Loading...
SDR1998-00016 SDR98 - 00016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ''' CITY OF TIGARD [SDRI 98-0016 Community Deve[opment ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Shaping A Oetter Community 120 DAYS=2-10-99 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review SDR 98-0016 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Site Development Review approval for the construction of a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet. APPLICANT/ J.T. Roth, Jr. OWNERS: Theresa A. Roth Michael S. Zoucha 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Employment (MUE) with Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.42, 18.62, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. SECTION II. STAFF 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 IV. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. (Unless otherwise specified, the Staff contact is Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.) 1. Submit a revised plan showing three (3) ADA accessible spaces will be provided. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 2. Submit a revised parking lot plan that provides for adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into the site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. This plan must be approved by the Building Division Plans Examiner prior to final site plan approval. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 3. Submit a tree removal and mitigation plan for staff review and approval. The tree removal plan must clearly identify which trees will be up-sized and by how many inches, and show any trees that are not required that are proposed for mitigation purposes. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 4. Submit evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts that the joint access has been provided. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 5. Submit a revised plan that shows a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) bicycles. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 6. Submit a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed parking lot screening shrubs will provide a balance of low-lying and vertical shrubbery. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 7. Submit a revised landscape plan that shows street trees will be planted 22 feet on center, with confirmation that the proposed Norway Maple trees will be spreading to 25 feet, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). The trees must be located between the sidewalk and the street. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 8. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view prior to final building inspection. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 9. Submit a revised plan that shows the net floor area square footage of the building is not greater than 15,330 square feet in order to meet the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary 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. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on site. No construction vehicles or ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 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. 13. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW 69th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 18 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. 6 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; underground utilities; J. driveway apron; and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 69th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 14. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District (LID) formed to improve SW 70th Avenue. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44). The location must be shown on the final site plan and landscape plan provided to the Planning Department. Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing to provide a facility that will meet only 49 percent of the required treatment (32 percent phosphorus removal). The balance of the requirement will be covered by the fee in-lieu. 17. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay a partial fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality facility. The fee is based on the total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. It is also calculated to consider that an on-site facility will be provided that will meet approximately 49 percent of the water quality rule. The fee will be approximately $1,244. 18. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION BEING PERFORMED: 19. 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. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 20. 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. 21. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications, at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Plans Examiner) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications of same. 22. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 69th Avenue 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 $4,813. and it shall be paid prior to final building inspection. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals were granted for this property. Vicinity Information: The project site is north of SW Hampton Street and south of SW Franklin Street. The site is bordered by SW 70th Avenue to the west and SW 69th Avenue to the east. The lots on all sides are zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE). Site Information and Proposal Description: There is an existing house on the project site, which will be demolished. The site is zoned MUE. The proposal is to construct a 16,764 square foot office building. This application was received and accepted prior to the effective date of the most recent code revision; therefore, the standards in effect prior to 11/26/98 apply to this review. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 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 18.32.250 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. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are 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 site has frontage on SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. Both of these streets are local streets. The approximate linear footage for the half-street improvements along SW 69th Avenue is approximately 175 feet. The Engineering Staff has estimated the costs of constructing half-street improvements is approximately $200 per linear foot. Based on this estimate, the cost of constructing half-street improvements along SW 69th Avenue is $35,000. Upon completion of this development, the future developer will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $47,575. 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 project's traffic impact is $148,671 ($47,575 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $47,575, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $101,096. Based on these estimates, the cost of improving SW 69th Avenue is clearly roughly proportional to the impacts. Furthermore, Section 18.164.030.A.1 states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street and that streets within and adjacent shall be improved in accordance with ordinance standards. In order for the street system to function to serve all properties at buildout, streets meeting minimum standards must be provided. With the improvements, the applicant will be providing services that will be adequate to serve the needs of the proposed use. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the construction of street improvements for the streets intended to serve the development. More detail on streets and street improvements is provided under the Public Facility Concerns section of this decision. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build an office building. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Administrative and Professional Offices. The site is within the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Zoning District. Section 18.67.030 lists professional and administrative services as a permitted use in the MUE zone. Dimensional Requirements: The MUE Zoning District standards contained in Section 18.67.050 states that the same dimensional requirement as the C-G Zoning District apply. The MUE Zoning District, as set forth in Section 18.67.060, also requires a maximum floor area ratio of .40 for commercial buildings. The C-G Zoning District standards contained in Section 18.62.050 states that there is no minimum lot area and the average minimum lot area and the average minimum lot width is 50 feet. Developments are required to provide a minimum of 15 percent landscaping or areas not developed with impervious surfaces. The site area contains 38,352 square feet. Twenty percent of the site is proposed to be landscaped with the remaining 80 percent constructed with impervious surface. The Floor Area is defined as: "The gross horizontal area under a roof, of all floors of a building, measured from the exterior walls, excluding vents, shafts, courts and space devoted to off-street parking." Based on this definition, the applicant counted the "net" floor area to be 15,105 square feet, which represents a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 39.4 percent. The Building Division has stated, however, that some areas excluded from the gross floor area do, in fact, count as floor area. The stairwell and second floor lobby opening may not be deducted from the floor area calculation. With these areas included, the site exceeds the 40 percent FAR by approximately 592 square feet. In order to meet 40 percent FAR standards, the proposed building must be reduced by at least 592 square feet. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Setbacks: The C-G zone, as provided in Section 18.62.050, states that front, side, or rear yard setbacks are not required, except that 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. The MUE zone is the same as the C-G zone. The MUE zoning district is considered commercial, therefore, setbacks are not required between the proposed development and adjacent MUE properties. There are buffering and screening requirements between commercial development and residential uses which will be discussed further in this decision. Building Height: The MUE zone is the same as the C-G zone. The C-G zone, as provided in Section 19.62.050, states that the maximum height of building is 45 feet. The applicant has shown an elevations plan which shows the building will not be greater than 45 feet in height. FINDING: Because the proposed building exceeds the required 40 percent FAR by 592 square feet, Staff can not determine that all standards relating to use classification, dimensional requirements, setbacks and building height standards have been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows the net floor area is 15,330 square feet, the FAR requirement will be met and Staff can determine that this criterion is met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the net floor area square footage of the building is not greater than 15,330 square feet in order to meet the FAR requirements. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single- family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: All development must demonstrate how either the design option or performance option will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: A. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; B. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet. Performance Option: ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 A. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile; B. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight line distance; C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. SW Beveland Street, from SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue, is required to be extended by the Tigard Triangle Office Complex approval (SDR 98-0014). With the extension of SW Beveland Street, the Performance Option is met for SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue because there are eight (8) intersections per mile along both streets. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector is no more than twice the straight line distance and the shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way is no more than one and one half the straight line distance. FINDING: Because the Performance Option is met for SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue, the Street Connectivity standards have been met. Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger, a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.134.050 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Building Placement on Major and Minor Arterials: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterials streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. This standard does not apply because neither SW 69th Avenue or SW 70th Avenue is a Major or Minor Arterial. Building Setback: Buildings are required to be setback a minimum of 0 feet and maximum of 10 feet from the public street right-of-way. This standard is met because the setback from SW 69th Avenue is five (5) feet. Because the site has frontage on two streets, parallel to each other, past decisions have set precedent and the TTDS diagram 1 shows that the setback requirement can only apply to one of the frontages. Front Yard Setback: This standard requires landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path be provided between a structure and a public street or access way. The applicant's plan shows landscaping will be located within the area between the building and street along SW 69th Avenue. Walkway Connection to Building Entrances: This standard states that a walkway connection is required between a buildings entrance and a public street or access way. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with a scored concrete or modular paving materials. The applicant has shown a six foot wide walkway on the east, west and south of the building with two (2) connections to the public sidewalk. Parking Location and Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50 percent of the street frontage, and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The parking is located to the side of the proposed building and encompasses 73 feet of the 175 feet of frontage, thus, 41 percent of the frontage is utilized by parking. The parking is behind landscaping, the depth of which is equal to that of the building setbacks. The landscaping is discussed in detail and conditioned, if necessary, further in this decision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all Site Design standards have been met. Building Design Standards: Ground Floor Windows: This standard requires all street facing elevations within the building setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets to contain a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area used for windows, display areas or doorway openings. Based on the elevation plans provided, the eastern building elevation (street facing elevation) will have over 50 percent of the ground floor wall area used for windows or doorway openings. Building Facades: This standard requires that facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing certain features to break up the building line. It also requires that no building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. The buildings are a maximum of 73 feet wide, thus, the requirement for a pedestrian connection through the building does not apply. The elevations plan provided indicates windows, reveals and other architectural elements will be provided, insuring breaks in the building line. Weather Protection: This standard requires weather protection for pedestrians be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or access way. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The applicants' narrative states, "The store front entrance is recessed a total of 6 feet from the face of the roof parapet to provide the necessary weather protection at the main building entrance." No canopy is proposed along the SW 69th Avenue frontage. Because weather protection is only encouraged, not required, along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street, this meets the standards. Building Materials: This standard prohibits the use of plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding as an exterior finish for materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The applicant has stated that the building materials will consist of brick veneer and split faced block mix. Based on this information and the elevation plan showing this, the building materials standards are met. Roofs and Roof Lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the buildings structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. Based on the elevation plans submitted, the roof lines meet this requirement. No false fronts or roofs are shown. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Roof-Mounted Equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. The applicant has indicated that this standard will be met because the roof parapet is designed to visually screen the roof top mounted equipment. Because this has not actually been shown on the plans, a condition of approval should be attached that requires all roof mounted equipment to be screened prior to final building inspection. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposal conforms to the Building Design Standards provided the following condition is met: CONDITION: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view prior to final building inspection. Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.114 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.114.130 D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in 18.114.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roof line of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. The applicant will be required to obtain a sign permit for all proposed signs through a separate permit; compliance with these standards will be reviewed at that time. FINDING: Because the applicant will be required to apply for a sign permit from the Development Services Technicians, and the signs will be reviewed for compliance with the standards at that time, this standard has been satisfied. Landscaping And Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 31/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. Ground cover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Because the L-1 landscape standard applies to setbacks on Major and Minor Arterials and this site has no frontage on a major or minor arterial, the L-1 standards do not apply to this site. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 21/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Because the site is on a local street, the L-2 landscape standards defer to Section 18.100. Compliance with the Landscaping and Screening standards of Section 18.100 is discussed further in this decision. FINDING: Because the landscape standards of 18.100 are required in-lieu of the L-1 or L-2 landscape standards, and because the landscape standards of Section 18.100 are discussed further in this decision, the landscaping and screening standards of the TTDS have been satisfied. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.120.180.a.1 requires 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 18.67, 18.80, 18.84, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations) or 18.98 (Building Height Limitations: Exceptions), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The following have already been addressed under the TTDS and will not be addressed in this section: 18.114 (Signs) Landscaping and Screening (18.100 and 18.120) Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses: Section 18.120.108.4(a) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. Section 18.120.108.4.B. states that on-site screening from view of adjoining properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110.a 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 feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that shows azaleas will be planted along the site perimeter. Because only azaleas are shown along the SW 69th Avenue frontage, Staff is not convinced that the parking lot screening requirement is met. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where a commercial development abuts a residential use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 20 feet. Further, it indicates that where a parking area that provides 4-50 parking spaces abuts a residential use, the required buffer and screening width shall be ten (10) feet. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of the following: 1. At least one (1) row of trees shall be planted. They shall be; not less than ten (10) feet high for deciduous trees and five (5) feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing of the trees depends on the size of the tree at maturity; 2. In addition, at least 10, five-gallon shrubs or 20, one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; and 3. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, ground cover, or spread with bark mulch. The site is not directly adjacent to residential uses because the SW 70th Avenue right-of-way separates the site from the residential uses to the west, therefore, this standard does not apply. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 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 TTDS supersede other standards in the Tigard Development Code. The TTDS street tree standards require trees spreading to 25 feet to be planted 22 feet on center along local streets between the sidewalk and the street. The applicant's plan shows trees spaced 35-44 feet on center. The trees proposed are Norway Maples. The applicant has shown the trees will be between the sidewalk and the parking lot, however, this is required to be between the sidewalk and the street. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Landscaping and Screening standards have not been met. if the applicant complies with the conditions specified below, Staff can determine that the standards have been met. CONDITIONS: • Submit a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed parking lot screening shrubs will provide a balance of low-lying and vertical shrubbery. • Submit a revised landscape plan that shows street trees will be planted 22 feet on center with confirmation that the proposed Norway Maple tree will be spreading to 25 feet, in accordance with the TTDS. The trees must be located between the sidewalk and the street. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18.102): This section 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 (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 TTDS supersede all other code standards. Because the TTDS supersedes other standards of the Code, however, the vision clearance triangle standard does not apply. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 FINDING: As discussed above, the visual clearance area standards do not apply in the Tigard Triangle. Off-Street Parking and Loading (Section 18.106) Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030.C.20 requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 350 square feet of gross floor area for Professional Offices. A maximum of 40 percent of required parking spaces can be developed as compact parking spaces. Approximately 16,764 square feet is proposed for office use, therefore, 47 parking spaces are required. The plan provides 65 parking spaces, 22 of which are proposed to be compact. This constitutes 33 percent of the parking spaces dedicated to compact spaces. With a reduction in the size of the building, as required to meet the FAR requirement, the required number of parking spaces will be reduced slightly, however, the applicant is already proposing to provide more spaces than is required. Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle parking rack space for each 15 vehicular parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. The applicant has indicated they will provide two (2) bicycle parking stalls. Because 65 parking spaces are proposed, a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) spaces is required. The required bicycle parking areas will be located at the northwestern portion if the building. Lighting has been shown but will be addressed further in this decision. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. This application satisfies this requirement by providing at least one (1) off-street loading space. FINDING: Because the applicant has not proposed five (5) bicycle parking spaces as required, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) bicycles, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) bicycles. Access Egress and Circulation Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require 0-99 parking spaces provide one (1) access with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. This site has 65 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed to utilize a portion of an existing access easement along the southern property line. The pavement width is proposed to be 24 feet with over 30 feet provided at the site entrance. Walkways: Section 18.108.050.a requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress. 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 six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed), or a minimum three (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 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 of four (4) 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. As discussed previously in this decision, this standard has been satisfied by complying with the TTDS for walkways. Joint Access: Section 18.108.030 states that owners of two (2) or more parcels may agree to jointly utilize the same access and egress when the combined access satisfies the combined requirements provided that satisfactory legal evidence is presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use and copies are placed on permanent file with the City. The applicant has proposed joint access with the development to the south and indicated an easement exists. The applicant has not provided evidence of such an easement. The access proposed is of adequate size to accommodate the existing and proposed number of parking spaces. Parking Lot Connections: Section 18.108.110.B states that in order 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 parking area connections. The site utilizes an existing access easement along the southern property line which allows for the parking lot to be joined. The site to the north is currently developed. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, Staff finds the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been satisfied because evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts, showing the joint access has not been provided. If the applicant submits evidence that the joint access has been provided, the criteria will be met. CONDITION: Submit evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts that the joint access has been provided. Tree Removal (Section 18.150.025): This section 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 tree report. In the narrative, it states that there are only two (2) trees totaling 34 inches caliper that required mitigation. In the Appendix 1 of the tree report, however, it shows tree #1 with a caliper of 14 inches and tree #12 with calipers of 14 inches and 20 inches (2 trees forming 1 canopy). Therefore, the total caliper inches of trees over 12 inches being removed is 48 inches. The arborist showed how the 34 inches could be mitigated on site by up-sizing the proposed trees. This analysis included the required parking lot trees. While up-sizing can count toward mitigation inches, the only inches eligible for mitigation are inches above the size required. The parking lot trees do not have a size requirement, however, by definition (1816.030: tree), a tree has a trunk two inches or more in diameter, four feet above the ground. Because, inherent in the definition, a tree is a size of 2 inch caliper, all required trees must be at least 2 inch caliper. Any trees planted over 2 inches is mitigation eligible. FINDING: Because it is not clear if all mitigation inches will be provided on site and how the on-site mitigation will be provided, Staff can not determine that the tree plan will meet the code standards. The applicant must submit a tree removal and mitigation plan that clearly identifies which trees will be up-sized and by how many inches, and show any trees that are not required which will be fully eligible for mitigation credit. Then this standard will be met. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 CONDITION: Submit a tree removal and mitigation plan for Staff review and approval. The tree removal plan must clearly identify which trees will be up-sized and by how many inches and show any trees that are not required that are proposed for mitigation purposes. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW 69th Avenue and the unimproved right-of-way (ROW) of SW 70th Avenue. Traffic Study Findings A Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated September 1998, was submitted by the applicant as a part of this project application. The study area intersections considered as a part of the study were: SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue; SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway; SW Hampton Street/SW 72nd Avenue; SW 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 northbound on/off ramps; and SW 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 southbound on/off ramps. The study took into account the existing background traffic in the area and the additional traffic from the Tri County Center project on SW Dartmouth Street with the proposed transportation improvements associated with that project. In addition, the study also added the traffic that will be generated by the Eagle Hardware site on 72nd Avenue (recently approved). Lancaster found that, under existing traffic, all area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). If just the additional trips from this development were added to the system (not counting Eagle Hardware but with improvements related to Tri County), the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS. When the Eagle Hardware traffic is added, and the various street and intersection improvements associated with that project are considered, all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. In summary, the additional traffic generated from this office building project will not significantly degrade the local intersections and, therefore, no additional off-site improvements are warranted. SW 69th Avenue SW 69th Avenue is classified as a Local Street in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). The right-of-way (ROW) requirement for this roadway is 60 feet, which currently exists per the County Assessor's maps. No additional ROW dedications are needed. The roadway is improved on the east side of the centerline and there have been other improvements in the area completed as development has occurred. In order to mitigate the additional traffic impact from this development, the applicant will be required to complete a half-street improvement on the west side of the centerline adjacent to this site. The improvements shall be constructed to meet TTDS standards and they shall properly tie in with existing paved improvements adjacent to the site. SW 70th Avenue SW 70th Avenue is also classified a Local Street in the TTDS. At present, there is 30 feet of ROW adjacent to this site. The 30-foot strip is on the east side of the apparent centerline of the roadway, so no further ROW is needed from this site. The roadway is not improved at this time. TMC 18.164.030.A.1.a states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.164.030.A.1.c.iii states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. There is presently no traffic using this unimproved ROW, and the applicant is not proposing to locate site driveways onto the street. Therefore, no site traffic will be directed to this street, so a street improvement adjacent to this site would not substantially improve ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 the overall capacity of the street in this area. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant be required to enter into a non-remonstrance agreement with the City, whereby the owner agrees to participate in any future improvement project for the street carried out through a Local Improvement District. This agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a site or building permit. Water: This area is served by the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There is an existing water line in SW 69th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. Prior to construction, the applicant will be required to submit proof that approvals have been obtained from TVWD for water service into this site. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 69th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. Storm Drainage: This site slopes gently to the southwest toward the unimproved ROW of SW 70th Avenue. The applicant's plans indicate that all on-site storm water runoff will be directed toward the southwest corner of the site, where it will be partially treated in an extended dry detention pond. From there, the engineer proposes the water will discharge into an existing drainage swale in the 70th Avenue ROW. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) 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 is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to locate a small extended dry detention pond at the southwest corner of the site. The design engineer indicated that, because of the small size of the site, a pond meeting 100 percent of the required treatment area will not fit. The engineer proposes to provide a smaller pond and on-site trapped catch basins, then have the applicant pay a partial fee in-lieu to cover the remainder of the requirement. The pond proposed is approximately 250 cubic feet, which would achieve approximately 17 percent phosphorus removal and meet approximately 27 percent of the water quality rule. The on-site trapped catch basins will provide an additional 15 percent phosphorus removal, which meets approximately 23 percent of the rule. Taken together, the on-site facilities would meet approximately 49 percent of the rule. Therefore, the applicant would pay approximately 51 percent of a fee in-lieu. Staff concurs with the engineer's findings and recommends that a partial fee in-lieu be allowed. Based upon the engineer's estimate of 30,660 square feet of new impervious area, the fee would be approximately $1,244.00. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications, at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Plans Examiner) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications of same. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utility lines along the east side of SW 69th Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. 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 175 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $4,813. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that all Street Utility and Improvement Standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with conditions 10-22 summarized in Section II of this decision, the standards will be met. ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA Section 18.120.180.A.2 through 18.120.180.A. 17 provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the following provisions and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use); 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use); 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain); 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces); and 18.120.180 (Public Transit). The following TMC sections were discussed previously in this decision and will not be addressed in this section: 18.120.180.13 (Parking); 18.120.180.14 (Landscaping); 18.120.180.15 (Drainage); 18.120.180.17 (Signs); and 18.120.180.4 (Buffering and Screening). Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 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 shown the location of a dumpster along the north property line. The applicant has provided a written sign-off from the franchise hauler stating that the proposed facility location is acceptable if constructed as shown. The location Pride Disposal approved is the location proposed in ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 this application. FINDING: Because the applicant has provided evidence of compliance with the mixed solid waste and recyclables standards, this standard has been met. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater, shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. The building has been oriented as required by the TTDS. Parking has been provided as required by the Tigard Development Code. Because the building orientation and parking are required by the Code, the site is developed as much as possible, with consideration to the natural and physical environment. FINDING: Because the development was planned with as much consideration as possible of the natural and physical environment, this standard has been satisfied. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.180.5 states that on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses. Residential uses to the west of this property are buffered by landscaping and right-of-way. Based on the proposed use, it is not anticipated that excessive noise will result from the development. FINDING: Based on the evidence stated above, Staff finds that the criterion has been met. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Staff forwarded the proposal to the City of Tigard Police Department for comments. The Police Department has not provided any objections or concerns with regard to the proposal, thereby, indicating that this criteria is satisfied. FINDING: Because no objections or concerns have been raised by the Police Department regarding the design of this development, this criterion has been satisfied. Access and Circulation: Section 18.120.180.11 requires access points as provided in 18.108.070. It also required all circulation patterns within a development to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and required provisions be made for pedestrian ways and bicycle ways if shown on adopted plans. The Building Division has provided comments which indicate that the parking lot layout does not permit entry of a fire truck so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. FINDING: Because the parking lot does not provide adequate turning radii to provided for emergency vehicle access as required, this criteria has not been met. If the applicant revises the parking lot plan so that there is adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into the site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised parking lot plan that provides for adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into the site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. This plan must be approved by the Building Division Plans Examiner prior to final site plan approval. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Section 18.106.020.M became effective on January 26, 1992. All parking areas shall be provided with the required numbers and sizes of disabled ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 person parking spaces as specified by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards. All disabled person parking spaces shall be signed and marked on the pavement as required by these standards. This section requires 9 disabled parking spaces when 401-500 parking spaces are provided. The applicant has provided 65 parking spaces; therefore, the required number of handicap parking is three (3) spaces. The applicant has provided only two (2) handicap parking spaces. FINDING: Because the applicants plans do not show three (3) handicap parking spaces this standard is not met. If the applicant submits a revised plan showing three (3) spaces will be provided, this standard will be met. Because the applicant has more total spaces than required, the reduction of up to two (2) proposed standard spaces to accommodate required ADA accessible spaces is still consistent with this approval. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan showing three (3) ADA accessible spaces will be provided. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has had an opportunity to review the plans and has indicated they have no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed the submittal and has offered the following comments: It appears that SW Hampton Street is classified as a Minor Arterial according to the Tigard Triangle Plan. The applicants should make improvements along his frontage that conforms to the Triangle Plan, as long as conditions meet Dolan requirements. Staff response: The applicant does not have frontage on SW Hampton Street. City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed this proposal and has provided the following comments: The Tualatin Valley Water District supplies water in this area of Tigard. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: 1) Exception to some areas deleted as non floor area; 2) Provide copy of recorded cross- over egress and ingress easement; 3) Provide a fire hydrant within 250 feet of all exterior walls; 4) provide a fire flow analysis and a hydrant flow test; 5) Parking layout does not permit entry of a fire truck so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose; 6) The exterior stairways and landings that project into the area openings are required to be protected. They shall be of 1 hour construction; 7) Storm drain system is incomplete. Provide additional catch basin pipe size, slope and destination of out flow of bio-swale; 8) Provide size of building sewer piping; 9) A plumbing riser diagram is required for plan review; 10) Provide curb cut and accessible ramp at access aisle to sidewalk; and 11) Need clarification since the geotechnical report refers to retaining walls. Staff response: Items 1, 2, 5 and 10 have been discussed and conditioned in this decision. Other items are for the applicant's information and will be required as part of the building plan review. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 • SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS GTE has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to provide 4 inch conduits from equipment room to GTE facilities per GTE specifications. Developer to pay for re-routing or undergrounding any existing facilities. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments which have been incorporated and addressed in the body of this decision. Tualatin Valley Water District, PGE, Metro Area Communications, NW Natural Gas, US West, TCI Cable, and Tri-met have reviewed the proposal and offered no comments or objections. SECTION VII. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: DATE OF FILING: DECEMBER 10, 1998 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON MONDAY DECEMBER 21, 1998 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON DECEMBER 21, 1998. 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. p7/'7� 41144/k December 10, 1998 PREPARED BY: lia Hajduk DATE Associate Planner December 10, 1998 APPRO ED BY: RV/ ch rd Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager is\curpin\Julia\sdr\roth.doc ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 r I 4 if. •Z „.,,,ii,_ 4-- ',.0' 110...F I„ 13-4.3.o' .1,10°_.M /--17- •--:: kk6•%---v. ;I:41°1 YA. 'tS+krc6 \2t9.00I Nr -IL-- NI l!ttr 1 - -LeNV►or�Jam. I `p a -fi o a" OFFICE BUILDING n - d TWO-STORY i • 4 1 1ST FLR 69 x 116 = 8,004.0 SF $ : ® (*i `=_ : 2ND FLR 73 x 120 = 8,760.0 SF Q A Z I • ":441#?1 -1% v� • TOTAL SQ. FT. 16,764.0 SF • : ' . Iii • , .CO o 41)) ' 04 o a s a � _ m .h '. 5 < ( - -- ---j -r--- .**- . '. di 13 4 •Q- Gem fA-err t[ • © .. _ i v . . Q If, -: ® -.,....- ■ f...(1,1114-.1.3 0 a, ■ �J1 _ _ 1 •:'s -rs45...."6 0 -",1111111.0– 'p -L1. o • I 5:dt 1 4-;r h • c ',XI V' 1-0.4j40 - te•O it/It/ ?t'». 1,t6o 14 61a' F- V '11 -- p, e.9.$• va..44..4 044T -4'- too!.,.- CASE NOES]&CASE NAME(SI: SITE PLAN BOTH OFFICE BUILDING SDI 98-0016 EXHIBIT MAP N MI.d i� S CITY of TIGARD , Wri GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MIR VICINITY MAP r„ HERMOSO � °' ,�, SDR 98 0016 I FRANKLIN ST BEVELAND sr 113 I� Roth Office = D ST ■ wianai Buildin ii SUBJECT Building I . PARCEL AI o GONZAGA ST ft khkv [\____r---H Ni. I ��.: � ■ coo SW• NN 1 HAMPTON ST rn Pillilhk IIII w A N 0 100 200 300 100 500 Feet Ilii . i r=378 feet ii_. . • 11,ill — S ST -,, ``',�1•11 City of Tigard _II City of Tigard • ,■ > Information on this map is for general location only and :. should be verified with the Development Services Division. I■ 13125 ar SW OH9ll Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 wry^ OIL (503)639-4171 ��p- W http:rAvww.citigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Oct 16.1998;C:\magic\MAGICO2.APR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Oct-28-98 09 : 19A TCI St .Helens 503 397 5686 P . O2 414‘ REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIIGARD (ommurrtty tkr.dopnew ,Shaping A;tii't ter community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Pat McGann,TCI Cablevision of Oregon FROM: City of -Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner(x4071 Pima:15031639-4171 Fax:15031684-7291 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING _ Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Mall 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. Ii 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: I X 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: .i (q-((Case pmride the fill-wing rt f onna t iort)Name of Person[sl Commenting: FA r M ,v/v. Plume Number[sl: 6 o.3-- ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSnIJRtgn ICS'S FOR CCIMML.NT Ort-28-98 09: 19A TCI St .Helens 503 397 5686 P.01 ;ci FAX COVER SHEET DATE: (( C/, `.A /l ic ' TIME: TO: j NJ L (le C i)/2D Cl T r ,L/l AIN/A/6- 1 IV. C • FROM: /7??7 ` Q-",/9}k//c TCI OF TUALATIN VALLEY 14200 S .W . BRIGADOON CT. BEAVERTON , OREGON 97005 PHONE: ( 503) 605-4895 FAX: ( 503) 6o5-'/86G NUMBER OF PACES IN THIS TRANSMISSION INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: NOTES : TC1 of Tualaan 14114y,Inc. 14200 S.W.Bngadoon Court Beaverton,OR 37005 (503)605-4695 FAX(503)846-0004 M Equal Occorav y EmolcyW 4411k REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY O TIIGARD Community CDevefopment Shaping Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: David Scott,Building Official. FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x407) Phone:(503)639-4111 Fax[5031684-1297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR] 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: 1r 1Keep t1 b h >h, es eta' ',le /. 11.4' Ft R 14-r.• a_ eeeVs^4[! for1 ,�-nr �'� r/aril�� ri-.cr •O✓{✓ 2,heel s'1//✓ r..jl lRl�f7.ir.� _ £'/v1 !r t M / )r t I e-hAl.f £ F, 1T I>� �$ J /4/1 L.47(eP)01.. 1.0 Li, t Pr,1L,rdt o, file FLeh■ fr't A•.d • A#4 Ftat.. fr.f /47 . 4 t" nio 11• — pie r,:/- c' 7 0/G /r t.c /( S v w !/ f t,' - +., 11 I mar n A. re 4 are/ c.: 7 # re, /Fir; 1L4, 4 /Dr f#:C► R 10A-7/ A.A.y 2.4Fis✓,"VI f A. ?" r e1.e&f- k f v 7 A, a r+e 4 ff... 1 -4 r rge,'d 4-0 L.. f4,, ( . 4 I/ .b .e a 1- UK e'cv-wi. 4, 5-1.7, +s. l7r4r:. ry,7Y,.. /c //Vld,, 14 t`c - f ovrsl c 4rclt/p7'rr.. • ) (. 6 pi/< ri t• 4• / de/ t`. r. PM.t- ,Llet.� .F Ig/C /Wet)V. pr„le t, t of �a,l�i.� J"�.. i•• /'1p '1. <1 Plt■t►btw OW, d,4frAt h,., it (Please provide the fodowing information)Name of Personfsl Commenting: ') ■ .P �,4$1,q fr, PP•✓r ore eme6 e. f-A..,1 Phone Number[sl: 7 1 •e ee r,54/11.4 ramp, SDR 98-0016 Q��r j! i4 s!� p ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS j :1. RS, to rel.-4, 7;7 w t!• i i. 6t11-M40.0elt PDW DESIGN. * 22 SE 134th PL X PORTLAND, OR. 97233 * 503/282-2424 • SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DEPT. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR. 97223 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 12755 SW 69 th AVE. DEAR SIRS THIS PROJECT WILL INCLUDE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 16,764 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR USE AS A OFFICE BUILDING. THIS SITE IS PRESENTLY USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RENTAL. . LESS QUALIFIED DEDUCTIBLE AREA: 1. FLOOR AREA RATIO: ELEVATOR 8X8X2 = 128.0 40% OF SITE SIZE 38,325= 15,330.0 SQ. FT. ELEV. MECH. 104X1 = 104.0 STAIRWELL = 324.0 TOTAL BUILDING AREA: MECH. CHASE 64X2 = 128.0 EXTERIOR WALLS 1st FLR. = 185.0 FIRST FLOOR AREA 69 X 116 = 8.004. SQ. FT. EXTERIOR WALLS 2nd FLR. = 193.0 SECOND FLOOR AREA 73 X 120 = 8,760. SQ. FT. RESCUE RECOVERY 104X1 = 104.0 . TOTAL 16,764. SQ. FT. 2ND FLR. LOBBY OPNG. 17X29 = 493.0 TOTAL 1,659.0 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 16,764.0 SQ. FT. DEDUCT 1,659.0 SQ. FT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA 15,105.0 SQ. FT. = 39.4 % FAR 2. THE PROJECTED COST ESTIMATE FOR THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON $68.00 A SQ. FT. FOR THE BUILDING SHELL AREA. COMPLETED AND FINISH T-4 AREAS DO NOT APPLY 16,27'1 SQ. FT. AT $68.00= $1.106.428.00 3. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING SCREENING PER TIGARD STANDARD F.1 L-1 LOW SCREEN: WHERE THE STANDARD FOR L-1 APPLIES TO STREET BACKSET ON MAJOR AND MINOR ARTERIOLES, SW 69 IS A LOCAL STREET SO LANDSCAPING WILL BE INSTALLED AS DEFINED IN SEC. F. 2 . L-2 GENERAL LANDSCAPING STANDARDS. PLEASE CALL ME AT 252-8015 OR TIM ROTH AT 639-2639 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION. RE£�PECTFULLY S : ITTED, J PETER WASCH REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY�o TIIGARD Community Development Shaping PetterCommunity DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Brian Moore,PGE Service Design Consultant FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x407] Phone:(5031 639-4171 FaX (5031 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING 1 Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial offer.; building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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. PLE ASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: / �/ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Fiease refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 44 ___ko. (Please provide the foil-owing information)Name of Persontsl Commenting: I Phone Numbertsl: Sic)-At0c,, I SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS COMMENTS REQUEST FOR CO CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping/' Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Lori Dorney,US West Communications FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner 1x4071 Phone:15031639-4171 Fax:[503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: N U•S V.) .4 _ ►► (Please provide the foflowing information)Name of Person(s)Commenting: \__„(L, I Phone Number(s): a�� �c \\ SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY TIGARD RECEIVED PLANNING Community Development Shaping Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 OCT 2 8 1998 CITY OF TIGARD TO: Elaine Self,GTE FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell HajduK,Associate Planner[x4011 Phone:(5031639-4171 Fax:(5031 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: . • 4-" o a, 4_, L 1 /, !AI AVOW/-- - V (Please provide the forrowing information Name of Personfsl Commenting: f2.f44.2„�,;� I Phone Number(s): 3`7—7 3 ' SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS 4 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITTY O TIGARD Community Development Shaping A(Better CC�o Cairn!unit RECEIVED PLANNING DATE: October 20,1998 OCT 2 6 1998 TO: Michael Miller,Operations Utility Manager ay OF'MOLD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Halduk,Associate Planner(x401) Phone:[5031639-4111 Fax[5031684-7291 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR] 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: fLEAS6 JJoT6: 779-11s 1Jt LL 136- SEru/ICZ0 6Y 7a4-z-4 77■ Gc)N7"6")7--,DI gr. (cPtease provide the fo1Torwi,rg inf onnat ton)Name of Person[sl Commenting: / ' / j , ,,,c__, I Phone Numberfsl: k. 5- SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 4411S, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITTY O TIIGARD Community Development Shaping A(Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x407] Phone:(5031 639-4171 Fax:(5031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 98-0016 P ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: v 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: ( Cease provide the following information}Name of Personfsl Commenting: 8.' ) I Phone Number(s): .. "1.aO I SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY O TI'GARD Community Devetopment Shaping A(Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: John Roy,Property Manager/Operations Department , �✓ FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x401] Phone:[5031 639-4171 Fax:[5031684-1297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: (Tease providde the fodowing information)Name of Person[sl Commenting: I Phone Numberfsl: ! I SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY O TIIGARD Community(Development Shaping A Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Nadine Smith,Advanced Planning Supervisor FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x4011 Phone:15031639-4171 Fax:[5031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 98-0016 .- ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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 o Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments pro ided below: �j lb. i ._11 (fit .. S 1 • l Aft. f t ! 0 L'.0 . -.- L .am� �.�� .. ... .�. . MW 1 1/x..10.+ 5 tkl • • NA CO s 4 A 03 UW 01 NIP . :7 1? ♦�.a � -_1�� .♦ .�. M� -._ev....�� .►mil�� � . .♦ . j � .(► - _ -.� ..�.�i `— . , • / / !�`'.. �. '_ _.�`L�� A`A ' l ' ' :._1► A • .• _..1 • , . . a / �► a (Please provide the foffowing information)Name of Person[sl Commenting: I Phone Nomber[sl: I SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Urn UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 1998 TO: Julia Powell Hajduk, City of Tigard FROM: Julia Huffman, USA `j, , SUBJECT: Roth Office Building, SDR 98-0016 SANITARY SEWER The development should be provided with a means of disposal for sanitary sewer. The means of disposal should be in accordance with R&O 96-44 (Unified Sewerage Agency's Construction Design Standards, July 1996 edition). Engineer should verify that public sanitary sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend service as required by R&O 96-44. STORM SEWER The development should have access to public storm sewer. Engineer should verify that public storm sewer is available to uphill adjacent properties, or extend storm service as required by R&O 96-44. Hydraulic and hydrological analysis of storm conveyance system is necessary. If downstream storm conveyance does not have the capacity to convey the volume during a 25- year, 24-hour storm event, the applicant is responsible for mitigating the flow. WATER QUALITY Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. * The size of facility proposed is not adequate to meet the requirements of R&O 96-44. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 Phone: 503/648-8621 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-3072 FAX:503/640-3525 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY O IGARD ' , Community(Development Shaping; (Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Julia Huffman,Unified Sewerage Agency FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x407] Phone:[503)639-4171 FaX RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR] 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: , I(Please provide the fort-owing information)Name of Person[sl Commenting:- \44. _ a I Phone Number(s): SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: December 7, 1998 TO: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer ° RE: SDR 98-0016, Roth Office Building Description: This request is for the construction of a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet at 12755 SW 69th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 01AD, Tax Lot 2900). Findings: 1 . Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW 69th Avenue and the unimproved right-of- way (ROW) of SW 70th Avenue. Traffic Study Findings A Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated September 1998, was submitted by the applicant as a part of this project application. The study area intersections considered as a part of the study were: Dartmouth Street/72nd Avenue Dartmouth Street/68th Parkway Hampton Street/72nd Avenue 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 northbound on/off ramps 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 southbound on/off ramps. The study took into account the existing background traffic in the area and the additional traffic from the Tri County Center project on Dartmouth Street with the proposed transportation improvements associated with that project. In addition, the study also added the traffic that will be generated by the Eagle Hardware site on 72nd Avenue (recently approved). Lancaster found that under existing traffic, all area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). If just the additional trips from this development were added to the system (not counting Eagle Hardware but with improvements related to Tri County), the intersections ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 1 would continue to operate at acceptable LOS. When the Eagle Hardware traffic is added, and the various street and intersection improvements associated with that project are considered, all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. In summary, the additional traffic generated from this office building project will not significantly degrade the local intersections and therefore, no additional offsite improvements are warranted. SW 69th Avenue SW 69th Avenue is classified as a local street in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). The right-of-way (ROW) requirement for this roadway is 60 feet, which currently exists per the County assessor maps. No additional ROW dedications are needed. The roadway is improved on the east side of the centerline and there have been other improvements in the area completed as development has occurred. In order to mitigate the additional traffic impact from this development, the applicant will be required to complete a half-street improvement on the west side of the centerline adjacent to this site. The improvements shall be constructed to meet TTDS standards and they shall properly tie in with existing paved improvements adjacent to the site. SW 70th Avenue SW 70th Avenue is also classified a local street in the TTDS. At present there is 30 feet of ROW adjacent to this site. The 30-foot strip is on the east side of the apparent centerline of the roadway, so no further ROW is needed from this site. The roadway is not improved at this time. TMC 18.164.030(A)(1)(a) states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.164.030(A)(1)(c) states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. There is presently no traffic using this unimproved ROW, and the applicant is not proposing to locate site driveways onto the street. Therefore, no site traffic will be directed to this street, so a street improvement adjacent to this site would not substantially improve the overall capacity of the street in this area. Staff therefore recommends that the applicant be required to enter into a non- remonstrance agreement with the City whereby the owner agrees to participate in any future improvement project for the street carried out through a local improvement district. This agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a site or building permit. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 2 2. Water: This area is served by the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There is an existing water line in SW 69th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. Prior to construction, the applicant will be required to submit proof that approvals have been obtained from TVWD for water service into this site. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 69th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. 4. Storm Drainage: This site slopes gently to the southwest toward the unimproved ROW of 70th Avenue. The applicant's plans indicate that all onsite storm water runoff will be directed toward the southwest corner of the site where it will be partially treated in an extended dry detention pond. From there, the engineer proposes the water will discharge into an existing drainage swale in the 70th Avenue ROW. 5. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) 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 is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to locate a small extended dry detention pond at the southwest corner of the site. The design engineer indicated that because of the small size of the site, a pond meeting 100% of the required treatment area will not fit. The engineer proposes to provide a smaller pond and onsite trapped catch basins, then have the applicant pay a partial fee in-lieu to cover the remainder of the requirement. The pond proposed is approximately 250 cubic feet (cf), which would achieve approximately 17% phosphorus removal and meet approximately 27% of ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 3 the water quality rule. The onsite trapped catch basins will provide an additional 15% phosphorus removal, which meets approximately 23% of the rule. Taken together, the onsite facilities would meet approximately 49% of the rule. Therefore, the applicant would pay approximately 51% of a fee in-lieu. Staff concurs with the engineer's findings and recommends that a partial fee in-lieu be allowed. Based upon the engineer's estimate of 30,660 of new impervious area, the fee would be approximately $1 ,244.00. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications, at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Plans Examiner) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications of same. 6. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. 7. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utility lines along the east side of SW 69th Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. 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 175 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 4,813.00. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 4 Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT: Note: Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact for the following conditions will be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (639-4171). 1 . Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary 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. 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. 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. 4. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW 69th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: a. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 18 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 ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 5 4 d. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff e. 6 foot concrete sidewalk f. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements g. street striping h. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer underground utilities j. driveway apron adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 69th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 5. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District formed to improve SW 70th Avenue. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44). Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing to provide a facility that will meet only 49% of the required treatment (32% Phosphorus removal). The balance of the requirement will be covered by the fee in-lieu. 8. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay a partial fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality facility. The fee is based on the total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. It is also calculated to consider that an onsite facility will be provided that will meet approximately 49% of the water quality rule. The fee will be approximately $ 1,244.00. 9. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 6 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications, at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Plans Examiner) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications of same. 13. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 69th Avenue 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 $ 4,813.00 and it shall be paid prior to final building inspection. r Deng\bnanrlcomments\sdr98-16.bdr ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 98-0016 Roth Office Building PAGE 7 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITT 411111k Y OF TIIGARD Community @evetopment Shaping Better Community DATE: October 20,1998 TO: Per Attached FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner[x407] Phone:(503)639-4171 Fax:(503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet.. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed sue employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is 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: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998. 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: (Please provide the foffawing information)Name of Person(s)Commenting: I Phone Numberts): SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS t 4REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CIT Area:ICI ID (Si[W) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS ; t Place ler review in Library CRBeektsl FILE NO[S).: S DR 9 g_ 0 c?),- /6 FILE NAME[S): ko-1- , ,�,), ;c�,►�.. CITY OFFICES ADVANCED PLANNING/Nadine Smith,Pi.naingsup.v o_COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Dop,nr Svcs Technician. OLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,Gime Noronha,Officer L./BUILDING DIV./David Scott,BuiidingOftki.i ENGINEERING DEPT./Brian Rager,DdpmnrReviewEngineer WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,op.r.honsu.n.ger, CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,cm Reorder —OPERATIONS DEPT./John Roy,arnoedYM.n.ger _OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS _TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.*_TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE* _TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* _UNIFIED SWRGE.AGENCY CIF Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Julia Huffman/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N. First Street 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 —Mike Matteucci,Neighbrnd Coord PO Box 369 PO Box 59 Salem,OR 97310-1337 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 9731 0-1 380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 PO Box 23483 _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,OR 97281-3483 _Paulette Allen,Groh Managernom .&Coo,dinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue _Mel Huie,Greenspaces Coordinator(CPA'JZOA's) 1175 Court Street,NE PO Box 2946 _CITY OF KING CITY* Salem,OR 97310-0590 Portland,OR 97208-2946 City Manager _METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION 15300 SW 116th Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street _OREGON DEPT.OF TRANS.(ODOT) WASHINGTON COUNTY King City,OR 97224 Building#16,Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Dept.of Land Use&Trans. Portland,OR 97232-2109 Tom Highland,Panning 155 N.First Avenue CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO * 3040 25th Street,SE Suite 350,MS 13 Planning Director _OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro,OR 97124 PO Box 369 Bonneville Power Administration Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Routing TTRC-Attn: Renae Ferrera _ODOT,REGION 1 * _ Brent Curtis(CPAs) PO Box 3621 Sonya Kazen,Dvipmt.Rev.word _ Scott King(CPA•s) _CITY OF PORTLAND Portland,OR 97208-3621 123 NW Flanders _ Mike Borreson(Engineer) David Knowles,Panning Bureau or Portland,OR 97209-4037 _ Jim Tice(iGA's) Portland Building 106, Rm. 1002 _OREGON,DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY _ Tom Harry(torrent Pi Apps.) 1120 SW Fifth Avenue 811 SW Sixth Avenue _ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A * _ Phil Healy(Current Pr Apps) Portland,OR 97204 Portland,OR 97204 Jane Estes,Permit spscahist Sr.Cartographer)cPazcA-Ms 14) PO Box 25412 Portland,OR 97298-0412 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES —BURLINGTON NORTHERN/ SANTA FE R/R _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC TCI CABLEVISION OF OR, _ Reed Fay,Division Superintendent Jason Hewitt Brian Moore,Svc.Design Consultant -Linda Peterson Pci+ ntCii id)4 1313 W. 11th Street Twin Oaks Technology Center 9480 SW Boeckman Road 500 SW Bond Street ry,700 5''J Vancouver,WA 98660-3000 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97201 zr) nC-f Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 • /7 • UMBIA C E COMPANY _PORTLAND WESTERN R/R _TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. —Craig e _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY Steve Myhr,Region Manager Michael Kiser,Project Planner 14200$ Brgadoon Court Scott Palmer Catellus Property Management 710 NE Holladay Street -Merton,OR 97005 220 NW Second Avenue 999 Third Avenue,Suite 2120 Portland,OR 97232 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Seattle,WA 98104-4037 GENERAL TELEPHONE Elaine Self,Engineering OREGON ELECTRIC R/R _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R US WEST COMMUNICATION MC: 0R030546 (Burlington Northern/Santa Fe FUR Predassor) Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Lori Dorney,Engineering Dept. Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Reed Fay,Division Superintendent 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard 421 SW Oak Street,Rm. 110 1313 W. 11th Street Portland,OR 97232 Portland,OR 97204 Vancouver,WA 98660-3000 * - INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOT(F(CAEIOM IF WITHIN Ito• OF TM 5vRJCCT FROP'CRTY FOR PeJ4 /Iii& CITY PROJECTS. (PROJECT PLAMMLR IS RLSPOMSIRtt FOR IMRICATIMC PARTIES TO MOTIFPI h:\patty\masters\rfcnotice.mst 16-Jan-98 .. .t ■ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF TIGARD 4 Community Devefopment Shaping A Better Community .STATE OT MGM- ) County of Wasfiington )ss. City of Tigard ) I, Patricia L. Lunsforc4 being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist H for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) E31 NOTICE OF DECISION FOR:i2 SDR 98-0016 - ROTH OFFICE BUILDING AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) RI City of Tigard Planning Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: :'':i I AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) (Date of Public Healing) City of Tigard Planning Director • Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council . NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. FOR: I AMENDED NOTICE (File No./Name Reference) (Date of Public Hearing) City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Council NOTICE OF: (Type/Kind of Notice) FOR: I File No Name Reference) (Date of Public Hearing,if applicable) A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE(S) 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 the 10th day of December,1998, and deposited in the United States Mail on the 10th of December,1998, postag- prepaid. . / , VOA " _ , / -' 'lt (Perso at Prepared • otic7A111111.11 A A ,/ AlOpPfr Subscribed and sworn/affirmed bef4 e me on the ,..-- e-/' day of iti4 . , 1 •"" . \ or , , r) 0-1■Nr.„,. OFFICIAL SEAL 121 4 - ,I /if Afir g ';.• DIANE M JELDERKS V.,...27. i NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NOTARY PUBLIC OF DREG' ■: ookiMISSION NO.046142 MV COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 My Commission Expires: ,.... EXHIRf, NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - ' CITY OF TIGARD [SDR] 98-0016 Community®evetopment ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SIaping)4'Better Community 120 DAYS=2-10-99 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: ROTH OFFICE BUILDING Site Development Review SDR 98-0016 PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested Site Development Review approval for the construction of a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet. APPLICANT/ J.T. Roth, Jr. OWNERS: Theresa A. Roth Michael S. Zoucha 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Employment (MUE) with Tigard Triangle Design Standards Overlay. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.42, 18.62, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. SECTION II. STAFF 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 IV. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 1 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. (Unless otherwise specified, the Staff contact is Brian Rager with the Engineering Department at 503-639-4171.) 1. Submit a revised plan showing three (3) ADA accessible spaces will be provided. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 2. Submit a revised parking lot plan that provides for adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into the site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. This plan must be approved by the Building Division Plans Examiner prior to final site plan approval. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 3. Submit a tree removal and mitigation plan for staff review and approval. The tree removal plan must clearly identify which trees will be up-sized and by how many inches, and show any trees that are not required that are proposed for mitigation purposes. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 4. Submit evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts that the joint access has been provided. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 5. Submit a revised plan that shows a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) bicycles. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 6. Submit a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed parking lot screening shrubs will provide a balance of low-lying and vertical shrubbery. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 7. Submit a revised landscape plan that shows street trees will be planted 22 feet on center, with confirmation that the proposed Norway Maple trees will be spreading to 25 feet, in accordance with the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). The trees must be located between the sidewalk and the street. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 8. All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view prior to final building inspection. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 9. Submit a revised plan that shows the net floor area square footage of the building is not greater than 15,330 square feet in order to meet the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements. Staff contact: Julia Hajduk, 639-4171 ext. 407. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five (5) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary 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. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on site. No construction vehicles or ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 2 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 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. 13. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW 69th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 18 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. 6 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; underground utilities; J. driveway apron; and K. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 69th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 14. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District (LID) formed to improve SW 70th Avenue. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44). The location must be shown on the final site plan and landscape plan provided to the Planning Department. Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing to provide a facility that will meet only 49 percent of the required treatment (32 percent phosphorus removal). The balance of the requirement will be covered by the fee in-lieu. 17. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall pay a partial fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site water quality facility. The fee is based on the total area of new impervious surfaces in the proposed development. It is also calculated to consider that an on-site facility will be provided that will meet approximately 49 percent of the water quality rule. The fee will be approximately $1,244. 18. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION BEING PERFORMED: 19. 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. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 3 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 20. 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. 21. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications, at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Plans Examiner) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications of same. 22. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW 69th Avenue 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 $4,813. and it shall be paid prior to final building inspection. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: City records do not indicate any previous development approvals were granted for this property. Vicinity Information: The project site is north of SW Hampton Street and south of SW Franklin Street. The site is bordered by SW 70th Avenue to the west and SW 69th Avenue to the east. The lots on all sides are zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE). Site Information and Proposal Description: There is an existing house on the project site, which will be demolished. The site is zoned MUE. The proposal is to construct a 16,764 square foot office building. This application was received and accepted prior to the effective date of the most recent code revision; therefore, the standards in effect prior to 11/26/98 apply to this review. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 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 18.32.250 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. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 4 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Any required street improvements to certain collector or higher volume streets and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures that are 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 site has frontage on SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. Both of these streets are local streets. The approximate linear footage for the half-street improvements along SW 69th Avenue is approximately 175 feet. The Engineering Staff has estimated the costs of constructing half-street improvements is approximately $200 per linear foot. Based on this estimate, the cost of constructing half-street improvements along SW 69th Avenue is $35,000. Upon completion of this development, the future developer will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $47,575. 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 project's traffic impact is $148,671 ($47,575 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact is considered an unmitigated impact. Since the TIF paid is $47,575, the unmitigated impact can be valued at $101,096. Based on these estimates, the cost of improving SW 69th Avenue is clearly roughly proportional to the impacts. Furthermore, Section 18.164.030.A.1 states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street and that streets within and adjacent shall be improved in accordance with ordinance standards. In order for the street system to function to serve all properties at buildout, streets meeting minimum standards must be provided. With the improvements, the applicant will be providing services that will be adequate to serve the needs of the proposed use. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the construction of street improvements for the streets intended to serve the development. More detail on streets and street improvements is provided under the Public Facility Concerns section of this decision. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build an office building. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Administrative and Professional Offices. The site is within the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Zoning District. Section 18.67.030 lists professional and administrative services as a permitted use in the MUE zone. Dimensional Requirements: The MUE Zoning District standards contained in Section 18.67.050 states that the same dimensional requirement as the C-G Zoning District apply. The MUE Zoning District, as set forth in Section 18.67.060, also requires a maximum floor area ratio of .40 for commercial buildings. The C-G Zoning District standards contained in Section 18.62.050 states that there is no minimum lot area and the average minimum lot area and the average minimum lot width is 50 feet. Developments are required to provide a minimum of 15 percent landscaping or areas not developed with impervious surfaces. The site area contains 38,352 square feet. Twenty percent of the site is proposed to be landscaped with the remaining 80 percent constructed with impervious surface. The Floor Area is defined as: "The gross horizontal area under a roof, of all floors of a building, measured from the exterior walls, excluding vents, shafts, courts and space devoted to off-street parking." Based on this definition, the applicant counted the "net" floor area to be 15,105 square feet, which represents a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 39.4 percent. The Building Division has stated, however, that some areas excluded from the gross floor area do, in fact, count as floor area. The stairwell and second floor lobby opening may not be deducted from the floor area calculation. With these areas included, the site exceeds the 40 percent FAR by approximately 592 square feet. In order to meet 40 percent FAR standards, the proposed building must be reduced by at least 592 square feet. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 5 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Setbacks: The C-G zone, as provided in Section 18.62.050, states that front, side, or rear yard setbacks are not required, except that 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. The MUE zone is the same as the C-G zone. The MUE zoning district is considered commercial, therefore, setbacks are not required between the proposed development and adjacent MUE properties. There are buffering and screening requirements between commercial development and residential uses which will be discussed further in this decision. Building Height: The MUE zone is the same as the C-G zone. The C-G zone, as provided in Section 19.62.050, states that the maximum height of building is 45 feet. The applicant has shown an elevations plan which shows the building will not be greater than 45 feet in height. FINDING: Because the proposed building exceeds the required 40 percent FAR by 592 square feet, Staff can not determine that all standards relating to use classification, dimensional requirements, setbacks and building height standards have been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows the net floor area is 15,330 square feet, the FAR requirement will be met and Staff can determine that this criterion is met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows the net floor area square footage of the building is not greater than 15,330 square feet in order to meet the FAR requirements. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in non single- family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: All development must demonstrate how either the design option or performance option will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: A. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; B. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet. Performance Option: ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 6 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 A. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile; B. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight line distance; C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. SW Beveland Street, from SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue, is required to be extended by the Tigard Triangle Office Complex approval (SDR 98-0014). With the extension of SW Beveland Street, the Performance Option is met for SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue because there are eight (8) intersections per mile along both streets. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector is no more than twice the straight line distance and the shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way is no more than one and one half the straight line distance. FINDING: Because the Performance Option is met for SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue, the Street Connectivity standards have been met. Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger, a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.134.050 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Building Placement on Major and Minor Arterials: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterials streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. This standard does not apply because neither SW 69th Avenue or SW 70th Avenue is a Major or Minor Arterial. Building Setback: Buildings are required to be setback a minimum of 0 feet and maximum of 10 feet from the public street right-of-way. This standard is met because the setback from SW 69th Avenue is five (5) feet. Because the site has frontage on two streets, parallel to each other, past decisions have set precedent and the TTDS diagram 1 shows that the setback requirement can only apply to one of the frontages. Front Yard Setback: This standard requires landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path be provided between a structure and a public street or access way. The applicant's plan shows landscaping will be located within the area between the building and street along SW 69th Avenue. Walkway Connection to Building Entrances: This standard states that a walkway connection is required between a buildings entrance and a public street or access way. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with a scored concrete or modular paving materials. The applicant has shown a six foot wide walkway on the east, west and south of the building with two (2) connections to the public sidewalk. Parking Location and Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50 percent of the street frontage, and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 7 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts • a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The parking is located to the side of the proposed building and encompasses 73 feet of the 175 feet of frontage, thus, 41 percent of the frontage is utilized by parking. The parking is behind landscaping, the depth of which is equal to that of the building setbacks. The landscaping is discussed in detail and conditioned, if necessary, further in this decision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, all Site Design standards have been met. Building Design Standards: Ground Floor Windows: This standard requires all street facing elevations within the building setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets to contain a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area used for windows, display areas or doorway openings. Based on the elevation plans provided, the eastern building elevation (street facing elevation) will have over 50 percent of the ground floor wall area used for windows or doorway openings. Building Facades: This standard requires that facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing certain features to break up the building line. It also requires that no building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. The buildings are a maximum of 73 feet wide, thus, the requirement for a pedestrian connection through the building does not apply. The elevations plan provided indicates windows, reveals and other architectural elements will be provided, insuring breaks in the building line. Weather Protection: This standard requires weather protection for pedestrians be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or access way. Awnings and canopies shall not be back lit. The applicants' narrative states, "The store front entrance is recessed a total of 6 feet from the face of the roof parapet to provide the necessary weather protection at the main building entrance." No canopy is proposed along the SW 69th Avenue frontage. Because weather protection is only encouraged, not required, along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street, this meets the standards. Building Materials: This standard prohibits the use of plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet press board or vinyl siding as an exterior finish for materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The applicant has stated that the building materials will consist of brick veneer and split faced block mix. Based on this information and the elevation plan showing this, the building materials standards are met. Roofs and Roof Lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the buildings structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. Based on the elevation plans submitted, the roof lines meet this requirement. No false fronts or roofs are shown. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 8 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Roof-Mounted Equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. The applicant has indicated that this standard will be met because the roof parapet is designed to visually screen the roof top mounted equipment. Because this has not actually been shown on the plans, a condition of approval should be attached that requires all roof mounted equipment to be screened prior to final building inspection. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the proposal conforms to the Building Design Standards provided the following condition is met: CONDITION: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view prior to final building inspection. Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.114 of the Development Code the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.114.130 D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in 18.114.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roof line of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. The applicant will be required to obtain a sign permit for all proposed signs through a separate permit; compliance with these standards will be reviewed at that time. FINDING: Because the applicant will be required to apply for a sign permit from the Development Services Technicians, and the signs will be reviewed for compliance with the standards at that time, this standard has been satisfied. Landscaping And Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 3/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3 foot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1) year. Ground cover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Because the L-1 landscape standard applies to setbacks on Major and Minor Arterials and this site has no frontage on a major or minor arterial, the L-1 standards do not apply to this site. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 9 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 21/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2 inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Because the site is on a local street, the L-2 landscape standards defer to Section 18.100. Compliance with the Landscaping and Screening standards of Section 18.100 is discussed further in this decision. FINDING: Because the landscape standards of 18.100 are required in-lieu of the L-1 or L-2 landscape standards, and because the landscape standards of Section 18.100 are discussed further in this decision, the landscaping and screening standards of the TTDS have been satisfied. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.120.180.a.1 requires 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 18.67, 18.80, 18.84, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations) or 18.98 (Building Height Limitations: Exceptions), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The following have already been addressed under the TTDS and will not be addressed in this section: 18.114 (Signs) Landscaping and Screening (18.100 and 18.120) Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses: Section 18.120.108.4(a) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. Section 18.120.108.4.B. states that on-site screening from view of adjoining properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110.a 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 feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that shows azaleas will be planted along the site perimeter. Because only azaleas are shown along the SW 69th Avenue frontage, Staff is not convinced that the parking lot screening requirement is met. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 10 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where a commercial development abuts a residential use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 20 feet. Further, it indicates that where a parking area that provides 4-50 parking spaces abuts a residential use, the required buffer and screening width shall be ten (10) feet. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of the following: 1. At least one (1) row of trees shall be planted. They shall be; not less than ten (10) feet high for deciduous trees and five (5) feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing of the trees depends on the size of the tree at maturity; 2. In addition, at least 10, five-gallon shrubs or 20, one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of required buffer area; and 3. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, ground cover, or spread with bark mulch. The site is not directly adjacent to residential uses because the SW 70th Avenue right-of-way separates the site from the residential uses to the west, therefore, this standard does not apply. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 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 TTDS supersede other standards in the Tigard Development Code. The TTDS street tree standards require trees spreading to 25 feet to be planted 22 feet on center along local streets between the sidewalk and the street. The applicant's plan shows trees spaced 35-44 feet on center. The trees proposed are Norway Maples. The applicant has shown the trees will be between the sidewalk and the parking lot, however, this is required to be between the sidewalk and the street. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Landscaping and Screening standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with the conditions specified below, Staff can determine that the standards have been met. CONDITIONS: • Submit a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed parking lot screening shrubs will provide a balance of low-lying and vertical shrubbery. • Submit a revised landscape plan that shows street trees will be planted 22 feet on center with confirmation that the proposed Norway Maple tree will be spreading to 25 feet, in accordance with the TTDS. The trees must be located between the sidewalk and the street. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18.102): This section 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 (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 TTDS supersede all other code standards. Because the TTDS supersedes other standards of the Code, however, the vision clearance triangle standard does not apply. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 11 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 FINDING: As discussed above, the visual clearance area standards do not apply in the Tigard Triangle. Off-Street Parking and Loading (Section 18.106) • Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030.C.20 requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 350 square feet of gross floor area for Professional Offices. A maximum of 40 percent of required parking spaces can be developed as compact parking spaces. Approximately 16,764 square feet is proposed for office use, therefore, 47 parking spaces are required. The plan provides 65 parking spaces, 22 of which are proposed to be compact. This constitutes 33 percent of the parking spaces dedicated to compact spaces. With a reduction in the size of the building, as required to meet the FAR requirement, the required number of parking spaces will be reduced slightly, however, the applicant is already proposing to provide more spaces than is required. Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle parking rack space for each 15 vehicular parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. The applicant has indicated they will provide two (2) bicycle parking stalls. Because 65 parking spaces are proposed, a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) spaces is required. The required bicycle parking areas will be located at the northwestern portion if the building. Lighting has been shown but will be addressed further in this decision. Off-Street Loading Spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. This application satisfies this requirement by providing at least one (1) off-street loading space. FINDING: Because the applicant has not proposed five (5) bicycle parking spaces as required, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been met. If the applicant submits a revised plan that shows a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) bicycles, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan that shows a bicycle rack accommodating no less than five (5) bicycles. Access Egress and Circulation Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require 0-99 parking spaces provide one (1) access with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. This site has 65 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed to utilize a portion of an existing access easement along the southern property line. The pavement width is proposed to be 24 feet with over 30 feet provided at the site entrance. Walkways: Section 18.108.050.a requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress. 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 six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed), or a minimum three (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 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 12 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 of four (4) 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. As discussed previously in this decision, this standard has been satisfied by complying with the TTDS for walkways. Joint Access: Section 18.108.030 states that owners of two (2) or more parcels may agree to jointly utilize the same access and egress when the combined access satisfies the combined requirements provided that satisfactory legal evidence is presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts to establish the joint use and copies are placed on permanent file with the City. The applicant has proposed joint access with the development to the south and indicated an easement exists. The applicant has not provided evidence of such an easement. The access proposed is of adequate size to accommodate the existing and proposed number of parking spaces. Parking Lot Connections: Section 18.108.110.B states that in order 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 parking area connections. The site utilizes an existing access easement along the southern property line which allows for the parking lot to be joined. The site to the north is currently developed. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, Staff finds the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have not been satisfied because evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts, showing the joint access has not been provided. If the applicant submits evidence that the joint access has been provided, the criteria will be met. CONDITION: Submit evidence in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts that the joint access has been provided. Tree Removal (Section 18.150.025): This section 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 tree report. In the narrative, it states that there are only two (2) trees totaling 34 inches caliper that required mitigation. In the Appendix 1 of the tree report, however, it shows tree #1 with a caliper of 14 inches and tree #12 with calipers of 14 inches and 20 inches (2 trees forming 1 canopy). Therefore, the total caliper inches of trees over 12 inches being removed is 48 inches. The arborist showed how the 34 inches could be mitigated on site by up-sizing the proposed trees. This analysis included the required parking lot trees. While up-sizing can count toward mitigation inches, the only inches eligible for mitigation are inches above the size required. The parking lot trees do not have a size requirement, however, by definition (18.26.030: tree), a tree has a trunk two inches or more in diameter, four feet above the ground. Because, inherent in the definition, a tree is a size of 2 inch caliper, all required trees must be at least 2 inch caliper. Any trees planted over 2 inches is mitigation eligible. FINDING: Because it is not clear if all mitigation inches will be provided on site and how the on-site mitigation will be provided, Staff can not determine that the tree plan will meet the code standards. The applicant must submit a tree removal and mitigation plan that clearly identifies which trees will be up-sized and by how many inches, and show any trees that are not required which will be fully eligible for mitigation credit. Then this standard will be met. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 13 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 CONDITION: Submit a tree removal and mitigation plan for Staff review and approval. The tree removal plan must clearly identify which trees will be up-sized and by how many inches and show any • trees that are not required that are proposed for mitigation purposes. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW 69th Avenue and the unimproved right-of-way (ROW) of SW 70th Avenue. Traffic Study Findings A Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Lancaster Engineering, dated September 1998, was submitted by the applicant as a part of this project application. The study area intersections considered as a part of the study were: SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue; SW Dartmouth Street/SW 68th Parkway; SW Hampton Street/SW 72nd Avenue; SW 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 northbound on/off ramps; and SW 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 southbound on/off ramps. The study took into account the existing background traffic in the area and the additional traffic from the Tri County Center project on SW Dartmouth Street with the proposed transportation improvements associated with that project. In addition, the study also added the traffic that will be generated by the Eagle Hardware site on 72nd Avenue (recently approved). Lancaster found that, under existing traffic, all area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). If just the additional trips from this development were added to the system (not counting Eagle Hardware but with improvements related to Tri County), the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS. When the Eagle Hardware traffic is added, and the various street and intersection improvements associated with that project are considered, all intersections will continue to operate at acceptable LOS. In summary, the additional traffic generated from this office building project will not significantly degrade the local intersections and, therefore, no additional off-site improvements are warranted. SW 69th Avenue SW 69th Avenue is classified as a Local Street in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS). The right-of-way (ROW) requirement for this roadway is 60 feet, which currently exists per the County Assessor's maps. No additional ROW dedications are needed. The roadway is improved on the east side of the centerline and there have been other improvements in the area completed as development has occurred. In order to mitigate the additional traffic impact from this development, the applicant will be required to complete a half-street improvement on the west side of the centerline adjacent to this site. The improvements shall be constructed to meet TTDS standards and they shall properly tie in with existing paved improvements adjacent to the site. SW 70th Avenue SW 70th Avenue is also classified a Local Street in the TTDS. At present, there is 30 feet of ROW adjacent to this site. The 30-foot strip is on the east side of the apparent centerline of the roadway, so no further ROW is needed from this site. The roadway is not improved at this time. TMC 18.164.030.A.1.a states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with City standards. However, 18.164.030.A.1.c.iii states that the City may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if the improvement associated with the project does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to the street safety or capacity. There is presently no traffic using this unimproved ROW, and the applicant is not proposing to locate site driveways onto the street. Therefore, no site traffic will be directed to this street, so a street improvement adjacent to this site would not substantially improve ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 14 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 the overall capacity of the street in this area. Staff, therefore, recommends that the applicant be required to enter into a non-remonstrance agreement with the City, whereby the owner agrees to participate in any future improvement project for the street carried out through a Local Improvement District. This agreement must be executed prior to issuance of a site or building permit. Water: This area is served by the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD). There is an existing water line in SW 69th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. Prior to construction, the applicant will be required to submit proof that approvals have been obtained from TVWD for water service into this site. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 69th Avenue that can adequately serve this site. Storm Drainage: This site slopes gently to the southwest toward the unimproved ROW of SW 70th Avenue. The applicant's plans indicate that all on-site storm water runoff will be directed toward the southwest corner of the site, where it will be partially treated in an extended dry detention pond. From there, the engineer proposes the water will discharge into an existing drainage swale in the 70th Avenue ROW. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) 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 is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to locate a small extended dry detention pond at the southwest corner of the site. The design engineer indicated that, because of the small size of the site, a pond meeting 100 percent of the required treatment area will not fit. The engineer proposes to provide a smaller pond and on-site trapped catch basins, then have the applicant pay a partial fee in-lieu to cover the remainder of the requirement. The pond proposed is approximately 250 cubic feet, which would achieve approximately 17 percent phosphorus removal and meet approximately 27 percent of the water quality rule. The on-site trapped catch basins will provide an additional 15 percent phosphorus removal, which meets approximately 23 percent of the rule. Taken together, the on-site facilities would meet approximately 49 percent of the rule. Therefore, the applicant would pay approximately 51 percent of a fee in-lieu. Staff concurs with the engineer's findings and recommends that a partial fee in-lieu be allowed. Based upon the engineer's estimate of 30,660 square feet of new impervious area, the fee would be approximately $1,244.00. To ensure compliance with Unified Sewerage Agency design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications, at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Plans Examiner) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications of same. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 15 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review • and approval prior to issuance of City permits. Existing Overhead Utility Lines: There are existing overhead utility lines along the east side of SW 69th Avenue. Section 18.164.120 of the TMC requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. 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 175 lineal feet; therefore, the fee would be $4,813. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, Staff finds that all Street Utility and Improvement Standards have not been met. If the applicant complies with conditions 10-22 summarized in Section II of this decision, the standards will be met. ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA Section 18.120.180.A.2 through 18.120.180.A. 17 provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the following provisions and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use); 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use); 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain); 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces); and 18.120.180 (Public Transit). The following TMC sections were discussed previously in this decision and will not be addressed in this section: 18.120.180.13 (Parking); 18.120.180.14 (Landscaping); 18.120.180.15 (Drainage); 18.120.180.17 (Signs); and 18.120.180.4 (Buffering and Screening). Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 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 shown the location of a dumpster along the north property line. The applicant has provided a written sign-off from the franchise hauler stating that the proposed facility location is acceptable if constructed as shown. The location Pride Disposal approved is the location proposed in ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 16 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 this application. • FINDING: Because the applicant has provided evidence of compliance with the mixed solid waste and recyclables standards, this standard has been met. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater, shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. The building has been oriented as required by the TTDS. Parking has been provided as required by the Tigard Development Code. Because the building orientation and parking are required by the Code, the site is developed as much as possible, with consideration to the natural and physical environment. FINDING: Because the development was planned with as much consideration as possible of the natural and physical environment, this standard has been satisfied. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.180.5 states that on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses. Residential uses to the west of this property are buffered by landscaping and right-of-way. Based on the proposed use, it is not anticipated that excessive noise will result from the development. FINDING: Based on the evidence stated above, Staff finds that the criterion has been met. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Staff forwarded the proposal to the City of Tigard Police Department for comments. The Police Department has not provided any objections or concerns with regard to the proposal, thereby, indicating that this criteria is satisfied. FINDING: Because no objections or concerns have been raised by the Police Department regarding the design of this development, this criterion has been satisfied. Access and Circulation: Section 18.120.180.11 requires access points as provided in 18.108.070. It also required all circulation patterns within a development to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; and required provisions be made for pedestrian ways and bicycle ways if shown on adopted plans. The Building Division has provided comments which indicate that the parking lot layout does not permit entry of a fire truck so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. FINDING: Because the parking lot does not provide adequate turning radii to provided for emergency vehicle access as required, this criteria has not been met. If the applicant revises the parking lot plan so that there is adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into the site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose, this standard will be met. CONDITION: Submit a revised parking lot plan that provides for adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into the site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. This plan must be approved by the Building Division Plans Examiner prior to final site plan approval. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Section 18.106.020.M became effective on January 26, 1992. All parking areas shall be provided with the required numbers and sizes of disabled ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 17 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 person parking spaces as specified by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards. All disabled person parking spaces shall be signed and marked on the pavement as required by these standards. This section requires 9 disabled parking spaces when 401-500 parking spaces are provided. The applicant has provided 65 parking spaces; therefore, the required number of handicap parking is three (3) spaces. The applicant has provided only two (2) handicap parking spaces. FINDING: Because the applicants plans do not show three (3) handicap parking spaces this standard is not met. If the applicant submits a revised plan showing three (3) spaces will be provided, this standard will be met. Because the applicant has more total spaces than required, the reduction of up to two (2) proposed standard spaces to accommodate required ADA accessible spaces is still consistent with this approval. CONDITION: Submit a revised plan showing three (3) ADA accessible spaces will be provided. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has had an opportunity to review the plans and has indicated they have no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Long Range Planning Division has reviewed the submittal and has offered the following comments: It appears that SW Hampton Street is classified as a Minor Arterial according to the Tigard Triangle Plan. The applicants should make improvements along his frontage that conforms to the Triangle Plan, as long as conditions meet Dolan requirements. Staff response: The applicant does not have frontage on SW Hampton Street. City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. The City of Tigard Operations Utility Manager has reviewed this proposal and has provided the following comments: The Tualatin Valley Water District supplies water in this area of Tigard. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has offered the following comments: 1) Exception to some areas deleted as non floor area; 2) Provide copy of recorded cross- over egress and ingress easement; 3) Provide a fire hydrant within 250 feet of all exterior walls; 4) provide a fire flow analysis and a hydrant flow test; 5) Parking layout does not permit entry of a fire truck so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose; 6) The exterior stairways and landings that project into the area openings are required to be protected. They shall be of 1 hour construction; 7) Storm drain system is incomplete. Provide additional catch basin pipe size, slope and destination of out flow of bio-swale; 8) Provide size of building sewer piping; 9) A plumbing riser diagram is required for plan review; 10) Provide curb cut and accessible ramp at access aisle to sidewalk; and 11) Need clarification since the geotechnical report refers to retaining walls. Staff response: Items 1, 2, 5 and 10 have been discussed and conditioned in this decision. Other items are for the applicant's information and will be required as part of the building plan review. ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 18 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS GTE has reviewed the proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to provide 4 inch conduits from equipment room to GTE facilities per GTE specifications. Developer to pay for re-routing or undergrounding any existing facilities. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) has reviewed this proposal and has offered comments which have been incorporated and addressed in the body of this decision. Tualatin Valley Water District, PGE, Metro Area Communications, NW Natural Gas, US West, TCI Cable, and Tri-met have reviewed the proposal and offered no comments or objections. SECTION VII. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: DATE OF FILING: DECEMBER 10, 1998 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON MONDAY DECEMBER 21, 1998 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code that provides that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.MON DECEMBER 81;1998. 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. 401441' December 10, 1998 PREPARED BY: ulia Hajduk DATE Associate Planner December 10, 1998 APPRO ED BY: Rich rd Bewersdorff DATE Planning Manager is\curpin\julia\sdr\roth.doc ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PAGE 19 OF 19 SDR 98-0016 44 . i1: ''''41.-- kh'eo' ,.o � 44.0 ''''°:4).-r 1.-Q. X16��a• �� ,S 1I 4i"O • cbNIMi(tl4b V LC1 • .. 4 - Ver�v..00y.J�. � I .p _4 © _ l0 7A • i 1 i 11 1 J 1 -Nei*"• .‘xW I 1 11111''. Z o -j e j .J _ eo' , O 3 a OFFICE BUILDING I CO C t TWO-STORY j .' 1ST FLR 69 x 116 = 8,004.0 SF S ®^ (iik tame�m .1.,r 2ND FLR 73 x 120 = 8.760.0 SF �':' $ a WQ v 1 TOTAL SQ. FT. 16,764.0 SF • ' 1- j � ,4 ". L • 4i) ` % _I H ;_ 4 Z � a 1 a s ') :i .t ,,, Ishii.. r-- ,-.- ® .../ - r 6 4111) 'In.tw....44- L,./.(tr.! 0 el'Y. 13 • s yQ� O F / i -Q 4owT Fs.4L �l •r ,Q . Q 1....4ti.4 0 rt °C'�(�. vnn.wis t Ott 1 . 5.dt 4,2c11: 11.4.. 44 ./Jii•O' . -1-4404 ivi. W,..d 0.5%0' f6D 44 OA"' ir - Av.*Ss r‘.8,....4 twT CASE 110E5I&CASE NAMEESI: p SITE PLAN ROTH OFFICE BUILDING SDI 98-0016 EXHIBIT MAP N ■ �� CITY of TIGARD dI►,I:In:�-�� ST ' GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MIR ire immoviiii •i SDR 98 0016 FRANKLIN ST rim 1 alImaina : ___ . D BEVELgNO Sr liii_- Roth Office ST ii Buildin g‘llIl i 1 lUBE III II PARCEL k v ,\ GONZAGA IIIST1111111 co Mil.a) SW Mil HAMPTON ST pill. x N 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 1'=378 feet . I •-•III c: S ST A I I I s ..■ City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and 111: VAR S ST should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 li -- 111 http:/Avww.ci.tigard.or.us Comm*Development Plot date:Oct 16,1998;C:\magic\MAGIf02.APA :SDK 9d'-0O/6, 407 arcE. 80ILL rA.)c_y �A . �� / cam • EXUI- • 2S101AA-09101 2S101AA-09108 KINDRICK ALFRED F&DIANNE M PORTER DENISE& 12560 SW 70TH AVE 7991 SW MOHAWK ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TUALATIN,OR 97062 -2S101AA-09600 2S101AA-09800 KIND K RED F AND ROTH J T JR&THERESA 12560 .• 71 • E 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TI •RD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 23101AB-02400 S101AB-02810 ZEEK VELMA EDWARDS ZE • A EDWARDS 7060 SW BEVELAND 7060 B - AND TIGARD,OR 97223 TI RD,OR 97223 2S101AC-00100 2S101AC-00200 KNECHT ANNA M DAVIS SHIRLEY A 20135 SW BONANZA WAY 4225 PENN ST TIGARD,OR 97224 LONGVIEW,WA 98632 2S101AC-00300 2S101AC-01000 WEAVER MICHAEL D&GAIL B GIESZLER JACOB F 7075 SW GONZAGA ST 18206 SW FALLATIN LOOP TIGARD, OR 972223 ALOHA,OR 97007 2S101AC-01100 2S101AC-01300 HUGHES JOSEPH KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH 7035 SW HAMPTON 3600 N INTERSTATE AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97227 2S101AC-01600 2S101AD-02400 NEIMEYER JOHN WESTERN EVANGELICAL SEMINARY 25 82ND DR STE 200 PO BOX 23939 GLADSTONE,OR 97027 PORTLAND,OR 97281 2S101AD-02700 2S101AD-02800 MCCROSKEY JOHN B MORTON DON R AND CYNTHIA SUE 1380 MORNING SKY CT PO BOX 596 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 101AD-02901 2S101AD-03000 ROT' ' &THERESA A& KF LLC 12600 : 72 16.QVE#200 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR T t•RD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97223 2S101AD-03100 2S101AD-03200 WESTON INVESTMENT CO PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES 2154 NE BROADWAY 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300-WMI PORTLAND,OR 97232 PORTLAND,OR 97224 501 7�-no/ , ' ', ' €: .864,c 2/NG of • MICHAEL S. ZOUCHA 12600 SW 72ND AVENUE,SUITE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 1 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.Q. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice TT 9 2 8 3 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 -. Legal Notice Advertising SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDR]98-0016 >ROTH OFFICE BUILDING< • ❑ Tearsheet Notice The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site City of Tigard Development Review approval to construct a two-story commercial office 312 5 SW Hall Blvd. • building of approximately 16,000 square feet. LOCATION: 12755 SW ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD,Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE;Mixed Tigard,Oregon 97223 Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a • • mixed use employment district to provide opportunities for employment Accounts Payable and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION MUE district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.42, 18.62, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, STATE OF OREGON ) 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS, )ss. _ —'._ '�'`` �.--�; 1, Kathy Snyder ;T- -.�i�� ' ;i--� "`� being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising J—L • . 1-- I I i I Director, or his principal clerk, of the1QT ualat i n Times ----2,---1--" --:--- , I u- h' a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ..• Tigard in the ;_i i 77— -,_. 11( . i I I j and 193.020; published at g aforesaid county and state; that the ---� �? ' ' I 1 I, I I Site level opmPnf RPVi aw AR-nQl6 ';-- - i I 1 I a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the , • ., y � 1°I T entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and ' j li! !---1 consecutive in the following issues: _ I 0.December 10 , 1 9 9 8 ' ,; ' . i I %..*► ;• I --i -- - 31 I ---.... ,. i 1 P It.: 3<. . n — Subscribed and sworn t e`re me this 1 0th day of December, 1998 - .-., /' �C.1 — — I J I T , , Not 7 Public for Oregon •,hr ! �'r`� ; I . ,��'`\ .\ L / My Commission Expires: to, u(r:! — — 1 ,• AFFIDAVIT The adopted finding of facts,decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Division,Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on December 23, 1998. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.340 of the Community Development Code,which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (.10)days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is 3:30 P.M.,December 23,1998. TT9283—Publish December 10, 1998. -- CI Y of IGA' II BEVELAND • ST GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM NOTIFICATION AREA MAP 2S101AB02400 2`,01AA09101 25101 0 4 00 2$101AA09108 011A09800 ° ' .1 1 I ' ,10 SDR 98-0016 Z 01AC00300 N 2S101AC001 0 ~ 25101AD02700 GONZAGA ST Roth Office —, 25101AC010 0AC002 0 2 5101AD02800\ ' . ri1►"v \2S101AC01300 2S101AC0110 S \ �\ I 25101A003000 E PARCEL 101AD02400 00 ' Building SW HAMPTON ST 0) co -I z N 2S101AC01600 2S101AD03100 2S101AD03200 0 100 xao 308 14 378 feat . 411i.. 1 .r,, lii 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 httpalwww.ci.tgard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Oct 16,1998;(:Imagic1MAG1(82.APR 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: DATE OF PRE-APP.: Property Address/Location(s): 12755 SW 69th FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map&Tax Lot#(s): 2S1 1 AD, 2 900 5•749 - ad/ Case No.(s): Other Case No. s): Site Size: 1R,125 S f 6 Receipt No.: J.T. Roth, Jr.a Owner/Deed Holder(s)*: A pp lication Accepted By: '12?---‘ Theresa A. Roth Address: Michael ppo aucha Date: 0gl' nT 12600 SW 72nd suite 200 639-2639 City: Tigard, Or. - Zip: 97223 Applicant*: J.T. Roth, Jr. Date Determined To Be Complete: Address: same Phone: City: Zip: Comp Plan/Zone Designation: *When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written CIT Area: 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 Rev.8/29/96 i:lcurpin\rnasterslsdra.doc form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS The owners of record of the subject property request Site ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Development Review approval to allow(please be specific): 0/ Application Form Construction of 2-story commerical office building Owner's Signature/Written Authorization approx. 16,000 s.f. li( Title Transfer Instrument or Deed Er-Site/Plot Plan (#of copies based on pre-app check list) p Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81/2'x 11") p Applicant's Statement (#of copies based on pre-app check list) Construction Cost Estimate Filing Fee (Under$100,000) $ 800.00 ($100,0004999,999)....$1,600.00 ($1 Million&Over) $1,780.00 (+$5/$10,000) 1 l List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: N/A 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 �f , 19 9g Own ig ure J.T. Roth, Jr. Owner's Signature Theresa A. Roth t4jLtt ( Owner's Signature Mi ch S. Zouc ha Owner's Signature 2 AO Ail CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping f7 Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS = 2/10/99 FILE NO(S): SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 98-0016 FILE TITLE: ROTH OFFICE BUILDING APPLICANT/ J.T. Roth, Jr. OWNER: Theresa A. Roth Michael S. Zoucha 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: Site Development Review approval to construct a 2-story commercial office building of approximately 16,000 square feet. LOCATION: 12755 SW 69th Avenue; WCTM 2S101AD, Tax Lot 02900. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment. The purpose of the MUE zoning district is to create a mixed use employment district to provide opportunities for employment and for new business and professional services in close proximity to retail centers and major transportation facilities, to provide for major retail goods and services accessible to the general public and minor retail goods and services accessible to the public which works and lives within the MUE district. APPLICABLE �z LZ REVIEW 1p CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.67, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY DATE COMMENTS DUE: FRIDAY - OCTOBER 30,1998 X STAFF DECISION DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 10,1998 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PROJECT RELATED COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION X VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE K SITE/GRADING PLAN X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN X OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner 1x4011 SDR 98-0016 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING DIRECTOR'S DECISION AD TO NEWSPAPER` October 7, 1998 A J.T. Roth Jr. CITY OF TIGARD 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 OREGON RE: Notice of Incomplete Submittal -- SDR 98-0016 Dear Mr. Roth: On September 18, 1998, staff received the application submittal for the construction of a 2-story commercial office building at 12755 SW 69th Avenue (WCTM 2S101AD, tax lot 2900). Staff has completed a preliminary review of the application materials and finds the following information is required before staff can consider your application complete and begin review: 1. Narrative addressing criteria of approval. This is needed especially as the proposal relates to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, but it should address all code sections identified in the pre-application notes. Refer to page 7 of 10 of the pre-application notes; 2. Clarification of information on the tree plan. Some of the trees on the tree plan show several dimensions and it is not clear as to why or what the accurate caliper is of each tree. The trees are not numbered on the tree plan, therefore, staff can not identify the location of trees over 12 inches caliper; 3. Submit affidavit of neighborhood meeting notice; and 4. Additional copies of all documentation submitted except site plans and application form. Staff sends packets out to agencies and departments within the City. We must have complete packets of information to send to all of these entities. The total number of plans we need are 18. Please submit an additional 17 copies of all items already submitted and 18 copies of any new documentation you will be submitting in order to meet the completeness criteria. Once the required information has been submitted, staff will deem the application complete and begin the review process. The 6-8 week estimated time to render a decision is based on the date the application is accepted as complete. If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 407. Sincerely, RFC'Fly - c iwyri 'Julia Powell Hajduk Associate Planner IT f;f111-I MIS! 11jt I ION,INC i:\curpin\julia\sdr\roth.acc c: SDR 98-0016 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON October 14, 1998 J.T. Roth 12600 SW 72nd, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Notice of complete Submittal - SDR 98-0016 Dear Mr. Roth: Staff has reviewed the additional information submitted for your Site Development Review application at 12755 SW 69th Street, WCTM 2S101AD, tax lot 2900. After reviewing this material, staff has deemed your application complete and will begin reviewing the application. Staff has scheduled a tentative decision date for December 10, 1998. If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 407. Sincerely,4,7va_ J ulia Powell Hajduk Associate Planner i:\curpin\julia\sdr\roth2.acc c: SDR 98-0016 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 \CG. OC OC oar ce/%r of Tronsm///ol To: Julia Hajduk - Assoc. Planner Project: 12755 SW 69th Date: Sept. 17, 1998 Company: City of Tigard Phone: 639-4171 Fax: We are sending you: shop drawings correspondence specs invoices proposals copy of letter change order plans contract_x other ****************************************************************************** Copies Date Ref# Description ****************************************************************************** 1 9-17-98 Site Development Review Application 4 Property Title Report 5-pages 7-28-98 Comm Develop. Depart Application Checklist 10-pages 7-28-98 Pre-App. Conference notes 5-pages 7-28-98 Pre-App. Conf. Notes -Engineering Section- 1 8-07-98 Land Use Notification"Sign up" form 1 8 Y2 x l l site map 1 9-09-98 PDW Design Site Develop. narrative addressing MUE zoning 1 Compass Corp. Storm-water Quality report 1 Compass Corp. Impact Study report 2-pages 9-3-98 Pride Disposal letter addressing disposal enclosure 7-pages 6-25-98 Recorded Access Easement 16-pages 8-24-98 Carlson Testing Soils Report 67-pages Lancaster Engin. Traffic Report 3-pages Gen. Tree Service Arborist Tree Report /8 -SAS ,479,4/ Sc. ez /e Li.a r Si d: OM" . Date: /"M4 "�a Sig — 12600 S.W. 72nd Ave.,Suite 200,Tigard, Oregon 97223 503/639-2639 FAX 503/624-0239 CCB#0031700 — G`'`� RECEIVED y�c� oc G o`r OCT 1 3 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .Peller of Transmittal To: Julia Hajduk - Assoc. Planner Project: 12755 SW 69th Date: Oct. 13, 1998 Company: City of Tigard Phone: 639-4171 Fax: We are sending you: shop drawings correspondence specs invoices proposals copy of letter change order plans contract_x other ****************************************************************************** Copies Date Ref# Description ****************************************************************************** 1 10-07-98 Copy of"Notice of Incomplete Submittal— SDR98-0016" 18 10-12-98 Narrative addressing criteria of approval 18 with attachment: site Sign design and location 18 10-11-98 Clarification of Information on the tree plan 1 Copy of Traffic Report—for Engineering Department 1 Copy of Reciprocal Easement—Engineering Department 1 Copy of Soils Report—Engineering Department 1 Copy of Soils Report—Building Department Note: The affidavit of neighborhood meeting notice was previously submitted (July 28, 1998) and is currently in the files at the City of Tigard. L'Signed: Date: — 12600 S.W. 72nd Ave.,Suite 200,Tigard,Oregon 97223 503/639-2639 FAX 503/624-0239 CCB#0031700 — October 7, 1998 J.T. Roth Jr. CITY OF TIGARD 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Notice of Incomplete Submittal -- SDR 98-0016 Dear Mr. Roth: On September 18, 1998, staff received the application submittal for the construction of a 2-story commercial office building at 12755 SW 69th Avenue (WCTM 2S101AD, tax lot 2900). Staff has completed a preliminary review of the application materials and finds the following information is required before staff can consider your application complete and begin review: 1. Narrative addressing criteria of approval. This is needed especially as the proposal relates to the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, but it should address all code sections identified in the pre-application notes. Refer to page 7 of 10 of the pre-application notes; 2. Clarification of information on the tree plan. Some of the trees on the tree plan show several dimensions and it is not clear as to why or what the accurate caliper is of each tree. The trees are not numbered on the tree plan, therefore, staff can not identify the location of eeK trees over 12 inches caliper; re 3. Submit affidavit of neighborhood meeting notice; and 4. Additional copies of all documentation submitted except site plans and application form. Staff sends packets out to agencies and departments within the City. We must have complete packets of information to send to all of these entities. The total number of plans we need are 18. Please submit an additional 17 copies of all items already submitted and 18 copies of any new documentation you will be submitting in order to meet the completeness criteria. Once the required information has been submitted, staff will deem the application complete and begin the review process. The 6-8 week estimated time to render a decision is based on the date the application is accepted as complete. If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171 ext. 407. Sincerely, :",;67:11.e4A,1# 1,1/ Julia Powell Hajduk, Associate Planner is\curpin\julia\sdr\roth.acc c: SDR 98-0016 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 +503-656-3219 GENERHL 1 REE SERO I CE 323 P01 OCT 12 '98 10:04 1 F.'?1M : 11 (iNilf,ilFJ i,tInt4r tdli. 1'.ti 1 (,.-=J 69f5,1" Ili,1 . 11 1'!`N1 tv.:,7ori 111;, 11111111/ . .nem litv Service Ve Professional free, shrub and turf fare programs shift' 1924 October 11, 1998 Tim Roth ].T. Roth Construction,Inc. 12600 SW 721"1 Ave. Tigard, OR.97223 Re: Clarification on tree numbering on Tree Plan for Triangle Terrace on SW 60 Ave. On the inventory of the trees there arc some trees that have more than one stem measurement assigned to them. Examples are tree # 2 that has stem sizes of 8",9", and 11". The reason for multiple stem sizes is that there is more than one tree that is in a group of trees that form one canopy. These are separate trees that have seeded in close proximity to each other to form one canopy. (liven that they form one canopy, I choose to number them as one tree. Any one of them one by itself would not form a complete canopy due to the close proximity that they have grown to each other. Please call John Landon at General Tree Service at 656-26% if you need additional clxrificalion. 1 have provided Mr. Landon with the a copy of the original report. Mr. Landon will be able to reach me if additional information is needed that he cannot provide. I will be returning to Portland on the 19`h of October and will be available at that time if ncce&sary. Sincerely, — ._ P.--47- ...‘3,,,,- Terrence P. Flanagan member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborist#PN-0120 PO fox 2099 • Clackamas, Orel orr 97015 • 503 • 656 . 2656 rrcz±/ VE- Oct. 12, 1998 City of Tigard Applicant/Owner: J.T. Roth, Jr. 13125 SW Hall Theresa A. Roth Tigard, Or. 97223 Michael S. Zoucha Attn: Planning Dept. 12600 SW 72nd # 200 Tigard, Or. 97223 RE: Site Design Review— Triangle Terrace Office Building 12755 SW 69th NARRATIVE: Application for a Site Development review for the development and construction of a commercial office building located at 12755 S.W. 69th Ave. The following criteria addresses the Tigard Triangle Standards as well as the relevant development codes. Chapter 18.67- MUE Zoning: The designed use of the proposed improvements is office commercial which is consist with this zoning. More specifically, as it is called out in chapter 18.67.030, the category would be classified as "Professional and Administrative Services". -The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) has been addressed in an attachment to the site drawings submitted with the application. (see PDW Design letter dated Sept. 9, 1998) 18.67.070 Design Standards A. -Street Connectivity: The standard option applied to this site is the Design Option whereas access to the site, off S.W. 69th, is approx. 100' from a minor arterial, S.W. Hampton. This will satisfy the 660 feet for a public street as well as the 330 feet for a pedestrian connection. B. —Site Design Standard: 1. Building Placement: The frontage street for this site is S.W. 69th which is defined as a"Local Street" so the min. 50% along Major and Minor Arterial Streets does not apply. 2. Building setback: The placement of the building from a public street is within the 0 to 10 setback. (see site plan) 3. Front yard setback design: Landscaping has been provided between the structure and the public street. (see landscape plan) 4. Walkway connection to building entrance: A six (6) foot walk has been provided between the building entrance and a public street (street sidewalks). (see site plan) 5. Parking location and landscape design: Parking is located on both the side and rear of structure. Parking on the side does not exceed 50%of the street frontage and is located behind a landscaped area of 5'. (see site plan) C. -Building Design Standards: 1. Ground floor windows: The minimum 50% ground floor window area has been met. (see calculations on page 4 of building drawings) 2. Building facades: The building facade facing the public street is 69' in length and is broken in the center with a vertical column of a brick veneer smaller in size and darker in color than that of the body brick/block. This complies with sub-section "(a) a variation in building materials". Since the façade does not exceed 300' a pedestrian connection is not required. 3. Weather protection: The storefront entrance is recessed a total of 6' from the face of the roof parapet to provide the necessary weather protection at the main building entrance. 4. Building Materials: Exterior building materials for this structure are a brick veneer and split faced block mix, no restricted materials (per standards) are being used. The structured foundation is concrete and finish floor is set at an elevation consistent with the existing topography grade, after landscaping along the foundation the exposure should be 6 to 8 inches. 5. Roofs and roof lines: The roof parapet is designed to be consistent in color with that of the base color of the building and main entrance design. 6. Roof-mounted equipment: The roof parapet is designed to visually screen the roof top mounted equipment. D. —Signs: The proposed project is a non-residential development within a MUE zoning, consequently the signage requirements for this project (see attached sign design) comply with the C-P zoning found in chapter 18.114.130—D. *The site sign is a freestanding multifaced sign *The height does not exceed 10" *The total sq. footage is less than 32 s.f. *The sign is to be located in the landscape area at the site entrance F. Landscaping and Screening: Since this project is located on a local street the landscaping design follows the requirements defined in chapter 18.100. In addition, since the street frontage is not a major or minor collector the areas of building setbacks will landscape to the L-2 standards. 18.96 - Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions. *The frontage street to this project, S.W. 69th, is not singled out in the code as requiring any special setbacks from centerline. *Adjacent properties to the north and south are zoned MUE and are currently being used as commercial, properties to the east and west are dedicated public streets. Therefore, there are no special setbacks required for this site. 18.98 -Building Height Limitations: Exceptions *The building height (two story building) does not exceed the maximum height of 75' for non-residential buildings therefore this project complies. 18.100 Landscaping and Screening *see Landscaping and Screening discussed earlier in this narrative. *see Landscape plan, page 3, of blue print drawings submitted with application. *see Tree Plan submitted with application. *since this is a commercial use and adjacent properties are same, no special buffering of the property lines is required. 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas *This site is not located at a street intersection so does not apply to this code. 18.106—Off-Street and Loading Requirements *Parking design and data are noted on page 1 of blue print drawings submitted with this application. *Bicycle parking is noted on page 1 of blue print drawings. 18.108—Access, Egress, and Circulation *see Access Easement submitted with this application *see Site Plan, page 1 of blue print drawings, submitted with this application. 18.114—Signs *see Signs discussed earlier in this narrative. 18.116 —Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables *see Site Plan, page 1 of blue print drawings, submitted with this application. *see Pride Disposal letter addressing enclosure, submitted with this application. 18.120 —Site Development Review *as required. 18.150 —Tree Removal *see Arborist Tree Report submitted with this application. 18.164—Street an Utility Improvement Standards *see Compass Engineering design submitted with this application The above narrative was intended to address the applicable approval standards by either discussing the criteria as it applies to the subject project or calling out the appropriate document submitted with this application. Sub, itt;d• /1l .T.Rot►, Jr. Ole e r a Tree Service Professional tree, shrub and turf care programs since 1924 September 17,1998 Tim Roth J.T. Roth Construction, Inc 12600 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tree Plan for Triangle Terrace on SW 69th Ave. Definition of Assignment - Prepare a Tree Plan as defined by the municipal code of the city of Tigard#18.150.025 for lot off the west side of SW 69`h Ave in the 12500 block. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions- The tree survey as completed by Compass Corporation is accepted as showing the accurate placement of trees# 1 through 14. Trees # 15 through 19 are plotted on the tree survey using visual placement in relation to the aforementioned trees 1-14, not actual measurements. The diameter measurement of the trees where checked and corrected as necessary and are listed in the inventory found in appendix#1. General Tree and Field Conditions- The lot has been used as a fill deposit site of various material including but not limited to dirt and brush debris. The existing trees appear to have self seeded onto the site. The inventory shows that the majority of the trees are less than 12 inches in diameter. Only two trees have a caliper of greater than 12". The total sum of caliper inches of the trees over 12 inches caliper is 34 inches. Discussion- All trees on the property are to be removed to develop the site. Given that only two trees have a caliper greater than 12 inches, only the size of those trees need mitigation. The total caliper size of those two trees equaled 34 inches. According to the code requirement , there needs to be one to one replacement of caliper inches for those trees over 12 caliper. The replacement inches can be planted on site, off site within the city of Tigard boundaries or a sum paid to the city tree's fund to compensate for the lost of the caliper inches. PO Box 2049 • Clackamas, Oregon 97015 • 503 • 656 • 2656 Summation- It is the intention to plant enough trees of size to compensate for the lost caliper inches on the site. The landscape plan shows that the following trees are to be planted as part of the landscape for this site. 10-1 inch caliper Chanticleer Pears (Pyrus calleryana `Glens Form') 3 -1 inch caliper Japanese Laceleaf Maples (Acer palmatum Dissectum Atropurpreum) 3 -1 inch caliper Pagoda Dogwoods (Cornus alternifolia) 5 -2 inch caliper Norway Maples(Acer platanoides) - 2 inch caliper 21 trees are to be planted on site for a total of 16 inches to be counted toward the mitigation for the removed trees. The 10 inches of caliper of the Norway Maples cannot be counted toward the mitigation inches as they are minimum required size for the required street trees. In order to mitigate the lost of the 34 inches of caliper, the following adjustments in caliper size will be made to the above trees. The 10 Chanticleer Pears will be increased to 2 inch caliper size. The 3 Pagoda dogwoods will be increased to 2 inch caliper size. The 5 Norway maples will be increased to 3 inch caliper size. With the adjustment in caliper size which equals an additional 18 inches , the above trees meet the total of 34 inches of caliper that are needed for the tree removal mitigation for this site. Conclusion- The above Tree Plan shows that the development of the property on SW 69th Ave. meets the requirements for the mitigation of removed trees from the site. If you require any additional information, please call. Sincerely, KG-C- Terrence P. Flanagan (J Certified Arborist #PN-0120 APPENDIX# 1 INVENTORY OF TREES AT THE J.T. ROTH DEVELOPMENT SITE ON SW 69TH AVE. Tree# Species Condition Size-DBH Tree# 1 Cryptomeria japonica very good 14" Tree#2 Fraxinus latifolia good 8",9"11" Tree#3 Fraxinus latifolia fair 8" Tree#4 Fraxinus latifolia good 10" Tree#5 Fraxinus latifolia good 8" Tree#6 Salix sp. good 5",5"6" Tree#7 Fraxinus latifolia good 6" Tree#8 Fraxinus latifolia good 10",9" Tree#9 Fraxinus latifolia good 9",6",9",6",6" Tree# 10 Fraxinus latifolia good 8",8" Tree# 11 Fraxinus latifolia poor 7",8" Tree# 12 Fraxinus latifolia good 14",20" Tree# 13 Fraxinus latifolia good 8",7" Tree# 14 Fraxinus latifolia good 8" Tree# 15 Poplus sp. good 7",8" Tree# 16 Fraxinus latifolia fair 6" Tree# 17 Fraxinus latifolia fair 6" Tree# 18 Fraxinus latifolia good 7" Tree# 19 Fraxinus latifolia good 9.1 N' S.a.a Tree#20 Salix sp. good II Page 1 mom q a ` .•w J 4 WI tt H M 6 d r'•o " r ..an 0•110t.sdl Wee Y_ Q b..li•I. •I.p 111 _3444 b•• •••th 441•6 0A1 -- l etlre iii 12P111 .421S.1 1"4 IAA t;e'rrc--t- .G•ine‘ le*- ..441. ;-,•',0 - tr,c, r b Y \ • �, r� r i 11.1 ustm%wa •3-iYylp J.`.„„4. ? s •r,.4.o4 'M; — Ivo r wolf"bpMdd�� ,1.•G 4t - 4.7 l 401 51 r 3 - - C (� •Gt t IK, r'rf)01 __-. '_ > is . 2. Xt4 t1T.., •tL G1x,t rR++¢S. yJr O O ..– S '/.t' %'P 41 x 4904 S! 0w�o{ v,` y r • T -a '0.31 4 501'41 J1 ..------ — 4 Tx4.1.143 w y>,Jie . 11�+4 .ylYlt�r y `� A _w i.1'1)-- Ws",c►"o 1 lnpr- - 31 1� S7•+ a , ,C)) 1 o 0 4� ; . _r-t . -� .r _.._ 9 F . a: %oo1•dytc'4 .— n'IYeY= ��— o O f ysl+oale�c - bW1H. d 'I X137' LI' CO ',ia' WAY l9V40s46O''-1 `� m . d••Y:1tw;+004 4,.,"3/14 y14.J/flog d • { • C !. "11 , ' >w�rt •�'b4 yr&'44 — oz ley 1or./rtJ•o.1• �� _1. ,�o 411'11 . -3-ver:•ao>� {I ► 1®Y' t;- :`f11'94 �3yt� $ - +00'01-Lla.r-Ot1•.x 4i. ••31•.b++-G` - ..----- -- *014 Op - • P 1e -/ - 4N o• = •1 - Iirn-11r• X 01 0 . ?. a 00.0......1. • m•1 1 O e- • tat v1J �W 7bJJ • I 1 _•-:4‘,0)00V7,_ o I I �I I L "hwks ? -�. I I I i I . , . • 7- w m d. , t r.."' l- � - 1 `, 1 • N4,'.1e•4 -01001 g-1 01 i Oo1' .wV' .0-/11 • c. 1-0061 p�-t1 6 ' -1 frseo " 1 Z• O Al 0001106110 .I . .�.„ . f i 1i�11 l L'�l_L' �_.._1JJ l.ii 133b 1U:4b ;JUJGb T lv>G f ,...y.>,erd.,,'.rri�x.,.....,r..em....,.+•+sw»..",,,w.-,;j�•• r''.,,,....: . • :1';"... . ..1•,. ..:.,_—.1.-7,ixr....-..-.,.—.44...: i . . • Ml1• 1 9',4'.,11e•;,,-•,-,..,.!•i .1 • • 'F;":. • '1 ..':::1I: 1• rtes 'I ` +. •: 'i.:'• 'I • •i}• + - f ' ' , '.: .• ''. '. • :,...'.-,,,,',4.,:,..,,..• ...,,. ,.... , • ::,'•., ....il f � I r, RJ✓f f••. r+'I:• i :'Y( xY. . C r1.- I -' •''1' I, ..tits ''•, . •. , , il . t .:....,,..1'.... ;.� . i .:• 4;.11 r i r.; l .n. 144 ,!,:l 40-• ot. , ., „ ,463xilti.,, ... �. ' ' • T Y` r I. }'l.•'i.;.•:.i'•w: 't`, rY I .w " + aRSr. ' � T� •. •. `: r. . K : , -.r r1t/ , '1 r •1 ,K , •'.,'""'- wM y' (' .; r u' •S`• , '::1 • ITT ^7f I ; A••nr a: •:'N , ' r'•' � •• t _ p.. r l'...1. i. } i►Rt..dTq ' .,�y, .• , 'o` 444 �[ s a, fi]•(' �S ' 1 w ♦i.f " ,• 7` f •.•.. ' t ,y. " 1)r`r '/1Y""7;y' .+ , •';' ' 1• ...+ki 1 I 746I 1f. 1, .._ .� .. 1 I/1 r:'!‘; r , ° a‘:,..,./'.., ! ' .(;i:. R +a a. ^J Ir: y yi • r..," + r ,,, i :' .4 i, r • 1 Gila'}` ,+ ` .': .4 1' '1 y •�•���" 4�I{1.;` /fit (// ,f� jy. ) 5'+ _. , 't (. •i•'I^ .i"• p.. �.• •' jy � . .M'{,l .•,� 't, +��r t..K,/r lc „+yr •'r,; 7 :,:+ :j;i K:•-�l,•••.,f.+"r•J.•4,!' "'' _. .. •i t ;,r^I 's J l a +•1 - • r y ti, rk "� wa i". '. f!T'^ . .. .r' t P F..4,: 0.. � 4ty n s A—ik'-•.'F::y:. •- . t ^.r' ` f :•;a '., sy 1xA1�.1-;',.:✓;-:. .4'' ,. ._ 1 ( T"' A r,f• i L aro• j{{�Y .i i. 1 i J• .) f. 1iT !M"p •Y r .1,11.,,•�p,.; t.,':+:ti yf1 ' 'S. :{ • . Y. .•31.5 • ..,y1,{.:, '' ., _I•i s •,5,.�... ,...,..- J.:..r,y. .... ry i. •vile .▪ I'4'..r •• ;.•,. gg 1 ''. ` y �(i , . f I '1 ,is " �y}}y .',V, , ' 1• e ), - • '''' I I , .-----: / . - it) • -._ i / I ir , / .1 . / i i / ' 1 8". I• . ,,,.....,/ 1 / I -r// I . ,,,, 1 . . ((5) • . , . I 11/4 . - ?. -...,,,, ..--- r ----...-.....••••••-••••••-•--.- / \ (''S' )‘ .4 0. kills . , .,, #e) 171) ...„..1, .... ).) ...4 ,/I 11 ..._ _. , ._. ki, _ _. ..11„. / ..,,c..... , I . . . 1..., ,, .......; . x. . t ......_. I. . „,t, () I .;. „,. ..____ 1 , - ,,,vi ,, • \...........ai, ....._.,,,, .i -..., t 4' r, , I „ , ...ee rft• / \ A ) c . , ' H . , . . . .. . _ I:744"Irk. fr— . r•-tr.:, 11..1-P..(j M. ...)/ • 1-ri. -.....• ..1...rt. ' ..-......-•-••■•••••r.•••■••••••,....5rr••■-•71.1 • • smrimr•rwm..~...wwwwoorovor......- ...„ .2 _______ __. , _________________. ________ •. . . • II 1 I- --—..--.--.-----...---••-•,f ......--. 11.411Z il (0 1 1 C> • tT1 y 0 kt, c:I% i . '.0.">t vt.', . . • . . . . , , . • • , , . , ... . . c-- • . , c... ....„ . ,...... --..„.s.--•-, --t TURMNCI FtArQI TEMPLATE NSDE RAD.- 25' OUTBDE RAD. - 45' 1" = 50' 1"..= 60: _.. 0 1r = 1 ''' • 7" = 40' 1* 30' 1 " = 10 ' PDW DESIGN * 22 SE 134th PL X PORTLAND, OR. 97233 * 503/282-2424 SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING DEPT. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD. OR. 97223 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 12755 SW 69 th AVE. DEAR SIRS THIS PROJECT WILL INCLUDE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 16,764 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR USE AS A OFFICE BUILDING. THIS SITE IS PRESENTLY USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RENTAL. . LESS QUALIFIED DEDUCTIBLE AREA: 1. FLOOR AREA RATIO: ELEVATOR 8X8X2 = 128.0 40% OF SITE SIZE 38,325 = 15,330.0 SQ. FT. ELEV. MECH. 104X1 = 104.0 STAIRWELL = 324.0 TOTAL BUILDING AREA: MECH. CHASE 64X2 = 128.0 EXTERIOR WALLS 1st FLR. = 185.0 FIRST FLOOR AREA 69 X 116 = 8.004. SQ. FT. EXTERIOR WALLS 2nd FLR. = 193.0 SECOND FLOOR AREA 73 X 120 = 8.760. SQ. FT. RESCUE RECOVERY 104X1 = 104.0 TOTAL 16,764. SQ. FT. 2ND FLR. LOBBY OPNG. 17X29 = 493.0 TOTAL 1,659.0 TOTAL FLOOR AREA 16,764.0 SQ. FT. DEDUCT 1,659.0 SQ. FT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA 15.105.0 SQ. FT. = 39.4 % FAR 2. THE PROJECTED COST ESTIMATE FOR THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON $68.00 A SQ. FT. FOR THE BUILDING SHELL AREA. COMPLETED AND FINISH T-1 AREAS DO NOT APPLY 16,271 SQ. FT. AT $68.00 = $1,106,428.00 3. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING SCREENING PER TIGARD STANDARD F.1 L-1 LOW SCREEN: WHERE THE STANDARD FOR L-1 APPLIES TO STREET BACKSET ON MAJOR AND MINOR ARTERIOLES, SW 69 IS A LOCAL STREET SO LANDSCAPING WILL BE INSTALLED AS DEFINED IN SEC. F. 2 . L-2 GENERAL LANDSCAPING STANDARDS. PLEASE CALL ME AT 252-8015 OR TIM ROTH AT 639-2639 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION. R :'ECTFULLY S : ITTED, -- 111W41i_ L PETER WASCH • 09/03/98 08:2U $503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL 141001/002 Pride Disposal Co. FaA)C To: � 1 411 i2 From: /� w �� Fax 6 � 9 Date: 9— 3 — 9 g". Phone: Pages: 3 Rai Attn: ❑ urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle TELEPHONE(503)625-6177 ' FAX 5 (503)625-6179 •Comments: IX Corn-S C l o S --L.- 1,1 het - t.+ r f )/ po /s lky,)sy) nv,-e-d5 1 cam ; _ ___... . q�- '�r �1- 04 yr?o: -4 _:,.:. l� !o 'err .fl' -•• _: ' ... -sue ..... - l. _ _ _ ... -�. !f .Y_. '- !- •• tb• •' _- Ii - � /.,-r11y o.Gb-•t7-:.•Sl., •�r -? {. .• I:p °�°• - 7 _- �1 _ .z._ %' :"� ,7�,! lid :.:.. _ o..... :........ __ ...: . ..-...:.........i. co _. -:—•::%-_V■i 0• ‘1.-CD PC:-" •-- .' - . - '' ... . . till .-. , 0 r - �-so.-j,tr _ cn ; . . . _ , ... v_. >_ . ._... Q ,g_ = , IL . : i • .. . . : • .. , _:: . . .. •R • r- _ Al '......: •IIP .. -- r . _ .4 •:7. .... I -... •• •. ...:-••‘..*./•,...,. .....4 0 ,,,,,.... . 4N - t 4 til, e4Le-- -. • ,.. - •...• 1 .- -.-:-,, ...„--• ,-/ 2 ID -It -� --f---.:-!i' •� -•' :-F - •'r r-- •fy• • i' �i:- . .....w-•- • _ '"-:`:•z4:.u._ _ t• iK ,.y : I.•- • •_;:1 �' a ' ... "' : ,.w. NS:.. •/O 7-�, SigIi�.. ......Li.. •••-I • • •.....z.-,.: J -K' ,•^s - t' '1' 4�'•''". �t'.�"�. 'f�" J _i, •.' �:.:�. _• :a.-_l�• z-_,-;-,:- at _,u.•...._:_-;3;a•I .`- :�• — .:::-••• .. _ - - -_-Y_ "y=am • `-- -_' •tQ. • • .. - .;-•••••. r :r' - •y` ww• .._.. `• '-".' • -•'�°a - ••.�'• •_�'-_ _ 016 tR .4: ,!•fir,'1 ... e f- -- - �y" '..•.•t:_r• .7-•.- `- •:•Fns .� w .Fi _ Z:. 1� ^y '..-. :.1'^ .r .�.w.. - ��..� r�.�'�-- ►• .e .•T'..•'.1 y� •!r'. `!_' +. _ r.�4■mot`� •�• �;. .N�y11+ ;{,• _:-�:: '.st yJ.`'e.•Y ..5y„` rC•::�' Y __�� .•C.•1•f•r ♦f� .•1•' .-�L�r �.�-.y.•i :l.i� - .. :�•' �i. -.•J�•=.-w^ � 'i�• __N]r�, r•� .•�1~ ti" �'TR.1/•.:--1'4-•:,�-�i:5 _ .•,••c? •f!. -•-• :e•.•,.« - �.`_ ••i� zYt ,: - ••.�-"t`- .1 .•••_ j•.•.1... ..:^a SAS. ;_'!�.•r' k'.a•::.s..1V?_... !.7b..!: -0.-•..•, -,"....Aj�t.I. •'L.'::. _ - - :f '"••:r'u a - L't:of"1...f r ! a ;a _ fv ! •'1 F ^...k!!�.'-' ix••1!4_- !':'s •. 'rte` � �'�� ;�•�•,..� �._,: ;��'c,�'i�.f:��':_ :..�� _ v�..1..Ij •:i.•".' � .a. '.M:• •.....� ��4Cr•.!fl:� •`••v�'_ L e.:.f,'�-• t.- N- •Je•;;t_ ... .r 1. vr` ., '_�c• V_[::'.:r /[�7�1j!1 : q z ....L-.�_ '! •�;'t: ..•..wT + _::t t'i '.G-:F'� ~•1. 3, ..T.wi.r• .; J::�.:.L• 4. „JAI ., r./»I�`5}::47,1.?r.. /'. x.. '1 Y' ::- -1 i :M - - - ! `ice.. 1 .... ..• yY 'i':�'r'r, i , ..•-' .i• ., •i. •: . ^•:.I ,,,•,� 1• ..,2.0,1•'...:.-......:14._e.:;, :'iz= =je`�:.�" --- �•t.."^• -• -- +''' + .1.. ._`-•'4x. �ts''•� �i... ;3tt?�.•7., ;, ,-•.l,•.•::::,•/;,.•,:.44;:n`' +• zz:,o' l'Ilt,a.0 -! ••a_...- i"'r� w• ----.7.^'---.S....-_- _'r _..j-...... d♦• .�•: 1►_, J�i��1 .a_..,• •''t~j�: ,.....• r►:tw� d 5:ry - ,�7_ '•,,vi •..... m..-:..w...: - .1'i. • ':1� ...,-:••":. -..: - -.1%,:r.- - _ a!i , As•.v.� <••! «-i•_ .�u•�-�:' :'!+ _:R,.+. rC=��••'�Ar« t!•,..--;-'!",-,a-.•;.•...• a '4.• ''. �.: �. .'� ''__ .-••�11`.a'".- -:r.r'N"V.7:1%4^W �M } �r - :. �.:,- -:- _ _ ^^•�±-� •..% !•..•M1!:L'.::. �4 I.w'�'•^:r. tt .....4a,„;,-.....,..;•.. t= - ::'•.:iA_. ';:.t I :/.a`..•`..a, 1. - .r,�j.-.'', r._..� "7W .Xi!4ry,4�1.;?_sl,f. r+ 'S_-` ..G, .:1. Y:tR•:_.- .�.•.'1.--a_•-;....... .'� t•AC• - -_..- _ r:::•••N.n•.•.•..•:•."-�, �^:r: t !•if1:"�.i. 'r�i.4'/r. ,.3•/ �,...." .-i r. ..Z.�C.i.,V fi: .•r i.•:w.Y;w.�r {y �-fa.... ter,t -,..,„ '-• .�Y' fr{:�i ,.'.. ,.... �Lt:;•i� s.. }.•,. .�C�•_ L�... t. R' Qt.... .IY.. .:�. c __ _ /� i% t. LYf-_ 1.�.._w �Y.i�?} J..,�_ i i•� v!i pj� - y ! �r� ._ ¢7 _c - _ _~ .M'A' i�.{-1^--iiL"tr11:- V• L- -52,1:••744''*" ��-_;:°Jn •{1:`:J':•'• •'1�_-1- • `�'(.¢•n4.S:•,,".:-:.•.V... :.�"' - �: :/1: : fit e_4•.V-•Y -1. c +a? `Ct. . SMJi,}=_i a6 rw+=?:r r .'f-��±st%: ..-f r. -;+t la.r-Y .,-' ' ^�a,'- _ _ 7.7'l• +�., • t• •* r• �a d�•f�� ;' _•C !;!;,.4•Te- a :1 .7_:_1 y�/�f`'w'�l'_1•�'•_•.. -•'�� a:: •,i•rn.. '''1S -"3• :S �ir. _�W~ - •� .f - —+4i=.:.-` � wn.- . . u4_.. -.,..�.'•tiz.'_�:!p.:, .�:^fi�s�: •� ` 4�+ •n .n f'. � -.s - _ -- -TN 7el° • -_ 1•r ���• "k'.,=4i__ _` '� —_ /�ti/-�� ` �r� :'��, ..;.,rw__ ..::C.ii ••4:11"..,-,....•!".4".:1 J:}_• 1tlrC. ? C _ -, i`f • Z: +�a.i. - �_ •••h:•'.:/::�.•~t"•�J •• '•�/�� V.w -l�•�''- �-�,� �iti_� '.1 t a,Ls •s,: ;ia V .C FROM : 1ST AMERICAN TITLE TO S036240239 1998,09-17 10164 h132 P.01/07 =F I FAT MER I CAN TITLE 199E -17 10104 14431 P.02/0i * THANK QU FOR USING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 1 i washington County r • ************************* **********************************k************** 1*.*** * -___ =a--=o¢X==al * * OWNERSHIP INFORMATION * * ====_____======-===== * * Reference P rce). #:2S1O1AD 02900 ! * * Parcel Numbik :R0457972 * Owner :ROTH J T JR & THERESA A & ZOUCHA MICHAEL S * * CoOwner : 1 * * Site Addres =12755 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD 9 23 * * Mail Address :12600 SW 72ND AVE #200 TIG OR 97223 * * Telephone i :503-639-2639 1 * * I * * = ao==c= I * * 1ALES AND LOAN INFORMATION * i * 1 * * Transferred 10/16/97 Loan Amount: I * * Document # 96849 Lender : * Sale Price J Loan Type : 1 ** * Deed Tae BARGAIN & SALE i * * _- -- . . aw►, I * * AS1ESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION i * * _ ---=___- i * * * * Land :$ '92,500 Exempt 1lmourz' : * * Structure:$-I, 010 Exempt Type : * * Other Levy Code :02381 * * Total :$94,510 97-98 Taxes :$2,239 .64 * * t unproved:1 1 * * * * - _____========= * * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1 * * -_=_-___:== ===as- =t * * * Map Grid=655 G4 * * Census :Tr-Ft 307. 00 Block, 1 * * Mi11Rate:15.?720 * * Sub/Plat: i * Land Use:201' COM. IMPROVED * Legal : .88 AC LOTS 12-18, 27--33 BLOCK 31. I * * :wESP PORTLAND HEIGHTS I i * * * i * * ..... -a=r--. I is * "ROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS i * * =_____ -=- ---- * * * * Bedrooms Lot Acres e _80 rear Bu ,_t: * * Lot SgFt :1 Bldg Sq t : * ************************** ********************************* ******************* ( The Information Prov' ded Is Deemed Reliable, But Is No Guaranteed. p E 1 ` y a r ■ I r 1 I 11 7.i O O aCt9o' 800 I 3 3 9 r ;a Sr I at J.�D�te_ G:8 11 . I 2 7 - .; .1 Iv: ? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25) I }) D ' wJ ` _ _ _ _ — Z •!5�l3�ZDJ21 ss�atyll�ssl i D Iii I VAC II W1111 Ea (Sm. i0N2A{1A 5T.) yb VACATED n A f "R a7.5aDO4 B I Is-44I 54.2asxr ■h WIC •e•1a191z 0 Ler-as--4'•Es Id-se as'-25'-25' jr aef+Orviris r2Flezrrir Pii es'T2Pes zines'Txa'T24art_ atf rr'ras'ras`r25'TaYYrnirt D 0 b 2700 I 2400 l!! 1700 n F .-. z RAJ Q .66AC J'20.44 .JOAN. IDO Z -i # A I 2 3 415 6 7 8 12 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 .05/1a 4 5 5 7 ., I t.1.1 le le -- iia — 4-3.. I t- -{ m $.w, t L r Ics 10.1sa3 I GONZAG 'N 11 .t_ 1. .i. �. i ° P s i .a. -i o E. r. .L .> 1. m ST-SET - 2804 ,F � + 3s _ 1600 4 . F 9 3s y .3.5-AK + 35 35 J .�aG — 10 -W 35 II 34 11 34 r 34 a II 34 -I l' 2900 1 33 •{'; le".IGS 2019�I 83 I000 12 �-1.:33 O -p .l,AC 3+1 32 MI ci _ _ --}32 32. '- 1400 3 3.13 AG $2 h rb 3�4 .. a 14 + 31 31 -- .43Aa 14 31 15 31 - + 30 - 15 4- -i . I. q tQs�tC. - 30 + - + '1--, ,- MA.22,0B91 4- 4 '. 1- e1, 16 29 IS 29 1 16 29 16 29 SEE IQG 8 17 26 = IT -� .. 'v+ 1304 n• — I100 r 17 + ZB-+ [8 27 lB 'f .GL' r .3cAc. _45ACC. -I -1- 18 {c5.i,5o6}Z7 in r 1 ! 1 I r I 'T T T + T T T 1 ' 7 T T ^ 'r r r I t.- I• T T T 4- T T 0 30D0 o I u I N 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sy.a IP 20121 22 23 24 25 i 19 20 21 22 23 Z4 25 26 1119 20 21 22 23 24 2" 0 ICE.12,174} ' 'u F I l l c.