"/ft =40,792 SF* Oil//� c 1,224 CF (FT) WATER DETENTION CALCULATIONS: METHODOLOGY: KING COUNTY HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM UTILIZING SANTA BARBRA UNIT. PLEASE FIND THE ATTACHED HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM RESULTS FOR THE: • ON SITE 2 YEAR-STORM UNDEVELOPED • ON SITE 5 YEAR-STORM UNDEVELOPED • ON SITE10 YEAR-STORM UNDEVELOPED • ON SITE 25 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#)\1997\97-112.01 Welkin\Planning file\Correspondence File\2001 HYD-REP.wpd • I 4 , 2 SITE CONDITIONS: TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.2 ACRES PRIMARY HYDROLOGICAL SOIL GROUP: C CURVE NUMBERS: CN(PERVIOUS): 86(TR-55) CN(IMPERVIOUS): 98 (TR-55) 10-YEAR PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS: TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.2 ACRES TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: 0.9 ACRES TIME OF CONCENTRATION: 4.2 MINUTES THE PEAK FLOW OF THE ON-SITE PRE-DEVELOPED YIELDS TO BE: Q(10-UNDEVELOPED)=0.79 CFS(Please See Attached Hydrograph Program Results) 25-YEAR POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS: TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.9 ACRES TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: 0.3 ACRES TIME OF CONCENTRATION: 2.2 MINUTES THE PEAK FLOW OF THE ON-SITE,POST DEVELOPED,25-YEAR STORM YIELDS TO BE: Q(25-DEVELOPED)=1.20 CFS(Please See Attached Hydrograph Program Results) TOTAL VOLUME TO BE DETAINED: 504 CF TOTAL REQ.POND VOLUME(QUALITY+DETENTION): 1224+504= 1,728 CF TOTAL POND VOLUME PROVIDED: 1,750 CF @ 1.5'DEPTH .. OK DOWNSTREAM STORM ANALYSIS: EXISTING DEVELOPMENT,CONTRIBUTING AREA: SHED AREA: 9.17 ACRES PRIMARY HYDROLOGICAL SOIL GROUP: C DISTRIBUTION P:\CLIENT FILES(by job#)\1997\97-112.01 Welkin\Planning file\Correspondence File\200IHYD-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: CCOM: (83*0.39)+(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#)\1997\97-112.01 Welkin\Planning file\Con espondence File\2001 HYD-REP.wpd ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.37,86,0.83,98,3 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .4 86.0 .8 98.0 3.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 1.20 7.67 14346 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .22 12.67 .17 19.00 .11 .17 .00 6.50 .22 12.83 .15 19.17 .11 .33 .00 6.67 .28 13.00 .15 19.33 .11 .50 .01 6.83 .32 13.17 .15 19.50 .11 .67 .02 7.00 .32 13.33 .15 19.67 .11 .83 .02 7.17 .39 13.50 .15 19.83 .11 1.00 .03 7.33 .45 13.67 .15 20.00 .11 1.17 .04 7.50 .69 13.83 .15 20.17 .11 1.33 .04 7.67 1.20 14.00 .15 20.33 .11 1.50 .04 7.83 .98 14.17 .15 20.50 .11 1.67 .05 8.00 .47 14.33 .15 20.67 .11 1.83 .06 8.17 .39 14.50 .15 20.83 .11 2.00 .07 8.33 .34 14.67 .14 21.00 .11 2.17 .07 8.50 .35 14.83 .13 21.17 .11 2.33 .07 8.67 .27 15.00 .14 21.33 .11 2.50 .07 8.83 .22 15.17 .13 21.50 .11 2.67 .09 9.00 .23 15.33 .14 21.67 .11 2.83 .10 9.17 .23 15.50 .14 21.83 .11 3.00 .10 9.33 .23 15.67 .14 22.00 .11 3.17 .10 9.50 .23 15.83 .14 22.17 .11 3.33 .10 9.67 .23 16.00 .14 22.33 .11 3.50 .11 9.83 .23 16.17 .14 22.50 .11 3.67 .12 10.00 .23 16.33 .14 22.67 .11 3.83 .13 10.17 .23 16.50 .14 22.83 .11 4.00 .13 10.33 .23 16.67 .12 23.00 .11 4.17 .14 10.50 .23 16.83 .11 23.17 .11 4.33 .14 10.67 .21 17.00 .11 23.33 .11 4.50 .14 10.83 .19 17.17 .11 23.50 .11 4.67 .16 11.00 .19 17.33 .11 23.67 .11 4.83 .17 11.17 .19 17.50 .11 23.83 .11 5.00 .17 11.33 .19 17.67 .11 24.00 .04 5.17 .17 11.50 .19 17.83 .11 24.17 .00 5.33 .18 11.67 .19 18.00 .11 24.33 .00 5.50 .18 11.83 .19 18.17 .11 24.50 .00 5.67 .20 12.00 .19 18.33 .11 24.67 .00 5.83 .21 12.17 .19 18.50 .11 24.83 .00 6.00 .21 12.33 .19 18.67 .11 25.00 .00 6.17 .22 12.50 .19 18.83 .11 25.17 .00 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 0.93,86,0.27,98,5 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .9 86.0 .3 98.0 5.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .90 7.67 11883 HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .15 12.67 .16 19.00 .10 • .17 .00 6.50 .16 12.83 .14 19.17 .10 .33 .00 6.67 .20 13.00 .14 19.33 .10 .50 .00 6.83 .24 13.17 .14 19.50 .10 .67 .00 7.00 .24 13.33 .14 19.67 .10 .83 .01 7.17 .29 13.50 .14 19.83 .10 1.00 .01 7.33 .34 13.67 .14 20.00 .10 1.17 .01 7.50 .51 13.83 .14 20.17 .10 1.33 .01 7.67 .90 14.00 .14 20.33 .10 1.50 .01 7.83 .86 14.17 .14 20.50 .10 1.67 .02 8.00 .49 14.33 .14 20.67 .10 1.83 .02 8.17 .35 14.50 .14 20.83 .10 2.00 .02 8.33 .30 14.67 .13 21.00 .10 2.17 .02 8.50 .30 14.83 .13 21.17 .10 2.33 .02 8.67 .25 15.00 .13 21.33 .10 2.50 .02 8.83 .20 15.17 .13 21.50 .10 2.67 .03 9.00 .20 15.33 .13 21.67 .10 2.83 .03 9.17 .20 15.50 .13 21.83 .10 3.00 .03 9.33 .20 15.67 .13 22.00 .10 3.17 .03 9.50 .21 15.83 .13 22.17 .10 3.33 .04 9.67 .21 16.00 .13 22.33 .10 3.50 .04 9.83 .21 16.17 .13 22.50 .10 3.67 .05 10.00 .21 16.33 .13 22.67 .10 3.83 .06 10.17 .21 16.50 .13 22.83 .10 4.00 .06 10.33 .21 16.67 .11 23.00 .10 4.17 .07 10.50 .21 16.83 .10 23.17 .10 4.33 .07 10.67 .19 17.00 .10 23.33 .10 4.50 .08 10.83 .17 17.17 .10 23.50 .10 4.67 .09 11.00 .17 17.33 .10 23.67 .10 4.83 .10 11.17 .17 17.50 .10 23.83 .10 5.00 .10 11.33 .17 17.67 .10 24.00 .05 5.17 .11 11.50 .17 17.83 .10 24.17 .00 5.33 .11 11.67 .18 18.00 .10 24.33 .00 5.50 .11 11.83 .18 18.17 .10 24.50 .00 5.67 .13 12.00 .18 18.33 .10 24.67 .00 5.83 .14 12.17 .18 18.50 .10 24.83 .00 6.00 .15 12.33 .18 18.67 .10 25.00 .00 6.17 .15 12.50 .18 18.83 .10 25.17 .00 • S.C.S. TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR),DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 2,24,2.5 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2.50" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 2,24,2.5 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2.50" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* Pre-developed condition ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV),TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 .93,86,.27,98,4.2 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .9 86.0 .3 98.0 4.2 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .48 7.67 6424 ENTER [d:][path]filename[ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: c:new.txt FILE ALREADY EXIST; OVERWRITE (Y or N) ? Y SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE,N -NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE,N -NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP p HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS), .00 .00 6.33 .07 12.67 .09 19.00 .06 .17 .00 6.50 .07 12.83 .08 19.17 .06 .33 .00 6.67 .09 13.00 .08 19.33 .06 .50 .00 6.83 .11 13.17 .08 19.50 .06 .67 .00 7.00 .12 13.33 .08 19.67 .06 .83 .00 7.17 .14 13.50 .08 19.83 .06 1.00 .00 7.33 .17 13.67 .08 20.00 .06 1.17 .00 7.50 .26 13.83 .08 20.17 .06 1.33 .00 7.67 .48 14.00 .08 20.33 .06 1.50 .01 7.83 .44 14.17 .08 20.50 .06 1.67 .01 8.00 .24 14.33 .08 20.67 .06 1.83 .01 8.17 .18 14.50 .08 20.83 .06 2.00 .01 8.33 .16 14.67 .08 21.00 .06 2.17 .01 8.50 .16 14.83 .07 21.17 .06 2.33 .01 8.67 .13 15.00 .07 21.33 .06 2.50 .01 8.83 .11 15.17 .07 21.50 .06 2.67 .01 9.00 .11 15.33 .07 21.67 .06 2.83 .02 9.17 .11 15.50 .07 21.83 .06 3.00 .02 9.33 .11 15.67 .07 22.00 .06 3.17 .02 9.50 .11 15.83 .07 22.17 .06 3.33 .02 9.67 .11 16.00 .07 22.33 .06 3.50 .02 9.83 .11 16.17 .07 22.50 .06 3.67 .02 10.00 .12 16.33 .07 22.67 .06 3.83 .02 10.17 .12 16.50 .07 22.83 .06 4.00 .02 10.33 .12 16.67 .07 23.00 .06 4.17 .02 10.50 .12 16.83 .06 23.17 .06 4.33 .03 10.67 .11 17.00 .06 23.33 .06 4.50 .03 10.83 .10 17.17 .06 23.50 .06 4.67 .03 11.00 .10 17.33 .06 23.67 .06 4.83 .04 11.17 .10 17.50 .06 23.83 .06 5.00 .04 11.33 .10 17.67 .06 24.00 .03 5.17 .04 11.50 .10 17.83 .06 24.17 .00 5.33 .05 11.67 .10 18.00 .06 24.33 .00 5.50 .05 11.83 .10 18.17 .06 24.50 .00 5.67 .06 12.00 .10 18.33 .06 24.67 .00 5.83 .06 12.17 .10 18.50 .06 24.83 .00 6.00 .07 12.33 .10 18.67 .06 25.00 .00 6.17 .07 12.50 .10 18.83 .06 25.17 .00 SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE,N-NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP S.C.S. TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 5,24,3.1 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 5-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.10" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* Pre-developed condition ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV),A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 .93,86,.27,98,4.2 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .9 86.0 .3 98.0 4.2 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .67 7.67 8715 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: c:new.txt FILE ALREADY EXIST; OVERWRITE(Y or N) ? Y SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE,N -NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .11 12.67 .12 19.00 .08 .17 .00 6.50 .11 12.83 .11 19.17 .08 .33 .00 6.67 .14 13.00 .11 19.33 .08 .50 .00 6.83 .16 13.17 .11 19.50 .08 .67 .00 7.00 .17 13.33 .11 19.67 .08 .83 .00 7.17 .21 13.50 .11 19.83 .08 1.00 .01 7.33 .24 13.67 .11 20.00 .08 1.17 .01 7.50 .37 13.83 .11 20.17 .08 1.33 .01 7.67 .67 14.00 .11 20.33 .08 1.50 .01 7.83 .62 14.17 .11 20.50 .08 1.67 .01 8.00 .34 14.33 .11 20.67 .08 1.83 .01 8.17 .25 14.50 .11 20.83 .08 2.00 .01 8.33 .22 14.67 .10 21.00 .08 2.17 .02 8.50 .22 14.83 .09 21.17 .08 2.33 .02 8.67 .18 15.00 .10 21.33 .08 2.50 .02 8.83 .15 15.17 .10 21.50 .08 2.67 .02 9.00 .15 15.33 .10 21.67 .08 2.83 .02 9.17 .15 15.50 .10 21.83 .08 3.00 .02 9.33 .15 15.67 .10 22.00 .08 3.17 .02 9.50 .15 15.83 .10 22.17 .08 3.33 .02 9.67 .15 16.00 .10 22.33 .08 3.50 .02 9.83 .15 16.17 .10 22.50 .08 3.67 .03 10.00 .15 16.33 .10 22.67 .08 3.83 .03 10.17 .16 16.50 .10 22.83 .08 4.00 .04 10.33 .16 16.67 .09 23.00 .08 4.17 .04 10.50 .16 16.83 .08 23.17 .08 4.33 .04 10.67 .14 17.00 .08 23.33 .08 4.50 .05 10.83 .13 17.17 .08 23.50 .08 4.67 .05 11.00 .13 17.33 .08 23.67 .08 4.83 .06 11.17 .13 17.50 .08 23.83 .08 5.00 .07 11.33 .13 17.67 .08 24.00 .04 5.17 .07 11.50 .13 17.83 .08 24.17 .00 5.33 .07 11.67 .13 18.00 .08 24.33 .00 5.50 .08 11.83 .13 18.17 .08 24.50 .00 5.67 .09 12.00 .13 18.33 .08 24.67 .00 5.83 .10 12.17 .13 18.50 .08 24.83 .00 6.00 .10 12.33 .13 18.67 .08 25.00 .00 6.17 .10 12.50 .13 18.83 .08 25.17 .00 • ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.45" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* Pre-developed condition ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV),A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 .93,86,.27,98,4.2 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .9 86.0 .3 98.0 4.2 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .79 7.67 10089 HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .13 12.67 .14 19.00 .09 .17 .00 6.50 .13 12.83 .12 19.17 .09 .33 .00 6.67 .16 13.00 .12 19.33 .09 .50 .00 6.83 .20 13.17 .12 19.50 .09 .67 .00 7.00 .20 13.33 .12 19.67 .09 .83 .01 7.17 .24 13.50 .12 19.83 .09 1.00 .01 7.33 .29 13.67 .12 20.00 .09 1.17 .01 7.50 .44 13.83 .12 20.17 .09 1.33 .01 7.67 .79 14.00 .12 20.33 .09 1.50 .01 7.83 .72 14.17 .12 20.50 .09 1.67 .01 8.00 .39 14.33 .12 20.67 .09 1.83 .02 8.17 .29 14.50 .12 20.83 .09 2.00 .02 8.33 .25 14.67 .12 21.00 .09 2.17 .02 8.50 .26 14.83 .11 21.17 .09 2.33 .02 8.67 .21 15.00 .11 21.33 .09 2.50 .02 8.83 .17 15.17 .11 21.50 .09 2.67 .02 9.00 .17 15.33 .11 21.67 .09 2.83 .03 9.17 .17 15.50 .11 21.83 .09 3.00 .03 9.33 .17 15.67 .11 22.00 .09 3.17 .03 9.50 .18 15.83 .11 22.17 .09 3.33 .03 9.67 .18 16.00 .11 22.33 .09 3.50 .03 9.83 .18 16.17 .11 22.50 .09 3.67 .04 10.00 .18 16.33 .11 22.67 .09 3.83 .04 10.17 .18 16.50 .11 22.83 .09 4.00 .05 10.33 .18 16.67 .10 23.00 .09 4.17 .05 10.50 .18 16.83 .09 23.17 .09 4.33 .06 10.67 .16 17.00 .09 23.33 .09 4.50 .06 10.83 .15 17.17 .09 23.50 .09 4.67 .07 11.00 .15 17.33 .09 23.67 .09 4.83 .08 11.17 .15 17.50 .09 23.83 .09 5.00 .08 11.33 .15 17.67 .09 24.00 .04 5.17 .09 11.50 .15 17.83 .09 24.17 .00 5.33 .09 11.67 .15 18.00 .09 24.33 .00 5.50 .09 11.83 .15 18.17 .09 24.50 .00 5.67 .10 12.00 .15 18.33 .09 24.67 .00 5.83 .12 12.17 .15 18.50 .09 24.83 .00 6.00 .12 12.33 .15 18.67 .09 25.00 .00 6.17 .12 12.50 .15 18.83 .09 25.17 .00 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* Pre-developed condition ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV),A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV),TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 .93,86,.27,98,4.2 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .9 86.0 .3 98.0 4.2 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .94 7.67 11885 HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .15 12.67 .16 19.00 .10 .17 .00 6.50 .16 12.83 .14 19.17 .10 .33 .00 6.67 .20 13.00 .14 19.33 .10 .50 .00 6.83 .24 13.17 .14 19.50 .10 .67 .00 7.00 .24 13.33 .14 19.67 .10 .83 .01 7.17 .30 13.50 .14 19.83 .10 1.00 .01 7.33 .35 13.67 .14 20.00 .10 1.17 .01 7.50 .53 13.83 .14 20.17 .10 1.33 .01 7.67 .94 14.00 .14 20.33 .10 1.50 .01 7.83 .85 14.17 .14 20.50 .10 1.67 .02 8.00 .46 14.33 .14 20.67 .10 1.83 .02 8.17 .34 14.50 .14 20.83 .10 2.00 .02 8.33 .30 14.67 .13 21.00 .10 2.17 .02 8.50 .30 14.83 .13 21.17 .10 2.33 .02 8.67 .25 15.00 .13 21.33 .10 2.50 .02 8.83 .20 15.17 .13 21.50 .10 2.67 .03 9.00 .20 15.33 .13 21.67 .10 2.83 .03 9.17 .20 15.50 .13 21.83 .10 3.00 .03 9.33 .20 15.67 .13 22.00 .10 3.17 .04 9.50 .21 15.83 .13 22.17 .10 3.33 .04 9.67 .21 16.00 .13 22.33 .10 3.50 .04 9.83 .21 16.17 .13 22.50 .10 3.67 .05 10.00 .21 16.33 .13 22.67 .10 3.83 .06 10.17 .21 16.50 .13 22.83 .10 4.00 .06 10.33 .21 16.67 .11 23.00 .10 4.17 .07 10.50 .21 16.83 .10 23.17 .10 4.33 .07 10.67 .19 17.00 .10 23.33 .10 4.50 .08 10.83 .17 17.17 .10 23.50 .10 4.67 .09 11.00 .17 17.33 .10 23.67 .10 4.83 .10 11.17 .17 17.50 .10 23.83 .10 5.00 .10 11.33 .17 17.67 .10 24.00 .05 5.17 .11 11.50 .17 17.83 .10 24.17 .00 5.33 .11 11.67 .18 18.00 .10 24.33 .00 5.50 .12 11.83 .18 18.17 .10 24.50 .00 5.67 .13 12.00 .18 18.33 .10 24.67 .00 5.83 .14 12.17 .18 18.50 .10 24.83 .00 6.00 .15 12.33 .18 18.67 .10 25.00 .00 6.17 .15 12.50 .18 18.83 .10 25.17 .00 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* Developed condition ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV),TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 .37,86,.83,98,2.2 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 .4 86.0 .8 98.0 2.2 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 1.25 7.67 14347 HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .22 12.67 .16 19.00 .11 .17 .00 6.50 .22 12.83 .15 19.17 .11 .33 .00 6.67 .29 13.00 .15 19.33 .11 .50 .01 6.83 .33 13.17 .15 19.50 .11 .67 .02 7.00 .32 13.33 .15 19.67 .11 .83 .02 7.17 .40 13.50 .15 19.83 .11 1.00 .03 7.33 .45 13.67 .15 20.00 .11 1.17 .04 7.50 .71 13.83 .15 20.17 .11 1.33 .04 7.67 1.25 14.00 .15 20.33 .11 1.50 .04 7.83 .93 14.17 .15 20.50 .11 1.67 .06 8.00 .43 14.33 .15 20.67 .11 1.83 .06 8.17 .39 14.50 .15 20.83 .11 2.00 .07 8.33 .33 14.67 .14 21.00 .11 2.17 .07 8.50 .35 14.83 .13 21.17 .11 2.33 .07 8.67 .26 15.00 .14 21.33 .11 2.50 .08 8.83 .22 15.17 .13 21.50 .11 2.67 .09 9.00 .23 15.33 .14 21.67 .11 2.83 .10 9.17 .23 15.50 .14 21.83 .11 3.00 .10 9.33 .23 15.67 .14 22.00 .11 3.17 .10 9.50 .23 15.83 .14 22.17 .11 3.33 .10 9.67 .23 16.00 .14 22.33 .11 3.50 .11 9.83 .23 16.17 .14 22.50 .11 3.67 .12 10.00 .23 16.33 .14 22.67 .11 3.83 .13 10.17 .23 16.50 .14 22.83 .11 4.00 .13 10.33 .23 16.67 .12 23.00 .11 4.17 .14 10.50 .23 16.83 .11 23.17 .11 4.33 .14 10.67 .20 17.00 .11 23.33 .11 4.50 .14 10.83 .19 17.17 .11 23.50 .11 4.67 .16 11.00 .19 17.33 .11 23.67 .11 4.83 .17 11.17 .19 17.50 .11 23.83 .11 5.00 .17 11.33 .19 17.67 .11 24.00 .03 5.17 .18 11.50 .19 17.83 .11 24.17 .00 5.33 .18 11.67 .19 18.00 .11 24.33 .00 5.50 .18 11.83 .19 18.17 .11 24.50 .00 5.67 .20 12.00 .19 18.33 .11 24.67 .00 5.83 .22 12.17 .19 18.50 .11 24.83 .00 6.00 .21 12.33 .19 18.67 .11 25.00 .00 6.17 .22 12.50 .19 18.83 .11 25.17 .00 • KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division HYDROGRAPH PROGRAMS Version 4.21B 1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM 2 - SBUHYD 3 - MODIFIED SBUHYD 4-ROUTE 5 -ROUTE2 6-ADDHYD 7 -BASEFLOW 8 - PLOTHYD 9 - DATA 10 -RDFAC 11 -RETURN TO DOS ENTER OPTION: 2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS: 1 - S.C.S. TYPE-IA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 5,24,3.1 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 5-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.10" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV),TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV),A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV),TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 1.1,86,.1,98,4.2 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 1.2 1.1 86.0 .1 98.0 4.2 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .61 7.67 8024 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: c:new.txt SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE,N -NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP P HYDROGRAPH DATA PRINT-OUT: T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) T(HRS) Q(CFS) .00 .00 6.33 .09 12.67 .11 19.00 .08 .17 .00 6.50 .09 12.83 .10 19.17 .08 .33 .00 6.67 .12 13.00 .10 19.33 .08 .50 .00 6.83 .14 13.17 .10 19.50 .08 .67 .00 7.00 .15 13.33 .10 19.67 .08 .83 .00 7.17 .18 13.50 .10 19.83 .08 1.00 .00 7.33 .22 13.67 .10 20.00 .08 1.17 .00 7.50 .34 13.83 .10 20.17 .08 1.33 .00 7.67 .61 14.00 .10 20.33 .08 1.50 .00 7.83 .57 14.17 .10 20.50 .08 1.67 .00 8.00 .31 14.33 .10 20.67 .08 1.83 .01 8.17 .23 14.50 .10 20.83 .08 2.00 .01 8.33 .20 14.67 .10 21.00 .08 2.17 .01 8.50 .21 14.83 .09 21.17 .08 2.33 .01 8.67 .17 15.00 .09 21.33 .08 2.50 .01 8.83 .14 15.17 .09 21.50 .08 2.67 .01 9.00 .14 15.33 .09 21.67 .08 2.83 .01 9.17 .14 15.50 .09 21.83 .08 3.00 .01 9.33 .14 15.67 .09 22.00 .08 3.17 .01 9.50 .14 15.83 .09 22.17 .08 3.33 .01 9.67 .15 16.00 .09 22.33 .08 3.50 .01 9.83 .15 16.17 .09 22.50 .08 3.67 .01 10.00 .15 16.33 .09 22.67 .08 3.83 .02 10.17 .15 16.50 .09 22.83 .08 4.00 .02 10.33 .15 16.67 .08 23.00 .08 4.17 .02 10.50 .15 16.83 .07 23.17 .08 4.33 .03 10.67 .14 17.00 .08 23.33 .08 4.50 .03 10.83 .12 17.17 .08 23.50 .08 4.67 .04 11.00 .12 17.33 .08 23.67 .08 4.83 .04 11.17 .12 17.50 .08 23.83 .08 5.00 .05 11.33 .13 17.67 .08 24.00 .04 5.17 .05 11.50 .13 17.83 .08 24.17 .00 5.33 .05 11.67 .13 18.00 .08 24.33 .00 5.50 .06 11.83 .13 18.17 .08 24.50 .00 5.67 .07 12.00 .13 18.33 .08 24.67 .00 5.83 .08 12.17 .13 18.50 .08 24.83 .00 6.00 .08 12.33 .13 18.67 .08 25.00 .00 6.17 .08 12.50 .13 18.83 .08 25.17 .00 SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE,N-NEWSTORM, P -PRINT, S - STOP Thipac± 8f0cL3 •y t ? r " CEI_HEADQUARTERS. •TRAFFIC.IMPACT STUDY TIGARD,'-"OREGON ".PRE'PA RE BY LANCASTER ENGINEER MAY noi. • - � a. �air i - - - ;;. I' ASTER ENGINEERING >K,3�i#otudies Planning • Safety Irr, ; ¢• Cs ^.' . CEI HEADQUARTERS ' Traffic Impact Study :,,I.'. ;; Tigard, Oregon sy 4 OM tte, � ��•r,�ir4 / r,, :..„,,, w ioN.,,,,,, 1�;, :. p �GOREGd��22, 1 tr.n. 9s R LA!'�GP• cA Prepared By N. ° TOM R. LANCASTER, PE, PTOE TODD E. MOBLEY, EIT ININA on>t;s'::r gift,: 3 May 2001 NORA Wain At:t %Yti ti:Ri ::: ftOlii tion,Suite 206 • 800 N.W.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 • 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. • -LANCASTER ENGINEERING TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Location Description 4 Trip Generation 9 Trip Distribution 10 Operational Analysis 13 Summary 20 Appendix 21 -2- I ` CASTER ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION A 23,940 square foot office building has been proposed for development on the south side of Pfaff le Street, directly opposite 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 traffic signal warrant comparisons. 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- LANCASTER ENGINEERING LOCATION DESCRIPTION The site is located on the south side of Pfaffle Street, directly across from 815` Avenue at its "T" shaped intersection with Pfaffle Street in the city of Tigard, Oregon. The site is proposed to be developed with a three-story office building with a total of 23,940 square feet. An area map showing the site location is on page six, and a vicin- ity map showing the existing lane configurations at the study area intersection is shown in the drawing on page seven. The site is proposed to take access to Pfaffle Street 185 feet west of 79th Ave- nue. The study area includes the following intersections: 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 78th 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- CASTER 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 Transpor- tation (ODOT), and is classified as a highway of statewide level of importance. High- way 99W is a five-lane facility with two through lanes in each direction and a continu- ous 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 78"' 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- ` J I II 9(`��� I LESTNUT 11 I ST, I I--- . i I . \\ ELMW000 //4 - m ST. I =v S T. �� / I " r- BORDERS CRESCENT GROVE ST. .1. . CEMETERY ;ti LEMN I -.1 HEMLOCK --- 1-7S uj M.P. 4.08 M(TZ ER CO> < ST. i ` 1 (N.LLI / CORAL ST. Z6 25 PARE < LARCH I .� r LANOAU r-- I I— I I„� ST. x " � I o Metzger 3S 36' _ _� LOCUST —� ` LOCUST < ST ` W O Z YETICER �� -- v m co SCH. ¢ W JCIw /4i> MAPLELEAF ST.r, W i ` o MAPLELEAF ST.n J MAPLEL'EAF m I I �p�� OAWAY 5T. F �ST�' OAK ,i k57! OAK // S7. m/lll/ i if I PINE ST. I I Creek ~I1I ~ o SHADY LN. :J SPRUCE g L m L ~ l I ST. > 1 ,r _� L NN 7 4i ` ( THORN ST. i � � La a ti0 I I ; > 'J) I a CO ` I a < THORN LONGSTAFF !99 vi ) > n .... STEVE ()ST. > Q W < O w i ^ a O NORTH DAKOTA Q' ST. I Z s ,.l o m x x �`�VE w c~i w `° m 1 ~ M1m .c - P0. o \ �u i >� PFAFfLE ST. _ ui _ ,PROJECT x a /Mot g a c x $� �.t1 PQ "�_ LE [Y�5 LN, (......1%N,„, s J NO. , L. TAN GEL co < > ST. -62 ^P m ` N w F- co al n LONDON TANGELA CT. ` P S m C T. ANGEL g C pia 35 36 2 �� CI \ e. ct,'�nCrRlt`'-tip `�?```Q R��/4 P SS• a. \`'\\� js00 GARDEN PL•41.ST \� As, ` �'S 'Note HERMOSA WAY 5� F�y. ca�� sl �` �\ F /i \ LANo5r .....X vHa Lewis fI P 9, �j.0 4'R SCH. r /ST.,HTNONT / L S[H. q'�i FDA-`\ 4* '0 r :°»::. :.s:: _ice g =�— AREA MAP , Iwir a OSTER ENGINEERING w —6— LEGEND • Study Area Intersection - - - - Site Boundary 11 Stop Sign •0. •o. Traffic Signal •o. ii II o b c a) 0 N C 4 CU t co Ti z (,---76 & �i>_...... =7 o 2 h \ ill ez, , Pfoffle Street \ 1 1 PROJECT o •o SITE No, `o' of col r 7 1.'s .s ' 40 INJI No Scale VICINITY MAP Existing Lane Configurations LANCASTER ENGINEERING & Traffic Control Devices cep 1 dwg -7- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Ino 199 von 234 rn 1 -N 16 a-_ acv ono <- 148 rnl E— 156 .1. \F 31 .1. .0 35 E-IIy .0 29 EJ .1, 4 59 T1-> 99is E-IT� ' 321\ Ei /rr> �rn 19> -� o�Ln 73 �j oov,�"' 216 - tr 254 -1 `��� i / i i a) c c o ¢ a> v m N. 0 2 / // N ill Pfo(fle Street \ 1 ■ PROJECT • SITE 9. ,,,),t1 r3, ,0r / AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR N sr t_5 c°o t- 18 -N E- 1179 -�0 E- 1610 El 11-> 1° EJ .i,L> .0 68 A�_` 7� < 1T � 1477—� 1T� 1659 -� \N/ 210 -q, - " 427 LO No Scale .................. ... ............. Y � '` TRAFFIC VOLUMES �� Existing Conditions ANCASTERENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours cell dwg -8- • L tIINCASTER 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 37 trips generated by the development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 33 will be entering and 4 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour 36 trips are expected with 6 entering and 30 exiting the site. A weekday total of 264 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 CEI Headquarters Entering Exiting Total Trips Trips Trigs AM Peak Hour 33 4 37 PM Peak Hour 6 30 36 Weekday 132 132 264 -9- • NCASTER 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- k •A• o o c c I Q ¢r I for 0 m o / = P(o((Ie Street � Q 20% 40Z , , -67:Ti -S-- 17IF 9-5 o PROJECT SITE aoj fj le 0 1s N ,J DOrfmOOfh Street e, ,,,0 o o H v ~ (4,4. ,., No Scale PRIMARY SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION j . Inbound & Outbound Percentages ANGASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours cep i.dwg -11- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR T-0 t3 t------0 (----- -0 �0 on o�- 000 E— 7 000 E— 1 Vy \F 2 J. y .F-9 EJ14 .T° y <-1J, y .L--° Tr> Tr> 0-I' EiTr> I 01' <-iii > 00 ON 0—j X00 ° N00 2� 18 -I a) b C o > C > Q a) 47 > ,_ O m y 0 I Pfoff)e Street / \ I P KZ ROJECT SITE osi 4C3 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 'L 0 N t0 —o— E—0 —o Lo E—0 E-1 I-) .0° EJ .L 4 .G-° I 'o �Trj� O- 000 Irbil 0 .-I 0 T1 No Scale ................... ...................• yy ; -;.. TRAFFIC VOLUMES ry N : � Site Trips LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours cei).dwg -1 2- ............... VASTER 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 78th 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. Given this documented lack of growth in peak hour traffic volumes, the site trips from the proposed CEI Headquarters building were added to existing traffic vol- umes without the application of a yearly growth rate. Traffic was not included from the nearby Tri-County Center project given the uncertain status of that project. The sum of existing traffic plus site trips from the proposed development are shown on page 14. -13- • AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR „�� C- 199 rn� �-237 Q i- 1 � t- 16 .t- - in cv rn�o 155 ,^ E- 157 .1. 4 .F 33 .l.y \-44 E-1 \1/ X29 E-i1L> .F 59 Tr—> Try 9A\ E1T0 32 -1\ ElTr—> y cv 4 in v) 1 3 -j cv o yr cor m- 218 `n 272 N�— i cu z a) o / c a.) Q > o / t Q o -61 r m ^ i="6 2 Pfoffle Street \ •e: / \\`\ I I PROJECT o SITE y st,0-1 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR cVn 1_5 ^cow T. 18 V-— E- 1 179 cn-- E- 1610 El.V 4 .0 10 0.I,4 .0 68 �_` 201 E1T1> 48 ElT0 co .�. 1659 incv'- 1477 %Jr 210 corn^ 427 n-cD No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES • } Existing + Site Trips LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours celi.dwq -14- I CASTER 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 Pfaffle because the 85th 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 Pfaffle 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 Pfaffle, existing traffic volumes are sufficient to satisfy the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant and the Peak Hour Warrant dur- ing the evening peak hour. As discussed in the following 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 Pfaffle Street and 78th Ave- nue. A traffic signal is not recommended. 7k"Avenue Traffic Queuing As discussed in the following chapter, the intersection of Highway 99W and 78th Avenue is operating near capacity. Traffic queues have been observed to back up along 78th Avenue to the Pfaffle Street intersection and occasionally through the intersection and on to Pfaffle Street. Since traffic on Highway 99W is quite heavy, the majority of the green time at the intersection of 99W and 78th Avenue is given to highway traffic. This leaves only a small amount of green time to serve the north and south approaches and on occasion, the standing queues do not clear. The developer of the proposed office building has shown interest in adding a second southbound left-turn lane to the intersection to help alleviate the queuing prob- lems. The left-turns are the highest volume movement on the southbound approach and a second turn lane would greatly improve the existing queuing problems. -15- ITER 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 Pfaff le 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. With the addition of project traffic 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. As discussed in the previous section, 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 Pfaff le Street is currently operating at level of service B during the morning peak hour and level of service C dur- ing the evening peak hour and will continue to operate at these levels of service for background traffic. These levels of service refer to traffic turning left from Pfaffle Street since this movement experiences the most delay. These levels of service will not change with the addition of traffic from the proposed development. 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. With the addition of project traffic the two-hour v/c ratio at the intersection will increase by 0.01 during both peak hours. The intersection will still meet ODOT standards with the pro- -16- I NCASTER ENGINEERING posed development in place. If constructed, a southbound left-turn lane will not sig- nificantly increase the capacity of the intersection but will help alleviate queuing prob- lems. 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 CEI Headquarters AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Pfaffle Street at 78th Avenue Existing Conditions B 13 - C 19 - Existing + Site Trips B 14 - C 19 - Pfaffle Street at Hall Boulevard Existing Conditions A 9 - A/B 10 - Existing + Site Trips A 9 - B 11 - Hwy 99W at Dartmouth/78`h Ave Existing Conditions C 31 0.72* D 47 0.88* Existing + Site Trips C 31 0.73* D 48 0.89* * 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 -17- (CASTER ENGINEERING Cut-Through Traffic and Traffic Calming Measures or traffic Much of the existing traffic on Pfaff le street is "cut-through" traffic, en Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W that uses Pfa eehStr speeds to avoid the ong tetwe To disco g g the congested intersection of Hall and Highway 99W• to install traffic calming cut-through traffic along Pfaff le Street, it may be appropriate full close features on the street. There are a variety of traffic calming mepartially a that ar y e avail- talled to able. Cul-de-sacs and other traffic bats be i objectives prov ding connectivity. streets to through traffic, but this defeats the obje A common traffic calming technique is to install curb extensions at intersec- tions. These extensions are usually located at the intersection urb crosswalks and pedestri- ans the parking lane to the edge of the traffic lane. reducing the curb-to-curb width of the street that must be rosse crossed. For this sirea- sos by r g rea- son extensions are most often used extensions that reduce traffic speeds particularly school children slightly due to the narrowing of the street width. be designed for Speed humps are used to reduce traffic speeds.he speed humps would normally be P mph. They the speed zone on the street. For residential stye designed for 25 mph. For collector streets they are 400 feet toemaintain relatively consis- tent typically installed at spacings of about 300 to speeds. Speed humps have been found to be effective in controlling speeds. tent traffic spe P with unusually high pedes- trian humps are sometimes used in combination with curb extensions at cross- walks. typically used at intersections walks. The combination is typ Y es such as near schools, or at locations where specialized version en of this o nor- trian velum orally is