+.18,887} W [ I l 4 1 r 1 • I 1 L 4, r 1 I I I 1 I. 1 W -�1 I b Slf* / HAMPTON STREE 1~D T r T x052/ISS T T r T T on 111a T T 't Q W 4— 1 3300 3500 1 VY . rCC. 4.39.tc. 1 0 ip A �«O.a�3 4 5 6 7 8 ( 13 �� 4 5 6 7 6 1 ,p I l Et A 15 8 7 8 1 l 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 a m [ _� 1 r... . JI t - i 1.1. y .1 .i �— {-- H s 1 I ,f i—��a 9 36 9 36 9 36 S 35 i t 10 4 35 i 10 35 IR 1 10 I 35 m ''i 1 3 [1 3H 11 �9 \ } 11 ZSi ti * b4 w-� 12 f t 33 a 12 33 L1 12 3'3 -1 2 12 t 33 en 9 [3 �►1 32 p_ 13 32 0 13 30 32 (03.194411{3 32 W y r@ :-1: s2b 4 n h 3F7 `" r t4 3l " IA[CS 92S] 31 `>, 3400 3f ti I4(c5 [0,949)31 w LLB +tcs.vess} a �� �- F i h -� N-1 19 {C.S 1 93b) a�� -I 'g y 15 30 9 F .2/AG 30 4 } I5 .1. 30 W O• 0 Ot N 0 FROM : 1ST Sr1ERIOSIJ TITLE To 5038240239 1950.09-17 10:54 #132 P.03/07 FROM eFIRST RMERICAN TITLE 1998 l7 10:06 #01 P.04/05 ! 9 7 ag f`Fart H�721.Irvin find Sake Awl, "ORAN mo 544 MID KNOW ALL.hi,Er1ar7716S6PArstWTS,Thai ,J_T- YD1N GI]119�UGil��_1/7, , AN oltoox _ I `L 7 ?testiness oohedtrR„rw,far the ct.uidearlonhrrOlingitirirciad,dou hurt*1'wl. borlale,id)Ondcatw,l .. i. %i r. • e.1 .1 •. a .,• • 8. 18 T4 5h1 111PTVIDEO �11TgillLTK-xtataT: A1CQ t!itCHba Lt IT_, I irtlegter t;t1(/ed srwtn, aid urea power Aires, matt port and gulp., all 11pm, eettalrf riot prope nth 1k. -t rfetrerl(e, hetrduanreett'and apptlrttr 1m thetrtnia belenjln& ¢r ih aynr(71r appouinlnt. efo+a(rd in Mt 0 I ,bete qr 7ndoII.dttcrikt Fm Mart I9-w ii iprs 17 TRAM= 18 IIVCLLIBIVE piND TADS Z7 'A-1POUGR 33 INLT J IVEt Barn( 31, 'rlffiT PUM12jil7 , S$ICins. IIQ 'ITEE Coat iY Imo` ttTns&(iNOILid'�AttD 9TA'TS Ctr 0,10 3(11 1 I I I I 111 Now and to Hold the=UM=to 4.VAT Fair n cod yrgter's*11a,sweeetrars and Wets t The ups rad actw.ol oatadonallon pad fop 1h1r ,rnrufer, _word in rm u of dollar:,la-4, _ t 9 0Nownur, the NONrr ronelderw(on consists of a Incitdtt other prgptriy or t,aAit g1w or promote weld' it Ohl wholowr of MI) eanslderalloN(irldicole which).0 Re sentnrce bt Wtdi M1lr tymbab ©,(I nol applcable di-add be A mead.SAT GAS 93.010.) V bi ewurnirnl iM:deed and while the( mlat a eremites,Mt rinrrlar 1nclYdrt Dm p1 rni aid all lrdtnmaticol ehanler I 4 skill ke inpded to makr+thet!n "1cne rtgp ¢'Thal*to Mpralltms and to rsdividrw1r. tl+ 10 FYOtn.ss Wheted,the lrw,tor hex c rgred At:inrtnrrnent lhti_.4 1° day of C_ l9 j T of o curpara7t*:moor.11 hat cooed its ":}mere ra be s1t�.od unit mrl M1s by its rlJ'1ear,dtll7 oulhorl ted tiurnro by over of lis board of eilr .ctnrr. 1 _7. W. I•YIB .s CN ar. THIS INSTRUMENT WU.NOT ALLt7W US:OF THE PRO Ek4r7 6ESCAsto INTpas INSTALMENT IN 11oulatoN orAPPuC•+EL �7 WIel uBE Lima WO AeGULATi0Hg IEFDAE so hd't OR BY /i TITTLLEE�TO THr INSTRUMENT,,ROP,E! IT S us 04E CQ iieiI THE l c-ei St., PFESiI 1 APPROPRIATE CM' Oa =twilit P'....vowea nErpARTIAEMT TO row,APPROVED U9L AND 70 DETEP.eM ANy aktilIS ON - - .. CJwsierS AGAINST F!{RMrta as FORE$T PAAGTIC , AS HEFINc IN ORS JO.IV. STA7FOF011800N i Counp'of 11.2=2N ,_}sr. Off this ,day 4f 1><�rtw+e9 _.1 4.1R..bfarcmcapparrarta.-$. ! . 1 — _mid r bolk (a o1r lxrsonallY Mows.OW being dYN 71ltdlft,did,ray!hut he,rbr.calgw 147H y 7R, Is the l"(rsidrrt,ar►d he the sold B_ J IS the 5errucry- B ,L' .l, T._FATii CCtiStWc�, on, INC, lily within mood C'orporortovt•and tray the seal LIMO m said tarmtnenl 13 the wtpvrote real of said Corporation,and ! I Moo the staid 1IHSIMtRtnr war stoned tout:rated in be q'qr said Corporet ort by aWhor1y q un&cord of Dinclon,and r_ aoTFi- rQ= _ — lad •awrovicdp I raid 1nst umetu to bd rhe11'ce art and dal of said Corporal(, IN 7ZZS77A1DNY VY77'WCF,t how hereunto Ati)no, ..�ior�! i d my real the dap'and*. r Tarr a6uHt LINDA L MC o rI1GAN -CROCt I14 ,(1d/ pit;cf_, 0:111111110e0.0011D ! rr t7relam +n COMM»Gri MCI Rb.71,7461 ,1)y G 1 Yrioe upi .'" term 41 J. T, PM C01,1117.710' E. _M. I MITE 7),V. IwY hMma ena merrge calmly of _- — }ts_ it..../..111112L11.._,IMAL____ __ I ceth Mal the within larmtmrtrt tax :Krim/pr ream/oA(hr ..10Y of- 19 _ of orahw%Myna end Add Dn. a'Ck'Gt— M,, and resettled in tFlM t rdtna atom toe Sbrtee nryN, j 1"-A/r/eIAorwnr No, po d.11" $4TN iN. ET NL_ __ FG PPde— _ —et c—et et is lllet'/.uiar- t''4"z4� 99223 -� f3reeraust>w! m ihlslcrvfftmhlte(p11an NP t4od Adds ..' hum,of d]e Attr of rota Loan'', vlaN a an a la r.q lYrNrlrnU eheM be taut Mines:Illy hand and real of Ctwnrr to •�ollow a meu qQ�d. . X ROM, JA. IT DI, 1.2644_S, 234a t3_97223 hierfl<^ Toth rd. Han+e,AdQtsra,ap I By'-- -. _Deputy t FROM : 1ST PI1ERIOHPI TITLE TO I 5036240239 1998.09-17 10155 #1.32 P.04/07 FROM 'FIRST PMERICCN TITLE t 199E49 ? 1Ot05 #431 P.O6/O5 5 ,,I '• I I 1, i ■TATS OF DRIOON County DI WI Oh ittun $a I,Jerry R.fmnron,Plry o »>a f AMa- m.nl end TiLut n Ertl 'x.01 to Cuunly Clrtk for wild r:ounlJ,do h.rrOy asrlllp Inc 1 ihew,IMn ln.ln:manl of wrlpnp wee nanlyrd .nd r.oard�d In k'aok of hoord. aT rrld aGUMy. '11/41"ii. . :wry A. Henson plrlalvr 0 ! AaisWWI it a ik.dlan,g,l_ Ctllda Cwmy clon4 Doc : 97096049 Rect; ]96145 38.00 1 I)/16/1997 10:16:40am ■ ■ • • I LI • i . • / .8-12— . . I h . I 8 l 1 feller of Cransmiflal To: Brian Rager Project: 12755 SW 69th Date: July 28, 1998 Company: City of Tigard Phone: 639-4171 Fax: We are sending you: shop drawings correspondence specs invoices proposals copy of letter change order plans contract_x_other ****************************************************************************** Copies Date Ref# Description ****************************************************************************** 1 7-21-98 1 page Affidavit of Posting Notice 1 7-21-98 1 page Affidavit of Mailing 1 7-21-98 1 page Copy of letter sent to property owners and CIT contacts 1 6 pages Mailing list ■ r 9 Signed. 4'4 d . Date: • 4 Name of applicant • / • an,/ , J g • Subject Property: Tax Map and Lot # )5// �.b - o2 .00 Laf s 12-41 ,,27-33 31k 3/ Address or General Location /o2755 ,Sw 7�.�d O, . AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE I, . 72-n-/, rf e , , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed fir, .ri e_re dwe_lay - affecting the land located at /,2 755• SW 69 n , and did on the 2/ s/- day of ki , 19 V personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a / -d i5... application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at eaaf7 69✓it.r/ .‘u AI S uJ• 6.915 (state location on property) This c7.2/ 54 day of 19 / f 4( 4tariolt„_-_ Sig ature Subscribed and sworn to, affirmed, before me this .- ] rt. day of , 19 I � CirltA Q — ke ti/ Notary Public for the State of Oregon =- •K^ = My Commission Expires: €5130/ � � r i Ir :I 7 .c :n 011:9neac.i 107.0�6r:_::ac-...za;.�fkio0s" sr i WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd_ Tigard, OR 97223 logtnyo\postnoLdt OPPrimmir 1011 40 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) SS CITY OF TIGARD ) I, V. 77 4771,JP • , being duly sworn, depose and say that on JIA---41 a2/ , 19 yf , I paused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at /,-) 75.3 SGtJ 6 9's - 777.,,,,fi,-CA. , a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. further state that said notices were enclosed In envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office at =ci A �c� , with postage prepaid thereon. 4j f ;9P 7- z i- '? Si•natur- 5' �j Subscribed and sworn to before me this . day of , 19 `ls . 1 ;rFFtC P,!SEAM A ai —' ice) - k No:A:_: P: ;.:el^.-0IIEGt J Notary Public /y' � l/ 6� CGr':;°A!SSId,'f tvO.05G338 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 30,2000 h:\login\jo\affmail.cit l July 22, 1998 Pat Wyden 04 8122 SW Spruce St. 0 Tigard, Or. 97223 Re: Land Use Notification 12755 SW 69th. Tigard, Or. Dear Neighbor: As a requirement to gain approval for an application to perform improvements on my property, the City of Tigard requires that I notify property owners located within a 250 ft. radius of same property. It is with this form that I am offering said notice. An informal meeting will be held on August 7, 1998 between the hours of 3:30 pm and 4:30 pm to discuss preliminary drawings/plans. The meeting will be held at my office located at 12600 SW 72nd, suite 200, Tigard, Or.. I am proposing to develop approx. 38,000 sq. f. of presently un-developed property located at 12755 SW 691h, 'Tigard. Improvements to said property would consist of approx. 18,000 sq.ft. of a professional office building. An invitation is extended to those parties interested. Please understand that this proposal is at the preliminary stages of development and anything stated in this notice or during the informal meeting is subject to change or modifications. Respect• 11 submitted, /, , '� . . °ot , Jr. Fr. * * letroScan / Washington (OR)--- - * l :R0456866 RefPar# :L.J101AA 09100 :Pollock Donald E Xfered . Site :12520 SW 70th Ave Tigard 97223 Price :$10,000 Mail :1834 SW 58th Ave #202 Portland Or 97221 Land :$308, 950 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$3,720 Census :Tract:307.00 Block: 1 97-98 Taxes :$3, 724 .53 Telephone:503-292-4373 Thomas Bros: 655 G4 Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 30, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft: 65, 775 BldgSF: Ac:1.51 # 2 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0456875 RefPar# :2S101AA 09101 Owner :Kindrick Alfred F & Dianne M Xfered . Site :12560 SW 70th Ave Tigard 97223 Price . Mail : 12560 SW 70th Ave Tigard Or 97223 Land :$53, 660 Use :1012 Res, Improved Imp :$89, 990 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 616.55 Telephone:503-639-9577 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 30, Bedrm:3 Bth:2.00 YB:1966 Lot Sqft:16, 117 B1dgSF:1, 411 Ac: .37 # 3 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457393 RefPar# :2S101AB 02400 Owner :Zeek Velma Edwards Xfered :09/30/91 Site :7060 SW Beveland Rd Tigard 97223 Price :$180, 000 Mail :7060 SW Beveland Rd Tigard Or 97223 Land :$132,290 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$18,200 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 240.40 Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :LOT 8 BEVELAND Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:26, 725 BldgSF: Ac: . 61 # 4 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457400 RefPar# :2S101AB 02500 Owner :Kim William Yoshio/Nina V Xfered :11/28/97 Site :7086 SW Beveland Rd Tigard 97223 Price :$255, 000 Mail :7086 SW Beveland Rd Tigard Or 97223 Land :$134, 640 Use :2012 Com,Improved Imp :$45, 000 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 460.31 Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :BEVELAND, LOT 7 Bedrm:3 Bth:3.00 YB:1959 Lot Sqft:27, 200 BldgSF:1, 828 Ac: . 62 # 5 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457507 RefPar# :2S101AC 00100 Owner :Knecht Anna M Xfered :04/10/98 Site :7025 SW Gonzaga St Tigard 97223 Price :$182,500 Mail :20135 SW Bonanza Way Tigard Or 97224 Land :$59, 620 Use :1012 Res, Improved Imp :$63,730 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 322.24. Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv Legal :ACRES .36 Bedrm:3 Bth:2.00 YB:1960 Lot Sgft:15, 681 BIdgSF:1,292 Ac: .36 # 6 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457516 RefPar# :2S101AC 00200 Owner :Davis Shirley A Xfered . Site :7020 SW Gonzaga St Tigard 97223 Price . Mail :4225 Penn St Longview Wa 98632 Land :$59, 620 Use :1012 Res, Improved Imp :$63, 500 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 370. 97 Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv . Legal : .35AC Bedrm;3 Bth:2.00 YB:1962 Lot Sqft: B1dgSF:1, 273 Ac: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. f Pr ' * MetroScan / Washington (OR)--- - * Parcel :R0457525 RefPar# ,101AC 00300 Owner :Weaver Michael D & Gail B Xfered :10/18/94 Site :7075 SW Gonzaga St Tigard 97223 Price :$127, 350 Mail :7075 SW Gonzaga St Tigard Or 97223 Land :$59, 620 Use :1012 Res, Improved Imp :$83, 610 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 639.75 Telephone:503-639-9796 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :BEVELAND NO 2, LOT 9 Bedrm:3 Bth:2.00 YB:1966 Lot Sqft: BldgSF:1, 648 Ac: # 8 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) Parcel :R0457534 RefPar# :2S101AC 00400 Owner :Weaver Michael D & Gail B Xfered :02/10/97 Si to :7105 SW Gonzaga St Tigard 97223 Price . M:\i/ :7075 SW Gonzaga St Tigard Or 97223 Land :$59, 620 If :1012 Res, Improved Imp 97-98 :$91, 560 sus :Tract:307.00 Block:1 Taxes :$1, 672.76 -lephone:503-639-9796 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :BEVELAND NO 2, LOT 10 Bedrm:3 Bth:2.00 YB:1961 Lot Sqft: B1dgSF:2, 852 Ac: # 9 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) Parcel :R0457589 RefPar# :2S101AC 00900 Owner :Tommy Bob L Sudie E Xfered . Site :7120 SW Gonzaga St Tigard 97223 Price . Mail :7120 SW Gonzaga St Tigard Or 97223 Land :$59, 620 Use :1012 Res, Improved Imp :$68,070 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1,447 .33 Telephone:503-620-1493 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :LOT 15 BEVELAND NO 2 AND LOT PT18 Bedrm:3 Bth:1.00 YB:1965 Lot Sqft: BldgSF:1, 491 Ac: # 10 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457598 RefPar# :2S101AC 01000 Owner :Gieszler Jacob F Xfered Site :7070 SW Gonzaga St Tigard 97223 Price . Mail :18206 SW Fallatin Loop Aloha Or 97007 Land :$59, 620 Use :1012 Res,Improved Imp :$85, 500 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$1, 619.62 Telephone:503-591-1015 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :LOT 16 BEVELAND NO. 2 Bedrm:3 Bth:2.00 YB:1966 Lot Sqft: B1dgSF:1, 411 Ac: # 11 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457605 RefPar# :2S101AC 01100 Owner :Hughes Joseph Xfered :12/27/95 Site :7035 SW Hampton St Tigard 97223 Price . Mail :7035 SW Hampton St Tigard Or 97223 Land :$103, 150 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$135, 530 Census :Tract:307,00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$2, 107.53 Telephone:503-624-7100 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :BEVELAND NO.2, LOT 17 Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:17,710 B1dgSF: Ac: .40 # 12 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) Parcel :R0457623 RefPar# :2S101AC 01300 Owner :Kaiser Foundation Health Xfered . Site :7105 SW Hampton St Tigard 97223 Price Mail :3600 N Interstate Ave Portland Or 97227 Land :$240, 400 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$431,020 Census :Tract:307.00 Block: 1 97-98 Taxes :$8,834 .08 Telephone:503-331-6550 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :Beveland Legal :BEVELAND NO.2, LOT 18-19, PLUS PT Bedrm; Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:39, 736 BldgSF: Ac: . 91 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 13 • * MetroScan / Washington (OR)--• * Parcel :R0457650 RefPar# 3101AC 01600 Owner :Neimeyer John Xfered :01/10/91 Site :7100 SW Hampton St Tigard 97223 Price :$2, 800,000 Mail :PO Box 661 Portland Or 97207 Land :$1,276, 470 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$3,566, 170 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:2 97-98 Taxes :$41, 698.35 Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv Legal :ACRES 4.64, ASSESSABLE PORTION Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:202, 118 B1dgSF: Ac:4. 64 # 14 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457927 RefPar# :2S101AD 02400 Owner :Western Evangelical Seminary Xfered :02/15/94 Site : *No Site Address* Price :$3, 829, 500 Mail :PO Box 23939 Portland Or 97281 Land :$148, 980 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$941, 510 Census :Tract: Block: 97-98 Taxes :$11,099.68 Telephone: Thomas Bros: Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 32, Bedrm: Bth: YB:1985 Lot Sqft:23, 958 B1dgSF: Ac: .55 # 15 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457954 RefPar# :2S101AD 02700 Owner :Mccroskey John B Xfered :02/10/97 Site :*No Site Address* Price :$100, 334 Mail :1380 Morning Sky Ct Lake Oswego Or 97034 Land :$91,040 Use :2002 Vacant,Commercial Imp . Census :Tract: Block: 97-98 Taxes :$1, 097.46 Telephone:503-636-8638 Thomas Bros: Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 31, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:16, 553 BldgSF: Ac: .38 # 16 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457963 RefPar# :2S101AD 02800 Owner :Morton Don R & Cynthia Sue Xfered :04/21/95 Site : 12665 SW 69th Ave Tigard 97223 Price :$75,000 - Mail :PO Box 596 Lake Oswego Or 97034 Land :$75, 880 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$950 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:l 97-98 Taxes :$749. 55 Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv . Legal : .38AC LOTS 9-11 & 34-36 BLOCK 31 Bedrm: Bth: YB:1935 Lot Sqft:16, 425 B1dgSF:770 Ac: .37 # 17 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457981 RefPar# :2S101AD 03000 Owner :Kf Llc Xfered :12/02/97 Site :6969 SW Hampton St Tigard 97223 Price . Mail : 6969 SW Hampton St Tigard Or 97223 Land :$126, 470 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$723, 980 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$10, 082.56 Telephone: Thomas Bros: 655 G4 Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 31, Bedrm:3 Bth:1.00 YB: 1995 Lot Sgft:21, 900 BldgSF: 10,270 Ac: .50 # 18 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R0457990 RefPar# :2S101AD 03100 Owner :Weston Investment Company Xfered :02/21/95 Site : 6950 SW Hampton St Tigard 97223 Price . Mail :2134 NE Broadway St Portland Or 97232 Land :$709, 830 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$3, 142,420 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:2 97-98 Taxes :$44, 526.28 Telephone: Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 40, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft: 119, 354 B1dgSF: Ac:2.74 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 19 • * KetroScan / Washington (OR) arcel :R0458007 RefPar# 101AD 03200 Owner :Pacific Realty Associates Xfered :, i/19/89 Site :*No Site Address* Price :$3, 160, 450 Mail :15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy #300wm Portland Or 97224nd :$547, 390 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$46, 750 Census :Tract: Block: 97-98 Taxes :$8, 434.03 Telephone: Thomas Bros: Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 39, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft: 103, 672 B1dgSF: Ac:2.38 # 20 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R1453876 RefPar# :2S101AA 09600 Owner :Kindrick Alfred F Xfered . Site : *No Site Address* Price . Mail\ ,. :12560 SW 70th Ave Tigard Or 97223 Land :$12,750 U11-1" :2002 Vacant,Commercial Imp Ws :Tract: Block: 97-98 Taxes :$120. 49 ei; lephone:503-639-9577 Thomas Bros: ubdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, LOT PT Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:8,276 B1dgSF: Ac: .19 # 21 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R2031057 RefPar# :2S101AD 02400 Owner :Western Evangelical Seminary Xfered :02/15/94 Si,V % : 12753 SW 68th Ave Tigard 97223 Price :$3,829, 500 Mil)/ :PO Box 23939 Portland Or 97281 Land :$402, 780 :9602 Soc,Religious Organization Imp :$2, 545, 550 IliTsus :Tract:304.02 Block: 1 97-98 Taxes "elephone: Thomas Bros: 625 H6 Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 32, Bedrm: Bth: YB:1985 Lot Sqft:71, 874 B1dgSF: Ac: 1. 65 # 22 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R2050601 RefPar# :2S101AC 01600 Owner :Neimeyer John Xfered Si I( :7100 SW Hampton St Tigard 97223 Price . 1 M V :PO Box 661 Portland Or 97207 Land :$12, 890 �/ :9842 Misc,Private Exempt Org,Leased Imp :$36, 020 sus :Tract:307.00 Block:2 97-98 Taxes lephone: Thomas Bros: 655 G4 Subdiv . Legal :ACRES .05, NON-ASSESSABLE PORTION Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:2, 178 B1dgSF: Ac: .05 # 23 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) Parcel :R2058297 RefPar# :2S101AA 09700 Owner :Dana Mark R Xfered . Site :12585 SW 68th Ave Tigard 97223 Price . Mail :12585 SW 68th Ave Tigard Or 97223 Land :$103, 900 Use :2012 Com,Improved Imp :$289, 770 Census :Tract:304 .02 Block:1 97-98 Taxes :$4, 689.41 Telephone: Thomas Bros:625 H6 Subdiv . Legal :PARTITION PLAT 1996-024, LOT 1, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft: 17, 859 B1dgSF: Ac: . 41 # 24 * MetroScan / Washington (OR) * Parcel :R2058298 RefPar# :2S101AA 09800 Owner :Roth J T Jr & Theresa Xfered :02/04/97 Site :12570 SW 69th Ave Tigard 97223 Price . Mail : 12600 SW 72nd Ave #200 Tigard Or 97223 Land :$103, 900 Use :2012 Com, Improved Imp :$92, 170 Census :Tract:307.00 Block:2 97-98 Taxes :$2, 335.56 Telephone:503-639-2639 Thomas Bros:655 G4 Subdiv . Legal :PARTITION PLAT 1996-024, LOT 2, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft:17, 991 B1dgSF: Ac: .41 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 4 25 ' * MetroScan / Washington (OR)--• - * arcel :R2069676 RefPar# .101AA 09108 Owner :Porter Denise Xfered :06/04/97 Site : *No Site Address* Price :$147,825 Mail :7991 SW Mohawk St Tualatin Or 97062 Land :$97, 410 Use :2002 Vacant,Commercial Imp . Census :Tract: Block: 97-98 Taxes :$1, 160.35 Telephone: Thomas Bros: Subdiv :West Portland Heights Legal :WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, BLOCK 30, Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sgft:19, 602 B1dgSF: Ac: . 45 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT TEAMS [CITSI NOTIFICATION LIST FOR APPLICANTS WITH LAND USE PROPOSALS f51 1 WEST CIT LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE SOUTIH CIT CENTRAL CIF 1 Abdullah Alkadi Clark G.Zeller Beverly Fronde Craig Hopkins Jack Biethan 11905 SW 125th Court 13290 SW Shore Drive 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road 7430 SW Varns Street 15525 SW 109th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97224 (503)524-1068 (503)524-0994 (503)639-2529 Bill Gross Larry Westerman Kathy Smith Mark F. Mahon John Benneth 11035 SW 135th Avenue 13665 SW Fern Street 11645 SW Cloud Court 11310 SW 91st Court 15550 SW 109th Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224 (503)524-6325 (503)524-4550 (503)639-0894 Kathie Kallio Christy Herr Linda Masters Pal Wyden 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 11386 SW Ironwood Loop 15120 SW 141st Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard,OR 97223 (503)524-5200 (503)590-1970/(503)624-8009. (503)620-7662 m zr.. Ed Howden Barbara Saltier Scott Russell Sue Rorman ci 11829 SW Morning Hill 11245 SW Morgen Court 31291 Raymond Creek Road 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223 Scappoose,OR 97056 Tigard,OR 97223 o (503)524-6040 (503)684-9303 (503)543-2434 H Bonne&Jim Roach June Sulffridge Cal Woolery v 14447 SW Twekesbury Drive 15949 SW 146th Avenue 12356 SW 132nd Court Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97223 (503)590-0461 (503)590-0523 (503)590-4297 Karl Swanson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop ° -,.0 Tigard,OR 97223 °_. (503)590-3369 a PLEASE NOTE: In addition to property owners within 250 feet,notice of meetings "' on land use proposals shall be sent to all the names on this list. � — � to h J iativVnaterS Jn011 rnst 11-N Or 97 Li. CO 'a CO • O E. 00 N t 0 - SIGN UP Public Hearing for Proposed Site Development August 07 , 1998 12755 S.W. 69th, Tigard, Or. Please provide the following information: Name I Address I City/Zip Time I Signature 1 .;- 2 ( S14-1 etrd 97423 3.'3s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Comments: (Please give name) 4 COMPASS STORMWATER QUALITY .� CORPORATION• W. `\= 4 COMPASS IMPACT STUDY ,,,t4;%44 CORPORATION In satisfaction of the applicable provisions of 18.32.050(B)(5), this commercial development needs to address the effects of the proposed development on the transportation, drainage, water, and sewer systems serving the subject site. Impacts to and adequacy of the transportation and drainage systems are addressed through exhibits included with this application submittal package. Based upon information provided through the pre-application meeting, and subsequent discussions, with City of Tigard engineering staff, the existing sanitary sewer system is adequately sized and has capacity available to serve a development of the size proposed. The domestic water is supplied by the Tualatin Water District with a 12-inch line in SW 69th Avenue is adequate. Domestic service is already provided to the site. The transportation system improvements that will be required to be constructed by the applicant, including frontage improvements along SW 69th Avenue, are acceptable as proportional to the traffic impact of this development. The 1 drainage system improvements, including an internal storm sewer collection with water quality, dry pond, with trapped catch basin facilities, are in accordance with existing city regulations and are acceptable as proportional to the drainage system impact of this development. The sanitary sewer and water system improvements which are necessary to serve the subject site are acceptable as proportional to the impacts of this development. The storm water will be detained on-site with discharge into a natural swale in SW 70th which is collected at a ditch inlet and drains to a storm 1' line in SW Hampton Street. The short term noise impacts of this development include construction noise generated during development of the site. While in the long term, the commercial nature of this development will generate noise levels compatible with the surrounding existing commercial development. N:\CLER\FINAL\Working\09-98\4236Impact Study.doc RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY PURPOSES DATE: JUNE Z Si 1998 PARTIES: KF LLC, as Owner and in possession of Parcel A, described in Exhibit "A" and "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and J.T. Roth, Jr., Theresa A. Roth and Michael Zoucha, as Owner and in possession of Parcel B as described in Exhibit "A and "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. RECITALS: The parties to this agreement intend to create permanent, mutual, reciprocal easements and a mutual right-of-way for use by them as a private roadway and private utility right-of-way. Such easements shall be appurtenant to and shall benefit all of the property described in Exhibits "A" and "B". The parties therefore agree as follows: AGREEMENTS: SECTION 1. GRANT OF EASEMENTS: ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.1 The parties hereby grant and convey to each other permanent, mutual reciprocal rights- of-way on, over, across and along the real property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Such easements shall form a continuous right-of-way as described in Exhibits "A" and B" KF LLC hereby specifically grants to J.T. Roth, Jr., Theresa A. Roth and Michael Zoucha such easement rights respecting the property described in Exhibit "A" and "B", which shall be appurtenant to and benefit Parcel B. J.T. Roth Jr., Theresa Roth and Michael Zoucha reciprocally grants to KF LLC such easement rights respecting the property described in Exhibit "A" and "B", which shall be appurtenant to and benefit Parcel A. 1.2 Such easements and right-of-way may be used for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress purposes by the parties to this agreement. Neither party shall have the right to park, load or unload any vehicle in the right-of-way, other than under emergency conditions. Use of the right-of-way shall be on a regular, continuous, nonexclusive, nonpriority basis, benefiting the parties, their successors, assigns, lessees, mortgagees, invitees, guests, customers, agents and employees. However, neither party's rights hereunder shall lapse in the event of that party's failure to use the easement and right-of-way on a continuous basis. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE EASEMENT AREA The right-of-way formed by the easements granted under this agreement shall be improved into an easement area in accordance with the following standards and procedures: 2.1 Each property owner of parcel A and B (Parties) will be financially responsible for the entire improvements and construction corresponding to their side of the easement. Work that has been completed prior to the signing of this agreement, such as the concrete apron approach will not be charged to either parties A or B. The construction standards carried out will meet all of the requirements of the City of Tigard or respective jurisdiction. Improvements considered within the easement areas shall also include the necessary street improvements prior to the entrance driveway, the driveway improvement, parking lot paving, striping and any directional signage painted on the asphalt surface, as required by the local jurisdiction. 2.2 Each property owner will agree to coordinate paving levels and standards of construction per the City of Tigard. Plans for improvement must have City of Tigards approval prior to beginning any work. Storm drainage runoff will be separated along the original property line of Parcel A and Parcel B. SECTION 3. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR; TAXES AND INSURANCE 3.1 The cost of periodic maintenance and necessary repairs to the easement area shall be borne exclusively by the Owners of Parcel A and Parcel B as to the easement area described in attached Exhibit "A" and "B". Such maintenance and repairs shall be performed by an agreed upon Contractor that will perform the work as agreed upon by the owners of Parcel A and Parcel B. The cost for periodic maintenance with in the easement will be divided according to the following: 45% of the cost will be the responsibility of Parcel A and 55% of the cost will be the responsibility of Parcel B. 3.2 If a party fails to pay for any such necessary maintenance and repairs as required, the other party, upon 30 days' prior written notice to the nonperforming party, may cause such work to be done with a right of reimbursement for all sums necessary. If the nonperforming party fails to pay such reimbursement on demand, then the party that pays for the maintenance work shall have the immediate right to record a lien against the nonpaying or nonperforming party's property benefited by this agreement. The parties agree that such lien shall be treated as a construction lien pursuant to ORS Chapter 87, subject to foreclosure and priority as set forth in the construction lien statutes. 3.3 Each party shall pay when due all real property taxes, assessments or other charges against the land to which each party holds fee title and which is part of the private easement. There shall be no right of contribution from the other party for such items. 3.4 Each party shall, upon execution of the construction contract described in Paragraph 2.1, provide evidence to the other party that public liability insurance with minimum combined limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 is in force at all times relating to all activities, conditions, operations and usages on or about that portion of the private roadway which is respectively owned in fee title by each of the parties. Each party hereby indemnifies and holds harmless the other party from any liability arising out of the usage of that portion of the private roadway owned in fee title by the indemnifying party. SECTION 4. ENGINEERING SURVEY COSTS All costs of engineering, surveying and other professional or consultant's fees associated with the construction (See Section 2) of the private easement area shall be borne by the property owner developing their side of the easement. All contracts for development shall be separately entered into by each property owner and each party shall be separately responsible for payment of that party's portion of the fees charged in connection with such work or services. SECTION 5. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 5.1 All necessary underground utilities such as, necessary for installing, repairing or maintaining water, gas, sewer, storm drainage, electrical or telephone lines shall be placed entirely on Parcel A or Parcel B side of the property line for the services to that property. Major utility lines that encroach into the adjoining property easement will require adjoining property owner's written authorization. The cost of all such installation, repair and maintenance to utilities shall be borne by the party that is required to or is requesting to perform said improvements. 5.2 No installation, repair or maintenance of any such line or facility shall curtail or unreasonably impede use of the private easement area for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. SECTION 6. CONDEMNATION; DEDICATION 6.1 In the event that the private easement area or any part thereof is taken by power of eminent domain, or is conveyed under threat of condemnation and such taking will render the private easement unusable for normal, regular, two-way vehicular ingress and egress this agreement shall terminate. If such taking does not render the private roadway so unusable, the obligations of a party whose portion of the roadway is taken shall be abated to the extent of such taking, but this agreement shall otherwise continue in full force and effect. Proceeds from such condemnation shall belong exclusively to the fee title owner of the property so taken. SECTION 7. BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS In the event either party shall fail to perform its obligations under this agreement, the other party shall be entitled to require such performance by suit for specific performance or where appropriate through injunctive relief. Such remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies afforded under Oregon law and those rights of cure and reimbursement specifically granted under this agreement. SECTION 8. ATTORNEY FEES In the event of any litigation arising under this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover from the losing party the prevailing party's reasonable attorney fees at trial or on appeal as adjudged by the trial or appellate court. SECTION 9. EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT The easements granted hereunder shall run with the land as to all property burdened and benefited by such easements, including any division or partition of such property. The rights, covenants and obligations contained in this agreement shall bind, burden and benefit each party's successors and assigns, lessees, mortgagees (or beneficiaries under a deed of trust). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this day of 19 KF LLC di=p - Name of Corporation Signatur- 6969 SW Hampton Street Stev- J. Kolber. P.rtner Address ���, Portland, OR 97223 ar '� Signature • Tim R. Froelich, Partner Title STATE OF OREGON ) VCounty of �/ The forregoin instr m n as acknowledged before me this � ,' day of , 19 ° by 77 �V 7r Corporation and Ore n corporation on behalf of t a corporation. C - 1- ' iirir�rr�rrr iir"rr� •L a/�i _ iii Lei 1 \ �.,�� OFFICIAL SEAL \ otary Public for Oregon \ • "2 y ,. GENEVIEVE M ULBRICHT \ : 4 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON \ �e-?�n COMMISSION NO.041719 , My commission expires: .7-c1- 7 ,.. MT COMMISSION EXPIRES FEL 20,1999 \ y p �!/'ll//Illlll/lllllrlr�ll�l IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this /9 day of Zi-t4-1.e...._., 19 ` . J.T. Roth, Jr., Theresa A. Roth, Michael Zoucha / Jh(WJ Name of Corporation Si., ..tt re 12600 SW 72nd Ave.,#200 Address T Tigard, OR 97223 Signature Title lLLt 3Signature OtiNe-C___ Title STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_by_ of Corporation and Oregon corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: STATE OF OREGON County of WASHINGTON }ss. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this 19 day of June 19 98 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,personally appeared the within named J. T. ROTH. JR. . THERESA A. ROTH AND MICHAEL ZOUCHA known to me to be the identical individual s_described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that THEY executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set n,'hand 70 affixes my o icial seal th da 'rid/ear last above written. iAftV1YAiA i.stitia ,.� OFF►gNLSEAL 1 tary Public for Oregon. . UNDA L MC GETTIGAN •i4. �_ popsy PUBIJC•OREGON My omntission expires 2 8 COMMISSION NO.061i09 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB.28,2001 "EXHIBIT A" REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT A tract of land for access easement purposes located in Block 31 of"West Portland Heights", a duly recorded subdivision in Book 1, Pages 55 and 56, Washington County plat records, located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, City of Portland, Washington County, Oregon. Said easement being 12 feet on both sides of the following described centerline: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 27, thence tracing the south line of said Lot 27 and continuing along the south line of Lot 18, North 87° 26'-54" West 105.00 feet to the terminus. Contains 2,520 square feet more or less. Bearings are based on CS 21,695, CS25,818 and the plat of "West Portland Heights". 1t, X1-11g 1TE3 74)". I 1-13 Q /y`14 -,- / o 'IS ,, �1G1 / / 1� 1 S1 / `I ell" 32 1 / 0)1, l I q -, l / / / oc f '- 00 l '� 31 pp ,/ 1© pOl A'C C`L 2g /l N T OF l — ,rEROA/US l / / / /' ea i l / l / :AsA4EN,i...,„ �� pROl'O l �v NB., 2&'S4 2� / ACCES SD JOB sue•40' cv p l Arc/ / / X520 S F r� 7---- ,/ eE N�OF l 4/. ,_' 19 ARCEL ,q /1/ / 2p , S. 11/ ?3 ; 2i i / �` k MP \� es i / r S 2s l �_ , r. �/ L.,- , \ pRO,Ite, ��, 11/0 Ey r;AS,6�, nTy£ AaR�° e w bCl�1T f"', '" � Jo, r xtii�e r r' oRejOl r"�a� Acct. / �'1/� 't'u+ei pMO• REP. �OR "`s e'�.•'�1� �1 wXS BY aPROJ,- r-q ti°C - �s:�E aesDkO j S q NT steer AMC Br sCA� �.11./C p 8 NpkENT bAT • iL 6...98 Main t a Branch Office PO Box 2.3814 4060 Hudson Ave. Tigard, OR 97281 Salem, OR 97301 Inc.Carlson Testing, Phone(503)684-3460 Phone(503)589-1252 Fax#(503)684-0954 Fax#(503)589-1309 August 24, 1998 Job No. 98-G1727 Tim Roth J.T. Roth Construction, Inc. 12600 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 200 Tigard, Oregon 97223 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION COMMERCIAL BUILDING SITE 12755 SW 69TH AVENUE TIGARD, OREGON This report presents the results of our foundation investigation for the proposed building site at 12755 SW 69th Avenue, a commercial development property in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate geotechnical soil conditions at the site, and provide recommendations for prudent development. Our work was performed in accordance with our proposal letter (No. P0752), dated July 27, 1998. BACKGROUND Project Information Location - The site is located at 12755 SW 69th Avenue in Tigard, Oregon (see Figure 1). Owner - Mr. J.T. Roth - address above Jurisdictional Agency - City of Tigard Site Description The site is northeast of the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and Highway 217 and is a gently sloping site that has been occupied by a private residence over the years. The subject property is a roughly 0.9-acre, rectangular-shaped site with slopes on the property declining toward the west at approximately 3% grade. The site has an unoccupied house located in the east central portion of the property, and an abandoned storage building is located adjacent to the south property boundary. Proposed Construction The proposed site construction will consist of a two-story commercial/industrial unit with associated parking and driveways. The building is expected to have a slab-on-grade floor in combination with a shallow spread footing foundation. We assume that standard underground utilities (sewer, water, electricity, cable, gas, telephone) are included in the construction plan. No grading, utility, or foundation plans have been provided for review. CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS General Based on our review of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle Geologic Map (USGS Open-File Report 0-90-2), the site is underlain by Quarternary flood deposits (Off). These soils are generally comprised of silts, fine sands, and clays. From our field explorations, the soils encountered at the site conform to the geologic descriptions.The depth of the flood deposits is estimated to be at least 30 feet, and we anticipate the depth to basement rock to be approximately 450 feet. The formations between the basement rock and the near surface flood deposits are expected to be Sandy River Mudstone clays and silts and the sandy conglomerates of the Troutdale Formation. Structure Based on a review of available geologic mapping, an east-west trending fault is shown approximately 1.8 miles south of the site, and another northwest-trending fault is mapped about 0.5 miles northeast of the site. These faults are inferred on the basis of subsurface data from water well logs. There is no evidence to suggest that these faults, or other nearby faults, are still active. EARTHQUAKE SOURCES AND SEISMIC RISK Local The Portland Hills fault zone (Madin, 1990), is located approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. It includes a series of northwest-trending subsurface faults that extend for a distance of about 65 miles along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills. This fault zone is considered to be the boundary fault on the western margin of the Portland Basin. None of the major faults have been shown to cut Holocene deposits (10,000 years). The fault zone is not defined by historical seismicity or associated with any medium- to large-magnitude earthquakes. Although there is no definite evidence for activity for the Portland Hills fault zone, the zone is judged to be potentially active with a relative high probability (0.7) on the basis of possible deformation of late Pleistocene sediment (inferred from subsurface sediment thickness data), Geomatrix, 1995. The Gales Creek Fault is located approximately 14 miles southwest of the site. No seismicity has been recorded along the trend of the Gales Creek Fault; however, a small probability of activity is assigned to the structure because it is aligned along a northward projection of an active fault zone (the Mount Angel Fault) further to the southeast (Geomatrix, 1995). Regional In western Washington and Oregon, the most likely sources of earthquakes appear to be 1) shallow, moderate intensity earthquakes within the North American Plate; 2) somewhat deeper, moderately large earthquakes in the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate, and 3) CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 3 potentially great earthquakes along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (the contact between the two plates). A maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6 1/2 for the North American Plate of western Oregon is inferred by Couch and Deacon (1972), with a recurrence frequency of about 130 years. Deeper intraplate earthquakes (deeper than 30 km) have mostly occurred where the Juan de Fuca Plate is bending; either where the dip steepens, or where the plate is buckled (Rogers, 1983). Gravity data (Dehlinger et. al, 1970) indicate the bend occurs beneath the east flank of the Coast Range. Thus the most likely location for a deep intraplate earthquake is along the western edge of the Willamette Valley. The recommended design earthquake for this event would have a magnitude of 7'/2. No subduction earthquakes have occurred during historic times; however, geologic evidence available is interpreted as indicative that the great earthquakes (mgnitude 91/2) have occurred in recent prehistoric times. Such events appear to have occurred infrequently, about every 600 years on the average. The best estimates indicate that the last great earthquake occurred 300 years ago (Yamaguchi et. al., 1989). Other studies indicate that the most likely seismic risks in western Oregon and Washington over the next 100 years are from moderate sized, shallow earthquakes in the North American plate. These studies indicate that earthquakes similar to historic events in the Puget Sound area (magnitude 61/2 to 7%2) could occur nearly anywhere in western Oregon or Washington. Such an event may have recurrence intervals on the order of 100 to 200 years. Liquefaction The greatest potential seismic hazard in the Willamette River Basin is from soil liquefaction. Liquefaction typically depends on various factors which include soil type, the strength and duration of local ground shaking, hydraulic conditions at the site, and the thickness and seismic velocity profile of the sediment column at the site (Madin, 1990). If liquefaction occurs during a seismic event, it can produce damaging secondary effects such as lateral spreading, sand boils, ground rupture, and seismic-induced settlement. Liquefaction potential and seismic design requirements are addressed in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND TESTING A general description of the field exploration procedures and the logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A. Four of the five test pits were located in the central and northeast portions of the building site where construction of the proposed commercial building is planned. An additional test pit was excavated in the southwest portion of the site allowing for an overall drainage assessment for the property. CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Five test pits were excavated on July 28, 1998. The test pits penetrated the native soils at depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet below the ground surface. Topsoil and/or fill were overlying the native soils. The depth of topsoil ranged from 0 to 1 foot, and the fill depth ranged from 0 to 4 feet. Organic debris and rock fragments occurring in the fill suggest that the subject site was previously used for disposal of unusable foundation soils, possibly from developed properties within the vicinity. Below the topsoil and fill native soils consisted of a stiff, brown, clayey SILT with occasional orange and black staining. The soils transitioned to coarse grained SILT at approximately 8 feet depth with the exception of TP-4 . Native soils were encountered at four feet in excavation TP-4 and consisted of dark gray, clayey silt with pockets of soft, organic, clayey silt. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at approximately 9.5 feet in test pit TP-3. The test pit accumulated about 2 inches of standing water after one half hour had elapsed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The existing fill is not considered suitable for the support of shallow spread footings due to the occurrence of organic matter and miscellaneous debris encountered during our field investigation. Documentation for placement of the old fill was not available. It is our opinion that the proposed construction is geotechnically feasible provided that the recommendations of this report be incorporated into the design and construction of the project. It is anticipated that any site grading will be minor and will be engineered as defined by the UBC. To provide the level of documentation specified in the UBC for placement of engineered fill, daily observation and testing during stripping and rough grading operations is usually required. The contractor should be held contractually responsible for scheduling, frequency, and acceptance of the proper inspections. Site Preparation All areas to be graded should first be cleared of vegetation, debris, topsoil, and old fill. Cleared materials should be removed from the site. The estimated average depth of topsoil removal is 12 inches in the east area of the property. Once a fill area is stripped, the area should be ripped to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted prior to commencement of filling. These procedures for preparation of a fill area also pertain to areas of existing fill. Stripped topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by the Soil Engineer or his representative. All existing fill must be removed from the building foundation area, to the depth of native subsoil, and then replaced and compacted before spread footing construction begins. CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 5 Engineered Fill All fill placement should be performed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, with the exceptions and additions noted herein. Any imported material should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to arrival on site. Engineered fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 12 inches (uncompacted) and compacted using appropriate equipment. A minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from the AASHTO T-180 or equivalent method is recommended for engineered fill placed rough grading operations. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. All engineered fill should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer's representative. Typically, a density test is performed for every vertical foot of fill placed or every 500 yd 3 of earthwork performed, whichever requires more testing. The contractor should be contractually held responsible for test scheduling and frequency, if services are provided on an on-call basis. Earthwork is generally performed in the summer months, generally from mid-June to mid- October, when warm dry weather is available for proper moisture conditioning of soils. Earthwork performed during the wet winter-spring seasons will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular fill to place and sufficiently compact engineered fill. Foundations Spread footing design and construction should conform to Chapter 18 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The recommended minimum widths for continuous wall and pad footings is 15 and 24 inches, respectively. We estimate that an allowable bearing capacity for engineered fill of 2,000 lb/ft 2 may be used for spread footing design. The bearing pressure may be increased by 33 percent for short duration loads, such as wind and seismic. The coefficient of friction between the on-site soil and poured-in-place concrete should be taken as 0.30. The maximum anticipated total and differential footing movements (generally from soil expansion and/or settlement) are 1 inch and 1/2 inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively. Site Liquefaction Potential/ Seismic Design Based on our review of th' available geologic maps (Beaverton and Lake Oswego quadrangles of the Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon; DOGAMI Open File Report 0-90-2, 1990) and nearby site explorations,the depth of the Quaternary flood deposits (Qff) is at least 30 feet and consists of silts, clays and fine- grained sands. Some perched water was observed in the test pits; however, the fine-grained nature of the fill soil and the sporadic occurrence of water indicates that the fill is not susceptible to liquefaction. Our site data and experience in the immediate area has indicated that the Qff deposits in the vicinity of the site are generally medium dense sandy silt with an average shear wave velocity of 1,000 feet/second. It is our opinion that this site has a very low potential for damaging ground effects to occur from liquefaction. The upper fill materials are CTI #98-G1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 6 susceptible to slope failure from ground motions or excessive static loading, such as from water infiltration or building loads. The site is located in UBC Seismic Zone 3. We consider the site soil profile is best modeled as an S2 (1994 UBC classification) with and associated S factor equal to 1.2. The seismic classifications,according to 1997 UBC have not yet been adopted, but may be implemented by the time this project is designed. According to the 1997 UBC classification,the site soil profile is best modeled as an S o with seismic coefficients Ca and C„ equal to 0.36 and 0.54, respectively. Slabs-on-grade The organic topsoil and/or loose surface soil should be removed beneath slab and concrete flatwork areas. Overexcavation depths beneath structural slabs should be at least 12 inches below present grade. The underslab base rock course should consist of 1 '/2"-0 and/or %"-0 crushed aggregate base with no more than 7% fines. The total thickness of this layer of crushed aggregate may be dependent on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction and should be reviewed by proof-rolling. The minimum required aggregate thickness is 9 inches and we expect that at least 12 inches of aggregate will be required during wet weather to stabilize the subgrade and provide adequate separation between the slab and accumulated water. The use of a vapor barrier, concrete admixtures, or slab surface sealant should be decided by the designer, based on his/her experience. Drainage Surface water drainage should be directed away from the future structure, and roofdrain water should be carried to an appropriate storm drain system. Based on our observations and testing, native soils are not suitable for in-ground storm water disposal. Utilities All deep excavations and shoring should conform to OSHA regulations (29 CFR Part 1926). It is our opinion that the majority of the near-surface site soils are OSHA "Type B" soils when dry and "Type C" soil when seepage is present. Only minor seepage was encountered during our field investigation. The walls of temporary construction trenches are expected to stand nearly vertical, with only minor sloughing, to a maximum depth of 4 feet from construction grade. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with ASTM D2321 procedures. Initial backfill lift thickness for a %"-0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening flexible pipe. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from AASHTO T-180, or equivalent. Typically, density tests for each fill lift are taken for every 100 lineal feet of trench backfill. Lift thicknesses should not exceed 12 inches, except if manufactured granular material is used for trench backfill, then the lifts for large vibrating plate-type compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be taken as great as 2 feet, provided proper compaction is being achieved and tested at each lift, as feasible. CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 7 Retaining Walls The equivalent fluid densities for the design of retaining walls are presented below for the existing native material. The densities assume that adequate drainage, such that no hydrostatic pressures are realized behind the wall, is provided. TABLE 1: RECOMMENDED EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES FOR LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES EQUIVALENT FLUID DENSITIES (Ib/ft3) Unrestrained Wall Restrained Wall TYPE Level Profile Level Profile Active Pressure 45 - At-rest Pressure - 65 Passive Pressure* 390 - * The upper 0.5 foot should be ignored for passive resistance The effect of live loads on lateral pressures has not been included. A drain should be placed behind the base of all walls. Wall drains should consist of a minimum 3-inch-diameter, perforated or slotted plastic pipe enveloped in a minimum of 2 ft 3 per linear foot of drain rock wrapped with Amoco 4545 geofabric filter or equivalent. A minimum of one-half percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non- perforated pipe outlet. Retaining wall backfill supporting walkways, concrete slabs, and other structures should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density obtainable by ASTM Method D1557. Typical Pavement Section After stripping of the organic topsoil layer, preparation of the pavement subgrade should consist of cutting to grade, and ripping and recompacting the existing soils to a depth of 12 inches. CTI recommends proof-rolling directly on the subgrade with a loaded 10 yard dump- truck during dry weather to assess the presence of soft areas. Soft areas which rut, pump, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. Typically, subgrade, base course, and asphalt compaction testing is performed at every 200 lineal feet of paving. A representative sample from TP-5 at 2 foot 6 inches depth was collected for laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing. The maximum dry density (110.9 pcf) of the sample was determined and the sample was remolded to approximately 90% of that dry density prior to testing. The CBR value of the soil is 3.8, which correlates to a subgrade resilient modulus (Mr) = 5,700 lb/in 2. The pavement design was performed in general accordance CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 8 with the methods prescribed by the Crushed Base Equivalent method for a flexible pavement design. A Traffic Coefficient ITC) of 5 for driveways and 4 for parking areas has been assumed. The recommended dry weather pavement section is presented in the following Table 2: TABLE 2: PAVEMENT DESIGN STRUCTURAL SECTION - DRY WEATHER CONDITIONS Recommended Recommended Recommended Material Layer Minimum Minimum Compaction Layer Thickness for Layer Thickness for Test Standard Parking Areas Driveways (in.) (in.) Asphaltic 2.5 3 91 % of Rice Concrete(AC) density AASHTO T-209 Crushed Aggregate 2 2 95% of Modified Base Top Course Proctor or 3/4"-0 AASHTO T-180 Crushed Aggregate 6 8 95% of Modified Base 1 'A"-0 Proctor or AASHTO T-180 We prefer that pavement sections be constructed during the dry-weather season; however, if construction schedules dictate paving during winter or spring, site specific conditions should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typically, an additional 6 inches of base rock and woven geotextile is necessary for wet weather paving. LIMITATIONS The earthwork and foundation installation should be performed in general accordance with the City of Tigard and Washington County standards as well as the site-specific recommendations in this report. This report was prepared solely for the Owner and Engineer/Architect for the design of the project. We encourage its review by bidders and/or the Contractor as it relates to factual data only (test pits and laboratory data). The opinions and recommendations contained within the report are not intended to be nor should they be construed to represent a warranty of subsurface conditions but are forwarded to assist in the planning and design process. Our reports pertain to the material tested/inspected only. Information contained herein is not to be reproduced, except in full, without prior authorization from this office. CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 9 We would be pleased to provide input, as necessary, if additional information is obtained or if site conditions and/or development plans change. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, CARLSON TESTING, INC. ��N I PNRR Fss i0 ct- 4‹,1 474 *17 f-aaA `% / OREGON , 0 4 �q,,9 23' ,9Ft<t, - ---(/ £S D. 1M0 tip. 3� �S ✓J • .erg '. Lulich James D. Imbrie, P.E., C.E.G. Engineering Associate Principal Engineer ii SITE LOCATION 12755 S.W. 69th t•.• • A is{/ • •.' cq��,~ 'w ry i'4717, (1, ��°yffi. I 1� �,' • ,/ 'ia.gin`-..� '• I• •w r r•-• .-,.. r `� -. ,"'1 s• 3.,..-..;..,1;.: i- . _v,. . 1 ,4•toN •, • .10 11 ft ,Sr, .� r`16- •9 ( ,_l.; � � AV '49 •�' , �,' :� YiS, 4� _ r-J• anti _ 53' /�'�' --'t )� N 4 r/ - -r__I• p/. tl T5..-?...;' r� 4f/ P ,,, I i . . t k ,„ :. \ ._ C_ - ' •A. C ''-� �7: '_Jy. , I . ";.• ' :557-: � v f '• •• f /• I1 r� l' � Ot I 200 ' i � . . , •: tt i-'; `. j ,<• dEAF' .�. 111 ,. '440%117;t' ' �•t ` ,,z°°. 1 ! a n.z I f, s . . 1. T, i \ r., , l a, •\ ;I= r� •e Y � -,• . \ �Jil� ti rr - q= c!• ' - . Z 'i to I• I a' ,I f • ,:;;:` w.r Ilk 4 l � ft�.' 1• 11• ' 1y _���* • :� _ I: •'o - 2? i • _._ •i .I I cod,.'.„ .1r3 ,, �• p��` t: i h. "'° .M• I•. ( ° SUBJECT SITE ` . •.•, .'o Z S' {� . I =>. l :-z—rail :P. i L.34 4 ' • ` � .i{J� �� e ( -- I f`� 40,14 ._? ~ ° / / I z on • • l : _ A. .;., .••-.. f‘i 1 1 a ../4 /1//14,:. - • ,,,i 9. . -,::,,/,' - *-;, ( ', '.'"-----,....„ ...\•• l in:, ' , .. , .'' '•./ t A ,-..• �' ' 1 AM i iARM .3/•71".'4\ �\"+ ° � •A� - �,�• 'i ` = 1 ,l.. •,. •/-- ,,Am • ,4' _ \ J',..+arc _ 6 xv‘"•.i. \\\�.\. 7 T �rj I/ •13�4 r d� i4.iti�'_ ' / r' : ¢ �. ,•'‘'/; ( - B �77,�' �• ' l* 1.. . • p ; inn • - �iK r, �¢{' } '� `'':-,`, II(` ,�� ' • i 1 •.l' a i. �a. ' %;•IEf i.a '^ i :-�-t 1I11, '�I'N' �i 'rl�_ r i� �t• p •t • • , f�`I`',, r' I tic. i •la I(`-�-_. i •(1' .ate ' 1�I 4C ((I�' o43fAt4',.Pl1RK 14/ .i 1 r t. 1 „I. �y i v: t �� /�° r_ /y/ • ”- ye rr'Ek. 'lf. - i `c :ry I.• ' ` ; ! . t_L•__I LL �. i-/ '/- j '_ Z°II '- .1 12 t' '�' I lir,r,Tittttttttr. Base map taken from USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series, Beaverton, OR, and Lake Oswego, OR Quadrangles, 1961, Photorevised 1984 Scale 1 Inch = 2,000 feet C.I. 10 feet GPRLSO Carlson Testing, Inc. 't:° P.O. Box 23814 CTI Job No. 98-G1727 FIGURE 1 T S Si< , SWAM Tigard, Oregon 97281 1 12 755 S. W. 69th TP-2 ' (4.0') 2' Diameter %;/' ��• ,';,/' /// f i ; /' Concrete cap /%/. / //// /Y// / ,/ . 617 ,//� /' //////` /1 / // /// //• / • /, / /// /' /�/ ///// - . ./// 7///7'/ \ ////// ,////'/////. . /.///// ,// \yT//,/ / Blackberry Bushes // /// II SHED \/,// ', //'/// /2 /•/ // / f/ /%'frtP3// /// / ////,..// /' (1.O / ////// / // / // ' � / / / / , f / / //„ // / i / / ' / 'HOUSE / //////'/ / f / / f , / /�/ ; . ////, / /// , •./`. '''/// 4' '' / .” / TP-5 (0.0') ' /' / r /,/ /1P-2/7 / / / , / TP-1 (0.0') /// / /' 69th Avenue 6M Approximate Location of TEST PIT (with depth of fill) joliK . Carlson Testing, Inc. P.O. Box 23814 CTI Job No. 98-G1727 FIGURE 2 IESv ic Cli "' Tigard, Oregon 97281 CTI #98-G 1727 12755 SW 69th Ave. Page 10 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Exploratory Test Pits Four test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 10 to 12 feet on July 28, 1998. The test pits were excavated with a trackhoe subcontracted by CTI. All excavations were backfilled immediately after completion of logging and sampling. A representative of our firm logged the test pits with respect to soil type, relative strength, and ground water occurrence. Soil conditions were evaluated, described, and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Within the test pits representative samples of the various soil units were taken and placed in airtight bags. Consistency measurements were made in the fine-grained sediments within the test pits with a Pocket Penetrometer, a manually operated device used to estimate the in-situ, unconfined compressive strength (tsf) of cohesive soils. Test Pit No. TP- 1 Logged by: EMA Date Excavated: 7/28/98 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation: a) H E.N.-. —. N u 2 >7 ci a o - — a X❑ .y o Material Description (7, ° 2 N O 0 co Brown SILT (ML), abundant rootlets in upper 12 inches, dry (Topsoil) 1 Brown SILT with trace of clay (ML), orange mottling, stiff consistency, rootlets, drvjgff) 2- 2.75 ralT 19.7 Brown SILT with some clay (ML), grey and orange mottling, stiff to very 3-- 1.75 stiff, damp (Off) Brown, clayey SILT (ML), stiff, rootcasts, micaceous, moist (Off) 4— 1.25 5-- 6--- very moist below 6 feet 7- 8— Red-brown, coarse-grained SILT, soft to medium consistency, orange and 9 black staining, wet (Off) 10- - Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet 11— Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16— 17-- Job No. 98-G1727 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-1 C.1P, O?i Carlson Testing, Inc.-P.O. Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 684-0954 Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: EMA Date Excavated: 7/28/98 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation: E. - C U g y o - n .X a a o C fC Material Description tion a m fo — c no Q. co a U m Brown SILT (ML), very stiff, abundant roots in upper 24 inches, debris at 1 — 3.50 22 inches, dry (Fill) 2—>4.25 Light brown SILT with trace of clay (ML), very stiff to hard consistency, ..., orange and black staining, occasional small roots, dry to damp (Off) 3—>4.25 15.2 Brown SILT with trace clay (ML), grey and orange mottling, rootcasts, 4— 3.0 moist (Qff) 5— Brown, clayey SILT (ML), stiff, rootcasts, moist (Qff) 6- 7— Light brown, coarse-grained SILT (ML), stiff consistency, micaceous, 8— black staining, very moist (Qff) 9- 10— Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet 11— Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 12- 13- 14- 15— 16-- 17— Job No. 98-G1727 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-2 P C1 �O . Carlson Testing,Inc.-P.O.Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 684-0954 TESTING INC. Test Pit No. TP- 3 Logged by: EMA Date Excavated: 7/28/98 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation: 4) > - O a -o y . • o La .N m 1° = Material Description 0 Q- m � ��- g° o � g a �� 0 m Brown SILT (ML), some 1"-0" rocks, abundant small roots in upper 12 1 - 4.0 inches, dry�Filll Light brown SILT (ML), very stiff, orange and black staining, common 2 3.0 rootlets, dry to damp (Qff) 3-- 3.75 Tr 24.3 trace of clay below 3 feet 4-- 3.0 5- 1.5 Light brown, clayey SILT with faint orange and gray mottling, stiff consistency, moist to very moist (Qff) 6- 7 8- Light brown, coarse-grained SILT, stiff consistency, very moist (Qff) 9- © lenses of grey sand below 9.5 feet, wet, slight seepage 6666 10-, Test Pit Terminated at 10 Feet 11- Note: Seepage encountered at 9.5 feet. 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 98-G1727 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-3 PRLSO V y Carlson Testing,Inc.-P.O.Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 684-0954 TESTING INC. Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: EMA Date Excavated: 7/28/98 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation: C.y E N e C w 2 N m w y m o a ;,. g .��- o Material Description a- � �0 0 a Brown SILT (ML), common rootlets, dry(Topsoil) 1 - Light brown to brown, clayey SILT with orange and gray pockets, medium - 2.0 to very stiff consistency, occasional rock fragments to 1 inch in diameter 1.5 to small roots to 3.5 feet, damp to moist (Fill) 2.5 3 1 1 0 0 28.1 3.0 4-0.5to 30.0 - 2.25 °ZOrI. Dark gray clayey SILT (ML), very stiff consistency with soft pockets, 5- micaceous, orange and black staining, strong organic odor, moist to very moist (Off) 6- 7 8- Brown, orange, and gray, clayey SILT (ML), pockets of gray clayey silt, 9- stiff consistency, occasional rootlets, very moist (Off) 10- wet below 10 feet 11 12- Test Pit Terminated at 12 Feet 13- Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 14- 15- 16- 17 Job No. 98-G1727 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 4 PRLso V Z Carlson Testing,Inc.-P.O.Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 684-0954 TESTING INC. Test Pit No. TP- 5 Logged by: EMA Date Excavated: 7/28/98 Location: See Figure 2 Surface Elevation: F 5 E § my `mN o°" a X 0 a y w fO m Material Description a) a E f° Z " oc p a 2 C) U m Brown SILT (ML), abundant rootlets in upper 12 inches, dry (Topsoil) 1 - _ ca�. Brown clayey SILT (ML), orange mottling, stiff consistency, rootlets, 2 .e` 110.9 damp to moist (Off) 3- Test Pit Terminated at 2.5 Feet 4- Note: No seepage or groundwater encountered. 5- 6- 7- 8- 9__ 10- 11-- 12- 13 14- 15- 16- 17- Job No. 98-G1727 Log of Test Pit Figure: A- 5 ot.Lso V -> Z Carlson Testing,Inc.-P.O.Box 23814-Tigard,Oregon 97281 -684-3460-Fax 684-0954 TESTING INC. J ASTER ENGINEERING Studies • Planning • Safety x' a MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Roth FROM: Todd E. Mobley �.�1. DATE: September 17, 1998 SUBJECT: Roth Office Building, final traffic impact study Enclosed is one unbound copy of the traffic impact study for your proposed office building on 69th Avenue in Tigard. If you or the City of Tigard require any additional bound copies of the report, let us know and we can provide them. If you have any questions regarding the study or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. ° IVE 1 _::i I.T. ROTH CONSTRUCT! N, l Y': Union Station,Suite 206 • 800 NW.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 ROTH OFFICE BUILDING TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TIGARD, OREGON PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 1998 . , Y,i' ,: 'r 3 I ''STER ENGINEERING «y tudles • Planning • Safety i Y .S i,Y .x; ROTH OFFICE BUILDING ax: :. mY Traffic Impact Study put lip ' Tigard, Oregon '.: g.4 o t 2l':� �"K:t^» Ak yy}�X": v "2 #:.: 1c.sEQ PROs ex :g..00.:',F. 11 Z „ORES • ' ' ' ': O v 16, k R co s'v: ,` IS R. Gt. 5 1.).• z ,t'y rj: :;:: ;< Prepared By x. TODD E. MOBLEY, EIT ''' 2igr'`. vn, 1 4 September, 1998 WNW '.A a .2.:0M'.II::.. 'lVii.$t tion,Suite 206 • 800 N.W.6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 =LANCASTER ENGINEERING TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Location Description 4 Trip Generation 10 Trip Distribution 11 Operational Analysis 14 Summary 25 Appendix 27 -2- 'LANCASTER ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION A 16,000 square foot office building has been proposed for development on 69`'' Avenue north of Hampton Street in the city of 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 trip generation and level of service calculations. 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 north of Hampton Street on 69th Avenue in the city of Tigard, Oregon. The site is proposed to be developed with a 16,000 square foot office build- ing. An area map showing the site location is on page seven, and a vicinity map showing the existing lane configurations at the study area intersections is shown on page eight. The study area includes the following five intersections: 1. Dartmouth Street at 72nd Avenue 2. Dartmouth Street at 68th Parkway 3. Hampton Street at 72" Avenue 4. 721'd Avenue at Highway 217 northbound on/off ramps 5. 72nd Avenue at Highway 217 southbound on/off ramps The site is proposed to have a full access driveway to 69`h Avenue. Dartmouth Street is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by the City of Ti- gard, and is classified as a Major Arterial roadway. Dartmouth is a three-lane facility between 7211d Avenue and the I-5 Freeway on and off ramps, and is a five-lane facility west of 72' Avenue. The intersection of 72' Avenue and Dartmouth Street is con- ' trolled by STOPS signs on all four approaches. Northbound 72nd Avenue has a shared through/right lane and a left-turn lane. Southbound 72"d Avenue has a left-turn lane and a shared through/right lane. However, the roadway is flared on the right side, and many vehicles were observed using the widened portion of the roadway as a right-turn lane. Dartmouth Street has left-turn lanes in both directions, a shared through/right lane in the westbound direction, and separate through and right lanes in the eastbound direction. Southwest 68th Parkway is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by the City of Tigard, and is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway. 68th Parkway forms a four- legged intersection with Dartmouth Street. The intersection is controlled by STOP signs on all approaches. -4- .'-. CASTER ENGINEERING At the intersection of 68th Parkway with Dartmouth Street, the southbound on and off ramps of the I-5 Freeway form the east leg. The off ramp has a shared through/left lane and a right-turn lane. Dartmouth Street has a left-turn lane and a shared through/right lane. 68th Parkway has left-turn lanes in both directions, separate through and right-turn lanes in the northbound direction, and a shared through/right lane in the southbound direction. Hampton Street is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by the City of Ti- gard, and is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway. Hampton Street is a three-lane fa- cility, which extends between 72nd Avenue and slightly beyond 68th Parkway to the east. Hampton Street forms a tee-shaped intersection with 72nd Avenue that is controlled by a three phase traffic signal. At the intersection, northbound 72nd Avenue has a through lane and a right-turn lane, and southbound 72"d Avenue has through lane and a left-turn lane. Hampton Street has separate right and left-turn lanes. SW 72"d Avenue is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by the City of Ti- gard and is classified as a Major Arterial roadway. In the vicinity of the project site, 72"d Avenue is a two-lane facility, with widening to accommodate left-turn lanes at the study area intersections. The posted speed on 72nd Avenue is 30 mph. 72"d Avenue crosses Highway 217 (ORE 217) with a two-lane bridge, and has a partial cloverleaf intersection with the highway. Both the on and off-ramps in either direction are on the east side of 72nd Avenue. The intersection of 72"d Avenue with the northbound Highway 217 ramps is controlled by a traffic signal. The on and off-ramp form the east leg of a "T" shaped intersection. There is a southbound through lane and a dedicated left-turn lane on 72nd Avenue with protected left-turn phasing. Northbound 72nd has a shared through and right-turn lane at the intersection. The Highway 217 off-ramp has separate left and right-turn lanes., The intersection of 72nd Avenue with the southbound Highway 217 ramps is controlled by a traffic signal. The on and off-ramps form the east leg of a four-legged intersection, with Varn Street forming the west leg. There are left-turn lanes on 72"d Avenue and protected left-turn phasing. Varn Street has a single shared lane ap- proaching the intersection. The Highway 217 off-ramp has a shared left/through lane and a separate right-turn lane. Tri-Met route 78 travels between the Tigard and Beaverton Transit Centers and passes near the site on 72"d Avenue at Hampton Street. Buses arrive approximately every half-hour on weekdays. Although the site is well served by public transit, no re- duction in trips was made in order to provide a conservative analysis. -5- RASTER ENGINEERING Manual turning movement counts were made at the study area intersections during May and June 1997, from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hour is typically from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. The evening peak hour volumes are shown in the traffic flow dia- grams on page nine. The traffic volumes were adjusted slightly to balance the entering and exiting traffic between adjacent intersections with no traffic generators between the intersections. • -6- ..1 l�� S1: .�/ c �.I`� t i HORN It ' yJP / II \ iii E) / _�� P STEVE I (�ST. vcE-Q I. / "1 �. l u v. t97.A7 >I. vi 03 o F J\`0. Pp• Jo 5 J! _ST. , --- 3 PAL !r x - X�p' alLeuTA Si. /_He1RS I . SI. T. SAYLDR a uil L a, I I _ W a \t'U I1CIi LN_ V DUVAIL ST. —�� I f3 ‘ 111 4 "' i I. UUIIIVIEw sl. sfD \ CLINTON ST. I �� \ �p n P• \ ..- g I I UCLA �r ' I DR.J/�c\1..\; � c P V ( VI yj W -A IIERMUSA WWAr x f-,---:--- r I to )...t? ya 6EVELANU S1. 4, FRANKLIN S F. 1fl (6EVCLAIIU ST` —_ � r 7 suuJlwuoD 1 UR.. Nrl' 4e9 n .a .o _ l�_ awe \ (GONZAGA ST. r;...- —1 w� —_ R • I1. I Q ► Is; k-- HAMPIUN t- I ST. n- n n .., .o SI N. O .O If PAMET A � _ PROJECT AM �A. CRESiv1Ew AVE. 'M\ \ (,�' / �> SITE , IA P. t7t 55 rJ l veRRS Si_ I .r ARKweY __�' YARNS vi I IR ,n si. 11—i-1.—\\ FP IP viiMIS SI. 1 es p i IUOP .. a � a or T 211 �Q a CHERRY r- qp 0--1,...--q 4 -A"'-‘,. ' ..., �— Y r I( L..SAUDaTIG ',Ip t m 0O I S I. X17 Et Dy '�c, _J, uP._r.tt W IECH CENTER DR. / \ 11 P_t9t.05 1 S ( k/ 1 � ------...--------\_ .."\ .- . E., 't , I L. _� — 1 �__ / MEADOWS ca •r 3: ee h4. AREA MAP h y•ASTER ENGINEERING -7- N`..,......................... -------!' Dartmouth Street I l'3:-11-.-.(174:0 ' -r---t0 Cv:Kli Q .,.,..._.._. -t 7 ,. .0 c c, LEGEND �a7 Traffic Siignol Ili Stop Sign ; Dortmouth Street 54 ornoNO t- (TT-1'D e.' E—232 No)co E- 151 EJ.y 103 E-IJ.y sV 57 45 -T EITf; 163 F1T0 121 v^NN 317- NOi� .12' 7�, �Nv b C N h, o O 3 n 3 n) aa) Y ii > O Q a Ln t ! rn Fo- co co °(o T-59 V N 4 320 T 0 Conzogo Street PROJECT '°' SITE i L Hampton Street _ O,Q F 1' ,-r_.). rn n '- 112 r�� � y 132• sr "'• T r Nn C71ta std v,to� 119 .-vN E-6 E-1�y X294 '3 - T _ 5 �, CON VW, No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES f £ 3' Existing Conditions C PM Peak Hour �a� �� CASTER ENGINEERING Rolh2.dwg Ism -9- UN STER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed office building, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The trip rates used were for land-use code 710, General Office Building. The trip generation rates are based on the gross floor area. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total 25 trips generated by the development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 22 will be entering and 3 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour 24 trips will be generated with 4 trips entering and 20 exiting the site. A weekday total of 176 trips is expected with half entering and half exiting the site. 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 Roth Office Building Entering Exiting Total • ■ Trips Trips Trips AM Peak Hour 22 3 25 PM Peak Hour 4 20 24 Weekday 88 88 176 -10- • !LER ENGINEERING TRIP DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of the site trips generated by the proposed office building was estimated from the nature of the land use and the distribution of popula- tion areas in relation to the site. The vast majority of evening peak hour trips were as- sumed to be work to home trips) with some shopping trips included. The majority of the site trips were distributed to Interstate 5 and Highway 217, representing a large per- centage of commuter trips. Also, it was assumed that some traffic that would normally exit the site to Highway 217 southbound will divert their course to the Dartmouth Street Interstate 5 southbound onramp in order to avoid congestion along 72nd Avenue and on Highway 217 near the Interstate 5 interchange. The traffic flow diagram on page 12 shows the site trip distribution for the pro- posed office development for the evening peak hour. The diagram on page 13 shows the assignment of the site trips. -11- A V Q <15% 70,-,i-4> Dartmouth Street 30% A A 0 0 0 t' V V v \V/ ; V v eb c un a ke A Q 0 o V a Ao in v. c Conzogo Street PROJECT a, a. SITE N. i i 1 4; Q55% - i Q30% Hampton Street ti car.* 0,PF tt 70%3> 45%D co,s>^ , V _ tp o 0 \ rt\54 S° z! .' •coi,. 14,N. Pre irkir `r) to s\A No Scale V ':,;f SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages !LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour 000:;;: Roth3.dwg -12- Ns., ..,................„ Dortmouth Street KO 0oo -0 00o EJ J.y .V° 0J.y r),....---> Noo c 0 Q p any 0 v c N n o 3 o z 3 a) C Y u1 t t 1 01 0-0 (o to 2 rcl 4,L c9 T n Conzogo Street PROJECT °n SITE L _ Hampton Street O,Q F '4c, tnko `5),. 4,y .G° T f-> N O <-i 1- .C° -IN (-- Tr> p--> o00 /_\ °-Q' IN, I No Scale K 3 4� SITE TRIPS "'l" PM Peak Hour LANCASTER ENGINEERING Rofh4.dwg -13- a �Py NCASTER ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Background Traffic Future traffic volumes associated with nearby developments that are approved but not yet constructed must be considered in order to provide a worst-case traffic analysis. This section accounts for the nearby developments that are currently ap- proved but were not yet constructed when the traffic counts were made. The total of existing traffic plus these other developments comprises the background traffic. Candlewood Hotel is a nearby development that is currently approved but not yet constructed. This development is to be located at the terminus of Beveland Street, west of 72nd Avenue. Traffic volumes generated by the hotel were taken from the traf- fic impact study prepared by Charbonneau Engineering. Homestead Village is an ex- tended-stay hotel that has recently been constructed south of Hampton near 68th Park- way. Since this development was not yet completed when the traffic counts were made, the traffic volumes generated by this development were taken from the traffic impact study dated June 1996, prepared by Mackenzie Engineering, now known as Group Mackenzie. Triangle Corporate Park is another nearby development that was recently ap- proved. This development south of Hampton Street and east of 68th Parkway is cur- rently under construction. The traffic volumes generated by this development were taken from the traffic impact study dated December 1996, prepared by Group Mackenzie. Tri-County Center is a recently approved large commercial development that is to be located south of Dartmouth Street and west of 72nd Avenue. The development in- cludes a total of 331,189 square feet of retail space on approximately 26.3 acres. The development will house five or more major tenants and will include a large-multi-tenant building as well as several outlying pads. Information on the traffic generated by the development and proposed intersection improvements associated with the project was taken from the Tri-County Center, Traffic Impact Study, dated February 1998, prepared by Lancaster Engineering. -14- • . . kel RASTER ENGINEERING Eagle Hardware and Garden store is a 125,000 square foot home improvement store that is proposed for development on the west side of 72rd Avenue south of Beveland Street. Since the project is currently in the application process and is not yet approved, the analysis was done both with and without this development in place. In- formation on the traffic generated by the development and proposed intersection im- provements associated with the project was taken from Eagle Hardware and Garden Store, Traffic Impact Study, dated August 1998, prepared by Lancaster Engineering. The total of existing traffic volumes plus traffic from the Candlewood Hotel, Triangle Corporate Park, and Tri-County Center make up the background traffic and are shown on page 16. Background traffic volumes including traffic from the proposed Eagle Hardware and Garden store are shown on page 17. The total of background traf- fic plus site trips from the proposed office building, both with and without Eagle Hard- ware are shown on pages 18 and 19, respectively. -15- N.■-.......................„ Dortmouth Street 'ono 48 �'?� 166 �-N 322 N•- E—214 Ei.1,y ,r- 153 04,4 6- 112 65i\ <-1T0 tv 268 < 1T0 443—› o v")`° c 125 ;--:cv a 427—> vac 14 -1 n N ti C N N. a 0 3 n 3 0 w Y k O Q a = r 1 rn Lo w 0 Ti--;:;.\\,\ in P.-) 4,yc453 T 0 Conzogo Street PROJECT VN SITE L _ ■ Hompton Street O,p F '5, c-/�>> o rn 163• 14ea^ y 132 j>,-- caoer T r> n°3 165 ^Lon (—6 0 4,4 X294 coN Ln Lo 5 -, CO N 6 No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background Traffic LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour Roth5.dwq .................. -16- Dartmouth Street �\ in co 0 ANN 167 CV E-- 1 16 EJ,y EJ ,L 65 —IN (-1Tf 276 EIT0 135 i°N'� > 444 n"n" �, Q 14 `rincv b C N N / 0 >, O 3 3 0 Y ti -c t ! rn ("<:-co "L 75 oto 01 E—8 0 4,4 X453 20 TO Conzogo Street PROJECT 10 (7,4" SITE s2 �, �N i 1 L _ Hampton Street O,Q ti` ��-1 Nm 1-207 7 Oo b o, 4,y \F 132 s>^ coo Try m� - E-631 ,4 294 13� �Tr> -�. S No Soaks ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES € r Background Traffic, w/ Eagle Hardware ;LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour Rolh6.dwg -17- --/2 Dartmouth Street �NRI t 48 �^� 166 �-N E-322 cv•-•- <-214 0■IlL .` 153 E-J.1/14 .` 113 65 -T EITf nI 268 -T F1T0 443—� uN-INV cu 427---> cp 7)2 125 ^N Q 14 -4, `�n° c N 5, >' O 3 3 Q) C Y 0 L. > Q a ,n t L 0I 65 to co 77: 't 75 Irk rn .,y c462 T 0 Gonzogo Street PROJECT NrN SITE L Hampton Street o,P F y4, �!� oo 164 Ti' h in *0, 4, y sv 132 s,, ^ems TO • c (11:rcsen� 16 7 into E- �y X294 : ■ \\N...s..._._ 16 (-11 r> 3 —j ^oo _ 5 -1 °°N \NI No Scale . Y TRAFFIC VOLUMES 'r'. # s Background + Site Trips LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour Roth7.dwg -18- NN"..........................„ Dartmouth Street (v,15:*,), �5 cnocQV� � 166- F 325 N. <—231 .y \F179 E--J\tiy .G- 117 65 '' <-►T14 276-1\ TI Q Lo t O1 CZ to to j7;\\\ own <-8 kj,I,y ,v 462 20 T E> Gonzogo Street PROJECT 10----> v-� SITE s...2._ -___---4, 2N r- L - Hampton Street O,Q es ye, `1,> rn^ 208 1fc ,I,14 \F 132 coca oft: 233 irr'N ,1,y sv 294 - 16 --1' <-1 ,2• � � 3 —> ENO N^ 5 coN %IF No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background + Site Trips, w/ Eagle Hardware LANCASTER ENGINEERING PM Peak Hour Roth8dwg -19- STER ENGINEERING Capacity Analysis To determine the level of service at the study area intersections, a capacity analysis was conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to level F, which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The analysis was made for evening peak hour for the following scenarios: 1. Existing conditions 2. Background traffic 3. Background traffic with Eagle Hardware 4. Background plus site trips 5. Background plus site trips with Eagle Hardware Capacity analysis was done only for the evening peak hour. The largest neigh- boring developments that generate large amounts of traffic such as Tri-County Center and the proposed Eagle Hardware have the most impact during the evening peak hour. For this reason, intersections in the study area are designed according to evening peak hour traffic volumes since they are heavier than morning peak hour traffic volumes. The City of Tigard generally considers the minimum acceptable level of service for intersections to be E. The 1991 Oregon Highway Plan, published by ODOT, des- ignates Highway 217 and Highway 99W as highways of Statewide Importance and sets the minimum level of service for the facilities at D. This level of service also applies to the traffic signals at the Highway 217 ramps. The signalized study area intersections were analyzed using SIGCAP2, devel- oped by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The unsignalized intersections were analyzed using UNSIGIO, another software package developed by ODOT. The signal- ized intersections were analyzed using existing signal cycle lengths that were supplied by ODOT. The intersection of Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue is currently operating between levels of service D and E during the evening peak hour as an all-way stop controlled intersection. This intersection will be signalized as part of the Tri-County Center development. For background traffic the intersection will be signalized and will operate at level of service C without Eagle Hardware and at level of service C/D with Eagle Hardware. With the addition of site trips from the proposed office building, the intersection will operate at level of service C without Eagle Hardware in place and level of service D with Eagle Hardware. -20- LANCASTER ENGINEERING The intersection of Dartmouth Street and 68th Parkway is currently operating at level of service E as an all-way stop controlled intersection. This intersection will also be signalized as part of the Tri-County Center development. For background traffic the intersection will be signalized and will operate at level of service C either with or with- out the Eagle Hardware store. The level of service will remain at C with the addition of site trips from the proposed office building if Eagle Hardware is not constructed. With Eagle Hardware the intersection will operate between levels of service C and D. The intersection of Hampton Street and 72' Avenue is currently operating at level of service B during the evening peak hour. For background traffic the intersec- tion will operate at level of service C during the evening peak hour. Eagle Hardware has proposed an access to 72nd Avenue directly opposite the current terminus of Hamp- ton Street, forming a fourth leg to the signalized intersection. Also, Eagle Hardware has proposed a second southbound through lane on 721'd Avenue north of Hampton Street that will help reduce traffic queuing on 72' Avenue in front of the proposed Ea- gle Hardware site. The intersection will operate between levels of service D and E for background traffic with these improvements and the Eagle Hardware store in place. The intersection will operate between levels of service C and D for background plus site trips without Eagle Hardware in place. For background plus site trips with Eagle Hardware and its associated improvements in place the intersection will operate be- tween levels of service D and E during the evening peak hour. • The intersection of 72' Avenue and the Highway 217 northbound ramps is cur- rently operating between level of service D and E during the evening peak hour. For the background traffic scenario the intersection will degrade to level of service E/F during the evening peak hour with the existing lane configuration. The Eagle Hard- ware traffic impact study identified the need for restriping 72"d Avenue on its 217 over- crossing to include a northbound right-turn lane at the northbound 217 ramps in order to accommodate background traffic with an acceptable level of service. With this re- striping and the Eagle Hardware store in place, the intersection of 721'd Avenue and the 217 northbound ramps will operate between levels of service C and D. With the pro- posed office building in place the intersection will continue to operate at level of service E/F without Eagle Hardware or the restriping and level of service C/D with Eagle Hardware and the restriping. The intersection of 72"d Avenue and the Highway 217 southbound ramps/Varn Street is currently operating at level of service E during the evening peak hour and will continue to operate at this level of service for the background traffic scenario. The Ea- gle Hardware traffic impact study also identified the need for a second northbound through lane at the intersection in order to accommodate background traffic either with or without the proposed Eagle Hardware. With Eagle Hardware in place and with the second lane constructed, the intersection would continue to operate at level of service -21- ! LTER ENGINEERING E. The construction of the proposed office building will not alter these levels of serv- ice. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the Levels of Service (LOS) and saturation percentages are shown in the following tables. Saturation percentage is a measure of how "full" an intersection is. Tables showing the relationships between saturation and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. -22- . . :LANCASTER ENGINEERING LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Roth Office Building - 1 of 2 PM Peak Hour LaS Saturation Dartmouth Street at 72nd Avenue Existing Conditions D/E 89% Background Traffic C* 75% Background w/ Eagle Hardware C/D* 79% Background + Site Trips C* 75% Background + Site w/ Eagle Hardware D* 80% Dartmouth Street at 68`h Parkway Existing Conditions E 93% Background Traffic C* 73% Background w/ Eagle Hardware C* 75% Background + Site Trips C* 74% Background + Site w/ Eagle Hardware C/D* 76% Hampton Street at 72nd Avenue Existing Conditions B 59% Background Traffic C 69% Background w/ Eagle Hardware D/Et 87% Background + Site Trips C/D 77% Background + Site w/ Eagle Hardware D/Et 88% * = Signalized Intersection Xt = With Eagle Hardware improvements LOS = Level of Service Saturation = Intersection percentage of saturation -23- ASTER ENGINEERING LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Roth Office Building - 2 of 2 PM Peak Hour LOS Saturation 72nd Avenue at 217 NB Ramps Existing Conditions D/E 90% Background Traffic E/F 98% Background w/ Eagle Hardware C/Dt 76% Background + Site Trips E/F 98% Background + Site w/ Eagle Hardware C/Dt 77% 72nd Avenue at 217 SB Ramps Existing Conditions E 92% Background Traffic E 95% Background w/ Eagle Hardware Et 92% Background + Site Trips E 95% Background + Site w/ Eagle Hardware Et .92% * = Signalized Intersection Xt = With northbound right-turn lane Xt = With second northbound through lane LOS = Level of Service Saturation = Intersection percentage of saturation As the level of service summary tables show, the study area intersections will operate at level of service E or better with the roadway improvements described in the Eagle Hardware traffic impact study in place. The tables also show that the proposed office building does not have a significant impact on the study area intersections and will not significantly degrade the level of service at any intersection either with or without the proposed Eagle Hardware store. -24- 'LANCASTER ENGINEERING SUMMARY 1. The proposed Roth office building is expected to generate approximately 25 trips during the morning peak hour. Of these, 22 will be entering and 3 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour 24 trips will be generated with 4 trips entering and 20 exiting the site. A weekday total of 176 trips is expected with half entering and half exiting the site. 2. The intersection of Dartmouth Street and 72' Avenue is currently operating between levels of service D and E during the evening peak hour as an all-way stop controlled intersection. This intersection will be signalized as part of the Tri-County Center de- velopment. For background traffic the intersection will be signalized and will operate at level of service C without Eagle Hardware and at level of service C/D with Eagle Hardware. With the addition of site trips from the proposed office building, the inter- section will operate at level of service C without Eagle Hardware in place and level of service D with Eagle Hardware. 3. The intersection of Dartmouth Street and 68th Parkway is currently operating at level of service E as an all-way stop controlled intersection. This intersection will also be signalized as part of the Tri-County Center development. For background traffic the intersection will be signalized and will operate at level of service C either with or with- out the Eagle Hardware store. The level of service will remain at C with the addition of site trips from the proposed office building if Eagle Hardware is not constructed. With Eagle Hardware the intersection will operate between levels of service C and D. 4. The intersection of Hampton Street and 72nd Avenue is currently operating at level of service B during the evening peak hour. For background traffic the intersection will operate at level of service C during the evening peak hour. Eagle Hardware has pro- posed an access to 72ol Avenue directly opposite the current terminus of Hampton Street, forming a fourth leg to the signalized intersection. Also, Eagle Hardware has proposed a second southbound through lane on 72"d Avenue north of Hampton Street that will help reduce traffic queuing on 72' Avenue in front of the proposed Eagle Hardware site. The intersection will operate between levels of service D and E for background traffic with these improvements and the Eagle Hardware store in place. The intersection will operate between levels of service C and D for background plus site trips without Eagle Hardware in place. For background plus site trips with Eagle -25- :LANCASTER ENGINEERING Hardware and its associated improvements in place the intersection will operate be- tween levels of service D and E during the evening peak hour. 5. The intersection of 72nd Avenue and the Highway 217 northbound ramps is currently operating between level of service D and E during the evening peak hour. For the background traffic scenario the intersection will degrade to level of service E/F during the evening peak hour with the existing lane configuration. The Eagle Hardware traffic impact study identified the need for restriping 72" Avenue on its 217 overcrossing to include a northbound right-turn lane at the northbound 217 ramps in order to accom- modate background traffic with an acceptable level of service. With this restriping and the Eagle Hardware store in place, the intersection of 72nd Avenue and the 217 north- bound ramps will operate between levels of service C and D. With the proposed office building in place the intersection will continue to operate at level of service E/F without Eagle Hardware or the restriping and level of service C/D with Eagle Hardware and the restriping. 6. The intersection of 72"d Avenue and the Highway 217 southbound ramps/Varn Street is currently operating at level of service E during the evening peak hour and will con- tinue to operate at this level of service for the background traffic scenario. The Eagle Hardware traffic impact study also identified the need for a second northbound through lane at the intersection in order to accommodate background traffic either with or with- out the proposed Eagle Hardware. With Eagle Hardware in place and with the second lane constructed, the intersection would continue to operate at level of service E. The construction of the proposed office building will not alter these levels of service. -26- !ASTER ENGINEERING APPENDIX -27- r a.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. L.G=; 'LANCASTER ENGINEERING LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL STOPPED DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <5 B 5-15 C 15-25 D 25-40 E 40-60 F >60 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL STOPPED DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <5 B 5-10 C 10-20 D 20-30 E 30-45 F >45 INTERSECTIG. 'URN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY 'ORT r DARTMOUTH STREET AT 68TH AVENUE t42.� y , •N 1574 T. 3 .2% P=.801. I DATE OF COUNT: 05/29/97 O 1195 DAY OF WEEK: Thu 1 R 173 215 186 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H —337 4-I 1 L► 4-373 83 J L52 ■ T= 2.4% T= 2.1% 75 —► 4-155 I P=.868 P=.728 . 40 3 -166 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 198 --o, 4-1 I f► 283 —► P=PHF BY APPROACH 9 60 22 Peak Hour 1421 A 07:15-08:15 Traffic Smithy i T=11.2% P=.842 91 TEV=1236 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND I TIME PERIOD • • • I FROM - TO ; —► J •_1 1 L . 41 I r► r !- L i ALL 07:00-07:05 3 4 4 9 13 10 0 4 1 8 12 1 69 1 07:05-07:10 3 5 3 7 7 3.1 1 5 1 6 16 1 66 ' 07:10-07:15 1 5 6 12 8 12 0 3 2 6 9 3 67 07:15-07:20 1 3 13 9 12 14 1 7 1 11 9 4 85 07:20-07:25 4 8 6 6 10 18 1 4 2 14 13 1 87 07:25-07:30 4 5 9 8 16 12 1 5 1 12 6 1 80 07:30-07:35 3 7 2 15 22 12 0 5 4 9 12 1 92 07:35-07:40 2 9 5 20 13 3.5 0 5 3 14 12 6 104 1 07 :40-07:45 3 9 8 15 15 14 0 5 1 15 9 3 97 07:45-07:50 3 7 7 23 17 19 0 0 2 13 20 5 116 07:50-07:55 3 7 5 19 21 22 2 5 2 14 18 7 125 07:55-08 :00 7 5 13 15 24 13 1 5 2 22 15 4 126 08:00-08:05 3 2 3 23 25 3.7 1 6 3 20 19 9 131 08:05-08:10 6 9 4 11 18 16 0 8 0 9 11 5 97 08:10-08:15 1 4 8 9 22 14 2 5 1 13 11 6 96 08:15-08:20 4 6 2 11 10 8 2 2 2• 10 7 6 70 08:20-08:25 4 6 4 6 12 8 3 7 3 7 11 2 73 08:25-08 :30 3 5 4 5 12 19 0 5 2 12 6 6 79 08:30-08:35 2 1 7 4 9 9 3 8 3 10 3 7 66 08:35-08:40 ' 3 3 3 7 11 11 2 5 3 15 4 7 74 08:40-08:45 4 0 6 4 14 4 3 9 1 10 10 2 67 ' 08:45-08:50 1 2 3 12 6 9 1 10 2 13 7 3 69 i 08:50-08:55 5 1 8 9 14 8 3 2 6 5 5 2 68 08:55-09:00 5 0 3 5 9 9 2 8 1 18 3 3 66 • 1 1 I Total Survey 78 113 136 264 340 304 29 128 49 286 248 95 2070 ' PHF .63 75 .74 .75 .77 .85 .56 .79 .69 .74 .73 .65 .808 1 % Trucks 0 4 .4 2.2 1.9 5 4 .4 2.2 11.7 12 .2 2.1 2.4 1.1 3.5 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 ' 2 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Hourly Totals 1 07:00-08 :00 37 74 81 158 178 172 7 53 22 144 151 37 1114 07:15-08 :15 40 75 83 173 215 186 9 60 22 166 155 52 1236 07:30-08:30 42 76 65 172 211 177 11 58 25 158 151 60 1206 07:45-08:45 43 55 66 137 195 160 19 65 24 155 135 66 1120 08:00-09:00 41 39 55 106 162 132 22 75 27 142 97 58 956 INTERSECT±.,.4 TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMAF ,SPORT 131-MS -. .. DARTMOUTH STREET AT 68TH AVENu N A 1517 T= 2.7% P=.855 ;ii DATE OF COUNT: 05/29/97 O 1623 DAY OF WEEK: Thu 0 T 246 89 182 TIME STARTED: 16:00 TIME ENDED: 18:00 tr H 4-452 4-1 t+.� —394 w 208 -I X166 0 T= .6% T= 2.7% r, 384 —► 4-171 P=.882 P=.856 . I' 8 1 ;S7 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 600 —► �l r� 707 —► P=PHF BY APPROACH i ' 35 249 141 Peak Hour 1154 ♦ 16 :50-17:50 Traffic Smithy i4 T= 2.1% P=.689 425 TEV=1936 Traffic Survey Service i, EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND Ili TIME PERIOD FROM - TO ._.o. 3 4J i 1.4. l ► 4_ L f r ALL 16:00-16:05 0 23 9 22 9 17 3 11 6 6 15 7 128 )1 16 :05-16:10 0 18 12 18 7 14 4 20 29 10 14 4 150 16 :10-16 :15 2 30 15 22 7 18 3 11 10 6 11 5 140 to 16 :15-16:20 1 26 15 18 11 22 2 8 8 6 19 6 142 16 :20-16:25 6 22 9 22 8 13 4 8 11 7 14 7 131 `0 16 :25-16:30 3 26 13 23 9 10 1 12 8 3 9 12 129 ' 16:30-16:35 2 25 20 17 10 17 2 27 10 7 13 4 154 16:35-16:40 0 23 3 24 14 14 4 26 8 2 14 10 142 +." 16:40-16:45 3 35 11 20 8 15 0 18 8 4 21 5 148 i '` 16:45-16:50 0 31 10 24 6 9 1 22 4 6 11 9 133 k 16:50-16:55 0 30 16 19 10 18 2 19 11 1 14 19 159 16:55-17:00 0 36 12 33 9 12 1 18 9 6 13 6 155 17:00-17:05 0 24 13 28 11 11 4 21 11 . 8 15 9 155 ' 17:05-17:10 0 31 22 21 9 14 4 33 22 4 17 15 192 17:10-17:15 0 25 23 17 10 26 4 28 19 6 13 11 182 17:15-17:20 1 33 18 15 6 21 2 30 . 12 3 17 12 170 17:20-17:25 1 34 14 21 6 16 6 13 9 2 18 10 150 ;1 17:25-17:30 2 32 21 18 5 11 1 14 9 6 17 13 149 17:30-17:35 0 40 16 20 6 13 4 15 11 7 10 21 163 17:35-17:40 2 34 23 17 7 19 3 17 13 6 12 23 176 17:40-17:45 0 33 17 14 7 12 0 16 10 4 12 14 139 17:45-17:50 2 32 13 23 3 9 4 25 5 4 13 13 146 X 17:50-17:55 1 33 19 13 2 13 1 16 5 5 7 14 129 l 17:55-18:00 2 22 17 14 12 7 1 17 8 5 8 13 126 t i ii i Total Survey 28 698 361 483 192 351 61 445 256 124 327 262 3588 $ PHF .5 . 9 .83 75 74 .72 .73 .68 .67 .75 .82 .72 .889 Trucks 0 .7 .6 2.3 3.6 2.8 1.6 3.6 2. 7 4. 8 3.7 .4 :. 2 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ' Peds " 0 2 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ' , Hourly Totals 16 :00-17:00 17 325 145 262 108 179 27 200 122 64 168 94 1711 16 :15-17:15 15 334 167 266 115 181 29 240 129 60 173 113 1822 i 16 :30-17:30 9 359 183 257 104 184 31 269 132 55 183 , 123 1889 16:45-17:45 6 383 205 247 92 182 32 246 140 59 169 162 1923 17:00-18:00 11 373 216 221 84 172 34 245 134 60 159:., 168 ,1877 A INTERSECTION AURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY It ORT ` 72ND AVENUE AT DARTMOUTH STREET 1-3141 k • T= 5.5% P=.851 N 1143 DATE OF COUNT: 05/28/97 0 =135 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 6 109 28 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H —207 . -I 1 b 4-396• 6 •L14 T= 5.1% T= 3.3% 150 —► 4-152 P=.798 P=.818 42 1 230 ._ • TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME * 41 f► T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 198 —► 215 —► PGDU 49 115 37 Peak Hour 1381 • 07:20-08:20 Traffic Smithy T= 3 .7% P=.897 (201 TEV=938 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD FROM - TO —► 3 .4 1 L► 41 1 f► r 4_ L ALL 07:00-07:05 4 6 0 1 6 0 0 8 0 14 4 3 46 07:05-07:10 4 8 1 0 6 2 1 6 4 10 6 1 49 07:10-07 :15 4 2 0 0 5 3 4 6 4 16 7 1 52 07:15-07:20 2 3 0 0 4 2 6 10 2 15 9 0 53 07:20-07:25 6 19 0 2 6 2 3 10 3 17 7 0 75 07:25-07:30 4 9 0 1 3 2 17 5 3 17 13 0 74 07:30-07:35 3 13 0 0 16 4 1 7 4 20 17 0 85 07:35-07:40 1 20 0 0 8 0 1 7 1 21 12 1 72 07:40-07:45 4 8 0 0 9 3 4 11 5 23 12 0 79 07:45-07:50 6 15 1 2 13 4 3 14 2 16 14 2 92 07:50-07:55 4 20 2 0 10 1 5 7 5 31 13 2 100 07:55-08:00 4 9 1 0 5 0 3 12 0 23 12 4 73 08:00-08:05 3 12 2 0 8 3 2 9 4 19 15 2 79 08:05-08:10 3 6 0 0 13 3 3 11 4 16 14 0 73 08:10-08:15 0 11 0 0 7 4 3 6 3 14 15 0 63 08:15-08:20 4 8 0 1 11 2 4 16 3 • 13 8 3 73 08:20-08:25 4 6 0 0 8 2 4 6 5 9 5 1 50 08:25-08:30 4 4 0 0 6 6 4 6 0 7 10 1 48 08 :30-08 :35 3 4 1 0 4 2 2 9 2 6 6 1 40 08:35-08 :40 2 12 1 1 5 2 3 6 3 5 6 0 46 08:40-08:45 0 6 2 0 8 0 1 11 2 6 9 2 47 08:45-08:50 2 8 0 2 5 1 3 5 3 5 12 0 46 08:50-08:55 5 8 0 0 5 1 2 11 1 6 6 1 46 08:55-09:00 2 8 0 0 7 1 3 6 2 5 7 2 43 Total Survey 78 225 11 10 178 50 82 205 65 334 239 27 1504 P1-IF 75 .85 .3 .5 .83 .7 .58 .87 .77 .79 .86 .44 .865 Trucks 2 .6 5.8 9.1 10 5.1 6 1.2 4. 9 3 .1 1.8 3 .8 18.5 4.1 Stopped Buses 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 . 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08 :00 46 132 5 6 91 23 48 103 33 223 126 14 850 07:15-08 :15 40 145 6 5 102 28 51 109 36 232 153 11 918 07:30-08 :30 40 132 6 3 114 32 37 112 36 212 147 16 887 07:45-08:45 37 113 10 4 98 29 37 113 33 165 127 18 784 08:00-09:00 32 93 6 4 87 27 34 102 32 111 113 13 654 I 1 I INTERS' 'ION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SU■ .Y REPORT 72ND AVENUE AT DARTMOUTH STt.—8T 131)7 • • T= 2.5% P=.954 ' N +1313 • DATE OF COUNT: 05/01/97 O I296 DAY OF WEEK: Thu R 42 165 106 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 ' H 4-421 4-1 1 L. i-362 0 A 45 3 t x-44 T= .7% T= 3 .5% 441 314 —► 4-232 P=.930 P=.923 121 , r86 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME II • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH . P=PHF BY APPROACH ` 480 —► 4� I r► 447 —► lit147 207 27 Peak Hour 1372 • 16:35-17:35 Traffic Smithy „iv..1 i T= 3 .9% P=.890 J381 TEV=1536 Traffic Survey Service W EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO —► J 4J i L► 41 I r► 4- A: ° j ALL 0' 16:00-16 :05 14 23 4 1 11 4 11 11 6 7 18 4 114 ii. 16:05-16 :10 9 21 2 0 10 5 10 15 6 12 21 0 111 Ap 16:10-16 :15 9 31 4 1 8 8 12 13 2 9 9 4 110 :r' ! 16:15-16 :20 8 35 5 3 8 5 10 19 3 11 20 4 131 16:20-16 :25 5 33 6 3 14 11 11 17 2 7 15 3 127 III 16:25-16:30 15 34 2 4 12 4 11 17 1 7 26 2 135 16:30-16:35 10 27 4 3 13 10 7 12 1 7 18 0 112 , 16:35-16 :40 15 36 3 1 18 8 13 12 5 5 24 4 144 ' igi ; 16:40-16 :45 5 22 5 5 17 11 5 19 2 3 16 4 114 16:45-16:50 14 24 5 3 9 6 9 12 2 3 19 4 1101, 16:50-16 :55 9 30 4 4 17 10 16 16 2 15 15 6 144 16:55-17:00 10 28 2 3 14 8 9 22 2 11 23 2 134 :IrN 17:00-17:05 10 22 5 1 10 10 14 18 3 7 15 4 119 17:05-17:10 12 25 5 6 11 13 17 17 0 5 21 5 137 17:10-17:15 9 19 2 4 11 10 14 17 0 5 27 2 120 17:15-17:20 11 25 2 5 12 9 10 20 . 4 9 18 6 131 + i 17:20-17:25 12 24 4 4 15 9 11 18 2 10 19 2 130 ' t 17:25-17:30 9 34 1 3 15 6 17 22 3 4 16 4 134 17:30-17:35 5 25 7 3 16 6 12 14 2 9 19 1 119 17:35-17:40 11 24 1 2 13 3 7 16 1 11 19 5 113 17:40-17:45 12 18 5 2 15 10 7 15 1 4 27 3 119 "` . 17:45-17:50 10 27 6 4 18 10 12 20 1 7 12 6 133 17:50-17:55 9 23 1 2 9 2 16 13 1 8 21 2 107 Ili 17:55-18 :00 12 18 2 2 7 11 11 15 1 8 11 4 102 s. II t Total Survey 245 628 87 69 303 189 272 390 53 184 449 81 2950 PHF .89 .95 .8 .7 .9 .8 .82 .86 .75 .65 .88 .79 .967 ti.,; % Trucks 1.6 .5 0 2.9 3 1.6 .4 3.8 22.6 11.4 .2 3.7 2.5 is Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` Peds 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 Hourly Totals `�, 16:00-17:00 123 344 46 31 151 90 124 185 34 97 224 `' 37 1486 16:15-17:15 122 335 48 40, 154 106 136 198 23 86 239 ' 40 ' 1527 16:30-17:30 126 316 42 42 162 ' 110 142 205 26 84 231 '', 43 1529 16:45-17:45 124 298 43 40 158 100 143 207 22 93 238 : 44 .1510 sr 1 17:00-18:00 122 284 41 38 152 99 148 205 19 87 225 44 1464 I ', 1^' ;.s t 1 1 INTERSEC,.-ON TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT 1 72ND AVENUE AT HAMPTON STREET 131--V\2- -• T= 4 .6% P=.805 • N 1419 DATE OF COUNT: 05/28/97 O 252 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 391 28 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H •-0 4-1 1 L . 4-122 . A A 0 J L12 T= 0% T= 4 .4% 0 —► 4-0 ' P=0. P=.847 ' 0 110 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME + T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH .� 14' P=PHF BY APPROACH ' 0 —► 356 —► , 0 240 328 Peak Hour 1501 A 07:25-08:25 Traffic Smithy T. 3 .3% P=.825 X568 TEV=1109 Traffic Survey Service i EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND i TIME PERIOD 1 FROM - TO —► 4_1 I Lo. ,i t r' l '_ L ALL 07:00-07:05 0 0 0 0 27 2 0 9 20 5 0 0 63 + 07:05-07:10 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 10 23 8 0 1 63 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 14 30 6 0 1 72 ! 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 14 26 14 0 1 83 07:20-07 :25 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 15 18 6 0 0 61 07:25-07:30 0 0 0 0 31 2 0 17 27 11 0 0 88 07:30-07:35 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 12 21 3 0 0 64 4 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 0 33 1 0 16 30 12 0 0 92 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 0 36 2 0 18 16 6 0 3 81 07:45-07:50 0 0 0 0 33 5 0 21 27 14 0 1 101 0 7:50-07:55 0 0 0 0 49 1 0 14 28 10 0 0 102 07:55-08:00 0 0 0 0 31 3 0 26 27 10 0 1 98 08 :00-08 :05 0 0 0 0 43 3 0 22 42 5 0 2 117 • 08:05-08:10 0 0 0 0 28 2 0 26 29 7 0 1 93 I 08:10-08:15 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 18 24 12 0 1 79 08:15-08 :20 0 0 0 0 29 4 0 29 27 9 0 1 99 I 08:20-08 :25 0 0 0 0 27 4 0 21 30 11 0 2 ' 95 08:25-08:30 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 6 24 16 0 1 63 08:30-08:35 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 15 27 4 0 1 65 ; 11 08:35-08 :40 . 