expected such as io at ,mid-block the level of the entire intersection is aised a nation is a raised intersection, few inches. This has the effect of a speed hump that encompasses the intersection in- cluding all the crosswalks. Raised This median islands can be installed in streets to asses apedestrians sed medi- ans the street. This enables pedestrians to cross street where speeds are high. The medians ans are typically used on collectors or arterials have little effect on traffic speeds. On residential buses,and medians interfere large ere with parking ha with parking and can cause circulation difficulties with ve- hicles. -18- NCASTER 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. -19- ANCASTER ENGINEERING SUMMARY 1. The proposed CEI Headquarters building is expected to generate approximately 37 trips during the morning peak hour peak hour, with 33 of these entering the site and 4 exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, 36 trips are expected with 6 entering and 30 exiting the site. A weekday total of 264 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 the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant and the Peak Hour Warrant 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 78`h 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. The developer of the proposed CEI Headquarters building has shown interest in constructing an addi- tional southbound left-turn lane at the intersection. The addition of this lane will not significantly increase the capacity of the intersection but will help alleviate queuing problems. -20- LANCASTER ENGINEERING APPENDIX -21- LE LANCASTER ENGINEERING TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Existing + Site Trips, 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, = 3491 TEV1 = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C1 = 0.77 Calculations V/C, = TEV,/Ch then Ch= TEV, /V/C, Ch = 3491 / 0.77 Ch = 4534 TEV, = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 6587 V/C2 =TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 6587 / 9068 V/C2 = 0.73 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description CE!HEADQUARTERS Capacity.Analysis EB WB I NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L 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 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 10.65 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 Lane Group.Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination s' .. T, t :,- EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 21 1765 223 11 1259 90 34 12 133 165 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 25.6 14.7 56.4 20.1 45.8 44.2 43.7 47.8 48.7 Delay factor k 0.11 1 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 ID I B E IC D D D D D 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 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General.Information Project Description CE!HEADQUARTERS Volume Adjustment 4AP ..w ..A,1 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 20 1659 210 10 1179 1 5 85 32 11 125 112 43 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 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 11 1259 90 34 12 133 165 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.004 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.279 Saturation Flow.;Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 11900 1 1900 1 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 11 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 10.962 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 11.000 -- 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 i Sec. adj. satflow -- I -- - I 1 FULL REPORT General Info ' 0. g - . 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 EXISTING+SITE Intersection Geometry. Grade= 0 0 1 !---4 I 1 .4.,'--=-- n Ii1i i 4 , { i Grade= 0 Show North Arrow -1.--4-1-4-;-1-1-4-41 i -1-p-t-11 ' ' I ! -4- /Iv . R 1-1±11-1-11- ' F 1 . i Grade= 0 -?-I 1 i i ' 'rl = L T 3 -,- � � _ LR j_''"7�a 1- Grade= 0 ,r`A� _ tF Y r - LTR 1 1 ----------- - Volume and Timing Input- EB WB NB ( SB i LT TH 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 1 6 3 0 3 1 3 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 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 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 10 10 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Excl. Left Thru & RT I 03 04 SB Only NB Only 07 08 Timing G = 4.0 G = 65.0 G = G = G = 17.0 G = 18.0 G = IG = 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 .LEA 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,/ Ch 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 CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information *�: ,.t ,fia*, a' ; ,u9 F", g _ 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 48 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 188 199 Satflow rate 1787 13505 1599 _11787 13500 1 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 17 788 811 102 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 1 0.28 0.04 0.48 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.11 Crit. lane group N N I N Y Y Y N N N I Y Sum flow ratios I 0.82 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.92 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay :and'LOS:Determination . EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 48 11539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 188 199 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 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 10.8 18.7 12.5 33.0 0.5 0.4 20.1 26.6 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 67.4 35.1 24.4 83.5 45.5 88.7 49.2 48.0 79.5 86.4 Lane group LOS E D C F D 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 HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET FL ?9* �� e �w�w�..��°ro 4,..� .�� z , d �- t v r S"�',�r� �4 �,wr,��4��r �+r�,�a$F� S �e t -. ;d shillloi- ,. ...x_fin..i 3.r_ ,�:.4 3 .. .� . .� iii:'2 a�?re.;:r�.. ,i '.Ydi.=z i� w . « '°Mti'S n .iti ts? Project Description CE!HEADQUARTERS{ EB WB NB SB 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 10.96 I I 1 1 I 1 Adj. Flow Rate 48 1539 445 71 11677 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 II 324 121 69 188 199 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 -- i0.011 0.000 -- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.236 Saturation Flow Rate °'/ Ie., Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 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 f9 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 11.00 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 -- 0.965 fLpb 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 I -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1787 3505 11599 1787 3500 J 1787 1900 1599 1787 1794 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- - -- • FULL REPORT • t n ITc_ TF Site tnforn'i'iiro s: „�^ f. ?. r t,< ,VrriE,. Generallnfon-nation "- .� ...,, "�`. `��_� .� ,� � � :mss '� °°�° ._ 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) Intersection Geometry. o Grade= 0 1 1 -roil : III ' i ! : III Grade= 0 .L I ' ? f , „ I • Show North Arm tL 1 = T 1 i{ r TA I i i j i. ilw = R 1 f i If 2 --t -a� - _..�_-�R1 ....x__}. 2 'V 1t _ It t-1 i = L ; 1 1 _ I f . -44--i-4-; . ', E ' I I Ir'lv = T R 1 f.-- Grade= 0 _ .1... 4.X[".E_.__.{4 �f = L T i f t � ; i • t 1 f r t - LR _. !_I_-� i;_j 1 I Grade= 0 .Y �l i-•- _ �' = L T R r Volume and Timing Input -- EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 46 1477 427 68 1610 18 311 116 66 180 1 146 145 % 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 i 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 I N N N N N I N Parking/hr 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 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 • 71 ,, :,,,z ,,, , . 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, = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.76 Calculations V/C, = TEV,/Ch then Ch = TEV, /V/C, Ch = 3476 / 0.76 Ch = 4574 TEV, = 53% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 6558 V/C2= TEV2/2xCh V/C2= 6558 / 9147 V/C2 = 0.72 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information . 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 7 1765 223 11 1 1259 190 34 I 12 132 164 Satflow rate 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1 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 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 N I Y N Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.66 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio j 0.76 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination 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 Lane group cap. 53 1880 841 57 1827 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 Green ratio 0.03 10.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 Unif. delay dl 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 64 6 44.4 43.8 50.0 54.2 Lane group LOS E D B E C D 0 1 D D 1 D Apprch. delay 33.2 21.5 45.8 52.4 Approach LOS C C D D Intersec. delay 31.2 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General information Project Description CE!HEADQUARTERS Volume Adjustment EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 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 J- 0.000 0.000 -- 0.004 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 -- 0.274 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 11900 1900 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 1.000 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 -- 0.959 fLpb 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- fRpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1597 3471 1553 1703 3373 1703 1845 1615 1752 1794 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- FULL REPORT General information _ 54SJ irrifol'matratti >;•49'`•x% 'v :::4.:0` : 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) intersection`Geometry. - Grade= 0 0 1 1 av - 1, Y!-! a Grade= 0 �f� Shag Na1h frrew 1 t---i S- E�'--4-r" M I--17-4 i i r = R 2 -f- ' -l- -r------ -- --.--' �. * L 1 I , I 1 , TR Grade= 0 4_`_._ .� .4_1_4_14 i " '4 = L T. _ lryr = LR .74111___H'. - - i-- -1-1-hi-.... Grade= 0 . A - L T R I 1 I Volume and Timing Input t EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 7 1659 210 10 1179 5 85 32 11 124 112 42 % Heavy veh 113 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 10.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 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 . Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 0.0 0.0 3.0 J 0.0 Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 I 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 _ Cycle Length C = 120.0 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General'Information ISite Information Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year EXISTING+SITE Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CE!HEADQUARTERS East/West Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: 78TH Volume Adjustmentsand;4Site Charact risftc ft*;,.. � , 1, , Approach I Eastbound I Westbound Movement L T R L I T R Volume 32 13 272 59 157 16 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T 1 R Volume 122 30 14 7 32 13 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 l-1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT R LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 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 9 Prop.Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 0.3 I I 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 5.63 _ 5.63 5.63 5.63 5.63 Departure Headway and Service Tithe r hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x,initial 0.04 0.26 0.22 0.16 0.05 hd,final value 5.63 5.63 5.63 5.63 5.63 x,final value 0.07 1 0.40 0.35 I 0.27 0.09 Move-up time, m 2.3 I 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.3 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 2.6 Capacity and Level ofServicea_ : y Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I-2 L1 L2 Li L2 L1 l L2 Capacity , 297 542 498 428 304 Delay 8.78 10.74 10.95 10.60 9.24 LOS A B B B 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 Site.Information . Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction TIGARD Date Performed 5/9/01 Analysis Year EX/ST/NG+SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CEI HEADQUARTERS East/West Street PFAFFLE (North/South Street 78TH Voiuii0 Or s ie.. „ Vi � _{w�s1-zi-.nr. 'y Y_. ., .a x 'a � 52 r, - Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L , T R Volume 9 4 218 29 155 1 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 I Approach I Northbound Southbound Movement I L 1 T I R L F T I R ua Volume 53 3 5 0 39 9 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT R LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Flow Rate 14 265 225 73 57 Heavy Vehicles 2 2 5 3 3 No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 4a 2 I 2 Duration,T 0.25 Y 1 k .: -. -07- AN: V N' T.' ` - 7 i .;c ni ,r Y -Rt _TrF r,4'!.'i lv:611 s ,,. Leal- 331,-- o. : u -:it.a i Prop.Left-Turns 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 I 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 5.24 5.24 5.24 5.24 5.24 Departurk,rHeadway,aineferri'tit ' .°s. ''i< v.° _ . hd, initial value I 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 I 5.24 I 5.24 5.24 5.24 x,final value 0.02 0.33 l 0.30 0.11 0.08 Move-up time,m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.9 2.2 2.9 1 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.2 . ° car .y .. Q x.-7'1, #.4 V .>. t:. _, ._mPL:i, , s.._,.L_a °s .. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 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 A A A Intersection Delay 9.39 Intersection LOS A ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Sited Information 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 CEI HEADQUARTERS EastANest Street: PFAFFLE !North/South Street: 78TH Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics _ Approach � _ Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R I L T R Volume 32 13 I 254 59 156 16 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L I T I R t.-;_ T I R Volume 120 _ 30 14 7 32 13 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 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 47 273 247 176 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 Prop.Left-Turns 0.7 I 0.0 0.3 I 0.7 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.0 I 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 1 -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 Departure?Headway and.Service Time hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x,initial 0.04 0.24 0.22 0.16 0.05 hd,final value 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 x,final value 0.07 0.37 0.35 0.27 0.08 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 1 3.3 I 2.6 3.3 2.6 3.3 I 2.6 3.3 I 2.6 Capacity and Level of•Service, 1 Eastbound Westbound L Northbound Southbound Li L2 1..1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 297 523 497 426 304 Delay 8.76 10.37 10.84 10.47 9.16 LOS A B B B l l A l 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 _� Analyst TEM Intersection PFAFFLE @78TH 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: 78TH Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics.- . _ Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 9 4 216 29 148 1 %Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement -L-- T R L T R Volume 40 3 5 0 39 9 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT R LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.82 I 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Flow Rate 14 263 216 57 57 %Heavy Vehicles 2 I 2 5 I 3 3 No. Lanes 2 1 1 1 Geometry Group 5 4a 2 2 Duration,T . 0.25 J Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet ' Prop.Left-Turns 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.8 T 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 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 I 0.2 hRT-adj J -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.0 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj,computed 5.18 5.18 5.18 I 5.18 5.18 Departure.Headway and-Service Time hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x,initial 0.01 0.23 0.19 0.05 0.05 hd,final value 5.18 5.18 5.18 5.18 5.18 x,final value I 0.02 0.32 0.28 0.08 0.08 Move-up time, m 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Tme 2.9 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.9 2. 1 tapacity,and Level of Serviee., ,- • Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 I L1 L2 L1 L2 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 9.17 I 9.59 8.74 8.49 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay 9.21 Intersection LOS A 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 EXISTING+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 Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R - L T R Volume 0 482 77 I 237 395 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 523 I 83 257 429 I 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 Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 44 0 237 0 0 I 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 I 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 Hared Approach N N Storage 0 I 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay,Queue Length, and Level.of,.Service Approach NB SB I 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 J Control Delay 10.0- 23.3 18.2 LOS A C C I -� Approach Delay -- -- 19.0 Approach LOS -- -- C 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 EXISTING+SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CE1 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 I 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 I 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L i T R Volume 33 0 237 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 36 0 260 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 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 'Configuration L R Dilii►;:Queue.Length, and Level.of`S$'rvice 44 J_a. .. Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) I 170 36 260 C (m) (vph) 1177 336 675 v/c 0.14 0.11 0.39 95% queue length 0.50 0.36 1.82 Control Delay 8.6 17.0 13.6 LOS A C B Approach Delay -- -- 14.0 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 EXISTING (2001) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID CE!HEADQUARTERS EastNUest Street: PFAFFLE North/South Street: HALL • Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T -R- Volume 0 482 75 236 395 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 0 I 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume I 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 — N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes I 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L 1 R Decay, Queue Length,;and Level of Service_ . , ..-. Approach I NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 I 11 I 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 256 38 254 C (m) (vph) 979 245 527 v/c 0.26 0.16 0.48 95% queue length 1.05 0.54 I 2.59 Control Delay 10.0- 22.4 II 18.0 LOS A C C Approach Delay — -- 18.6 Approach LOS -- -- C 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 EXISTING (2001) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project ID CE!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 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 - -- 2 - -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 J 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 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 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 I Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R _-_ DeIIa Q fr3# r and Level of Service _ Approach NB I SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 167 34 218 C (m) (vph) I 1189 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 I LOS A C B Approach Delay -- -- 13.3 Approach LOS -- -- B INTERSECTION -'`JRN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR ' PORT HIGHWF 19 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STRE ♦ T= 1.9% P=.852 N 1365 • DATE OF COUNT: (425/01 O ♦ I178 DAY OF WEEK: Wed - R 45 150 170 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H -1972 4-I 1 L► 4-1709 • 46 J L19 T= 2. 