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 15 25 6 0 0 62 08:40-08 :45 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 12 39 12 0 3 78 j 08:45-08:50 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 12 20 10 0 0 57 08:50-08:55 0 0 0 0 16 4 0 15 16 12 0 5 68 08:55-09:00 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 10 34 16 0 2 83 : I 1 ' Total Survey 0 0 0 0 614 44 0 387 630 225 0 27 1927 PHF 0 0 0 0 .79 .78 0 .81 .84 .81 0 75 , .874 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 .7 2 .3 0 4 .7 2.5 4 0 7.4 3.9 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 % Peds 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08 :00 0 0 0 0 356 20 0 186 293 105 0 8 968 07:15-08:15 0 0 0 0 . 384 21 0 219 315 110 0 10 1059 07:30-08:30 0 0 0 0 375 27 0 229 325 115 0 13 .1084 07:45-08:45 0 0 0 0 320 28 0 225 349 116 0 14 1052 s 08:00-09:00 0 0 0 0 258 24 0 201 337 120 0 19 959 Is 1 ! 1 FR011 : TRAFFIC SI•I I THY PHONE 110. : 50 36436866 un. 04 19?7 12:46Fh1 P11 3 �, INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT I - 72ND AVENUE AT HAMPTON STREET (, 2- •• T=2 .3% P=. 901 i J N 548 DATE OF COUNT: 05/29/9V • O 1451 DAY OF WEEK: Thu R 0 522 26 TIME STARTED; 16 :00 T TIME ENDED: 1.8 :00 N i-0 •1 i 1_, 4-41.4• •0 -' 159 T= 0% T-, 1 .5% J 0 -► 4-0 P=0. P-.772 0 1 -355 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 -. 'i r� 210 -. 0 392 184 Peak flour - 8877 • 16 :35-17:35 Traffic Smithy T . 1 .6% P=. 917-1576_ 1EV=1538 (Traffic Survey Service II EAST BOUND SOUTh i HOUND' NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND - , TIME PERIOD • • •• FROM - TO 1 -► , 3 4.1 1 Lo. 41 I r■ ,r ._ L ALL '1 1.6:00-1.6:05 0 0 0 0 41. 1 0 30 12 30 0 2 116 16 :05-16 :10 0 0 0 0 32 2 0 19 15 25 0 5 98 16 :30-16 :15 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 25 16 32 0 4 118 16 :15-16 :20 0 0 0 (1 43 1. 0 19 8 27 0 3 1.01 16 :20-16 :25 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 33 16 20 0 2 121 16 :25-1.6 :30 0 0 0 0 32 1 0 36 11 33 0 5 118 16 :30-16 :35 0 0 0 0 32 5 0 25 11 25 0 3 . 101 16 :35-16 :40 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 32 12 37 0 9 139 ].6 :40-16 :45 0 0 0 0 55 2 0 29 14 25 0 6 131 16 :45-16 :50 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 28 14 40 0 4 116 16 :50-16 :55 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 25 17 16 0 6 107 16:55-17:00 0 0 0 0 32 6 0 40 18 18 0 2 116 17 :00-17:05 0 0 0 0 43 5 0 30 20 31 0 9 138 l� 17 :05-17 : 10 0 0 0 0 46 4 0 33 ]6 46 0 4 149 17:10-17 :15 0 0 0 0 53 1 0 37 19 36 0 6 152 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 0 42 2 0 32- 11 38 0 4 129 .' 17:20-17:25 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 34 14 30 0 7 134 1 17 :25-17:30 0 0 0 0 44 4 0 37 18 14 0 1 118 17:30-17:35 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 35 11 24 0 1 109 17:35-7.7:40 0 0 0 0 46 1 0 33 12 27 0 3 122 17 :40-17:45 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 44 16 25 0 1 123 17 :45-1.7:50 0 0 0 0 29 1 0 32 23 13 0 2 100 '1 17:50-3.7:55 0 0 0 0 33 1 0 39 21 20 0 0 114 17:55-18 :00 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 41 10 17 0 2 102 1 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 967 42 0 768 355 649 0 91 2872 PHF 0 0 0 0 91 .43 0 .92 .84 .74 0 .78 .875 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 2.3 2 .4 0 .5 3.9 1.7 0 0 1.8 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 0 Hourly Totals 16 :00-17:00 0 0 0 0 478 20 0 341 164 328 0 51 1382 i 16:15-3.7:15 0 0 0 0 507 26 0 367 176 354 . 0 59 1489 16 :30-17:30 0 0 0 0 517- 30 0 382 184 356 0 61 1530 16:45-17:45 0 0 0 0 500 26 0 408 186 345 0 48 1513 17:00-18:00 0 0 0 0 489 22 0 427 191 321 0 40 1490 1 I 7NET O COUNT SUMMARY RT 72ND AVVNUE A HIGHWAY 217 WESTBOUND RAMPS l 3 49 • T= 5.1% P=.855 I N 1455 ♦ DATE OF COUNT: 06/06/97 O i 569 DAY OF WEEK: Fri R 0 380 75 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H 4-0 43 i L . 4-446• I0 J L129 T= 0% T= 5.7% 0 —► 4-0 P=O. P=.774 0 ♦ x317 T=%TRUCKS BENTRY VOLUME APPROACH 41 r■ P=PHF BY APPROACH■0 —► 0 440 334 409 — Peak Hour BHQJ 1697 07:30-08 :30 ' Traffic Smithy - ♦ + T= 7.3% P=.908 1774 TEV=1675 Traffic Survey Service BO SIOUTHI ),BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND IEAST TIME PERIOD • _ A FROM - TO —►UND 3 � 'l r' r ' L ALL I 07:00-07:05 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 25 24 20 0 7 104 07:05-07:10 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 20 15 27 0 8 87 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 0 29 9 0 26 13 28 0 5 110 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 0 20 3 0 31 23 16 0 10 103 I 07:20-07:25 0 0 0 0 34 9 0 33 33 23 0 6 138 07:25-07:30 0 0 0 0 35 7 0 32 18 27 0 8 127 07:30-07:35 .0 0 0 0 31 6 0 35 36 20 0 7 135 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 0 37 12 0 31 29 24 0 10 143 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 0 29 7 0 31 36 18 0 5 126 I 07:45-07:50 07:50-07:55 0 0 0 0 43 5 0 29 36 21 0 9 143 O 0 0 0 40 5 0 44 37 37 0 11 174 07:55-08:00 0 0 0 0 32 2 0 37 24 37 0 14 146 08:00-08:05 0 0 0 0 36 6 0 34 17 34 0 11 138 I 08:05-08:10 0 0 0 0 23 4 0 37 28 20 0 13 125 08 :10-08:15 0 0 0 0 23 4 0 40 20 25 0 12 124 08:15-08:20 0 0 0 0 33 10 0 42 19. 30 0 8 142 08:20-08:25 0 0 0 0 24 8 0 51 23 19 0 11 136 08:25-08:30 0 0 0 0 29 6 0 29 29 32 0 18 143 I 08:30-08:35 08:35-08:40 0 0 0 0 19 8 0 32 27 20 0 7 113 i O 0 0 0 24 4 0 24 20 20 0 7 99 08:40-08:45 0 0 0 0 28 3 0 28 27 22 0 7 115 08:45-08:50 0 0 0 0 22 6 0 26 33 24 0 9 120 I 08:50-08:55 08:55-09:00 0 0 0 0 20 7 0 24 30 16 0 7 104 O 0 0 0 14 6 0 29 26 25 0 11 111 1 I . I Total Survey 0 0 0 0 665 142 0 770 623 585 0 221 3006 PHF 0 0 0 0 .83 .75 0 .83 .77 .73 0 .85 .904 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 5.1 4 .9 0 4.4 10.8 6.7 0 3 .2 6 .3 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IPeds 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 1 07:00-08:00 0 0 0 0 370 70 0 374 324 298 0x100 1536 07:15-08:15 0 0 0 0 383 70 0 414 337 302 0 116 1622 07:30-08:30 0 0 0 0 380 75 0 440 334 317 0 129 1675 07:45-08:45 0 0 0 0 354 65 0 427 307 317 0 ;128 1598 08:00-09:00 0 0 0 0 295 72 0 396 299 287 0 121 1470 j I ' 1 I INTERSECT" 72ND 1 fUE AT HIGHWAY 217 WESTBOUNp- REPORT 72ND 1 ?j `T S Z • T. 2.2% P=.838 - ? L 11! N •1785 DATE OF COUNT: 06/05/97 ,, 0 604 DAY OF WEEK: Thu 1 R 0 592 193 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 TIME ENDED: 18:00 ;� s H 4-0 Jr 4 L► 4-244 0 J L112 II T= 0% T. 3 .9% 0 —► 4-0 P=0. P=. 968 0 1, j132 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —► `l • r► 760 —► BHQI 1724 492 567 Peak Hour + 16:35-17:35 Traffic Smithy T. 2% P=. 945 •1059 TEV=2088 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • , li FROM - TO 1 —► J •1 Jr L► 41 I r► .- L ALL 16:00-16:05 0 0 0 0 47 16 0 32 43 14 0 14 166 16:05-16 :10 0 0 0 0 54 11 0 28 56 16 0 6 171 16:10-16 :15 0 0 0 0 27 18 0 40 41 17 0 6 149 16:15-16:20 0 0 0 0 57 14 0 31 37 12 0 8 159 16:20-16:25 0 0 0 0 63 11 0 24 38 16 0 13 165 16:25-16 :30 0 0 0 0 53 14 0 35 44 11 0 9 166 It 16:30-16:35 0 0 0 0 47 4 0 25 39 15 0 8 138 16:35-16:40 0 0 0 0 50 9 0 38 55 8 0 17 177 , 16:40-16:45 0 0 0 0 50 14 0 37 52 10 0 7 170 16:45-16:50 0 0 0 0 44 10 0 35 41 13 0 6 149 0 16:50-16 :55 0 0 0 0 52 13 0 47 41 13 0 8 174 16:55-17:00 0 0 0 0 47 18 0 36 45 12 0 8 166 .,; 17:00-17:05 0 0 0 0 55 23 0 48 35 11 0 9 181 i., 17:05-17 :10 0 0 0 0 48 27 0 30 61 11 0 12 189 17:10-17:15 0 0 0 0 60 21 0 45 51 12 0 . 8 197 '11 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 0 42 18 0 47 43 13 0 4 167 ' i 17:20-17:25 0 0 0 0 52 14 0 47 47 9 0 9 178 17:25-17:30 0 0 0 0 50 14 0 34 53 10 0 6 167 .+ 17:30-17:35 0 0 0 0 42 12 0 48 43 10 0 18 ( 173 ; )1 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 0 52 16 0 38 49 12 0 10 177 17:40-17:45 0 0 0 0 50 10 0 40 44 4 0 10 158 17:45-17:50 0 0 0 0 45 11 0 33 44 12 0 12 157 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 0 31 5 0 36 45 13 0 15 145 17:55-18:00 0 0 0 0 40 8 0 34 29 9 0 11 131 '+ ill i i i .c 1 `) Total Survey 0 0 0 0 1158 331 0 888 1076 283 0 234 3970 ; PHF 0 0 0 0 . 91 .68 0 .88 .91 .87 0 .85 .920 ' .0 Trucks 0 0 0 0 2.7 .6 0 2.4 1.8 5.3 0 2.1 2.3 , Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '; j g Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 0 0 0 0 591 152 0 408 532 157 0 110 1950 ! ':°' 16:15-17:15 0 0 0 0 626 178 0 431 539 144 0,;;;113 2031 16:30-17:30 0 0 0 0 597 185 0 469 563 137 0 102 2053 :' 1 16:45-17:45 0 0 0 0 594 196 0 495 553 130 0 108 2076 1, 17:00-18:00 0 0 0 0 567 179 0 480 544 126 0 124 2020 '; 11 "I INTERSECTION dg OWYT17 SUMMARY AT 9 f 2ND VEE AT HIGHWAY EASTBOUND RAMPS 1, 04 b3 ♦ T= 5.8% P=.911 N 638 DATE OF COUNT: 06/04/97 • O 1851 DAY OF WEEK: Wed 07:00 1 R 2 496 140 TIME ENDED: 09 :00 H 4-4 4-I 1 L . 4-707 20 -I L225 T= 6% T= 3 .5% 3 —► 4-0 I, P=.541 P=.814 3 1 f482 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 41 t T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH �► P=PHF BY APPROACH I 26 —► 192 —► BHQG 2 606 49 Peak Hour 1981 . 07:25-08:25 Traffic Smithy 1 T= 7.3% P=. 954 1657 TEV=2028 Traffic Survey Service f EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND 1 TIME PERIOD A • • FROM - TO —► 3 <J 1 1...o.1...o. .41 l 1 14- _j L ALL 07:00-07:05 0 1 1 0 27 3 0 31 7 41 0 21 132 07:05-07:10 0 1 0 0 21 6 0 35 4 33 0 9 109 07:10-07:15 0 1 1 0 39 5 0 39 1 27 0 11 124 07:15-07:20 1 3 1 2 36 9 0 42 4 40 0 15 153 07:20-07:25 2 0 2 0 44 10 0 39 5 46 0 16 164 I 07:25-07:30 0 0 1 0 39 10 0 58 2 42 0 17 169 07:30-07:35 1 0 1 0 43 12 0 49 4 43 0 15 168 07:35-07:40 0 1 2 0 41 15 0 42 3 46 0 16 166 07:40-07:45 0 0 2 0 41 12 1 53 6 48 0 14 177 07:45-07:50 0 0 1 1 46 11 0 54 6 52 0 24 195 07:50-07:55 0 1 0 0 44 6 0 48 4 58 0 21 182 07:55-08:00 1 0 3 0 55 12 0 53 3 41 0 21 189 1 08:00-08 :05 0 1 4 1 32 15 0 52 2 23 0 25 155 08:05-08 :10 1 0 2 0 43 12 0 52 7 39 0 11 . 167 i 08:10-08 :15 0 0 2 0 29 8 1 43 7 35 0 15 140 I 08:15-08 :20 0 0 0 0 47 12 0 56 4 18 0 16 153 , 08:20-08 :25 0 0 2 0 36 15 0 46 1 37 0 30 167 08:25-08:30 0 0 2 2 37 13 0 44 8 23 0 13 142 08 :30-08 :35 0 0 0 0 31 9 0 34 8 20 0 23 125 08:35-08 :40 0 0 1 0 43 11 0 36 7 22 0 14 134 08:40-08 :45 0 0 2 0 31 16 0 38 11 31 0 24 153 08:45-08:50 0 0 2 0 40 6 1 33 8 19 0 11 120 08 :50-08:55 0 1 2 0 31 18 0 48 9 19 0 11 139 08:55-09:00 0 0 0 0 39 15 0 24 7 12 0 7 104 I ( Total Survey 6 10• 34 6 915 261 3 1049 128 815 0 400 3627 PHF .38 .38 .56 .5 .86 . 9 .5 .96 .68 .76 0 84; .895 % Trucks 16 .7 0 5.9 0 5 .7 6 .5 0 6.5 14.1 3 .4 0 3 .8 5.5 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 .0 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals • 07:00-08 :00 5 8 15 3 476 111 1 543 49 517 0 200 1928 i 07:15-08:15 6 6 21 4 493 132 2 585 53 513 0 210 2025 07:30-08:30 3 3 21 4 494 143 2 592 55 463 0 221 2001 i. 07:45-08:45 2 2 19 4 474 140 1 556 68 399 0 237 .1902 08:00-09:00 1 2 19 3 439 150 2 506 79 298 0 200 '1699 f; 1 ' INTERSr 'ION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUM►"-''Y REPORT 72N. IENUE AT HIGHWAY 217 EASTBC RAMPS 1321 t0 • T= 3% P=.865 N +'1765 • DATE OF COUNT: 05/01/97 i O I934 DAY OF WEEK: Thu R 14 459 292 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H 4-27 4-1 1 L . 4-409 15 J L109 T= 6.5% T= 4 .9% 3 —► 4-6 P=.479 P=.824 5 1 r294 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 41 I • r''ri T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 23 —► 565 —► 7 810 270 Peak Hour 1758 • 16:30-17:30 Traffic Smithy $ T= 2.8% P=.974 1087 TEV=2284 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO 1 —► 3 'J 1 L. 41 I r■ j •- L ALL 16:00-16 :05 2 1 1 1 42 19 0 47 25 25 0 13 176 16:05-16 :10 0 1 0 5 47 19 0 53 19 34 0 5 183 16:10-16 :15 0 0 4 2 33 20 0 71 20 18 0 4 172 .. 1.6 :15-16 :20 0 0 1 0 29 20 0 52 12 29 0 8 •151 16 :20-16:25 1 1 3 3 29 25 0 64 11 21 0 6 164 16 :25-16 :30 0 0 1 1 40 16 1 55 15 36 0 10 175 I 16:30-16:35 4 0 2 4 38 21 0 63 22 29 0 7 190 16:35-16:40 1 1 0 3 39 26 2 66 22 36 2 9 207 16 :40-16:45 0 0 4 0 31 14 1 71 16 31 0 9 177 16:45-16 :50 0 0 0 0 36 13 0 78 21 27 0 10 185 1 16:50-16:55 0 0 0 0 44 21 0 73 17 22 1 9 187 16:55-17:00 0 0 1 1 42 24 1 67 20 14 0 11 181 17:00-17:05 0 1 1 0 37 35 0 48 47 29 1 9 208 17:05-17:10 0 0 0 2 39 39 0 69 19 18 0 8 194 17:10-17:15 0 0 1 1 37 31 0 72 23 24 0 10 199 7 17:15-17:20 0 0 2 1 36 24 1 70 24 18 0 5 181 17:20-17:25 0 1 1 2 43 19 1 69 19 23 1 9 188 17:25-17:30 0 0 3 0 37 25 1 64 • 20 23 1 13 187 17:30-17:35 1 0 1 2 25 23 0 66 17 15 0 1,7 157 1 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 1 33 21 0 69 15 7 0 9 155 17:40-17:45 1 0 2 3 29 20 0 47 13 18 0 7 140 17:45-17:50 0 0 1 0 35 14 0 62 11 10 0 9 142 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 1 30 11 0 50 11 13 0 3 119 17:55-18:00 0 1 0 1 28 17 0 40 7 9 0 7 110 i 1 Total Survey 10 7 29 34 859 517 8 1486 446 529 6 197 4128 I PHF .25 .75 .63 .5 .93 .7 .58 .91 .76 .77 .75 .91 • .950 Trucks 20 0 3 .4 0 3 .7 1.9 12 .5 2.2 4.7 6 .2 0 1.5 3.3 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 8 4 17 20 450 238 5 760 220 322 3 101 2148 16:15-17:15 6 3 14 15 441 285 5 778 245 316 4 106 2218 16:30-17:30 5 3 15 14 459 292 7 810 270 294 6 109 2284 16:45-17:45 2 2 12 13 438' 295 4 792 255 238 4 107 2162 17:00-18:00 2 3 12 14 409 279 3 726 226 207 3 96 1980 I 1 r"- f UNCASTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 16.0 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.56 Trip Rate: 1.49 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional 88% 12% 17% 83% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends 22 3 25... Trip Ends0 24 WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 11.01 Trip Rate: 0.98 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Directional 50% 50% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends $ 68 176 : ' Trip Ends ?<> 6 Source:TRIP GENERATION.Sixth Edition UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 9/ 8/1998 9 : 13 :22 FILE NAME: RO1EXPM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: DARTMOUTH STREET ® 72ND AVENUE METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 2-LANE COUNT: PM PEAK HOUR ALTERNATE: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: TODD E . MOBLEY D A B C APPR I A I B I C I D IMOVE VOL 45 1 334 121 103 232 154 1 147 1 207 127 1 1226 1 165 142 STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 889 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 714 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1603 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 55 % APPR C AND APPR D = 45 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = D-E SATURATION LEVEL = 89 . % STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 807 . VPH FOR B LEG = 767 . VPH FOR C LEG = 674 . VPH FOR D LEG = 560 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 1404 . VPH VER 03/93 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE) �.IO = 1 DATE/TIMF 9/8/98 12 : 12 : 11 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R01 .SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500 ,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LOS = C SATURATION = 75% 72ND AVENUE C= 120 G=104 Y= 16 • .199 .069 358 120 r .t--- 370 .206 153 .088 .037 65 .246 443 .000 N SIGCAP 2 nr. DARTMOUTH STREET 150 271 .086 .151 N-S V/C = .285 E-W V/C = .334 TOTAL AMBER = .133 MINIMUM V/C = .050 7{X70 = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 150 225 46 421 75% 56% 56% C B B NORTH 120 223 135 478 75% 75% 75% C C C WEST 65 443 125 633 60% 75% 0% B C A EAST 153 322 48 523 75% 58% 58% C B B TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP EAST 5. 0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 963 SOUTH 14.5 36.3 36.3 101.5 79.7 79.7 67 96 96 NORTH 852 NORTH 11. 6 33.4 33.4 104.4 82. 6 82. 6 55 131 131 WEST 1295 WEST 8.4 41.3 55.8 107. 6 74.7 60.2 31 148 34 EAST 1182 EAST 14. 8 47.7 47.7 101.2 68.3 68. 3 68 113 113 INTERSECTION = 1 SCENPRIO = 2 DATE/TIME • 9/8/98 12 : 14 : 01 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO1 . SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = C-D SATURATION = 79% 72ND AVENUE C= 120 G=104 Y= 16 .218 .069 393 120 L Et-- 377 .209 167 .096 .037 65 .246 443 s 000 - N �' S I GCAP 2 ,- DARTMOUTH STREET 163 330 .094 .183 N-S V/C = . 312 E-W V/C = .342 TOTAL AMBER = .133 MINIMUM V/C = .050 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 163 259 71 493 79% 63% 63% C-D B B NORTH 120 258 135 513 79% 79% 79% C-D C-D C-D WEST 65 443 135 643 62% 79% 0% B C-D A EAST 167 321 56 544 79% 60% 60% C-D B B TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP EAST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1041 SOUTH 14 . 9 38. 6 38. 6 101.1 77.4 77.4 73 114 114 NORTH 883 NORTH 11.0 34.7 34.7 105.0 81.3 81.3 55 142 142 WEST 1248 WEST 7. 9 39. 1 54.0 108.1 76. 9 62.0 31 152 38 EAST 1165 EAST 15.3 46.4 46.4 100.7 69. 6 69. 6 74 117 117 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE' '2IO = 3 DATE/TINE 9/9/98 11 : 27 :25 AM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO1 . SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE TRIPS INTERSECTION LOS = C SATURATION = 75% 72ND AVENUE C= 120 G=104 Y= 16 .199 .069 358 120 a./ L. V <l 370 .206 153 .088 .037 65 .246 443 -,. .000 SIGCAP 2 DARTMOUTH STREET 152 271 .087 .151 N-S V/C = .286 E-W V/C = .334 TOTAL AMBER = .133 MINIMUM V/C = .050 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 152 225 46 423 75% 56% 56% C B B NORTH 120 223 135 478 75% 75% 75% C C C WEST 65 443 125 633 60% 75% 0% B C A EAST 153 322 48 523 75% 58% 58% C B B TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP EAST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 963 SOUTH 14. 6 36.4 36.4 101.4 79. 6 79. 6 68 96 96 NORTH 851 NORTH 11. 6 33.3 33.3 104.4 82.7 82.7 55 131 131 WEST 1295 WEST 8.4 41.3 55. 9 107. 6 74.7 60.1 31 148 34 EAST 1180 EAST 14.7 47. 6 47. 6 101.3 68.4 68.4 68 113 113 INTERSECTION = 1 SCF' RIO = 4 DATE/TIM' 9/9/98 11 :27 :59 AM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO1.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE W/EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = D SATURATION = 80% 72ND AVENUE C= 120 G=104 Y= 16 .218 .069 • 393 120 L 381 .212 179 .103 .037 65 .246 443 -i .000 SIGCAP 2 rDARTMOUTH STREET 165 332 .095 .184 N-S V/C = .313 E-W V/C = .349 TOTAL AMBER = .133 MINIMUM V/C = .q50 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 165 259 73 497 80% 63% 63% D B B NORTH 120 258 135 513 80% 80% 80% D D D WEST 65 1443 135 643 63% 80% 0% B D A EAST 179 325 56 560 80% 60% 60% D B B TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3.6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3.6m E-W -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP EAST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1044 SOUTH 14. 9 38.4 38.4 101.1 77.6 77. 6 73 115 115 NORTH 872 NORTH 10.8 34.3 34.3 105.2 81.7 81.7 55 143 143 WEST 1238 WEST 7. 9 38.7 53.5 108.1 77.3 62.5 31 153 38 EAST 1168 EAST 16.2 47.0 47.0 99.8 69.0 69.0 79 118 118 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION FORM FOUR-WAY STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTION 9/ 8/1998 9 :13 :35 FILE NAME: RO2EXPM CITY: TIGARD INTERSECTION: DARTMOUTH STREET ( 68TH PARKWAY METRO SIZE: OVER 500, 000 LANE CONFIGURATION: 2-LANE BY 2-LANE COUNT: PM PEAK HOUR ALTERNATE: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOCATION PLAN: ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY D A B C I APPR I A I B I C I D MOVE VOL 1 163 1 317 I AR 7 I BL 1 151 1166 1 32 249 1141 182 1 89 1206 1 STEP 1 DEMAND APPR A AND APPR B = 861 . VPH APPR C AND APPR D = 899 . VPH TOTAL DEMAND = 1760 . VPH STEP 2 SPLIT APPR A AND APPR B = 50 % APPR C AND APPR D = 50 % STEP 3 INTERSECTIONS SERVICE & SATURATION LEVELS DELAY & LOS = E SATURATION LEVEL = 93 . % STEP 4 LOS C VOLUMES FOR A LEG = 738 . VPH FOR B LEG = 854 . VPH FOR C LEG = 484 . VPH FOR D LEG = 888 . VPH FOR INTERSECTION = 1482 . VPH VER 03/93 INTERSECTION = 1 SCET"`RIO = 1 DATE/TIMT 9/8/98 12 : 18 : 04 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R02 .SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LOS = C SATURATION = 73% 68TH PARKWAY C= 120 G=108 Y= 12 .207 .105 373 182 -d, L t .000 --e-‘ .181 .154 268 i Y .245 441 Z' N flI F DARTMOUTH STREET S I GCAP 2 47 348 203 .027 .193 .113 N-S V/C = .298 . E-W V/C = .335 TOTAL AMBER = .100 MINIMUM V/C = .050 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 47 348 203 598 44% 73% 47% A C A NORTH 182 114 259 555 73% 63% 63% C B B WEST 268 427 14 709 73% 56% 56% C B B EAST 112 214 166 492 73% 73% 0% C C A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5. 0% Om 3. 6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5. 0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R _ L T R L T R SOUTH 900 SOUTH 8. 5 33.0 33.0 107.5 83.0 83. 0 22 128 75 NORTH 1436 NORTH 17. 8 42.3 42.3 98.2 73.7 73.7 79 123 123 WEST 1320 WEST 57.2 57.2 57.2 58.8 58.8 58. 8 71 117 117 EAST 1401 EAST 57.2 57.2 75.0 58. 8 58.8 41.0 87 87 32 INTERSE.CTION = 1 SCENARIO = 2 DATE/TIMF - 9/8/98 12 : 18 :36 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R02 . SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = C SATURATION = 75% 68TH PARKWAY C= 120 G=108 Y= 12 .213 .105 383 182 .000 y 347 .193 I .159 276 .254 458 �.. N nI r DARTMOUTH STREET S I GCAP 2 47 353 211 .027 .196 .117 N-S V/C = .301 E-W V/C = .351 TOTAL AMBER = . 100 MINIMUM V/C = .050 >cc( = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 47 353 211 611 45% 75% 49% A C A NORTH 182 120 263 565 75% 65% 65% C B B WEST 276 444 14 734 75% 57% 57% C B B EAST 116 231 166 513 75% 75% 0% C C A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Om 3.6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R _ L T R L T R SOUTH 898 SOUTH 8.3 32.5 32.5 107.7 83.5 83.5 22 131 78 NORTH 1418 NORTH 17 .3 41.5 41.5 98.7 74 .5 74 .5 79 127 127 WEST 1330 WEST 58.2 58.2 58.2 57.8 57. 8 57.8 72 120 120 EAST 1408 EAST 58.2 58.2 75.5 57.8 57.8 40. 5 91 91 31 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE" RIO = 3 DATE/TIM 9/9/98 11 :29:10 AM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D:\ROTHOF41\ANALYSIS\R02.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE TRIPS INTERSECTION LOS = C SATURATION = 74% C= 120 G=108 Y= 12 68TH PARKWAY .207 .105 373 182 .000 327 .182 .154 268 .245 441 N II DARTMOUTH STREET S I GCAP 2 48 351 209 .028 .195 .116 N-S V/C = .300 _ E-W V/C = .336 TOTAL AMBER = .100 MINIMUM V/C = .050 XXX - Adjusted Volumes .)OX m V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 48 351 209 608 45% 74% 48% A C A NORTH 182 114 259 555 74% 63% 63% C B B WEST 268 427 14 709 74% 56% 56% C B B EAST 113 214 166 493 74% 74% 0% C C A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3.6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 909 SOUTH 8.5 33.2 33.2 107.5 82.8 82.8 23 129 77 NORTH 1434 NORTH 17.8 42.4 42.4 98.2 73.6 73.6 79 122 122 WEST 1317 WEST 57.1 57.1 57.1 58.9 58.9 58. 9 71 117 117 EAST 1403 EAST 57.1 57.1 74.8 58.9 58. 9 41.2 87 87 32 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE' '.IO = 4 DATE/TIM" 9/9/98 12 : 44 : 55 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO2 .SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = C-D SATURATION = 76% 68TH PARKWAY C= 120 G=108 Y= 12 .213 .105 383 182 .000 <f 348 .193 .159 276 .254 458 -1s N IF DARTMOUTH STREET SIGCAP 2 47 358 217 .027 .199 .121 N-S V/C = .303 E-W V/C = .352 TOTAL AMBER = .100 MINIMUM V/C = .050 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 47 358 217 622 45% 76% 50% A C-D A NORTH 182 120 263 565 76% 65% 65% C-D B B WEST 276 444 14 734 76% 57% 57% C-D B B EAST 117 231 166 514 76% 76% 0% C-D C-D A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Om 3. 6m N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Om 3. 6m E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE (m) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 906 SOUTH 8. 2 32. 8 32. 8 107.8 83.2 83.2 22 132 80 NORTH 1416 NORTH 17.2 41.8 41 . 8 98.8 74.2 74.2 79 127 127 WEST 1323 WEST 58. 0 58. 0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 72 120 120 EAST 1408 EAST 58. 0 58.0 75.2 58.0 58. 0 40.8 91 91 31 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE*"`RIO = 1 DATE/TIMr 9/8/98 12 :29: 32 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D:\ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO3EXPM.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LOS = B SATURATION = 59% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .261 .015 470 26 w L 32 .018 320 .184 T r HAMPTON STREET N SIGCAP 2 413 191 .229 .106 ii N-S V/C = .289 E-W V/C = .184 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 X]IX = Adjusted Volumes . CCX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 413 191 604 0% 59% 34% . . . B A NORTH 26 470 0 496 24% 55% 0% A A . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 320 0 59 379 59% 0% 14% B . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1944 SOUTH 0.0 42.7 42.7 0.0 53.3 53.3 0 329 152 NORTH 1350 NORTH 11.2 53.8 0.0 84.8 42.2 0.0 32 302 0 WEST 0 WEST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 EAST 831 EAST 34.2 0.0 65.0 61.8 0.0 31.0 292 0 16 INTERSECTION = 1 SCF--RIO = 1 DATE/TIN' 9/8/98 12 :30: 11 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D:\ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R03.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LOS = C SATURATION = 69% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .306 .020 550 35 V 37 .021 453 .260 I r HAMPTON STREET N SIGCAP 2 452 249 .251 .138 N-S V/C = .311 E-W V/C = .260 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 X)QC = Adjusted Volumes .XXX ¢ V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 452 249 701 0% 69% 43% . . . C A NORTH 35 550 0 585 31% 68% 0% A C . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 453 0 73 526 69% 0% 15% C . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Oft 12.ft • WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1968 SOUTH 0.0 38.7 38.7 0.0 57.3 57.3 0 385 212 NORTH 1282 NORTH 9.2 47.9 0.0 86.8 48.1 0.0 44 398 0 WEST 0 WEST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 EAST 936 EAST 40.1 0.0 57.1 55.9 0.0 38. 9 377 0 22 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE*"RIO = 2 DATE/TIMT' 9/8/98 12 : 30 : 42 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R03 . SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = D-E SATURATION = 87% C= 100 G=84 Y= 16 72ND AVENUE .179 .179 .022 322 322 38 11 L. fk 83 .046 } (- 453 .260 .017 30 f) .034 62 N 1 F HAMPTON STREET S I GCAP 2 594 249 .330 .138 N-S V/C = .390 E-W V/C = .320 TOTAL AMBER = .160 MINIMUM V/C = .060 SOOC = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 594 249 843 0% 87% 46% . . . D-E A NORTH 38 644 0 682 42% 49% 0% A A . . . WEST 20 10 62 92 36% 36% 57% A A B EAST 453 8 75 536 87% 29% 29% D-E A A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST 'WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 1.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 1.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -DIRECTION SEPARATION EAST 2.0% Oft 12.ft LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R 4 L T R L T R SOUTH 1747 SOUTH 0.0 39.0 39.0 0.0 57.0 57.0 0 503 211 NORTH 1197 NORTH 7. 1 46. 1 0. 0 88. 9 49. 9 0.0 49 241 0 WEST 87 WEST 7. 1 7.1 7. 1 88. 9 88. 9 88. 9 39 39 80 EAST 727 EAST 30.8 30. 8 30.8 65.2 65.2 65.2 435 80 80 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE' '1IO = 3 DATE/TINT 9/9/98 12 :27 : 11 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: DAVE CRAM File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R03. SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500 ,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE TRIPS INTERSECTION LOS = C-D SATURATION = 77% C= 70 G=58 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .306 .020 , 550 35 1Lk- 39 .022 462 .266 , T I HAMPTON STREET lr SIGCAP 2 452 252 .251 .140 N-S V/C = .337 . E-W V/C = .266 TOTAL AMBER = .171 MINIMUM V/C = .086 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 452 252 704 0% 77% 51% . . . C-D A NORTH 35 550 0 585 31% 72% 0% A C . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . EAST 462 0 75 537 77% 0% 20% C-D . . . A r TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 5.0% Oft 12.ft N-S - Right Turn Overlap WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1734 SOUTH 0.0 24 .2 24.2 0.0 41. 8 41.8 0 288 160 NORTH 1123 NORTH 8.3 32.4 0.0 57.7 33. 6 0.0 30 287 0 WEST 0 WEST 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 EAST 833 EAST 25. 6 0. 0 40.7 40.4 0.0 25.3 285 0 31 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE' 1IO = 4 DATE/TIM 9/9/98 12 :28 : 01 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: DAVE CRAM File: D: \ROTHOF- 1\ANALYSIS\R03 . SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = D-E SATURATION = 88% 72ND AVENUE C= 100 G=84 Y= 16 .179 .179 .022 322 322 38 11 L -k-- 85 .047 462 .266 .017 30 f► .034 62 --.4 N 1 HAMPTON STREET S I GCAP 2 594 252 .330 .140 N-S V/C = .390 . E-W V/C = .326 TOTAL AMBER = .160 MINIMUM V/C = .060 7000 = Adjusted Volumes .XXX a V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 594 252 846 0% 88% 46% . . . D-E A NORTH 38 644 0 682 42% 49% 0% A A . . . WEST 20 10 62 92 36% 36% 57% A A B EAST 462 8 77 547 88% 29% 29% D-E A A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 1.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 1.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -DIRECTION SEPARATION EAST 2.0% Oft 12.ft LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE(ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1745 SOUTH 0.0 38.7 38.7 0.0 57.3 57.3 0 505 214 NORTH 1190 NORTH 7.0 45.8 0.0 89.0 50.2 0.0 49 242 0 WEST 87 WEST 7. 0 7.0 7.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 39 39 80 EAST 734 EAST 31 .2 31.2 31.2 64.8 64.8 64. 8 442 81 81 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE' 'UO = 1 DATE/TINT 9/8/98 12 : 41 : 32 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO4EXPM. SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LOS = D-E SATURATION = 90% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .329 .111 592 193 / L .000 132 .076 HWY 217 wB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 1059 .588 N-S V/C = .699 E-W V/C = .076 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 492 567 1059 0% 90% 90% . . . D-E D-E NORTH 193 592 0 785 90% 48% 0% D-E A . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 132 0 112 244 90% 0% 0% D-E . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1518 SOUTH 0.0 66.8 66. 8 0.0 29.2 29.2 0 488 488 NORTH 1183 NORTH 12. 6 79.4 0.0 83.4 16. 6 0.0 234 169 0 WEST 0 WEST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 EAST 855 EAST 8.6 0.0 92.0 87.4 0.0 4.0 168 0 0 1 INTERSECTION = 1 SCENARIO = 1 DATE/TIME . 9/8/98 12 : 42 :06 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D:\ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R04.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LOS = E-F SATURATION = 98% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .390 .170 702 296 / L .000 r- 132 .076 r HWY 217 WB RAMPS A SIGCAP 2 1105 .614 N-S V/C = .784 E-W V/C = .076 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 538 567 1105 0% 98% 98% . . . E-F E-F NORTH 296 702 0 998 98% 55% 0% E-F A . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 132 0 163 295 98% 0% 0% E-F . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) +paF �NrL'''' ' • LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R " i, ' '�7! �' f" 'k 1 SOUTH 1488 SOUTH 0.0 62.8 62.8 0.0 33.2 33.2 1'�1F , } NORTH 1304 NORTH 17.4 80.2 0.0 78.6 15.8 0.0 e�9 4, :"J ' " 1 WEST 0 WEST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ',) t's) ; i j! EAST 889 EAST 7.8 0.0 97.6 88.2 0.0 -1. 6 111:24,441,,'4- 4 Storage lenatha,'are�".not:r"el able``at' thie sa'urat on`f`]eirel�!`. INTERSECTION = 1 SCE* 'RIO = 2 DATE/TIME' 9/8/98 12 : 43 :13 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R04.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = C-D SATURATION = 76% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .437 .211 787 368 1L .000 132 .076 I I r HWY 217 WB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 638 567 .354 .315 N-S V/C = .566 E-W V/C = .076 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .3000 a V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 638 567 1205 0% 76% 69% . . . C-D C NORTH 368 787 0 1155 76% 62% 0% C-D B . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 132 0 207 339 76% 0% 0% C-D . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR , L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 2184 SOUTH 0.0 48.6 48.6 0.0 47.4 47.4 0 455 405 NORTH 2057 NORTH 29.0 77.6 0.0 67.0 18.4 0.0 363 245 0 WEST 0 WEST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 EAST 1310 EAST 10.4 0.0 106.6 85.6 0.0 -10. 6 164 0 0 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE* "RIO = 3 DATE/TIMF 9/9/98 12 : 37 : 38 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R04 .SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500 ,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE TRIPS INTERSECTION LOS = E-F SATURATION = 98% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .392 .174 705 302 `a t-- .000 r_ 132 .076 r HWY 217 WS RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 1107 .615 N-S V/C = .789 E-W V/C = . 076 TOTAL AMBER = . 120 MINIMUM V/C = . 060 JOOC = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 540 567 1107 0% 98% 98% . . . E-F E-F NORTH 302 705 0 1007 98% 55% 0% E-F A . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 132 0 164 296 98% 0% 0% E-F . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) • � $; u �Ci - 1r,r. LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R ! ! O G{ .?`d) SOUTH 1484 SOUTH 0. 0 62. 6 62. 6 0.0 33.4 33.4 :�"i'° �) `�°r �i�'� ��.�,; NORTH 1306 NORTH 17 .7 80.3 0.0 78.3 15.7 0.0 r t ; f' r ,x 0�t WEST 0 WEST 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 r %O :"0 0 EAST 889 EAST 7.7 0. 0 97. 9 88.3 0. 0 -1. 9 ''''1'69 .`'0 ' 0 torage lengths are not reliable at this saturation level! INTERSECTION = 1 SCENARIO = 4 DATE/TIMF • 9/9/98 12 : 38 : 01 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R04 . SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500 ,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = C-D SATURATION = 77% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .439 .215 790 374 1L .000 132 .076 T r- HWY 217 WB RAMPS A SIGCAP 2 640 567 .356 .315 N-S V/C = .570 E-W V/C = .076 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 0 640 567 1207 0% 77% 69% . . . C-D C NORTH 374 790 0 1164 77% 62% 0% C-D B . . . WEST 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% . . . . . . . . . EAST 132 0 208 340 77% 0% 0% C-D . . . A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 2.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 0.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 4.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 2174 SOUTH 0.0 48.4 48.4 0.0 47. 6 47. 6 0 459 406 NORTH 2054 NORTH 29.3 77.7 0.0 66.7 18.3 0.0 367 245 0 WEST 0 WEST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 EAST 1308 EAST 10.3 0.0 106. 9 85.7 0.0 -10. 9 164 0 0 INTERSECTION = 1 SCF' RIO = 1 DATE/TIM" 9/8/98 12 : 47 : 44 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D:\ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\RO5EXPM.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LOS = E SATURATION = 92% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .264 .166 476 289 .44 Li. t____ .000 300 .167 , .014 24 H.N. T r HWY 217 EB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 7 810 270 .004 .450 .150 N-S V/C = .616 E-W V/C = .183 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 )XCR = Adjusted Volumes .X7CC - V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 7 810 270 1087 17% 92% 39% A E A NORTH 289 462 14 765 92% 50% 50% E A A WEST 16 3 5 24 92% 92% 18% E E A EAST 294 6 119 419 92% 92% 0% E E A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 7.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE(ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1527 SOUTH 6. 6 49.6 49.6 89.4 46.4 46.4 9 567 189 NORTH 1413 NORTH 18.3 61.3 61.3 77.7 34.7 34.7 328 256 256 WEST 42 WEST 20.1 20.1 20.1 75.9 75.9 75. 9 27 27 27 EAST 811 EAST 20.1 20.1 38.4 75.9 75.9 57. 6 333 333 0 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE*"i.IO = 1 DATE/TIME' 9/8/98 12 : 49 : 14 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R05.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC INTERSECTION LOS = E SATURATION = 95% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .298 .194 537 338 a-) L V .000 i 300 .167 .014 24 i,- T r- HWY 217 EB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 7 810 270 .004 .450 .150 N-S V/C = . 644 . E-W V/C = . 183 TOTAL AMBER = . 120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 7 810 270 1087 18% 95% 40% A E A NORTH 338 523 14 875 95% 54% 54% E A A WEST 16 3 5 24 95% 95% 18% E E A EAST 294 6 165 465 95% 95% 0% E E A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST 'WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 7.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5. 0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE(ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1524 SOUTH 6.4 47 . 9 47. 9 89. 6 48. 1 48. 1 9 586 195 NORTH 1490 NORTH 20.7 62.2 62.2 75.3 33.8 33.8 372 282 282 WEST 41 WEST 19. 4 19.4 19.4 76. 6 76. 6 76. 6 27 27 27 EAST 859 EAST 19. 4 19. 4 40. 1 76. 6 76. 6 55. 9 336 336 0 INTERSECTION = 1 SCENNRIO = 2 DATE/TIMF • 9/8/98 12 : 50 : 51 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-'1\ANALYSIS\R05.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500 ,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = E SATURATION = 92% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .306 .222 550 386 .n Y t__- .000 .( 300 .167 .014 24 41 I r- HWY 217 EB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 7 707 270 .004 .393 .150 N-S V/C = . 615 E-W V/C = . 183 TOTAL AMBER = . 120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT _ L T R L T R SOUTH 7 707 270 984 17% 92% 42% A E A NORTH 386 536 14 936 92% 56% 56% E B B WEST 16 3 5 24 92% 92% 18% E E A EAST 294 6 231 531 92% 92% 0% E E A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 7.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1506 SOUTH 6. 6 43.4 43.4 89.4 52. 6 52. 6 9 556 212 NORTH 1565 NORTH 24 .5 61 .2 61 .2 71. 5 34 . 8 34 . 8 405 296 296 WEST 42 WEST 20.2 20.2 20.2 75.8 75. 8 75. 8 27 27 27 EAST 985 EAST 20.2 20.2 44.6 75.8 75. 8 51.4 333 333 0 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE"-RIO = 3 DATE/TIW 9/9/98 12 : 39 :28 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST: TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF- 1\ANALYSIS\R05.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE TRIPS INTERSECTION LOS = E SATURATION = 95% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .299 .195 538 339 -,1 L. .000 300 .167 I .014 24 --i--,- C HWY 217 EB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 7 810 270 .004 .450 .150 N-S V/C = .645 E-W V/C = .183 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = .060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 7 810 270 1087 18% 95% 40% A E A NORTH 339 524 14 877 95% 54% 54% E A A WEST 16 3 5 24 95% 95% 18% E E A EAST 294 6 167 467 95% 95% 0% E E A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 3.0% Oft 12 .ft WEST 7.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME (sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1524 SOUTH 6.4 47 . 9 47. 9 89.6 48.1 48. 1 9 587 196 NORTH 1492 NORTH 20.7 62.2 62.2 75.3 33.8 33.8 373 282 282 WEST 41 WEST 19.4 19.4 19.4 76. 6 76. 6 76. 6 27 27 27 EAST 861 EAST 19.4 19.4 40. 1 76. 6 76. 6 55. 9 336 336 0 INTERSECTION = 1 SCE"`RIO = 4 DATE/TIM - 9/9/98 12 : 39 : 59 PM PROJECT: ROTH OFFICE ANALYST. TODD E. MOBLEY File: D: \ROTHOF-1\ANALYSIS\R05.SIG PEAK HOUR: PM PEAK HOUR CITY: TIGARD POPULATION: more than 500,000 DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND + SITE W/ EAGLE HARDWARE INTERSECTION LOS = E SATURATION = 92% C= 100 G=88 Y= 12 72ND AVENUE .306 .222 551 387 L .000 .0 300 .167 , .014 24 <,. y T r HWY 217 EB RAMPS N SIGCAP 2 7 707 270 .004 .393 .150 N-S V/C = . 615 E-W V/C = . 183 TOTAL AMBER = .120 MINIMUM V/C = . 060 XXX = Adjusted Volumes .XXX = V/C MOVMENT VOLUMES MOVE SATURATION MOVEMENT LOS APPR L T R TOT L T R L T R SOUTH 7 707 270 984 17% 92% 42% A E A NORTH 387 537 14 938 92% 56% 56% E B B WEST 16 3 5 24 92% 92% 18% E E A EAST 294 6 233 533 92% 92% 0% E E A TRUCKS PED LANE APPR % DIST WIDTH PHASING SOUTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft N-S -LEFT TURNS PROTECTED WITH OVERLAP NORTH 3.0% Oft 12.ft WEST 7.0% Oft 12.ft E-W -LEFT TURNS NOT PROTECTED EAST 5.0% Oft 12.ft E-W - Right Turn Overlap LEG VOL TIME AVAIL(sec) RED TIME(sec) MOVE STORAGE (ft) LEG AT LOS C APPR L T R L T R L T R SOUTH 1506 SOUTH 6. 6 43.3 43.3 89.4 52.7 52.7 9 556 213 NORTH 1567 NORTH 24.5 61.2 61.2 71.5 34.8 34.8 406 297 297 WEST 42 WEST 20.1 20. 1 20.1 75. 9 75.9 75. 9 27 27 27 EAST 987 EAST 20.1 20. 1 44.7 75. 9 75.9 51.3 333 333 0 PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES • s1. �+IMR ab ads Mm � t � 4 6 dj,yy 4� k4 9w ' I 6Q ,...z4;:.,.- :... .. ...." P +. fr T, �g,X ,w..wn�a" 0. r�,.ifffj, lip ri'134r.:1"' i ' Lj. .f' i,-,9 , ti �- � `�� t ' +z �a<.4nh, , �l :,-z in ica I on ee I _.„,,,i_�. es�_ , � �- -- . l _a. NON-RESIDENTIAL PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: \O�/7?J9 S , ! STAFF AT PRE-APP.: � I / a- APPLICANT: -1M `< AGENT: Phone:( l cam\ - 2M Phone: ( ) PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GEN.LOCATION: r.A<L 14 G1 IL 2S l ■*c ‘2:7D TAX MAP(SI/LOT#15): NECESSARY APPLICATION[SI: SITE - gMet.k P f.c Al • PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: C (scQ_st' -Pr cozy et .. ., ',Irj (NCc1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: V■v(�;_ -"e- eMplssutI‘ADW ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: iv`0- CJ.T.AREA: �-„T,,,r:- FACILITATOR: (St c�s-r) I PHONE: '(5031 -' A c , eviS44) c46 pct V1i6 ' c ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQU REMENTS iy �/. /'- MINIMUM LOT SIZE: J sq. ft. ge lot width:ft. Maximum building height:`' ft. Setbacks Front D-(p ft. AO-Side 0-10 ft. RP r- Cpr.ner----- ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 65 % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: L5 °/0. [Refer to Code Section 18. 'ZO °` l / t 4o 7 0 ADDITIONAL LOT DIME SIONAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM OT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is - - • •h the minor land partition process. Lots creat-d as part of a partition must h. - . minimum of 15 feet • rontage or have a minimum 15- foot wide :ccess easement. The DE' H OF ALL LOTS . -ALL NOT EXCEED 24 TIMES THE AV ' :GE WIDTH, unless the parcel is -ss than 1 es the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning distric . [Refer 1 . I I ectlon 18.164.060-Lots] CRY OF Ti6ARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 10 NON-IssM•atlal Appllcatl••/rla•olii Division Section ■ SPECIAL SETBACKS > STREETS: SC) feet from the centerline of 4 �N . > ESTABLIS ED AREAS: feet from . y LOWER I ENSITY ZON feet, along the site's boundary. > FLAG LOT: 10-F091- SIDE YARD SETBACK [Refer to C bon and 18.961 SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: > A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; > All actual building setbacks will be at least half (1/2) of the building's height; and • The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. [Refer to Coection 18.98.0201 ($'130•olo PARKING AND ACCESS ta- REQUIRED parking for this type of use: 7 '7 ( t[l yS - (C. Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): CZ i SECONDARY REQUIR arking: M AP-14` (,ZLEk) = 1.4-(14 cub 0 Parking WN on pr • inary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 40% of required spaces may be designated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: > Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 8 inches x 18 feet. y Compact parking space dimensions: 8 feet x 15 feet. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. [Refer to Code Section 18.106.0201 - Handicapped Parking: ,MAN y -PN -� &L`' > All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. > BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: I . Minimum pavement width: 2Cr 1 All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: 1JJ P . (Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.1081 (_l U-7v5 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Anppcatlon Conference Motes Page 2 01 10 MIN-Issldiitlil UuIIcatlaRlauhu Ilvl:rou Settles WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. (Refer to Code Section 18.108.050) (3. -7e* LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS Every COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10161 _e . - = ET shall be provided with a loading space. The space si - -•: . on shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (ReleiJaCedrS on 18.106.010-0901 CLEAR VISION AREA t0 mAIC Seri J guke5 The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE AND EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.1021 3.-(1 BUFFERING AND SCREENING In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) t 3-149 The REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: Y" ( feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR REST as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE 1 TREE FOR EV ;Y EVEN 7 PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18.100,18.106 and 18.108) CITY OFT1GARD Pre-AppDcation Conference Motes Page 3 of 11 111M-■ala■n■l IM:Io■s.ctlot SIGNS SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. [Refer to Code Section 18.1141 SENSITIVE LANDS e Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR D LOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAIN ' _ AYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE G ` - D. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference bid on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive fa must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITI4 FhQODPLAINS. [Refer to Code Section 18.841 STEEP SL 1 PES -n STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be sub ed which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 8.84.040.B. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include s.-cific recommendations for achieving the requirements of 18.84.040.B.2 and 18.84.040.B.•. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGEN F (USA]BUFFER STANDARDS,R&0 96-44 LAND DEVELOP■.ENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor f. a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. �. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDR SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25-FEET-WIDE, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries o the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the wid of a portion of the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion f the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegeta d corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 fe t, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25 percent of the length of the vegetated corn or within the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average th of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities\gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: A GRAVEL WALKWAY OR BIKE PATH, NOT EXCEEDING,8 FEET IN WIDTH. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed.closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or,City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes N. Page 4 of 11 NONaesldsotlal Aoollcatlen/Pleuulag UMtton Section ➢ WATER QUALITY FtiLiLITIES may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of 10 feet wit the approval of the Agency or City. Location f Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY R IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate wnership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and sha not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. (Refer to &0 96-44/USA Regulations-Chapter 3,Design for SWMI WATER RESOURCES OVERLAY STRICT The WATER RESO RCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT implements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan d is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Spe 'fically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and ob ctive standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated r .arian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve nat e plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT ALSO EETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "s. e harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions req►ire that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The Tualatin Rive which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEARING ' TREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1000 cu:'c feet per second (cfs). ➢ Major streams in Tigard include FANNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY CREEKS) AND :ALL CREEK. Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" accordi•g to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin Rive Riparian Setback Area: This AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALL i TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor bundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). The standard TUALATIN RIVER RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 75 FEE unless modified in accordance with this chapter. • The MAJOR STREAMS RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 50 FEET, unless modifi d in accordance with this chapter. • ISOLATED WETLANDS AND MINOR STREAMS (including adjacent wetlan ) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unifie Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. [Refer to Code Section 18.85.010] CITY OF T1GAR0 Pre-Application Conference Notes Page f 11 NONaesIdeatlel Ilppllcetleo/PleaolaI MINN N Sectloa Riparian Setback Reductions The D ECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY M OR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of structures r impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection fo"Ndentified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of,riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was §ubstantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.85.050.0 that demonstrates all of the following: Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; > The tree canopy currently cove less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from a on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; • That vegetation was not removed con ry to the provisions of Section 18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species; > That there will be no infringement into the 1 00 j ar floodplain; and • The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. [Refer to Code Section 18.85.100] TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS --1 E'-75o > I A TREE PAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; • Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the following standards: b Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; b Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; b Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and r A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070.D. [Refer to Code Section 18.150.025] CITY OF TIGARD Pro-11ppHcatIon Conference Notes Page 6 of 11 MON-la:IG..tlalA..11eatlaa/Pla..hi!Millen Sectlaa MITIGATION REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: ➢ The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. r The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. [Refer to Code Section 18.150.010(DI NARRATIVE The PLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable proval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. (Refer to Code Section 18.321 CODE SECTIONS — 18.80 _ 18.92 ,/ 18.102681'15) / 18.116(1&i ) / 18.150 08'1°0) 18.84 / 18.96� t5.130 ./ 18.106 03-7E0 1/ 18.120(t3•') 18.160 — 18.85 18.98 % 18.108 0-1 _ 18.130 18.162 18.88 ,/ 18.100 (t&1 ) ,/ 18.114(tS-130) _ 18.134 ./ 1 8.1 64 Li9-5(o) IMPACT STUDY C As a rt of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to UDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.32,Section.050) CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Anppcation Conference Notes Page 10(10 NON-Issl dead al AullestlssMsiuINi OMtIsa Sidles WHEN A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRES 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. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.32,Section.250) EIGHBORHOOD MEETIN THE APPLI ANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 250 FEET AND THE APPR IATE CIT FACILITATOR AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE BCOMMITTEE(S) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) -- SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION -PR OR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicant's are re ired-to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in ore -ebtainappprovaVreservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete unfiT-the receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. (County Surveyor's Office: 5O3-648-8884) UILDING PERMITS PLANS-FOR G ARE HL RTL OCR IEW UNTIL A BUILDING LAND USE AND APPROVAL HAS LA BEEN PE ISSMIUS ED.WIL Final N inspectionT BE AC approvalsEPTED FO by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED.) (RECYCLING Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY with Pride Disposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. (Refer to Code Section 18.116) CITY OF MAIM Pre-Application Conference Notes Page Q of 10 NON-Is Id,iUaI AApIIcaUoofPIioaleg OM:lon Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: t d∎IS DWA'C' WCU. Sa■ �l O Nt.l4 - lQFLI -C PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 81/4" x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard .0.64 kk&lc/ c.c1,444Ss,a,1 . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Mpllcatlon Conference Motes Page 9 of U NONaesldeatlal Aollcetlea/Pleualag OMslau SecUea PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: Vkl-1 kiCS CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DMSION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP.MEETING PHONE: [5031639-4171 FAX: L5031 684-7297 E-MAIL (staff's first name)©C1.tigard.or.us h:\eila\jatri litastenUnaoi-c.mst [Fntilat.rta0 Ssctles:mastenlireajp-c.eepl Updated: 26-I1ay-99 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 10 of 11 NON-#•sldeatlal Allollcstin/Plaoalai Mica Section PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ➢ ENGINEERING SECTION \ Commun Community Development Shaping A Better Community ZS\ 01 AR PUBLIC FACILITIES e2 The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ( U to _ feet from centerline. ( `7 5,J (9c( I'12.- 4. to cz L e —feADkvs 'ne. ( ) __, to feet from centerline. ( ) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: ( 1-')/ tl street improvements will be necessary along �• (.9°jk A�1E to include: 12/ t feet of pavement ,, Loncrete curb �torm sewers and other underground utilities L'2 -foot concrete sidewalk "street trees street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. /1,4 —+ its Plz:)cec..s Pfir•A'kS I� ) vokt►c-N sS-ce--• IF- LI c' tS Cam-&), ?Waist./ • _ vim. > t- -w Pi t�tD as ss � CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page l of 6 Engineering Department Section (J� stre& iprovements will be necessary alor -) .�.st��► Sc. to include: [� ►e feet of pavement r k [concrete curb [storm sewers and other underground utilities [K Le -foot concrete sidewalk [ street trees greet signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ( ) street improvements will be necessary along to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ( ) street improvements will be necessary along to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ( ) Section 18.164.120 of th- igard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all •verhead utility lines adjacent to a develo• • ent t• be placed underground or, at the - do of the developer, a fee in-lieu of un• - grounding can be paid. This requireme 's valid a en if the utility lines are on the op.•site side of the street from the site. If the -e in-lieu is p posed, it is equal to $ 27.50 p- ineal foot of street frontage that contains e overhead line . T - e are existing overhead util y lines which - n adjacent to this site a ong SW . Prior to , the applicant s II either place these utilities underground, or pay the f:e in-I' u described above. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 Esllsssrlq Ispsrtwsst Satin In some cases, where stre iprovements or other necessary r c improvements are not currently practical, the improvements .,lay be deferred. In such cases, a .,undition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: (1.) (2.) Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located Svc cam1-44" a Ttft T- . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to -n `7-t; At Jc> FAL- l:7t -6A)./\ bs-A'yr) '1 .so , Aco P i, r tste'• - Is P oste -C- if e-• ,a -t.: (.6 L-+D. Water Supply: The �M� k/At Ul�r.�(ce-- Sz. _ - Phone:(503) 24x7 '3551 provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. A downstream analysis will also likely be necessary to determine if runoff from the proposed development will cause adverse impacts to the existing storm system downstream of the site. S1-R■I OR-ol►sac ; -- Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 Engineering Department Section • to pay a fee in-lieu of con- sting an on-site facility provided s Tic criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ( ') Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ( ) Payment of the fee in-lieu. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. ° �-4 l5 t)tRCD i. Su`1-atT? __ TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. The cost of this type of permit is calculated as 4% of the cost of the work and is payable prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 Engineering Department Section Compliance Agreen (CAP). This permit covers mon. `.ensive work such as main utility C7line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The cost of this permit is also calculated as 4% of the cost of the improvements, based on the design engineer's estimate, and is payable prior to issuance of the approved plan. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Engineering Department Section GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FO 1BDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: �—." ©)/-9(le. ENGINEERING DEP RTMENT STAFF Phone: 15031639-4171 Fax: 15031684-7297 h.\pattylmasters\preapp eng (Master section preapp r mst) 01-Sept-98 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 Engineering Department Section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: O\S-g Date: tc> ac3 II APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (1 copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies <<9j E) Filing Fee c c QR-oT —SeE StRekke II SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE /MARKED ITEMS ll A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies l 1. Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions o, 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 6 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: (a) Floodplain areas (b) Slopes in excess of 25% (c) Unstable ground (d) Areas with high seasonal water table (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ca' (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils B' 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: (a) Wildlife habitats d (b) Wetlands 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ,d (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level e( 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways LAND USE APPLICkTION/LIST PACE OF 5 8) Site Development Plan Indicating: No. of Copies _ca 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties tY 2. Contour line intervals o/ 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties Sy (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension Q/ 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site (b) Parking and circulation areas ta/ (c) Loading and services area pi (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation (e) Outdoor common areas • (f) Above ground utilities 5. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site of 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions qi 7. Sanitary sewer facilities U' 8. The location areas to be landscaped 4' 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques q� 10. The location of mailboxes tt' 11 . The location of all structures and their orientation 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies (c1 The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1. The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines (b) Slope ratios tar (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) rY (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development e' 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report e' (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals 12' (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated r LANO USE APPLICATION/UST PACE 2 OF 5 D) Architectural Ora% gs Indicating: No. of Copies (a - The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies (3 The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings P 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces V 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials 9/ 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions �( (b) Erosion control measures that will be used F) Sign Drawings: V Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. (;46-1) G) Traffic Generation Estimate: y� � H) Pre ' ina Partition/Lot Line Ad'ustment Ma. Indicatin:: No. of Copies 1. The • ner of the subject parcel ❑ 2. The own- 's authorized agent ❑ 3. The map sca - (20,50,100 or 200 feet-.1) inch north arrow and date ❑ 4. Description of p: cel location and boundaries ❑ 5. Location, width an• names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adja t to the parcel ❑ 6. Location of all permanen •uildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines ❑ 7. Location and width of all water urses ❑ 8. Location of any trees within 6" or g .ter caliper at 4 feet above ground level ❑ 9. All slopes greater than 25% ❑ 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easemen. ❑ 11. For major land partition which creates a public stre- (a) The proposed right-of-way location and width ❑ (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any -serve strip ❑ 12. Any applicable deed restrictions ❑ 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PACE 3 OF 5 I) Subdivision Prelim y Plat Map and Data Indicating: No. of Copies 1. Cale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one p ase per sheet ❑ 2. The roposed name of the subdivision ❑ 3. Vicin'ty map showing property's relationship to arterial and collect r streets ❑ 4. Names, ddresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, enginee6urveyer and designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of ap ication ❑ 6. Boundary lin s of tract to be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adja ent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parce of un-subdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% ❑ 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and privat \right-of-ways and easements ❑ (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mai including fire hydrants ❑ (d) Major power telephon transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations for par , open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles of oposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicate on the plans ❑ 11. Plan of the proposed water distributi. system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrant ❑ 12. Approximate centerline profiles showin: the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonab - distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed street righ •f-way(s) ❑ 14. The location of all areas subject to inundation .r storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & direction of flow of all water ourses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot .imensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purpos: other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. ❑ 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or grater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of proposed ee plantings ❑ 18. The existing uses of the property, including the location o\all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting ❑ 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) a (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas ❑ 21 . 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 • LUNG USE APPLICATION/LIST PAGE 4 OF 5 J) Solar Access Calculations: t/(A.- ❑ K) Other Information No. of Copies ❑ h:Vogin\patty4nastersV-cklistmst • may 23,1995 LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PACE 5 OF 5 Pre-Apps (CD Meetings3 • ><... r)«oisi , s .................. .::::...::.. 1 2 3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Thursday, October 29, 1998 8:00 8:30 —9:00 Ralph &Alice Kimmel (MLP) 14960 St1 S1 t�rise Ln. 2S1 8AA 500 590-5588 9:30 10:00 Tire Roth - 639-2629 10:30 � --- 11:00 Steve Johnson Phoenix lnn;9E.vesiQR6$2 9 Mark Roberts • 11:30 • 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 • 11:09AM Tuesday,October 20, 1998 • 1 - r October 20, 1998 City of Tigard Applicant/Owner: J.T. Roth, Jr. 13125 SW Hall 12600 SW 72nd# 200 Tigard, Or. 97223 Tigard, Or. 97223 Attn: Planning Dept. RE: Pre-app. meeting Tax lot 8300, Block 29 West Portland Heights NARRATIVE: It is our desire to construct a commercial office building on property located at the southeast corner of 69t and Franklin, Tax lot 8300, Block 29 West Portland Heights (see attached). The proposed development project consists of approx. 6000 s.f. of new office commercial, single story building constructed with masonry veneer on 4-sides. This property abuts un-improved S.W. 69th which is part of a proposal currently in review by the City of Tigard for a L.I.D. for street improvements. The target date for said L.I.D. ii improvements would be completed prior to the date improvements would start on the subject property of this review. The approach located off S.W. Franklin currently exists as an access easement to the benefit of the subject property, a second approach is being proposed off S.W. 69th The project is being designed under the Tigard Triangle Standards in a M.U.E. zoning. Sub ,' 4116 I l f THIS MAP IS FE{�'+ S� IIE i A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PR( IT 3 THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO L. '1LTY rOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE D:SCL....ED ACTUAL SURVEY t .APII. gA r." .k5 ;;q. First American Tile Insurance Company o.f Oregon _, _ .� , An as sum,U bui.r.ess ran.e el TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON .'" ,a//.1.4-. 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OR 97201-5512 (3031 222-3651 1 . . —-- -- - - - .v-- L c-,.1107.7. L-- N II _ 34 � _ 4900 _ 34 } II 34 • N 12 33 a) .34Ac. 33 co 12 33 0 N 13 2_I _ _ 13 2v2 32 _ _ 13 2-3 32 4000 N I4 29AC 14 31 14 31 N 15 30 30 - I5 _ 30 __ - _ _ + - - - N 16 - 29 - - _29 - - - 16 - 29 N 17 28 17 28 i 17 28 - + - _ ..... N 18 27 ' 18 27 18 27 . I9'I I 1 I T T T I I I I I I 1 I 1 T T T• 4200 4300 1 4500 1 56 AC. . AC. ./7 AC. J3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 20121 22 23 24 25 2 PIJR Tr !.019'I 1 I 11 l 1 I ° I I I l I l u 1 I I I 1 I 1 O - S.W FRANKLIN C. I 1 I u1 I I I I ° 251 25 I 125 25 25 125 125-0 P/iI — r- -r- —ii I 1 I 1 9100 1 I 8300 pQ 8200 f 8t.00- - - - 7900 1 /.96Ac. .46 Ac. ►110 .29 AC. .23 AC. .3OAc. 20'01 2 1 1 2 3 41 1 5 6 7 8 01 2 3 4 c13(11 6 7 8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 8 / I II I I I td -111 1 1 4. 1 +' 1 1 1 - _ L . -1._ _5_ 1 1 _ 1 I 1 i I 1 of N � 9 I + 36 - 36 r ,7700 - 7800 / N 10 3 5— N • i' 35 • .34 AC. .75 AC. / — — — — —�} — — —r- e., — N I I 34 N I I 850 _ I I I 34 i I2 33 N 12 _ ./2A� ~dl 12 33 _W N 13 3+0 32 - N' p700 I 86 00 N I 13 28 32 N 14 31 .i2 Ac. W. + N I 7600 31 -AND / N 115 30 _ V 1 _ _ .34AC. '-' / N .6800 30 _ • — 30 / N .1p. t N ./2AC. I 29 16 29 19 — I ,. _ 1 N 9101 9-50 N 8900 I� .4119003 4 . 28 17 28 .31'AC. n .2.5.4c. 1W;1 _- "a 18 27 2 02 19'T T T T + T T T — I I i I� $1 r27 I T -I 1 r I ti ei 9000 1N rI Q 9001 > �° a 30 AC. 1— aI r\ ./5Ac. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23 0 25 2•6 19 20 21 221 23 24 25 2E 0 I 1 20'1 30' 125' 125' 125' 125/125'12S'125'125 (60 0_25'125'125'125' 25' 0 23'125'4 �5up' 2•f'yy1' 12Di25' 2325 -29600 _ I ._al.- -t- r 1 ./9 AC. VACATED �' I VACATED (S.W. GONZAGA ST.) 87-50900 86-444430 '— — ✓f is VACATED 9!-ID191T .J 0 AG. A(i. .11 .w. ` 1 §13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 20121 22 23 24 25 26 , 19 20 1 PIJr� r1 j_1 \ >�1 D ,Ise , . . . . . t I ► 1 1 ► . 1 b i A u, S.W. FRANKLIN �LH• • 2S T 25 1 25 T 25 25 25 ►25 ► 25 4 .-1 - r -r r I r / - 1 1 GI 1 9100 ta.a 1 1 8300 pQ 8200 ' 800- - — - T9001 1 6700 15/AC .46 Ac. o .294C. _23 AC. .304c. I I 453-41 1 1 2 3 41 1 5 6 7 8 0 I 2 3 4 4:15.`? 6 7 8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 8 I 11 2 I II 5 I 1 H a- 1 1 .� I + 1 ..L ..L 1_ -1 _L 1 1 _ ( 1 t I i ► i 1 1- 4. Xi I 9 36 N _ 36 _ 117700 . 7800 �. I + __-35_ _ - - r i .34 4C. .75 AC. 4C �i 10 _ _35 �_ _ _ _ _ - EASE 1 :J P. 11 _ 11 cr96n02498 I 1 I 34 1 1 -� W A S 12 + 33 12 .12 AC '411 12 33 4 : IL T 1 -w -4 < 4 F- n 13 32 8700 8600 .N ; I3 28 32 > ° I: N 14 3+0 31 ./z AC. 2-9 .23 AC. - 7600 3 I -1 1- I, N 15 + 30 j ` .34 AC. _ 30 } 1s t 8800 _ -I 1— 1 .IZAC. -.I 29 16 I1 N ' ' I.. EaSt` 97.5545 `� 29 tt »»>i*�»i i - -4 F- 9101 ' 0 9108 10003 ►o0 03 1 17 a 28 7100 .4 .3740. .454C. 9800 `9700 18 27 1' / 00 19'T T T T ♦ T T T 4/dC I 14/QC 1 1 r 1 1 1 I I + 7 Z IJI 1 ►. .'/ n1 I 1 I 19 20 21 23 24 25 2 6 ^ 1 9 9 610, -a- U 2 4 �` 19 20 21 22 123 24 25 26 ,«_: - 2 ; vi 1 -1 3 1 11 l 1 ffi 19' 25' 2'S' 2'S' 12'S'12S'125126 60 I ■ so' r 6_L2Q_115125 I T8 j j.25' .253 30f. ad 1..25‘..L.25‘.1 09600 1 I n __ __ 11 ,__ __ \ July 20, 1998 City of Tigard Applicant/Owner: J.T. Roth, Jr. 13125 SW Hall Theresa A. Roth Tigard, Or. 97223 Michael S. Zoucha Attn: Planning Dept. 12600 SW 72nd# 200 Tigard, Or. 97223 RE: Pre-app. meeting 12755 SW 69th NARRATIVE: It is our desire to construct a commercial office building on property located at 12755 S.W. 69th Ave. in Tigard (Triangle). The property is immediately north of Hampton and fronts the west side of S.W. 69th. The purpose for this preliminary review is to discuss general questions relating to the development of the site and it's improvements. I am listing below those questions that have immediately surfaced in these early stages of design and would appreciate your review of these questions for discussion during our pre-application meeting. 1. What are the current plans for S.W. 70th Ave. 2. The site access is off an existing approach(easement) and is being shared with the property to the immediate south. Since S.W. 70th is un-improved and access is not available, I assume the single approach adequate? 3. What is the current condition of utilities along S.W. 70th? Do they exist and where? What will the 69th street utility requirements be and please provide information regarding the existing 69th street utilities, size, depth and location. 4. A new street light has been installed on 69th, on the opposite (east) side. Will the development of this site require any additional street lights? What are the current street lighting conditions for the project under construction immediately to the north? 5. The project to the south was not required to construct a water treatment facilities on site. What is the criteria or conditions of a site that might suggest it would not require the treatment facility? Tim Rot '.. 500 d id, I _ •40' 29• ' . a ':�1 o' I.30 Ac. �LJ 19 20 21 22 w y. x•'1 ■ = 111,11_011.t 1<d – — — — (S.W. GO, — — . g VACATED VACATED VACATED Q N-44446 ^r T T to E.6'T15 116 I n'Ttg'T t6'TteT 26' 26''Tt5'T26'T26' 25,T 16' t6Tt6'T 11�' 1!6 t6 !6 1700 2600 1900 1800 700 I • 38 A 15 AC. .91 AC. 1 2 3 4 • . I A2. .ao AC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Z r A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 w � J. 1 › OC 1600 1 - 100 S.W. •. 2000 36 ' �} ./t AC. NZ,AGA ' 2800 + .23 35 foo EE .aeAC. 35 34 —' 1500 II + 34 L ^ II .12 AC. 33 +— + 12 ( ••,9741 33 * 1 .2900 + 32 2100 6 2 '32 1400 a 31 _., .ISAc 14 + 31 21200 15 (CS Ltd' 16 15 + � 16 � � 16 29 100 17 + 28 17 2200 �54AC. 18 27 18 100' i T T -1 _ I 2500 2400 0 i2 i4C'. 34 a 19 21 t B 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 U 19 2p 21 22 23 24 25 26 • (C.S. 12,174) (n 4010/ o J-I HAMPTON ° 's S.W. • T 7 Tgi T T T T T 1 r T T Tlobt/166 T T 1 } r 3300 r 1062/165 .47 AC = 7 8 1 I 320o a s s 7 e � �p 1 2 A3100 3 4 5 6 2.I/AC. I •o' o t.��Ac. I 1 y l .l- -� �- J. y 1 y + y J- y -. J. 9 J. + 9 36 1 36 t i 1- I(1 0 � 9 + � � 10 35 .� F 0 10 4- 35 -1 - II + 3a - II 1-1 11 34 -1 1- t 33 -1� I; a 12 + 33 -1 1- 12 + 32 « Q- I, (.0 13 �,p -{Q 13 32 0 ,� ,' 410 r 14 (CS 3 25) 31 F 34( � 14 + .t.1r Lt1 +(CS.17 1156) --I < v 15 30 .I - �j 15 (c.s. 11,135) �O -I I- + 29 t{C.S. 19�9 7) 16 + -1 1- I 17 — + 28 17 28 1 r 18 + 27 .{� /� T 8 T -} T 27 'r '�l h 'r •� .� RT T T T 4 T T T \ 1 fI \ I I 23 24 25 I!1 41 1 - s 425 2G 7 0.I 1c) 20 21 22 <: � ••=`Y � • _ p Aso MICE t $ : H �� �• X60 Are tilbriiiiill 11804" • s —I-- ' :i 16 0 t 4" o. _____\ . T N.... . .■ b 1 fO 4 - OCB . : CB Cr►H o __1_3p° a a 0 C PARK 1 N G FH \ CK- _ CB PAVEC 4* 12; I rs) —x�x c6 T a il� � 1_ L4„ � N gel. I .. il it al I Adip 411 MI om la I 1 CB 1 -,b i al. 25s 11 0111M lik.Ai.._. 6B I �- MHC CB H - /7.0 N On D44.14/1k- **N �� MHO CB a STREET x 2{46.9 GCB----- ,.. , ) .. ., ts io:?-.-- .4.4,-..5P9.4-1740 .0,1: Airy itv 2-z ' ., * pat i i oCB . 3t�∎1 f7.• re OCB X 242.8 P• C: 1M (M ) IMP �i• A 1 pi lIlY OFTIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTESD , Community Development (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six(6]Months] Shaping A Common ty NON-RESIDENTIAL PRE-APP.MTG.DATE: 1.71 �7 STAFF AT PRE-APP.: 7"oZg '9 3 APPLICANT: TA"t v j J'r� �j rsc fo1 �i'U4c AGENT: Zac,CA1 Phone:[ I Phone: [ l PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GEN.LOCATION: Ja 7.C.S Sw ,6 .9f/< TAX MAPS)/LOT#(SJ: S/ / AD` �.qoo NECESSARY APPLICATION[SI: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: ronsf ry ci- 4 /8 9° - _c we ,Co ofPc.c COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: /1 v6 CJ.T.AREA: FACILITATOR: PHONE: [5031 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 0 sq. ft. Average lot width: 50 ft. Maximum building height: 95 ft. Setbacks: Front 15 ft. Side ,,e5 ft. Rear fo ft. Corner , ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 85 % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: /5 %. ,if [Refer to Code Section 18. 6x.o5 l . Poor-,- (MR) is .yo ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15- foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 21t TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. [Refer to Code Section 18.164060-Lots) CRY OF T1GAND Pre-Appllcatlon Conference Notes Page 1 of 10 MOM-IssldsWalAOOIIcatlou/PIauslas 1MsIoi Section Plea e... GROUTING & REQUEST) RiRead To: MR GB✓ Handle ( Approve N1S ✓ }��-1'o�;�Z And... NS Forward vDS/ �` I f Return Keep or Recycle GD I I Review with Me From: Mil A ( Post-it®7664©3M 1995 ) Date: 7- 2s• 9 g CIAL SETBA STREETS: 30 feet from the centerline of 704 • ESTABLISHED AREAS: feet from • LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. (Refer to Code Section and 18.96] CIAL BW WN .HEIGHT PBHVISIONS BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: > A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; > All actual building setbacks will be at least half ( ) of the building's height; and > The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. (Refer to Code Section 18.98.020] ARKING AND ACCESS Qd+Rg� parking for this type of use: f S ct per 3507g orG/'c.s wcq (53) Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): Sly ,. 57 SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 40% of required spaces may be designated and/or dimensioned as compact spaces. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 8 inches x 18 feet. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 feet x 15 feet. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020] Handicapped Parking: > All parking areas shall PROVIDE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED AND DIMENSIONED DISABLED PERSON PARKING spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. BICYCLE RACKS ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: l Minimum access width: 301 Minimum pavement width: ayl All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: Iv f� (Refer to Code Section 18.10 and 18.1081 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 If 11 HIM-lesldsitlal AsplIcatlsu/Plsulig BMsles Ssctle■ _WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS WAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. (Refer to Code Section 18.108.050) (LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS) FACIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070-090) C NAR requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE AND EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.102) ERINC AND SCREENING In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) The REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: °Z o` o") 94y57a/4 feet a�ng orthDou dary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: 1.1 D CAPIN EET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18.100,18.106 and 18.1081 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 0110 Nft4ssllootla14011caUn/PluUol Division SocUoo NS 9 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. [Refer to Code Section 18.1141 SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NASAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT;FOR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands-aas at the pre- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER he responsibility to precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their boundaries, is the-responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must_be-clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.84 alsvides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands area SIDENrIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. [Refer to Code Section 18.841 STEEP SLOPES When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report m4--be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.84.040.B. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigatiet and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of 18,84.040.B.2 and 18.84.040.B.3. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY[USA)BUFFER STANDARDS,R&0 96-44 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25-FEET-WIDE, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portiory6 the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25 percent of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any cas-, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the V-•etate Corridor: NO structures, •- elopment, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of an aterials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the wa - quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: > A 'AVEL WALKWAY OR BIKE PATH, NOT EXCEEDING 8 FEET IN WIDTH. If the walkway •- 'Ike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 et 11 NONIs idonUsl Ilpplicatlnn/►ia•pin0 Division Section > WATER QUALITY F. CITIES may encroach into the vege, J corridor a maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the Agency or City. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. (Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regulations-Chapter 3,Design for SWMI TER RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT e IT RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT implements the policies of the Tigard' Comprehensive Plan and is intended to resolve conflicts between development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian corridors identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory. Specifically, this chapter allows reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards to: protect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; maintain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; minimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats; and conserve scenic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: The WR OVERLAY DISTRICT ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) and the "safe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These provisions require that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be mapped and protected. The Tualatin River, which is also a "fish-bearing stream," has an average annual flow of more than 1000 cfs. Major Streams: Streams which are mapped as "FISH-BEARING REAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annual flow less than 1001 ubic feet per second (cfs). > Major streams in Tigard include • 'NNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTAR CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. Minor Streams: Streams which are NOT "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor streams in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry Dell Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback Area: This AREA IS MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVE OP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is greater. Th riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). > The standard TUALATIN RIVER RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 75 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. • The MAJOR STREAMS RIPARIAN SETBACK IS 50 FEET, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. > ISOLATED WETLANDS AND MINOR STREAMS (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. (Refer to Code Section 18.85.0101 CITY OFTIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 0110 NON-Issldsatlil IAOrrestloUPloeal g Division Section Riparian Setback Reductions The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER R ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the place nt of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equ r better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the plicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time is regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Stud required by Section 18.85.050.0 that demonstrates all of the following: > Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; > The tree canopy currently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been remo d from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five years; > That vegetation w of removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.85.050 regulating removal of native plant species; > That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and > The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. [Refer to Code Section 18.85.100] CUES REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREME`NT,S ' A TREE PAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: > Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; > Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the following standards: b Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; b Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; b Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; b Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; > Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and > A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070.D. (Refer to Code Section 18.150.025] CRY OF MAIM Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 11 111111-Is:Idsotlai pplIcatla/PIaiuIui DMsleu SecUeu MITIGATION f REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: > A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. > If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: • The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. • The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. (Refer to Code Section 18.150.070(Dl RA The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. (Refer to Code Section 18.32) ✓v/u6 CODE SECTIONS /7-c/i ri42)ic 5 �� _ 18.80 _ 18.92 18.102 f 18.116 ! 18.150 — 18.84 18.96 18.106 -/-18.120 _ 18.160 18.85 18.98 '18.108 _ 18.130 18.162 _ 18.88 / 18.100 /18.114 _ 18.134 ✓ 18.164 PA TUB As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.32,Section.050) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 1D NON-IssidsnUal&pellcsUsn/►IIadni Olvtsloo Section WHEN A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRES 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. [Refer to Code Chapter 18.32,Section.2501 NEIGHBORHOOD IINB HE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 250 FEET AND THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION --�� PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICAT with the City of Tigard, applicant's are required to complete and file a subdiivvi ' naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order --ebta' approvaUreservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not ecep et d as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval fro , ounty of the Subdivision Name Reservation. ________,fC6anty Surveyor's Office: 503-648-8884) UILDIN6 PERMI S FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED.) ECYCUN Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY with Pride Disposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. [Refer to Code Section 18.1161 CITY OF T1GARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 el le NON-Insidentlil AJOIIcatIoo/PlIooloo Division Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMME�. . / r/ RA L41 ray /ro.ose_ U cecds f h ream'm v 1'I,- 4 trA fixii‘o (F ) f"� A\vF Or inCiCtis - - a aL r- • r/'• • - 4 - i f: 144 t> ,- 5, U' ��C ' CkS/'.I . .A fGe_1 01 Q1► vj 1.4 r•- i4,1 �, �o y, �Z �, J � `, /^ /tit- eO•J' t e. t,i e J i ti �-T - r / 7 � - sc. / Z/1Ylrtor- +mss, 2/J - U L tlr w • e' .[ Of- • a - d �v1• - PROCEDURE I.,/ Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 8W' x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard P(41 . ('Q„lmiss?v-N . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Panning Division upon request. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9'Ha MOM-Aosldtptlsl Application/Planning Division Sullen PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It Is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP.MEETING PHONE: (503)639-4171 FAX: [5031684-1291 E-MAIL name ©ci1Igard.or.us It:UoIla &MAN asten4napp-c.st IEaelaeerlap Seetlep:sastera'pnapp-c.eapl Updated: 25-Yay-911 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 10 01 10 111111-Ilesldeotlal Application/Pluming DMsloa Sectlou CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: burr. Date: 7-a8-4$ APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE J MARKED ITEMS 1 A) Application form (1 copy) t>� 8) Owner's signature/written authorization 121.-- C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed a' 0) Applicant's statement No. of Co ies l`S E) Filing Fee < se I SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE /MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies a 1. Vicinity map C" 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) a' 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ (c) Unstable ground ❑ (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: ❑ (a) Wildlife habitats ❑ (b) Wetlands ❑ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level ❑ 8. Location of existing structures and their uses e' 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources sr- 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways e' LAND USE APPLICATION 1 LIST PAGE 1 OF 3 B) Site Development .an Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties d' 2. Contour line intervals V 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site ❑ (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site (b) Parking and circulation areas (c) Loading and services area t� (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation a� (e) Outdoor common areas Et (f) Above ground utilities at:/ 5. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site t3' (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ram 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions e' 7. Sanitary sewer facilities 8. The location areas to be landscaped e� 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques t" 10. The location of mailboxes R• 11 . The location of all structures and their orientation c� 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1 . The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines cs' (b) Slope ratios cat' (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) e� (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report ❑ (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals ❑ (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PAGE 2 OF 5 D) Architectural Dra Indicating: No. of Copies ($ The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure 'a M�-i•r�41s l�s�-f� ,cow 41,1"e . duc, , E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies f$ The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces I2' 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials o- 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions e' (b) Erosion control measures that will be used of F) Sign Drawings: ❑ Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: tf/ H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Map Indicating: No. of Copies 1 . The owner of the subject parcel ❑ 2. The owner's authorized agent ❑ 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet-1) inch north . ow and date ❑ 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ 5. Location, width and names of streets, easem- s and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑ 6. Location of all permanent buildin: in and within 25 feet of all property lines ❑ 7. Location and width of all -ater courses ❑ 8. Location of any trees •Ithin 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level ❑ 9. All slopes grea •r than 25% ❑ 10. Location of : isting utilities and utility easements ❑ 11 . For major and partition which creates a public street: (a) T,We proposed right-of-way location and width ❑ (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ❑ 12. A applicable deed restrictions ❑ 13. vidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION I LIST PACE 3 OF 3 I) Subdivision Prelin ry Plat Map and Data Indicating: No. of Copies 1. Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet 0 2. The proposed name of the subdivision a 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, develop' r, engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application a 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded ow -rs of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmar at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% o 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the foil.wing (within and. adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and ease' ents ❑ (b) Public and private sanitary and storm s: er lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mains including fire drants a (d) Major power telephone transmission ines (50,000 volts or greater) 0 (e) Watercourses 0 (f) Deed reservations for parks, ope spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ° 10. Approximate plan and profiles of p •posed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indica -d on the plans ❑ 11 . Plan of the proposed water distr'•ution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire ydrants o 12. Approximate centerline prof es showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions or a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivisio ° 13. Scaled cross sections o proposed street right-of-way(s) ❑ 14. The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow a 15. Location, width & • rection of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways a 16. The proposed lot 'onfigurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. W ere lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it s' all be indicated upon such lots. ❑ 17. The location •f all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet abo - ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings ❑ 18. The exis • g uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are t• remain after platting ° 19. Su%plemental information including: Proposed deed restrictions (if any) ° (b) Proof of property ownership 0 (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ 4. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas ❑ 1 . 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 t.AND USE APPLICATION J LIST PAGE 4 OF 5 D So/ar Access Calculations:K) Other Information G /> 0 ,t' S�`d No' of Copies es 1 cp je - 401P7 AND USE APPUGT1pN Lis?' h Uog`^: nytm� ��d,st�t av 23, 1995 PACE S OF 5 k ¢ r{fit ;.. s Fri � �� p3 f '•`t,3 ," ,. x.4 y x .4....,,, -, £ i ,,,„ ' t .''W' :4� W F '' i $a :" : a 4iLiL11hti i.1 � � � ti' V. r ' ° o ' , t a City of Tigard,Oregon g . I , " ' i ",, i ' i Community Development iiiiiiiiiiik _ __._. _. ,„ .. _, -a _ _ .._ iapingA Better Community 2> \ Cup AD PUBLIC FACILITIES 4 2 cc The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: I26c4 (1.) Identify applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions. (2.) To provide City staff an opportunity to comment on specific concerns. (3.) To review the Land Use Application review process with the applicant and to identify who the final decision making authority shall be for the application. The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ( )_ _ to feet from centerline. ( ) to feet from centerline. ( ) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: (-) street improvements will be necessary along Coal` A ( ) street improvements will be necessary along . ( Street improvements on shall include 1 feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a f -foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector 5,tx streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. ( ) Street improvements on shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of curb and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 5 Engineering Department Section utility wires (a fee r be collected if determined approp by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide side..dlk (sidewalks may be required to IN, .rider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs and traffic control devices, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. ( 1/ Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW C9`14-L` AEG . Prior to o , the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: (1.) s\f,J 1p °"s- (2.) P:destrianwa s-=,r,t:wa s: N Sanitary Sewers: �,s�^' 2.s1 The near st anitary sewe lin o this property is a(n) S inch line which is located in cv■! (/(VA ( A�b� - OFC) . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to wvr .-C P.b A4--c-o t (a" 'pa ^io 4-4 a,,Q- Cr.b A5-gNu-r MI uC) . - 0::/ �,-k kioftNR c.,kie IF Water Supply: *Oft I The N p - Water B s 1 r'ct-- Phone:(503) 4 " - ' provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. CITY SF if6ABD Pro-AppCcadsa Conference Notes Page 2 of 5 Fill�adq!s Ntlislt SKIM • Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Bircnill, (503) 526-2469) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. A downstream analysis will also likely be necessary to determine if runoff from the proposed development will cause adverse impacts to the existing storm system downstream of the site. • f)v.+4 A.■-■b 51012 DA-44-1 t-1004-,G P v+, P tai✓ t� F4 (la(P&l-- vv rt-t APiPLA(w 1• Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. STORM WATER QUALITY The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as amended by R&O 91-75) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ( vK Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ( ) Payment of the fee in-lieu. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 5 Engineering Department Section TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. PA PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. The cost of this type of permit is calculated as 4% of the cost of the work and is payable prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. Compliance Agreement (CAP). This permit covers more extensive work such as main utility line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The cost of this permit is also calculated as 4% of the cost of the improvements, based on the design engineer's estimate, and is payable prior to issuance of the approved plan. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required,the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171 , ext. 304. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 5 Engineering Department Section Site Improvement .mit (SIT). This permit is genera , issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: - /'2&( ENGINEERING DEPARTM Par- NT STAFF Phone: (5031639-4171 Fax: [5031684-7297 h\patty\masters\preapp.eng (Master section.preapp-r.mst) 18-Nov-97 CITY OFTIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 5 Engineering Department Section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT '"*►���,Ij. APPLICATION CHECKLIST -W CITY OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these Items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: 3u/ . Date: 7-RN-1 f(APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE J MARKED ITEMS If A) Application form (1 copy) tn� B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed er- D) Applicant's statement No. of Coles t`8 E) Filing Fee $ fc 1-c< silica( [SITE-SPECIFIC MAPS)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE /MARKED ITEMS I A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies /8' 1. Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions „up, 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 1� 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: (r (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ (c) Unstable ground ❑ (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ (1) Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: ❑ (a) Wildlife habitats ❑ (b) Wetlands ❑ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level ❑ 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources E 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 1 1. Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways LAND USE APPLICATION.UST PAGE 1 or 5 B) Site Development Man Indicating: No. of Copies 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties 2. Contour line intervals pi 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties L K' (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site ❑ (c) Alternative routes of dead end or proposed streets that require future extension . if 4. The location and dimension of: (a) Entrances and exits on the site (b) Parking and circulation areas (c) Loading and services area (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ] (e) Outdoor common areas 0/-19' • (f) Above ground utilities okL� S. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site kir (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site -- 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions B� . 7. Sanitary sewer facilities ar. 8. The location areas to be landscaped :,e{ 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques .rte 10. The location of mailboxes al-- 11 . The location of all structures and their orientation o� 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies I The site development plan shall include a grading plan at the same scale as the site analysis drawings and shall contain the following information: 1 . The location and extent to which grading will take place indicating: (a) General contour lines ! ' (b) Slope ratios -ems (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development —tom 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report ❑ (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals ❑ (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PAGE 2 OF 5 D) Architectural Dr ngs Indicating: No. of Copies ($ - The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure - /t'f4!-err'q(/ tes1.-f b s�..C0744„44. %AAA dts ,ihej.,415 ✓ E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies f g The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1. Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings 51-*". 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces. a' 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials -ta- 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions e' (b) Erosion control measures that will be used -rY F) Sign Drawings: 0 Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G) Traffic Generation Estimate: t� H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Map Indicating: No. of Copies 1 . The owner of the subject parcel 0 2. The owner's authorized agent 0 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet- 1) inch north . ow and date ❑ 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ 5. Location, width and names of streets, easem s and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑ 6. Location of all permanent buildin n and within 25 feet of all property lines ❑ 7. Location and width of all ater courses 0 8. Location of any trees ithin 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level 9. All slopes grea r than 25% ❑ 10. Location of fisting utilities and utility easements 0 11. For major and partition which creates a public street: (a) T e proposed right-of-way location and width ❑ (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip 0 12. A applicable deed restrictions 0 13. vidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable El LAND USE APPLICATION/UST PACE 3 OE i I) Subdivision Prelii iry Plat Map and Data Indicating. No. of Copies 1. Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet ❑ 2. The proposed name of the subdivision ❑ 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, develop-r, engineer, surveyer and designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6. Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded ow -rs of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmar at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% ❑ 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the foll.wing (within and. adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and ease, ents ❑ (b) Public and private sanitary and storm s: er lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mains including fire drants ❑ (d) Major power telephone transmission ines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations for parks, ope spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles of p posed sanitary and storm sewers • with grades and pipe sizes indica d on the plans ❑ 11 . Plan of the proposed water distr. ution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire ydrants ❑ 12. Approximate centerline prof' es showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions or a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivisio ❑ 13. Scaled cross sections o proposed street right-of-way(s) ❑ • 14. The location of all ar as subject to inundation or storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & . rection of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot 'onfigurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. W ere lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it s, all be indicated upon such lots. ❑ 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet abo - ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings ❑ 18. The exis ' ig uses of the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are tg remain after platting ❑ 19. Su,,plemental information including: Proposed deed restrictions (if any) ❑ (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements - ❑ 1. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands & marsh areas ❑ 1 . 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 ❑ IANO USE APPLICATION J UST PAGE 4 OF 5 J) Solar Access Calculations: ❑ K) Other Information No. of Copies /Se Po css'asi/c. y F r —con c. ,• . h:Voginkpatty4masten11tidist.mst May 23.1995 LAND USE APPLICATION./LIST PACE 5 OF 5 Pre-Apps (CD Meetings 3 Jul 1998 S M T W T F S • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 :;..::::.::»:.: :.;:... 26 27 28 29 30 31 Tuesday, July 28, 1998 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 82,2450 .; > 10:00 :::>::::>::»::::>::::>::>::>::::>:::<:::>::::::<:>:::::<:::>::::>::::>::::>::; <.>::::>:::>::::>::::>::::>::::>::::>::::>::>::::>::::> 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 2:30PM Monday,July 20, 1998 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS 4 COMPASS STORMWATER QUALITY 44\;`�' CORPORATION TAX LOT 2900 This report is submitted as a request for a partial exception to the requirement for the construction of a water quality facility for the development of Tax Lot 2900. The Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) requires that: A water quality facility shall be constructed unless, in the judgement of the Agency or City, any of the following conditions exists: 1. The site topography or soils makes it impractical, or ineffective to construct an on-site facility. 2. The site is small compared to the development plan, and the loss of area for the on-site facility would preclude the effective development. 3. There is a more effective regional site within the sub-basin that was designed to t incorporate the development or is near vicinity with the capacity to treat the site. 4. The development is for the construction of one or two family (duplex) dwellings on existing lots of records. A preliminary site investigation by Carlson Testing, Inc. indicates that the soils are not i conducive to retention storm water disposal. This precludes the opportunity for infiltration. Recent development has occurred Tax Lot 3000 without water quality improvements. Tax Lot 2800 has no storm drainage or water quality improvements and is under reconstruction. The combined areas of these tracts is more or less equal to Tax Lot 2900. Total site (#2900) 38,325 sq. ft. Landscape 7,665 sq. ft. Impervious area 30,660 sq. ft. Treatment volume required (30,660 sq. ft.)(.36 in/12 in/ft.) = 919 cubic ft. The site layout, existing joint access easements and existing property shape precludes an opportunity to accommodate this facility. Area available for dry pond 3 feet wide x 40 feet x 1 foot = 250 cubic feet. This is approximately 27% of the requirement amount: Approximately 15% Trapped catch basin Total 42% The land required for water quality facilities to meet the 65% phosphorus removal standards is not available that would allow development of the proposed building and associated parking. As a result, I recommend a partial fee-in-lieu for this development. • Prepared by Bruce D. Goldson, P.E. Compass Engineering N:\CLER\FINAL\W orking\09-98\4236Sept.14.doc 4 COMPASS IMPACT STUDY •.; • JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 '48 16:41 P. 01/09 94W/el 6444,41ey qv/ (2,2z-eis Sax memo From: Tim Roth To: Julia Hajduk J.T. Roth Construction, Inc. Company: City of Tigard 12600 SW 7rd suite 200 Phone#: 639-4171 Tigard, Or. 97223 Fax#: 684-7297 . CCB #31700 503/639-2639 Date: Dec. 18 19 98 . 