3% T= 2.6% 1460-0- •-1618 P=.950 P=.955 422 Z r72 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 41 r• P=PHF BY APPROACH 1928-► 1704-► HRBP 309 113 74 Peak Hour 1644 16 :30-17:30 Traffic Smithy • - ♦ T= .2% P=.898 1496 TEV=4498 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND aii TIME •FROM - TO PERIOD -► J /J I 1411. `1 r• j '- A 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 1 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 INTERSECT" TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMAR' SPORT -- Tl HIGH■ 99 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH ST, T l A T= 1 .4% P=.828 N 1371 DATE OF COUNT: 25/01 A O 1180 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 45 146 180 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 . T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H i-1966 � 1 L► 4-1696 4-1 46 - L18 T= 2.2% T= 2 . 3% 1477—■ i-1610 P=.954 P=.970 427 4-i r► r68 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME . $ T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH . P=PHF BY APPROACH 1950—■ 1723—■ • HRBP 311 116 66 Peak Hour - 1641 • 16 :35-17:35 Traffic Smithy T= . 3% P=.893 1493 TEV=4510 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD A FROM - TO ; —► 3 4J 1 Li, 4- I v.' j !_ 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 3 309 Total Survey 827 2793 81 89 281 331 574 218 152 149 3142 38 8675 per' .88 .93 .82 .75 .74 .83 .88 .83 .75 .77 . 96 .64 .961 % 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 INTERSECTIOF 1RN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR -PORT HIGHWW )9 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STRE • T= 1. 1% P=.838 NN 1+26 5 DATE OF COUNT: Q :,L2 5/01 i 51 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 40 105 120 TIME STARTED: 07 :00 T TIME ENDED: 09 :00 H 4-1319 4-1 • L. *-1205 • • 8 - L6 T= 4 .4% T= 6.5% 1634-► 4-1190 P=. 936 P=.921 201 1 4-1 I �► r9 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 4 • i T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH � P=PHF BY APPROACH 1843-■ 1767-► HRBO 89 37 13 Peak Hour 1315 07:30-08 :30 Traffic Smithy • - • T= 5% P=.868 139 TEV=3452 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO -► 3 43 1 L. .41 I f j _ L 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 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 INTERSECT: TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMAR` ;PORT HIGHN. _ 99 WEST AT SW DARTMOUTH STF_ .r • T= 1.8% P=.789 N 1278 • DATE OF COUNT: Q4125/01 0 . �44 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 42 112 124 TIME STARTED: 07 : 00 T H 4-1306 � 1 L,. 4-1194 TIME ENDED: 09:00 7 -I L5 T= 4.4% T= 6 .5% 1659—• i-1179 P=.951 P=.899 210 i TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME •* ;10 T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH .4-1 1 r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 1876—• 1794—■ HRBO 85 32 11 Peak Hour i332 • 07:20-08 :20 Traffic Smithy -1 T= 4 .5% P=.727 1128 TEV=3476 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD _ • FROM - TO _.o. .4J 1 Li, 1 r' j ' L 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 CL/9 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 INTERSECTIOr 'JRN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUR -SPORT I SW 1 AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREE • T= 8% P=.833 0 i N 150 DATE OF COUNT: 25/01 79 DAY OF WEEK: We R 13 31 6 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H +-283 4-1 1 L. 4-226 • • 30 1 L17 T= 1.4% T= 0% 14 —► 4-153 P=.847 P=.830 251 1 1-56 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • • V 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 PERIOD FROM - TO —► 3 43 L► 41 I r► • 4— L 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 4 17:00-17:15 0 4 4 1 9 17 :15-17:30 0 0 1 3 4 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 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 a1R INTERSECTI. TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY 2PORT SW 78TH AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREET • T= 9.3% P=.764 ' �� • DATE OF COUNT: 04/25/01 N �52 � 78 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 13 32 7 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-289 •- L► 4-231• •32 3 • L16 T= . 9% T= 1.2% 13 —► 4-156 P=.859 P=.849 254 59 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME Z j T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH �l �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 299 —► 34 —► WCBJ 120 30 14 Peak Hour 1345 • 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 A FROM - TO —► 3 'J 1 Lo. 41 r' ; _ L A 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 25 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 a INTERSECTIC 'URN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK Hour 'EPORT SW .H AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STRE. • T= 2% P=.657 N 150 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: '1F/25/01 O I12 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 11 39 0 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 08 :30 H -190 4-1 i L. 4-173• •10 J L1 T= 1.3% T= 4 .6% 5 —► +-139 P=.894 P=.800 214 1 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME ♦ • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 'l I r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 229 —► 11 -► WCBI 40 1 6 Peak Hour - I286 ♦ 07:15-08 :15 Traffic Smithy + T= 2. 1% P=.783 I47 TEV=499 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • ♦ • FROM - TO -► ,3 Lk, 41 I f 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 BICYCLES 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 INTERSEC I...41 TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT SW 78TH AVENUE AT SW PFAFFLE STREET • T= 2 . 9% P=.631 NI'",- N i 148 • DATE OF COUNT: 04/25/01 O X13 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 9 39 0 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 08 :30 H —197 4-1 1 Lo. 4-178 • • 9 - L1 T= 1.6% T= 5.2% 4 —► 4-148 P=.763 P=.824 216 1 r29 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 4� r P=PHFUBYS APPROACH APPROACH 229 —► 9 —► WCBI 40 3 5 Peak Hour 1284 • 07:20-08 :20 Traffic Smithy T= 2 .9% P=.8 �48 TEV=503 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH-BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO 1 —► 3 4J 1 1-0, 4l I r• r 4— L • 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 INTERSECTIOT JRN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUT ?PORT HAL 8OULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREET • T= 1.4% P=.923 N 1628 • DATE OF COUNT: *4425/01 O 1714 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 399 229 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-2 *-I i L. *-269 A •0 -1 X232 T= 0% T= 1.1% 0 —► A-2 P=0. P=.947 0 1 r35 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • • i T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH .l i f' P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 -• 0 482 75 304 -' DJQP Peak Hour 1434 • 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 TIME PERIOD • • L FROM - TO —► 3 .4J 1 t' 43 I �' r 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 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 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 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 • INTERSECTI' TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY -SPORT { H!. BOULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREET • T= 1.6% P=.927 N 1631 A DATE OF COUNT: *125/01 0 1716 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 395 236 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-1 4-1 L► i-270 • V • O J L234 T= 0% T= 1.7% O —► *-1 P=0. P=.888 O 1 r35 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH '1 I f• P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —► 311 —► DJQP 0 482 75 Peak Hour 1430 16:40-17:40 Traffic Smithy T= 1.16- .P=.886 557 TEV=1458 (503) 641-6333 TIME PERIOD EAST BOUND • SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND • • FROM - TO Z —► J tJ I Li 44 1 I f' r 4-' 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 A INTERSECTIO► "JRN MOVEMENT COUNT PEAK HOUF 'PORT HA 3OULEVARD 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 H -0 4-1 L► -230 TIME ENDED: 09:00 • • • 0 j L197 T= 0% T= 4 .3% 0 —► 4-0 P=0_ P=.942 0 1 33 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • • r T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 41 I r■ P=PHF BY APPROACH■0 — 174 —' 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 TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO 1 —► . 4J I L' '1 I r' i 4— 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 BICYCLES 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 PEDESTRIANS 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 • INTERSECT- TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMAR' SPORT ,1 HI BOULEVARD AT PFAFFLE STREE'• • T= 3 .8% P=.862 N 1583 DATE OF COUNT: V4/25/01 • O . 513 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 431 152 TIME STARTED: 07 :00 T TIME ENDED: 09 :00 H i-0 4-1 L. 4-230 •0 1 L199 T= 0% T= 4 .9% 0 —► *-0 P=0. P=.845 0 r31 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • $ T=°%TRUCKS BY APPROACH .4-1 �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —■ 175 —' 0 314 23 Peak Hour DJQO 1462 07 :35-08:35 Traffic Smithy •T= 5.7% P=.834 337 TEV=1150 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • L• FROM - TO 3 —► 3 A3 Lo,. . r' j '— 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 !1E9 LANCASTER ENGINEERING TWO-HOUR V/C ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET General Information Intersection: Highway 99W at Dartmouth Street Scenario: Existing + Site Trips, 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, = 4530 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) V/C, = 0.93 Calculations V/C, = TEV,/Ch then Ch = TEV, /V/C, Ch = 4530 / 0.93 Ch = 4871 TEV, = 52% of TEV2 (from two-hour manual turn movement count) TEV2 = 8712 V/C2 =TEV2/2xCh V/C2 = 8712 / 9742 V/C2= 0.89 Two-hour volume-to-capacity ratio CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET ----- ----- - a a "General Information ' ,. ;;�': . : ,,,.",. (Project DescriptionCEI HEADQUARTERS . .,..Analysis �, ,, , EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L I LT R L TR Adj. flow rate 50 1539 445 71 1696 324 121 69 194 211 Satflow rate 1787 3505 1599 1787 3500 11787 1900 1599 1787 1778 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.11 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 Grou• Ca•acit C R., a € 10� F � ,; `x " , . . 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 10.87 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 55.7 48.7 47.7 59.6 60.3 ■ Delay factor k 0.11 0.40 0.15 0.26 0.47 0.45 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 I D 1 C F D I F I D D F I 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 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET General Information Project Description CE!HEADQUARTERS Volume Adjustment ..... : , , . EB WB 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 T R L TR L LT R IL. 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 11900 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 -- 0.950 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 13505 1599 1787 3500 1787 1900 1599 1787 1778 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- , FULL RE PORT . 9.`�. m �5X t^`l4kk se �n _d. � �#' �" 040-47244t77:07102114 ,74- ..-.-::'''',..i....<It toJ a :". .� '' ,� ,n n 'n -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 PM PEAK Analysis Year EXISTING+SITE. r w s^��a .x�"s6 1r� �'?�£,-c-ua. �'�a` rte' -.a��' *�` �. r �� n ��'r .s� �:. 1 W4 a'i".` a ralf,b' {.c.. :� �"�F. ,i. r. -4-AV:-..-,',._ ' ':N'v`.,as -u'°';. . ass.. ,. Grade= 0 0 1 1 MEOW VI link T-1 ' / ! ? ( Grade= 0 luir owl 1 . T it :HEI: � 0 i1 R 2 _ ..--- =.- '-..;_, ` .e_!_..1 ... 2 Grade= 0 i # .._. _i._ L v ` _ L i_ 111 Grade= 0 �t _ L T R 1 1 1 }*`,"�C 14W-War ,..�S,t..� v a,!: .«„ss .£5;"€,�.!'�"t -IT a ..' '. wPVL "`; 711 :a.<a tO :. '-:--ii EB WB NB 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 A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 12.0 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 - 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 = 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 PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES Karen Fox -Viking Corporate Center age From: Mark Mead <mrmead1 @ibm.net> To: <karen @ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 12/2/99 8:52AM Subject: Viking Corporate Center Karen, This is Mark Mead with Christensen Engineering. We don't have individual email, so I use my own. Anyway I've heard scuttlebutt that this application is back to the Pre-application stage. Could you give me an update please. If it would take too long to type, I'll be at my desk all day. The phone number is 598-1866. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. CITY OF TIGARD i_l a`'r l q LAND USE APPLICATION CHECKLIST • S OP- (991- cc -lease read his form careful) in con'unction with he notes •rovided o ou at the •re- 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: v,< Date: 12101 9`� • 1. BASIC INFORMATION • • ALL LAND USE APPLICATIONS REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING: Jeff Sor,e4 LIecu ,v7,9�;4A. .r ow � �� � Area"' 60 .142 Meg Completed Application Form with property owner's signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Ak4 Title transfer instrument or grant deed 'c)OJO c (mi Need fa, 6/L ✓� Written summary of proposal 77A Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria (as specified in the Pre-Application Conference notes) Ne Two (2) sets of stamped, addressed envelopes and a notarized list of all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. Mailing envelopes shall be legal-size, addressed with 1"x 4" labels 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): / ,/tO li/ Vicinity Map 41.4: Preliminary Grading/Erosion Control Plan /f Of Existing Conditions Map C" Preliminary Utilities Plan PPs ❑ Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map ,Nr' ❑ Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan 'J w. ,y„s� ❑ Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan 4_, Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan - @% Site Development Plan Architectural Drawings Q( Landscape Plan ❑ Sign Drawings ❑ Public Improvements/Streets Plan nru .PlM.- SL&t 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 COPIES OF ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS. 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: 9/ Traffic Study d re-r f vv` Ne€d ,-"tom ❑ 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 8Y2 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 /1.1/ -C s � ❑ • Utility access ❑ Existing Conditions Map • Parcel boundaries,dimensions and gross area /' Er- Contour lines (2'intervals for 0-10%slopes or 5'for slopes>10%) —1U)c'c'U GF Drainage patterns and courses on the site and on adjacent lands ❑' Potential natural hazard areas including: • Floodplain areas ''v/''F`❑ • 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 /V6f 7iiUYi ❑, • 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 !O❑ • Wetlands Abfl Other site features: • Rock outcroppings ❑ • Trees with>_6"caliper measured 4'from ground level f C Location and type of noise sources Locations of existing structures and their uses (LA n� Locations of existing utilities and easements , .f,, c❑ Locations of existing dedicated right-of-ways ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 2 of 5 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 unsubdivided 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 p • 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) ❑ • 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 � `� a/pfe..2 v0 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 • Proposed streets or other public ways and easements on the site • Alternative routes of dead-end or proposed streets that require future extensions • ❑ The locations and dimensions of the following: • Entrances and exits on the site ri�0� ;BOA r • Parking and circulation areas /I p �,/ � hater nA) Loading and service areas—� • Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ctx-u 19t(14- tl°call (ED • Outdoor common areas ! 0d ufcl,ty f d"f but Ate- t / SGwwr` �^^P��— ❑ • Above ground utilities - /i5 1'l •g9 Pub`'° -6 A'° b - vrz1 404-4-- e"A6f ❑ • Trash and recyclable material areas •- -5/��,�, rlirN.c-.r�ri.� a� �� � Y aK�� /ou.�.,� /o� i a ❑ 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 —no1 • Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ❑ • Sanitary sewer facilities • Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements feG 6�'" 111• Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 1,1 Locations and type(s) of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques - /e 1th ) Ra . .., ❑ The locations of the following: oA, srkp4eVito //,Afire) pia-A., • All areas to be landscaped ❑ • Mailboxes ❑ • Structures and their orientation 0i Landscape Pan s—/ „�,Pe,���.. _.( �•-he( 0421c "Di-'116 ' /54 Plan 411,1 ice es 6,1 r Location of trees to be removed ! tamer w" pato4_ x4-47 V01 th7 ur pis i4 ' J44)19«►:r ❑/ Location, size and 4pecie of existing plant materials - Qr General location, size and species of proposed plan materials ❑T. 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 AJJr ❑ • 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 lam' • A scaled cross-section of all proposed streets plus any reserve strips 9//4- ❑ • Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a �1 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 0i/11. .w 'taf SL Existing and proposed contour lines Slope ratios pt,ve54 5 to j J e �. s/�,�,- ❑ 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 LPG r `t(i' � ❑ Location,width and direction of flow of all water courses and drainageways f (L ❑ 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 — coon/14o/ '4 ❑ ? Program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal (Section 18.790.030) ita- � t�u�s� ■ A protection program defining standards and methods to be used during and after construction ✓ic/J ❑ Architectural Drawings n Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures and their proposed use - eon eelohee-1' Elevation drawings for each elevation of the structure oYL&) 7,107i-4) Sign Drawings Specify proposed location, size and height /0 . ❑ • i:\;curpin\masters\revised\chklist-doc 26-Nov-98 City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 5 of 5 ` r v4 Vi 1 Col `ike Q.,¢- -- S'as,3 2 . ;R3:74(..) 0 &Ph 44_, keed,(4754-4,,40o, 1-(7? 3 14 1-› Spy d e_ �1...d. i� (S.S n(DA I g (du/ P 1 c. 01 Off ca.,. A•7/1(2(? = i4•6 Of (D1 TAL.LA.. 4Ad k.1 let 5 Spy, S9 PrvvUar 4 (age .,,An c41 ,a.4"t "p a.., f-, . -( ha-...a cc.`0I A.P,1 7G-1bo = cl spuc,„ - I vu• . f..;. ti.....,___ PJ c 1-c. a ct az-a - rt of s fit 1i-1,. .-Sh UUU 30' wicri . - IL( ow well wcak- wacliwy ....... c- 0_ i re& = 13 131 = _ S 1c ',�cee4f T'ec, Se-r{oikt tL - v - ft.-.,..5k-- of)-0 4oc ex, csl./-0 12"._._ ct /t 0 I - -ui�c 0 Li.A ~ c`), Av 5ca2 C.. 4 r ( — 24•5 - �l f� - vv.. A. = �( ' F1 ,4- ^ cci{ to I 1 : ! . !■*- - ■ i , . : - bill Or.I a-P I ?' 774 to ' T014I °IA S//c (gstc,let- i2-i-,--- /2".) ,( - A ea, kelar :t_ z/l.d-ci. f el 4,, . _ -5-56 ge 71/Lavt d r;!, d ii/ - - ,-,), - ,_ O,s, /-e•pc-,...-3 -2/ i kl.i.di cc/4'‘._ : & 'I 741) i'VT-i I'e7 6C-0( 44,7o keree/ /17d1e'C'f, i-JA- 4008-7e,‘„ -754 iiiiiWONEe &Let/rt.5 5_, ,/ L.. tr 41-7/`.- 01 ,/,e44.,-,1 C/otizi l000 Ce,44 el r://i-r, f' . eitIte PI$444 54. - /be 6 1,LAL. of i.-.ee- L.A i a...." ..,_.4.)1 fry z.4.,( cze d 47 G:2-EA-I•ser S 4- rt..f /44-Zfia-Lc c.--( 104" . , ' 7441„ta'ai • ,- ,7 i Ad/144-4/ 11Y—a l' /i0 / A :;:_------. d;t i y fe. 76; 0 3 0 /Ler A Areee.,5 - .Rif i p acie.074,--.4_, €,A-ner2._, ay' i, ' I 0 , . 30 I _ri. ce4...L..., atA.,_ 14it,4L_ ,.. ..,:i. .„. , . .,., : ,,,. / 7d5-- cm v. �8 45--- ._ fee 14 lees - a 3 7 / - . -ffecs - 7g 8 t er 5 ad{c& da c SK_c.v S 2e, --- ply- (p7ices lvA.-1 d a s /F. 7sc /1-Gged �a 7' q s /ono 9 x Ast rt /G3 f2420-4. ea. /S. I& gt PaAki 01.3 _ 5/zooz> j1(7(,) .5-per,r ,, 7y• - I�ec 6'c-de It 71 S i2,u-.-4.f G ZC gei 500 -�-� Wash!! :ounty,Oregon 2002.080395 07/171. . 09:43:18 AM Of Cntul Stn■19 J STEEL $20.00$0.00$11.00 -Total■$37.00 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: CITY HALL RECORDS DEPARTMENT, CITY OF TIGARD 00130264200200803950040044 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I,Jerry Hanson,Director of A merit and Taxation • At , Tigard,OR 97223 and Ex-Officio County Clerk for Washington County, ' do hereby certify that the within instrument of writing - ..: ,,.,, ••' was received and recorded in the bilk of records of '" said county. NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT r, ;:• •' Jerry R.Hanson,Director sssssment and Taxation, 4 .... Ex-Officio County Clerk CORPORATE File No. p ?`1 y-CCCv EASEMENT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEWAY ON ADJOINING PARCELS COMMERCIAL USE THIS PERPETUAL EASEMENT,made and entered into on this May_42-1 ,2002, between Saxony-Pacific,L.L.C.,hereinafter called the first party,and Jillian K.Christensen,hereinafter called the second party. WITNESSETH WHEREAS,the first party is the owner in fee simple of the following described property in the City of Tigard, County of Washington,State of Oregon,to wit: Lands in the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 1 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian in Washington County,Oregon,conveyed by Document No.2000026058. And the second is the owner in fee simple of the following described real property in said City,County,and State, to wit: Lands in the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 1 South,Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian in Washington County,Oregon,conveyed by Document No.2000063509. and said parcels of real estate adjoin each other; WHEREAS,the parties desire to grant to each other an easement and right to use the described motor vehicle driveway now or to be constructed along and upon a portion of the parcels in conjunction with any lawful use. NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of each party's granting to the other an easement hereinafter described,and other valuable consideration each to the other in hand paid,the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged: zero dollars FIRST: First party conveys to second party a perpetual easement for motor vehicle driveway purposes to use in conjunction with any lawful use along and upon that portion of first party's property described in Exhibit A,attached. SECOND: Second party conveys to the first party a perpetual easement for motor vehicle purposes for use in conjunction with any lawful use along and upon that portion of second party's property described in Exhibit B, attached. THIRD: It is mutually agreed that each party may use in common with the other party,the whole of said motor vehicle driveway,including that portion thereof situated on the property of the other party for ingress and egress of motor vehicle,pedestrians,and uses incidental to any lawful use of the property. FOURTH: This agreement should bind and inure to the benefit of,as the circumstance may require,not only the immediate parties hereto,but also to their respective heirs,executors,administrators,and successors in interest as will. F1PTli: (Optional) The maintenance shall a shared reponsibilit) of the parties and each of the parties shall share the cost of maintaining the easement. The obligation to share maintenance costs shall begin when the driveway is completed. SIXTH: (Optional) Each of the parties shall maintain liability insurance which,at a minimum,meet the standard in the industry for tile particular types of uses for which the properties are used. The insurance policies shall name the owner of the adjoining parcels as an additional insured in connection with the use of the easement. SEVENTH: In construing the foregoing agreement,the plural shall mean and include the singular whenever the context so requires. 1111111111 11 11 1111 2002-80395 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto set my hand on this #day of May,2002. Name of Corporation Si ture Address Title it/ ( t ) ( )71),D 44. 44 • S %ature. Title STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of Washington ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on J ►018��� (date)by 311\ (,4 Y 15-bir cr, v (name(s)of person(s))as (.t!.o (type of authority,e.g.,officer,trustee,etc) of (name of party on. behalf of whom instrument was executed). OFFICIAL SEAL f Notary's Signatures ALETHA K. GILCHRIST rJ NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ) 4/.).exan COMMISON Nt,350119 ( 9 MY COMMISSION ExPi 5 s PT 2Q,2005 My Commission Expires: IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto set my hand on this day of May,2002. Name Signature Address Title Signature Title STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of Washington ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date)by (name(s)of person(s))as (type of authority,e.g.,officer,trustee,etc) of (name of party on. behalf of whom instrument was executed). Notary's Signature My Commission Expires: - 11111111111 11 11 1111 2002-80395 N S89'29'57"E _131.41' TO PLAT CORNER o SW PFAFFLE 2" ALUMINUM CAP IN MON. BOX FOR THE STREET CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF S.W. 81st AVENUE AND S.W. PFAFFLE STREET FROM ri THE PLAT OF "HERB AND PEGGIE'S PLACE". 2 w 0 b N89'29'57"W 1 0- RIGHT–OF–WAY LINE —7 1 13.00' 1 cn o 0 Iz q 0 N IN rn ESMT. rn P1 z 2 2 ca co b Io 0. WEI L —_ S89'29'57"E 13.00' GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 BO ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. EXHIBIT "A" .�e Eve#teethlf EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS ON G LANDS IN THE S.W. QUARTER OF SECTION - - 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS 8000 SW PFAFFLE ST.,PORTLAND,OREGON 97223 OF THE WILAMETTE MERIDIAN, PHONE(503)598-1866-FAX(503)598-1868 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON WEI JOB 01-109.02 KCS 05/19/02 ACCESSXIBITS.DWG I,Il III II ii 1111 2002-80395 S89'29'57"E 131.41' TO PLAT CORNER 0 0 SW PFAFFLE 0 2" ALUMINUM CAP IN MON. BOX FOR THE nNi STREET CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF S.W. 81st U; AVENUE AND S.W. PFAFFLE STREET FROM a? THE PLAT OF "HERB AND PEGGIE'S PLACE". r^ 2 L., 0 o v S89'29'57"E — 13.00' T — — — — RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE z ( I A 0 0 o q tv N I IQ rn ESMT. rn P1 2 2 co co I WEI I t -- J 89'29'57"W N 13.00' GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 80 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. EXHIBIT "B" vaia EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS ON �.�. �.�.. , lotc, LANDS IN THE S.W. QUARTER OF SECTION PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS 36, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST 8000 SW PFAFFLE ST.,PORTLAND,OREGON 97223 OF THE WILAMETTE MERIDIAN, PHONE(503)598-1866-FAX(503)598-1868 WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON WEIJOBO1-109.02 KCS 05/19/02 ACCESSXIHITS.DWG reAt CITY OF TIGARD OREGON December 2, 2002 Ed Christensen 8000 SW Pfaffle Street Portland, OR 97223 RE: SDR1999-00024 Approval Extension Dear. Mr. Christensen: This letter is in response to your request for an extension to the approval period for the Welkin Corporate Center. Based on the information submitted on November 15, 2002 staff has determined that the criteria for approval of an extension have been met. The first 18 months of the Site Development Review would have expired on January 21 , 2003. The new expiration date will be January 21, 2004. Substantial construction of the site must begin within the time frame indicated above or the approval will expire. The code does not permit any further extensions. Therefore, the 3-year completion date is hereby extended to January 21, 2007. Please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x2437 if you have any questions on this request. Sincerely, 40/ fc-0 Mathew Scheidegger Assistant Planner i:curpin/mathew/SDR/SDR1999-00024.extension.doc c: SDR1999-00024 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 . Welkin Engineering, P.C. November 15, 2002 JO: 97-1 12.01 Mr James Hendryx Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 99-00024 WELKIN CORPORATE CENTER EXTENSION REQUEST PER SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 18.360.030 (D. 1-3) Dear Mr. Hendryx: As the applicant's representative, an one year extension of the approval for the aforementioned application is hereby requested. This request is made under the provisions of SDR 18.360.030 (D. 1-3), which states a one year extension shall be granted providing: 1. No changes are made on the SDR; Response: No changes have been made to the SDR as approved by the Director. 2. The applicant can show the intent of initiating construction on the site within one year; Response: The applicant has requested preliminary bids from three contractors for the construction of her building. She has authorized the preparation of engineered drawings for the site frontage improvements and has selected an Architect for the design of the building. At this time, construction is being delayed by the prolonged poor state of the economy, and the high vacancy rate in the community. The 8060 Pfaffle building adjoining this development site is primarily vacant, and we are in contact with their real estate brokers regularly and they have no encouraging lease prospects. However, she remains committed and hopeful that the office market will improve and has the intent of beginning construction by the summer of 2003 as required under this provision. 3. There have been no changes to the Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approvals were based; Response: There have been no changes to the Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approvals were based. Welkin Engineering, P.C. If you should have any questions as to where the information is in this narrative,please call me at 598-1866. Sincerely, PreT Ed Christensen, P.E. Principal Attachments cc: Jill Christensen Dick Bewersdorf, City of Tigard Sr. Planner Matt Scheidegger, City of Tigard Planner 8000 SW Pfaffle Street,Portland,Oregon 97223 Phone(503)598-1866 Fax(503)598-1868 Email:cei8 @attbi.com (For Welkin) or ekc12(a,attbi.com (For Ed Christensen) , 4k CITY OF TIGARD 11/15/2002 13 12 5 SW Hall Blvd. 3:53:43PM Tigard,Oregon 97223 ! (503) 63 9-417 1 Receipt #: 27200200000000004367 Date: 11/15/2002 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid SDR1999-00024 [LANDUS]Approved Extension 100-0000-438000 200.00 Line Item Total: $200.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check JILL K.CHRISTENSEN BMK 266 In Person 200.00 Payment Total: $200.00 F .f Page 1 of 1 cReceipt.rpt