503/624-0239 fax Total pages(including cover) . RE: 12755 S.W. 691 SDR 98-0016 - Conditions of approval article#4 Please find enclosed a copy of the recorded easement for the access to the property. With your approval of this document please signed off on this condition and send me notice. • =,.3- telly al J. 'o . • JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 '4S 16:41 P.02/09 SATE OF OREGON County of Washington SS le s: I,Jerry tg� ry n: ri� dtAr of Assess- ment and i_ *e County t Clerk for ,4 :,:w7,11._•er�• i rtify that RECEIVED the wit , i,_ r „ , t o 1:)Yr E«/EC 8 rteceived and re••rdeq `�1 � cor47s'of said ��V county.;, * Vii`S_ ,x' ` t ': _t - s �� yr y;. R° ,o erector of `�ogriiii taxation,Ex- , PA111117 Clerk Doc : 98073755 Rect: 212216 46. 01 07/08/1998 10: 35: 24am I ...-- ? JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 'Q8 16:42 P.03/09 8625 SW Cascade enue Beaverton OR 970■ t© RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY PURPOSES DATE: JUNE 25j 1998 PARTIES: KF LLC, as Owner and in possession of Parcel A, described in Exhibit 'A" and "B', attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and J.T. Roth, Jr., Theresa A. Roth and Michael Zoucha, as Owner and in possession of Parcel B as described in Exhibit "A and "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. W Lai RECITALS: The parties to this agreement intend to create permanent, mutual, reciprocal easements o and a mutual right-of-way for use by them as a private roadway and private utility right-of-way. 1,_ Such easements shall be appurtenant to and shall benefit all of the property described in ,.. Exhibits "A" and B .J 0 o The parties therefore agree as follows: 3 AGREEMENTS:et CC °a SECTION 1. GRANT OF EASEMENTS: ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.1 The parties hereby grant and convey to each other permanent, mutual reciprocal rights- of-way on, over, across and along the real property described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Such easements shall form a continuous right-of-way as described in Exhibits 'A" and B' KF LLC hereby specifically grants to J.T. Roth, Jr., Theresa A. Roth and Michael Zoucha such easement rights respecting the property described in Exhibit "A" and "B", which shall be appurtenant to and benefit Parcel B. J.T. Roth Jr., Theresa Roth and Michael Zoucha reciprocally grants to KF LLC such easement rights respecting the property described in Exhibit 'A' and "B', which shall be appurtenant to and benefit Parcel A. 1.2 Such easements and right-of-way may be used for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress purposes by the parties to this agreement. Neither party shall have the right to park, load or unload any vehicle in the right-of-way, other than under emergency conditions. Use of the right-of-way shall be on a regular, continuous, nonexclusive, nonpriority basis, benefiting the parties, their successors, assigns, lessees, mortgagees, invitees, guests, customers, agents and employees. However, neither party's rights hereunder shall lapse in the event of that party's failure to use the easement and right-of-way on a continuous basis. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE EASEMENT AREA The right-of-way formed by the easements granted under this agreement shall be improved into an easement area in accordance with the following standards and procedures: 2.1 Each property owner of parcel A and B (Parties) will be financially responsible for the entire improvements and construction corresponding to their side of the easement. Work that has been completed prior to the signing of this agreement, such as the concrete apron approach will not be charged to either parties A or B. The construction standards carried out will meet all of the requirements of the City of Tigard or respective jurisdiction. Improvements considered within the easement areas shall also include the necessary street improvements • 2 JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 'q8 16:42 P.04/09 prior to the entrance driveway, the driveway improvement, parking lot paving, striping and any directional signage painted on the asphalt surface, as required by the local jurisdiction. 2.2 Each property owner will agree to coordinate paving levels and standards of construction per the City of Tigard. Plans for improvement must have City of Tigards approval prior to beginning any work. Storm drainage runoff will be separated along the original property line of Parcel A and Parcel B_ SECTION 3. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR; TAXES AND INSURANCE 3.1 The cost of periodic maintenance and necessary repairs to the easement area shall be borne exclusively by the Owners of Parcel A and Parcel B as to the easement area described in attached Exhibit "A' and B . Such maintenance and repairs shall be performed by an agreed upon Contractor that will perform the work as agreed upon by the owners of Parcel A and Parcel B. The cost for periodic maintenance with in the easement will be divided according to the following: 45% of the cost will be the responsibility of Parcel A and 55% of the cost will be the responsibility of Parcel B. 3.2 If a party fails to pay for any such necessary maintenance and repairs as required, the other party, upon 30 days' prior written notice to the nonperforming party, may cause such work to be done with a right of reimbursement for all sums necessary. if the nonperforming party fails to pay such reimbursement on demand, then the party that pays for the maintenance work shall have the immediate right to record a lien against the nonpaying or nonperforming party's property benefited by this agreement. The parties agree that such lien shall be treated as a construction lien pursuant to ORS Chapter 87, subject to foreclosure and priority as set forth in the construction lien statutes. 3.3 Each party shall pay when due all real property taxes, assessments or other charges against the land to which each party holds fee title and which is part of the private easement. There shall be no right of contribution from the other party for such items. 3.4 Each party shall, upon execution of the construction contract described in Paragraph 2.1, provide evidence to the other party that public liability insurance with minimum combined limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 is in force at all times relating to all activities, conditions, operations and usages on or about that portion of the private roadway which is respectively owned in fee title by each of the parties. Each party hereby indemnifies and holds harmless the other party from any liability arising out of the usage of that portion of the private roadway owned in fee title by the indemnifying party. SECTION 4. ENGINEERING SURVEY COSTS All costs of engineering, surveying and other professional or consultant's fees associated with the construction (See Section 2) of the private easement area shall be borne by the property owner developing their side of the easement All contracts for development shall be separately entered into by each property owner and each party shall be separately responsible for payment of that party's portion of the fees charged in connection with such work or services. 3 7T POTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 'p8 16:43 P.05/09 SECTION 5. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 5.1 All necessary underground utilities such as, necessary for installing, repairing or maintaining water, gas, sewer, storm drainage, electrical or telephone lines shall be placed entirely on Parcel A or Parcel B side of the property line for the services to that property. Major utility lines that encroach into the adjoining property easement will require adjoining property owner's written authorization. The cost of all such installation, repair and maintenance to utilities shall be borne by the party that is required to or is requesting to perform said improvements_ 5.2 No installation, repair or maintenance of any such line or facility shall curtail or unreasonably impede use of the private easement area for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. SECTION 6. CONDEMNATION; DEDICATION 6.1 In the event that the private easement area or any part thereof is taken by power of eminent domain, or is conveyed under threat of condemnation and such taking will render the private easement unusable for normal, regular, two-way vehicular ingress and egress this agreement shall terminate. If such taking does not render the private roadway so unusable, the obligations of a party whose portion of the roadway is taken shall be abated to the extent of such taking, but this agreement shall otherwise continue in full force and effect. Proceeds from such condemnation shall belong exclusively to the fee title owner of the property so taken. SECTION 7. BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS In the event either party shall fail to perform its obligations under this agreement, the other party shall be entitled to require such performance by suit for specific performance or where appropriate through injunctive relief. Such remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies afforded under Oregon law and those rights of cure and reimbursement specifically granted under this agreement. SECTION 8. ATTORNEY FEES In the event of any litigation arising under this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover from the losing party the prevailing party's reasonable attorney fees at trial or on appeal as adjudged by the trial or appellate court SECTION 9. EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT The easements granted hereunder shall run with the land as to all property burdened and benefited by such easements, including any division or partition of such property. The rights, covenants and obligations contained in this agreement shall bind, burden and benefit each party's successors and assigns, lessees, mortgagees (or beneficiaries under a deed of trust). . IT FOTH CONI.T Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 'q8 16:44 P.06/09 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this day of 19 _ KF LLC ioll* _ Name of Corporation Signatur- 6969 SW Hampton Street Stev- J. KolberggP.rtner Address / , .r Portland, OR 97223 i1 Signatu e Tim R. Froelich, Partner Title STATE OF OREGON ) ss County of he fore oin ns n.t was acknowledged before me this day of , 19� d by >C-�.,✓� �"7 7 Corporation and Ore n corporation on behalf oft he corporation. /iii 1�--�, ���.������ �i ..4,41,_„/ / / 0_��� OFFICIAL SEAL Lam+ GENEVIEVE Y ULBRICHT ` otary Public for Oregon - i1/4.7:,=,., : NOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON 1 `‘4,7;:f-4/ COMItrtISSION NO-x41716 ,l rlr tcwMaaO�E1P1AES tat.te.lnu My commission expires: —7,3-0- j 5 'ii %ilia%r/ifs�!//i//....w. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this 19 day of 4441_, 19_/).' g J.' J.T. Roth, Jr., Theresa A. Roth, Michael Zoucha Name of Corporation Si re 12600 SW 72^°Ave., #200 Address Tie . Tigard, OR 97223 Signature I� Cr!'� ! t Title J tl1 u —� S gnature Title STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 by- of Corporation and Oregon corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 '98 16:44 P. 07/09 STATE OF OREGON County of WASHINGTON }ss. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this 19 day of _ harm 19 98 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,personally appeared the within named J . I. ROTH. JR. THERESA A. ROTH AND MICHAEL ZOUCHA known to me to be the identical individual s___described in and who waited the within instrument and acknowledged to me that TREY executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set -hand aia affix., my o.tciat seal 1 d• •ndil ear last above written. ',. r v/ Aga iiir la aFF1pALSEAL rary Public for Oregon. '•; LINDA L MC GETI1c AN My ommission expires 2/ 8 • .` di C0111110310+)#11061109 ant o3 611.5 FEB.2B,z9o+ (09 JT POTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 19 'q8 16:45 P. 08/09 • "EXHIBIT A" REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT A tract of land for access easement purposes located in Block 31 of"West Portland Heights', a duly recorded subdivision in Book 1, Pages 55 and 56, Washington County plat records, located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, City of Portland, Washington County, Oregon. Said easement being 12 feet on both sides of the following described centerline: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 27, thence tracing the south line of said Lot 27 and continuing along the south line of Lot 18, North 87° 26'-54" West 105.00 feet to the terminus. Contains 2,520 square feet more or less. Bearings are based on CS 21,695, CS25,818 and the plat of"West Portland Heights". 7 Dec 19 ' JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 �8 16:45 P.09/09 - "EXHIBIT B" . �V 13 S I ' 1G� 1 I 14 -' �k � 32 - I I Q 31 t I 15 �' -'_ - Q + I r, � v13 30 16 �1, _ 1 (0 1 Cli [ _ BLOCK 31 29 I 1 1 Oi i 17 -�- _ I PARCEL B 28 t- _, 1e POINT OF - I I _ TERMINUS ,cv ;�-27 PO NT OF I I _I`� — —, -+:. _N87'2g 54 W N BE INNING I r I I I 11O5.Q0' j cv I PROPOSED JOINT _ 1 1 ACCESS EASMENT i 2520 S.F.± I I PARCEL A I � I 1_23__i________I 19 ( 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I ' 1 — --I—___.4_ — —I�a_ _1 24 25 I 2s ' L - 1� S.W. HAMPTON ST. _________ PROJECT EXHIBIT MAP SuiET -_:,, TITLZ JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT DAVID EVANS FOR PARCELS A & B AND ASSOCIATES. I N r' DVC. REr. PROJECT SCALE I 162* Bw, COasErr AVENUE OPDX0181 1" A�xDl�xr No. *orrc�+�ak o..nwi.A.w .row ua---- = 50� 0.0 DRAIN BT DESICN DT APPROVED SY DATE WXS LMC/WXS ? LMC X6_98 V JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Dec 29 '98 10:56 P.01/01 Jax memo From: Tim Roth To: Julia Haiduk J.T. Roth Construction, Inc. Company: City of Tigard 12600 S.W. 72'd suite 200 Phone#: 639-4171 . Tigard, Or. 97223 Fax#: 684-7297 CCB #31700 503/639-2639 Date: Dec. 29 19 98 . 503/624-0239 fax Total pages(including cover) 1 RE: 12755 S.W. 69th SDR 98-0016 - Conditions of Approval#9 In response to the memorandum received from Jim Hendryx on 12-28-98 I would like to propose the following calculations relating to the F.A.R. Total sq. ft. of lot 38,325 F.A.R. 40% Total building sq. ft. 15,330 Added sq. ft. for areas mot included in F.A.R. 14 floor -elevator shaft -elevator equip. room • -mech. room 132 2°d floor -elevator shaft -mech room NO Con ,'p4/14t,ivjc„l as Sim 041445 -rescue recover room 132 i�^ �r, �0. ✓��' �'it,Fr� Tni 7�'7 4� ^1 (attached to eleva_ shaft) 941 -open area above entry foyer 630 Adjusted total sq. ft. of building 16,224 Please let me know if this math appears to be correct so that we can dimension our building accordingly. Hopefully you can respond today, before you leave for vacation. Enjoy your time oil R' •�3r , / J. r. rnDI D Jan. 29, 1999 FEB 0 2 1999 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or. 97223 Attn: Mr. Brian Rager Engineering Department RE: 12755 SW 69`h SDR 98-0016 - Condition#11 In addressing the requirement to provide City with exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. J.T. Roth, Jr. (individual) 13779 SW Charleston Ln. Tigard, Or. 97224 503/590-0529 Rai° ,, i , n,„ Tg'tri E Gcnrircl FEB 0 2 1999 U Tire Service 101, 10116. PmJessinntil tree, slnnuh and ltrt►grtiWs since 1924 February 1, 1999 Tim Roth T. J. Roth Construction, Inc. 12600 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Review response for the city of Tigard in regard to the tree plan for the Triangle Terrace (SDR#98-0016) to be developed on a lot west of SW 691h in the 12500 block. At your request, I am responding to Tigard's requirements as indicated in their correspondence SDR # 98-0016. First, they pointed out that a 14" diameter tree was not included in the total of the inches to be mitigated. That was an over site on my part. The correct total of inched that are to be mitigated is to be 48 inches. The trees that are to be planted on site are as follows. 8—3" caliper Cleveland maples (Acer plaianoides 'Cleveland'). As these trees are 1 inch over the requirement for street trees, the extra inch per tree is to be applied to the mitigation plan totaling 8 inches. 10—2"caliper Chanticleer pears (Pyrus calleryana `Chanticleer'). 9 of these trees are to be planted to meet the requirement for 64 parking lot spaces. The 10th tree is to be used as part of the fulfillment of the mitigation plan. This will contribute 2 inches. 2— 1"caliper Kousa dogwoods (Comm kousa). Both these trees are to be applied toward the mitigation for a total of 2 more inches. 5 — 1" caliper Japanese maples (Acer palmation). All 5 trees are to be applied toward the mitigation plan. These trees add 5 inches to the total. 4—2"caliper Western red cedars(Thi ja plicata). These 4 trees will add 8 in� kio the-- lry. ! • total for the mitigation plan. _ {:,_i3 0 2 1999 PO Box 20.19 • Clackamas, Oregon 97015 • .503 • 6.5( • 26561.T.ROTH COMS1 RUCTION,11\!C The above mentioned trees add up to 59 inches. 25 inches of those 59 are to be applied to the required 48 inches that need to be mitigated. The remaining 23 inches are to be planted at 16676 SW 881h Pl., Tigard, OR. The ' breakdown to be 11- 2"caliper and 1 — 1"caliper Western red cedars (Thuja plicata). The above planting of 48 caliper inches should meet the requirement of mitigation for the Triangle Terrace development. Please call in additional information is needed at 656-2656 ext. 414. Sincerely, rtritAsjezt----- Terrence P. Flanagan Certified Arborist # PN-0120 Member—American Society of Consulting Arborists • VggM gWa LO D FEB 0 2 1999 Li Memo From: Tim Roth To: Julia Hajduk J.T. Roth Construction, Inc. Company: City of Tigard 12600 S.W. 72nd suite 200 Phone #: 639-4171 . Tigard, Or. 97223 Fax#: 684-7297 . CCB #31700 503/639-2639 Date: Feb. 1 19 99 . 503/624-0239 fax RE: 12755 S.W. 69th SDR 98-0016 "Floor Area Ratio" calculations for the above development project. Total sq. ft. of lot 38,325 F.A.R. 40% Total building sq. ft. 15,330 Added sq. ft. for areas mot included in F.A.R. 1s1 floor -elevator shaft -elevator equip. room -mech. room 154 (22x7) 2"d floor -elevator shaft -mech room -rescue recover room 105 (15x7) (attached to eleva. shaft) -open area above entry foyer 748 (22x34) 7 -mech. chase 30 (2x3x5) Adjusted total sq. ft. of building 16,367 Building size: 1st Floor -67x118 7906 2"d Floor -71x118 8378 Total sq. ft. of building 16,284 \G' ocy�c� C r'eb. 1, 1999 City of Tigard E 13125 SW Hall Blvd. D Tigard, Or. 97223 FEB 0 2 1999 Attn: Ms. Julia Hajduk RE: 12755 SW 69t SDR 98-0016 In response to the conditions of the above Site Development Review. 'Condition#1: revise site plan to show three (3) ADA accessible spaces. *Please note revised Site Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. *Please note revised Private Improve. Plan from Compass Corp., revision date 1-29-99 condition#2: revise parking lot plan to provide adequate room for a fire truck to maneuver into site far enough so that all exterior walls can be reached with a 150 foot fire hose. *Please note revised Site Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. *Please note revised Private Improve. Plan from Compass Corp., revision date 1-29-99 o i-Condition#3: submit a tree removal and mitigation plan. *Please note revised Landscaping Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. *Please note response letter from General Tree Service, dated Feb. 1, 1999. "Condition#4: Signed-off VCondition#5: revise site plan to show bicycle rack for five(5) bicycles. *Please note revised Site Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. *Please note revised Private Improve. Plan from Compass Corp., revision date 1-29-99 1/Condition#6: revise Landscape plan to show proposed parking lot screening shrubs providing balance of low-lying and vertical shrubbery. *Please note revised Landscaping Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. L-Condition#7: revise landscape plan to show street trees on 22 foot center. *Please note revised Landscaping Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. rjov44 y l 'ndition#8: this condition should be located after condition#18, under the title of"The following conditions shall be satisfied prior to the final building inspection being performed". //Condition#9: revise plan to show net floor area to satisfy 40% FAR requirements. *Please note revised Floor Plan from PDW, revision date 1-25-99. *See attached "Memo" dated Feb. 1, 1999 with FAR calculations. — 12600 S.W. 72nd Ave.,Suite 200,Tigard, Oregon 97223 503/639-2639 FAX 503/624-0239 CCB#0031700 — J.T. Roth Construction Inc. Condition#10: public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required. Five (5) sets of drawings shall be submitted to Engineering department for preliminary review. *Compass Corp. submitted to the Engineering Dept. of the City of Tigard five (5) sets of public improvement drawings on 12-17-98 for City Engineer review. Condition#11: Engineering Department requires exact legal name, address and phone number of corporate entity responsible for executing the compliance agreement. *Please note submitted memo from J.T. Roth addressing this condition, dated 1-29-99 Condition#12: applicant to provide construction vehicle access and parking plan. *Please note revised Private Improve. Plan from Compass Corp. dated 1-29-99. Condition#13: applicant shall perform 1/2 street improvements. *Off-site improvement plan has been submitted for prelim. approval. Condition#14: Non-remonstrate agreement signed by applicant for future 70th street improvements. *City of Tigard is to provide appropriate forms. Condition#15: applicant shall obtain permit from T.V. Water District for water connection. *The property is currently connected and serviced with a water meter on-site. Condition#16: applicant shall provide plans and calculations for water quality facility, in addition, applicant to submit proposed maintenance plan for same facility. *Please note revised Private Improve, Plan form Compass Corp., dated 1-29-99. *Please see attached letter from Compass Corp., dated 2-2-99 addressing maintenance plan. Condition#17: applicant shall pay a fee in-lieu of constructing a water quality facility. *The payment of a fee in-lieu of shall be made upon City providing the proper form and prior to the issuance of building permits. Condition#18: erosion control plan is required. *Please note revised private improve.plan from Compass Corp. dated 1-29-99. Please review the attached submittals as the revisions to our original application and notify me of any deficiencies or additional requirements. It is our intentions to be submitting drawings for the Site and Building permits soon and we would desire to know that we have satisfied the SDR condition requirements. At•0, 4. ' ,T Jr. __,,,,___„, } February 5, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON J.T. Roth 12600 SW 72nd Ave., Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Roth: This letter is to confirm receipt of your packet of information responding to conditions of approval for SDR 98-0016. I am the contact for the Planning Division related conditions (Conditions 1-9), however, you must submit an additional packet to Brian Rager in the Engineering Department for him to sign-off of the Engineering conditions. Unfortunately, I can not route your recent submittal to Engineering as each department requires copies for their files as well and the process for reviewing conditions may be slightly different. With that aside, this is to inform you that the planning related Conditions 1-7 and 9 have been signed-off. I agree that Condition #8 is better addressed prior to occupancy and, as such, is not required to be signed-off until that time. Condition #3 is accepted, however, please note that prior to occupancy permits, the City will require that you provide proof that the property owner has agreed to having trees planted on their property for mitigation purposes. In addition, you must either plant the trees or submit a bond for the planting of the off-site mitigation trees. Also, please be advised that because the trees to be planted at 16676 SW 88th Place are to meet mitigation requirements, a deed restriction will be required to insure that the trees are not removed unless they are deemed hazardous or dead. Again, this must be provided prior to Occupancy permits. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 639-4171 x407. Sincer-jy, 4-4 14 ,/' 14 l / Julia Powell Hajduk Associate Planner is\curpin\julia\sdr\roth condition response.doc c: SDR 98-0016 Land use file 1999 Planning correspondence file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 CITY CI: TIGARD D'EVELOPMENT SERVICES 'MPnPTAMT PFPMTT NOTIL -t: Plan L:11mck # aq- S J. ; . ROTH, JR. 12600 SW 72ND SUITE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 Parcel • 29101AD-02900 Site Address : 12755 SW 69TH AVE Subdivision. : WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS Block • Lot : 031 Jurisdiction: TIG Zoning : MUE Remarks: Site work for construction of parking lot, landscaping and water quality facility. • This letter is to confirm receipt of your Site Work or Building permit appli- cation which has been forwarded to the plans examiner today for review. As a reminder, the associate land use case (s) is/are: tXDR) C7a a,r, OC /‘1 . Please be aware you are responsible for satisfying the conditions of the land use case (s) and must submit plans directly to the appropriate staff person (s) indicated on your final order. Your building plans ARE NOT routed to the planning or engineering depart.P1p' You must satisfy the land use permit conditions independent of the bui .' permit plans review process. After the building plans review process has been completed, your site wort, building permit will NOT be issued without approval from the engineering planning departments. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me direct 639-4171 for further clarification. Sincerely, Development Services Technician c: B _' + ' . ■ De •a Plannin ' D ,artment Engineering Department •t CITY OF TIGARD March 19, 1999 OREGON Tim Roth JT Roth Construction, Inc. 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Tim: You requested clarification from the Director concerning acceptance of street improvement guarantees for Site Development Review (SDR) 98-0016 and SDR 98-0024. Please be advised that the Director considers the conditions fulfilled with the formation of the Local Improvement District (LID) for the public improvements involved in both developments. This compliments assurances and communication you have received from Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer. This letter, as well as Brian's will be appended to the project files. If you have any questions regarding the information in this letter, please feel free to contact me at 503-639-4171 x316. S--inc Richard H. Bewersdorff Planning Manager is\curpin\dick\letters\Roth Const St Improvement Ltr.doc c: SDR 98-0016 and SDR 98-0024 Land use files _ Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer Mark Roberts, Associate Planner Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 March 16, 1999 ilk Mr.Tim Roth J.T. Roth Construction,Inc. CITY OF TIGARD 12600 SW 72°d Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 OREGON VIA FAX: 624-0239 RE: SDR 98-0016,ROTH OFFICE BUILDING 12755 SW 69TH AVENUE Dear Tim: Below is a brief status of the conditions of approval that relate to public facilities. Condition Issue Status 10. Permit for public improvements Not met* 11. Permit for public improvements Not met* 12. Construction vehicle parking Met 13. Street improvements in 69th Avenue Not met* 14. Non-remonstrance for 70th Avenue Not met** 15.. Water permit from TVWD N/A(met) 16. Water quality facility design Met 17. Partial water quality fee Not met 18. Erosion control plan/public improvements Not met* 19—22 (all tied to final inspection) Not met. * Because the LID for SW 69th Avenue has been approved by City Council,I would consider these conditions to be met. In talking with Jim Hendryx,it sounds like he would need to make a Director's Interpretation to consider them complete. Jim will get a copy of this letter. ** The applicant is responsible for obtaining the proper form from the City Hall customer service counter. You will need to indicate that you either want a"corporate","partnership"or"individual"form. If you have questions about this letter,please let me know. Sincerely, anD. Rager,P Development Review Engineer C: Gus Duenas,City Engineer Jim Hendryx,Community Development Director \Vig333\usr\depts\cng\brianr correspondence loath-03161999-69th.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 • March 2, 1999 aff OF 11GARD Mr. Tim Roth JT Roth Construction, Inc. OREGON 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 98-0016, 12755 SW 69TH AVENUE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Dear Tim: I reviewed your letter to Gus Duenas, dated February 9, 1999, wherein you expressed concern about the public improvements associated with your proposed office building project. In the letter, it was stated that you have incurred approximately$ 2,000.00 in engineering costs for design of the half-street improvement on SW 69th Avenue adjacent to your site. The plans that were prepared by Compass Corporation were submitted to our office on December 18, 1998. On January 12, 1999, I contacted Bruce Goldson with Compass Corporation via fax indicating that we needed copies of letters or transmittals indicating Compass has sent the plans to the various utility companies for their review and comment. We did indicate that we would begin the plan review. However, on that same day, January 12, 1999, I later called Bruce Goldson and we discussed the pending LID on SW 69th Avenue and the fact that your site would likely be included. I expressed to Bruce that I was concerned about spending our time and money, as well as your time and money in a plan review if your site would be included in the LID. That same week, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss whether or not the City should continue to pursue the LID. I suggested to Bruce that we hold off on reviewing your plans until after the neighborhood meeting, hoping that we would have some indication as to whether or not there would be at least 50%of the affected property owners in support of the LID. My thinking was that if the affected properties supported the LID, there would be a very good chance that the LID would be supported by the City Council. Bruce agreed with my reasoning and said that he would let me know if you had any concerns about taking this course or action. Until I saw the letter, dated February 9, 1999, I did not know that you had the concerns you listed. As you are aware, there was general support for the LID from the affected property owners and the City has moved forward to recommend the formation of the LID to City Council. In talking with Gus today about the City Council meeting last night, it appears there is a reasonable chance the LID will be formed. Therefore, I am reluctant to review your plans, as it appears it would be wasted effort. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 Mr. Tim Roth March 2, 1999 Page 2 You asked if your project will be held up because of the LID. This is a valid question. My recommendation would be that we handle your situation in like fashion to what we have done with the Specht Development approval (SDR 98-0014), wherein we included the following as a condition related to final building inspection: "Prior to a final building inspection, the LID improvements shall be substantially complete. For reference, "substantial completion" means that all of the underground utilities are installed and tested, street lights are installed and ready to be energized, and the paving for the streets is completed. In the event the LID improvements are delayed beyond the contract completion date, this condition will not prevent the issuance of temporary occupancy permits, provided the applicant has submitted a temporary access plan that is acceptable to the City Engineer and as long as other public facilities are functioning to serve the buildings." We would essentially extend the same option to you, in the event the LID improvements are delayed as mentioned in the above condition. I hope this letter clarifies our actions with regard to the public improvements adjacent to your site. If you have any questions,please let me know. Sincerely, Brian D. Rager, PE Development Review Engineer C: Gus Duenas, City Engineer Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Bruce Goldson, Compass Corporation, VIA FAX: 653-9095 \\tig333\usr\depts\eng\brianr\correspondence\02241999-timroth-69thsdr.bdr.doc • cp RECD MAR 04 1999 G�`o� G;'�ch 1, 1999 ,�� City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or. 97223 Attn: Mr. Jim Hendryx RE: 69th Street LID/SDR 98-0016 / SDR 98-0024 Mr. Hendryx: My issues are being addressed to you as I understand you are the authority to respond to these as land-use issues. The prior correspondence (see attached dated Feb. 9, 1999) was addressed to the City Engineer, Mr. Gus Duenas, as the points are referred to in the SDR decision as engineering issues. First, regarding SDR 98-0016: A"Notice of Decision"was issued on Dec. 10, 1998 whereas I was conditioned to perform certain off-site improvements. These improvements were to be completed and approved prior to the issuance of a final building inspection. We have completed the off-site improvement drawings and submitted them to the City of Tigard for plan check and approval on Dec. 17, 1998. I have recently learned that these same improvements may be included in a proposed LID and since I have not received any follow up written correspondence from the City instructing otherwise I must assume the responsibility of the improvements stays with me and not the LID. Since 2 months have past and I have not yet received notice from the City regarding my plan check I am beginning to wonder just where the project stands. Please inform me of my liability to perform these improvements as conditions in the SDR? Also, please advise me as to what the status of the plan check is? Regarding the same SDR, I have further concerns that if the off-site work is assigned to the LID and the LID work is not fully completed when my project is, will that be a cause of delay in the issuance of my final occupancy? Second, regarding SDR 98-0024 This SDR was issued with conditions that should the proposed LID not be approved that I would be conditioned to perform the improvements. My question is the same as above: should I complete my on-site improvements and the off-site is performed as the result of the LID and my on-site is completed prior to the completion of the LID improvements, will my project be delayed in the issuance of the final occupancy? I apprec'• - your attention to these issues and a written response addressing each. Rte` �� . . 'bt, Jr. 12600 S.W. 72nd Ave.,Suite 200,Tigard,Oregon 97223 503/639-2639 FAX 503/624-0239 CCB#0031700 - . t ' .JT 130TH CONST Fax:5036240239 Apr 15 '99 16:38 P.01/05 Jax memo From. Tim Roth To: Julia Hajduk IT. Roth Construction, Inc. Company: City of Tigard 12600 S.W. 72"d suite 200 Phone#: 639-4171 Tigard, Or. 97223 Fax#: 684-7297 . CCB #31700 503/639-2639 Date: Apriil5 19 99 . 503/621-0239 fax Total pages(including cover) 5 . RE: 12755 S.W. 691 SDK 98-001 12540 SW 69 470024 In response the fax memo received 4-12-99. Changed the trees located at the Waverly property to include Incense Cedar. Changed Maple's on 72nd street frontage to Thundercloud and cedars along back property line to Incense Cedar. Would like to get them planted as soon as possible, please fax me an approval so I can get this done with. Respect IT. l A,7r. JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Rpr 15 '99 16:38 P.02/05 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: ].T.Retr Ce.strectio',Inc. 126115W 72''#200 Tiprb,Or.97233 File No_ NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT • DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE MITIGATION OF TREE REMOVABLE AND REPLACEMENT Date: April 5 , 19 99 Grantor: Michael S. Zoucha 16676 SW 88t Pl. Tigard, Or. 97224 DEED RESTRICTION The trees shown on the attacbed exhibit will be maintained in perpetuity as mitigation for tree removal in the City of Tigard at 16676 SW 88th Place, Tigard, Or. 97224. This deed restriction shall not preclude removal of trees as the result of natural causes such as disease, decay, wind or danger to persons or property as long as they are replaced. The above causes shall be certified by an arborist prior to\approval. /4(0111) IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year above written. n By: �I I RU - - By: `Michael :. / cba. STATE OF OREGON, ) ss. County of , ) Dated this J day of , 1999 Personally appeared the within named Michael S. Zoucha and acknowledges the foregoing instrument to be his.voluntary act and deed. Before : Notary Public for Oregon\ai 1;ttcA--' ir-TIk My commission expires: (i1101 OFFICIAL SEAL THERESA ROTH. NOTARY PUHUC•OREGON COMMISSION NO.056388 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 30,2000 V :• JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Apr 15 '99 16:39 P. 03/05 -E0- .- i4-04 5.w,83e-p1 CITY OF TIGARD WAVERLY ESTATES LOT 20 102 _S 89'55"48' W -�• N ~` _�‘ 106.08' PO-Jo. rte I \` SEWER AND STORM "'00' w ` ta8r\-s - ' I .... DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE I I I a AND ACCESS EASEMENT-- .1 I _ I 3 ~� —• �� I 148 Isi �. -1,,._. .-- - 1, 1. i ....... 1;n 25' ESMT. -4- 1 k LOWER FLOOR I c'l- -41111111 460 - EL.043.0' f 11 '/~_.��. �� >MiuN1FLOOa .. u2 --�16Z .. -„ I ���` E1:i153.p• .. .... ` Ha B 58' .p 2 a,♦ I.. ♦ 3.�e•`� t <g I ,'— 4' CONC. 108 DRIVEWAY 71- j 4 a 13.500 PSI) 146 o % o e I• 150 � N -5 4" _ cn 50.00' to 0 2 GUM O WESTERN RED CW R _ai r':xD C SCEa sE CrGtAft- /Ul1'1•ETj I JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Apr 15 '99 16:39 P.04/05 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: LT.Rod Cosstrrctbn,Inc I eoo SW 72"nee Tigard,Or 97223 File No. . NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT _ DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE MITIGATION OF TREE REMOVABLE AND REPLACEMENT Date: April 5 , 19 99 Grantor: J. T. Roth,Jr. 12600 SW 72nd Tigard, Or. 97223 DEED RESTRICTION The trees shown on the attached exhibit will be maintained in perpetuity as mitigation for tree removal in the City of Tigard at 12600 SW 72nd, Tigard, Or. 97223. This deed restriction shall not preclude removal of trees as the result of natural causes such as disease, decay, wind or danger to persons or property as long as they are replaced. The above causes shall be certified by an arborist prior to approvaL IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year above wr Ag GRA - 1' •4' r By: � * Br. . .T. • o4 Jr_ STATE OF OREGON, ) ) ss- County of 0 ` L ) , ) Dated this J day of , 1999 Personally appeared the within named J.T. Roth,Jr. and acknowledges the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. Before : Notary Public for Oregon f My commission expires: 'O J OD ' or i=,.L L sent • M f 7:".. , 1-1EPR.'\ron-I :, -: ,., 3 NOT,,,:Y,-�.�t sc-7=C(ON uv rn+t!.zItj1411.1►Y•zti:FS AUG 31.2000 ,' ; JT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Rpr 15 '99 16:40 P.05/05 — � 1 '�' -�� n1:. r r— is S._W. 72ND AVE. 63 't 0 E _ _ ` — i / _ 4 -. I^ 139.99' 140.02)\' — — — - 169.44 t 70.00-- . ten n Ai .�r n AY '1$ ; �/t: _ '1►� _ ;•i� 1' v i 'III L L� LE.END j \ \ I - ( .1, z. ap i • /C PR• ( � 1. / . / Qr�•.vS. C�ros': fa ) i *TG.•�•-dcr(.L,uci" I tp . ' . 7.6666.0.-. ". 9 7 �� 1 l I : • ,o ff- .6N. - 1[ O z- LA�c..%PER - -moo------7 -/M4 ENEC�tAk -/ 'P7 r`, 4 �cx a=. ii/ 4o • _ •�� - -1 \ . \ co\ \P�►Ri c 5 .0 Llcac. Qi.- _• ' - l 12socrl ascv \ \ \ bib's l / 1 / I / / I / / I 1 * i ;i P 4 !� N9�DA!!, g 1 / g I 1 \ \. A.-.17 $ of . 4PARWN6 ^ l 1` !o-1 --- \ 1 1 , \ ` v. :�//' 1 r_L_____} i g ri C A; /..'''''.'.....r.1". ".■r L'"..s'13.'''''.... -%' --t'.s.N, >_ / / - -r j.. 1227t. .1 •PIR�N6 • —r— I • I NO d. )•, \ - — t, -o0 9 a(�l� 00 00004 � O`_. f ��� ` � 1`�'rw—�••�+��.� � - ti.�..�w�...� V+/�.��— � ter.I� - V I - 1'-• r II 1A�lCiTC lI 1 Ak( SETTING THE STANDARD FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE 0,43.4"" Facsimile To: 72;4 64 Company: Jr teo Phone: 6 3,,_a E 3, Fax: 6;Z ezz J`. • From: �i4 Company: City of Tigard Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 Date: Cf=zj_y'� Pages including this page: / COMMENTS: IX:s" ,cx C?rues-- S' e-/r) er? /-k)Ag94o,i .?/14,1 re o se/ �reer9A gil d deed.1e5740 C, i7o5 /eci 49/1//S /999 4/-e- ,=2e-ceth ae /c c '- 77 c- UOGchveill!171=9/k lece/?-4,1 G bQef/a4rh0/ e/'///�CDc/n7/ /A/Qrc./y�-// / r764red 7J� . ri'Ji g' 47‘,) ,> f/eQSf proVi'cle US 4 Xs1O f.(// fret rkvrerw , ? � 5PR 4#0 • we 694 SUf‹ dace.&} 4 ‘..)4s d Gv � door y City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 ** PLEASE DELIVER THIS FAX IMMEDIATELY ** MEMORANDUM /-„viii TO: Julia Hajduk �..�. .. I FROM: Mark Touhey RE: J. T. Roth Construction, Inc. DATE: April 8, 1999 Per our earlier telephone conversation regarding information for Roth Constructio, on the 72nd Street side, planting in line with the existing Photina is a good idea, but the size of a mature Acer Platanoides (Emerald Queen) is 50 feet in height with a spread of 40 feet which would be in the power lines on 72nd Avenue and on Beveland Street. Option f81aws: • Acer Ezestre - Easy Street TM 40' by 20' • Acer Platanoides — Parkway Maple 40' by 25' • Acer Platanoides Columnar — Columnar Norway Maple 35' by 15' • Prunus Cerasifera —Thundercloud, Krauter Vesvius, Newport 25' by 20' • Carpinus Betulus Fastigiata 35' by 20' Pyramidal European Hornbean — Good in adverse conditions The row of Western Red Cedars on the back of the property are ok, however I would like to suggest Incense Cedar which would not grow as wide and spread over the driveway and adjoining property. The Waverly Estates site looks like USA property which is landscaped. A possibility would be to blend Red Cedars into existing landscape with USA's approval? If you have questions you can reach me at 639-4171 , extension 423 Thanks! Kathy\parks\roth construction _IT ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Apr ` 9:32 P. 01/05 Jax memo From: Tim Roth To: Dick Bewersdorff J.T. Roth Construction, Inc. Company: City of Tigard 12600 S.W 72id suite 200 Phone#: 639-4171 . Tigard, Or. 97223 Fax#: 684-7297 CCB #31700 503/639-2639 Date: April 5 19 99 . 503/624-0239 fax Total pages(including cover) 5 . RE: 12755 S.W. 69th SDR 98-0016 -Conditions of Approval# 3 1 2540 SW 69th SDR 98-0024 - Conditions of Approval# 5 The above SDR mitigation plans require a total of 74 caliper inches to be replaced(mitigated), 51" for SDR 98-0024 and 23" for SDR 98-0016. I have attached the "Deed Restriction"document along with a site plan for two properties inside the City limits of Tigard for replacement trees to be planted. -The first property located at 16676 SW 88th Place is owned by Michael S. Zoucha, located in the Waverly Estates subdivision. This property is adjacent to the old dairy farm that was purchased by U.S.A. and being development by same The original plat created a 25' landscape buffer with minimal planting and the owner has requested additional trees to aid in the buffering of the U.S.A. development project. -The second site is property that I own located at 12600 SW 72nd. I would desire to create a planting of trees along the easterly property line to screen the property to the east. The adjacent property is a house converted to an office with a large rocked back yard used for parking and a screening of trees will aid in a long term buffering for the improvements on my property. In addition,I currently have some plantings of photinias along the street with no trees and would desire to add the trees to enhance the visual impact of the property from SW 72nd Please let me know as soon as possible so that I can get the trees planted while we are still in the good spring planting season. ',14rApe, r " . •of , Jr_ . JT f?0TH CONST Fax:5036240239 Apr 5 '(19 9:33 P.02/05 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: J.T.Roth Controctio8,lap 12600 SW 72"#2M1 Tigard,Or.97223 File No. NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE MITIGATION OF TREE REMOVABLE AND REPLACEMENT Date: April 5 19 99 Grantor: Michael S. Zoucba 16676 SW 88t P1. Tigard, Or.97224 DEED RESTRICTION The trees shown on the attached exhibit will be maintained in perpetuity as mitigation for tree removal in the City of Tigard at 16676 SW 88th Place, Tigard, Or. 97224. This deed restriction shall not preclude removal of trees as the result of natural causes such as disease, decay, wind or danger to persons or property as long as they are replaced_ The above causes shall be certified by an arborist prior to approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year above written. By: Michael . cha. STATE OF OREGON, ) ss. County of , ) Dated this 5 day of , 1999 Personally appeared the within named Michael S. Zoucha and acknowledges the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. Before : Notary Public for Oregon\ay k My commission expires: cal f3.7 d e'!'I OFFICIAL SEAT. THERESA ROTH t ;® NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.056388 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG 30;2000 • , 3T ROTH CONST Fax:5036240239 Rpr 5 '99 9:34 P.03/05 e- . . 11.-L74 5.w•820-PL CITY OF TIGARD WAVERLY ESTATES LOT 20 144 S 89.58'4E W r, _ 10B 8 .. .. ..r..,,. .. _ _ N zo•J ' \� SEWER AND STORM '1'3'a0'� w .I"' DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE I l �- d AND ACCESS EASEMENT-4.-1 j 1 ""� I daill1702,_ . H , ( LOWER FLOOR I' 150 a ,ate, )I --` El.•143.0. i. 4 �� 1 lag 104 \ *IN FLOOR,. .... ` � tat LL. "....' ...... I • I ``` ��' . G ,, + GARAGE.' Eir,,i32. . I 1 o z z1 ' 2 . ¢ 4' CONC, 146 E `�� DRIVEWAY �1 6 • o i3400 PSI) 148 0 ! ,a • i 150 ° m ` N B9'S8'a� E + 152 <' SO-00' D 1J i 2" CALIPER 0 • WESTERN RED CEa4R • 1\,..c ..., 0 'lit • . JT ROTH CONST Pax:5036240239 Apr 5 '99 9:34 P.04/05 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: LT.Rata CoasOwceioa,Inc. 12600 SW 72.1#200 7 i0.ra,Or.97223 File No. NO CHANCE IN TAX STATEMENT DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE MITIGATION OF TREE REMOVABLE AND REPLACEMENT Date: April 5 , 19 99 Grantor: J. T. Roth, Jr. 12600 SW 7211' Tigard, Or. 97223 DEED RESTRICTION The trees shown on the attached exhibit will be maintained in perpetuity as mitigation for tree removal in the City of Tigard at 12600 SW 72nd, Tigard, Or. 97223. This deed restriction shall not preclude removal of trees as the result of natural causes such as disease, decay,wind or danger to persons or property as long as they are replaced. The above causes shall be certified by an arborist prior to approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year above is. G ' . , P: By: ,t�r` ysi% By: .T. 'o , Jr. STATE OF OREGON, ) ) ss. County of it) n` ) Dated this _S day of , 1999 Personally appeared the within named J.T. Roth,Jr. and acknowledges the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. Before : Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: 4D 1 Cl 0 OF:'10!Al.sEAL THERESA Ron-1 NOTARY ^••`yL `^rte.:! ..v nnu•ncc�r.�.l iY�1J�C lIIt 7A 'nem JT ROTH CONST ...ex:5036240239 Rpr 5 '99 9:35 P.05/05...,_ ,.-•,- k ...hi_ ____________.. .. i, :, _ _ 'S.W. 72ND AVE. / T�1((�� v�"vy . . 1 \�O Z r„__.. - J - — — -- - -+-4/-� - - _ / 0___XIL ____ __r7_____. r.i 139.99' I4O.02)\ . .> ��- _�� _ - .._.,� - / i1► 1F 1 -47 _• &4 ;#,,. -44 7,4 -1,. -� -4 - 1 , A0_ Quhl- OC+I0£s . , ID • 1• Nth _-JAC\ I . -1 Lgce r 1 \ \ / 1 I so A.' .,,i;„_._._...Zx lJau PE R• siOS . — jNC`onuxl►aor :M Ein&-RAL! CAJEE►J if- (D /� 4LE - �� i ' •. "Tesi-Ao.- - 9 it 4 i , - IX : - 1. P.• SP - - j. • • -0 Z" LAr_l PER v.m.stcrt.,4 rawb CcbAR ./ -I io Rr . K� ' . T�-AC - �9 n I.1?) . _ - C • Sc '-E= i�/ 110 - . -- ` 1 \ p \ POS141 a 5 1\.5 • ^JCOtt.. - J J _�(L. C LZON (�� 1 blbi 1 • / / / / / / / / / / 1 4 DNS ►' / / / I -� 9 PARRS111i - A!�5 ` ' 4 A t n - I ------------ . i g i ____} g C jj 7----r---i- I --..---t;,..------ iar...014:..4: . 4:1 1 :1 I rilr'■ { _ U > Q 1 r 1_ ' T24s • PiS2T�IN6 1103 ______7_,_ _... ."_•...12:-'15 1` . - j IIiCJ\ - . ,p.9_ 0 0 0 0-0 a.9116.4.!°31 o o_ - - -__ - a I lo`cE.r+TR' 1 ' ,1 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: J.T.Roth Coestr.ction,Inc. 12600 SW 72-'#200 -retard,Or.97223 File No. NO CHANCE W TAX STATEMENT DEED RESTRICTION FOR THE MITIGATION OF TREE REMOVABLE AND REPLACEMENT • Date: April 5 , 19 99 Grantor: Michael S. Zoucha 16676 SW 88th Pl. Tigard, Or. 97224 DEED RESTRICTION The trees shown on the attached exhibit will be maintained in perpetuity as mitigation for tree removal in the City of Tigard at 16676 SW 88th Place, Tigard, Or. 97224. This deed restriction shall not preclude removal of trees as the result of natural causes such as disease, decay, wind or danger to persons or property as long as they are replaced. The above causes shall be certified by an arborist prior to approval. VA &" IN IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year above written. By: I(�IIR�✓ �,� By: Michael . cha. STATE OF OREGON, ) ) ss. County of , ) Dated this J day of , 1999 Personally appeared the within named Michael S. Zoucha and acknowledges the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. Before : Notary Public for Oregon vY 5,At_0"-' My commission expires: gl .l OFFICIAL SEAL I •' THERESA ROTH NR PN COOTAMMISSY ION UBLIC•OREGO NO,056388 YY COMMISSION EXPIRES AO 30,2000 • -.(4[ :)... .- 14-L74, 5.1.4).88r-f CITY OF TIOAR, WAVERLY ESTATE LOT 2 • ` —‘` — 108.08' ��� �. H 7p`39*�. \`� SEWER AND STORM �3'a0' W +Ler 1 y I -•` y DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE I a rte`+ ``� ��s.� a ANd ACCESS EASEMENT—=4 r I l 1.:e.,• i ;1-•..... 448 , - , s . `,„ ._. — I• V h I� I i 25' ESMT. I r , I , `�`���� LOWER FLOOR 460 l's 1. EL 114120' —�.� � • ...... .... 1 tat 10? \ 1 ���. MAIN FLOflFt,. .,.. .' t.t -- � I ��� E!_i153.0' ' I h `3 tpse, I,. a �� f' CONC. 148 . tr. •. " •., DRIVEWAY 1 ■ ^• 6. 1.,, - p 13.500 PSq 148 o ti^ r• 150•N 88'58'4.^ E _' 152 to 50.00' L` �~ C).'.. 2. CALIPER 0 WESTERN R(0 MAR — cE.sE.se Ce i2 �‘ 1� ' C� .. . _. .. . . . . ._ . . . .. . . . - ...........____:„, .. . . .. . .. _ JT ROTH CONST -3x:5036240239 fqr 21 '99 14:52 P.01/01 jax memo o From: Tim Roth To: Julia Hajduk JT. Roth Construction, Inc. Company: City of Tigard 12600 S.W. 72'4 suite 200 Phone#: 639-4171 . Tigard, Or. 97223 Fax#: 684-7297 . CCB#31700 503/639-2639 Date: April 21 19 99 . 503/624-0239 fax Total pages(including cover) 1 RE: 12755 S.W.69th SDR 98-0016 12540 SW 69th SDR 98-0024 In response to your memo dated 4-21-99 The mitigation requirements are: 51" for the development project located at 12540 SW 696—SDR 98-0024 23" for the development project located at 12755 SW 691- SDR 98-0016 74" Total The deed restriction and site plans identify 9/2"caliper trees(total of 18 caliper inches)to be planted at 16676 SW 88Th Place and 28/2"caliper trees(total of 56 caliper inches)to be planted at 12600 SW 72a4. Please apply the 18 caliper inches being planted at 16676 SW 881h PL to SDR 98-0016, the balariae..pJ56 caliper inches being planted at 12600 SW 72o"would apply to both SDR 98-0016 and SDR 98-0024. Re:. 41fulif effiM / .' 1 . •1r1 r. /r RETURN RECORDED DOCUME 0: rE OF OREGON 1 CITY HALL RECORDS DEPARTh..,��T, County of Washington J SS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. I, Jerry q .y �+ .r of Assess- Tigard,OR 97223 m ►�iI. �, 'o County Clerk ent for and n �r��, .rtify that \�J the withi � a��+ -ceived and re.county. -rde./t�.xi•\ •°�j`;'a.rc= xf said t 19 INDIVIDUAL p c1 _ =o� rector of File No. C.�1�— 1� � 'k� rsi - . tion Ex- • ._•.<,.; ,,°= ' lerk Doc : 99075572 Rect: 234257 21. 00 06/23/1999 10:39:02am WAIVER(NON-REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT) STREET IMPROVEMENT The undersigned owners (including purchasers)of the real property described below do hereby record their consent to the formation of a local improvement district by the City of Tigard for the purposes of improving the public streets upon which the described property abuts.The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district for the improvement of the abutting street or streets, reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right they may have under the laws of the State of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula. The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described on Exhibit A. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this / day of , 19 Vq J.T. Roth, Jr. Theresa A. Roth Michael S. Zoucha Pri' e Pri t Nape f 'l ignature Signature 13779 SW Charleston Lane 16676 SW 88th Place Address Address Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 STATE OF OREGON ) )ss. County of Washington ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on ~ 1 (date)by: 3 t • 0‘1 • Thhl r-efA. R. to-f.k tit'I , i U U'1O i S. -LouGhck (name of person(s)). OFFICIAL SEAL UNDA L MC GEITIGAN VAIWEifefi' ,��i. �k:, 4 NOTARY PUELIC•OREGON r �,�, r' COMMISSION NO.061109 Va s Signature MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB.213,2001 My Commission Expires: c3-v). 5-C -H- Accepted on behalf of the City of Tigard this l'' day of --1')""1--- , 19 9? . ity Engineer NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT I:\ENG\PUB-FORM\NR-STR-I DOT 10.3 EXHIBIT A Description for Roth and Zoucha Parcel Lots 12 through 18 inclusive and Lots 27 through 33 inclusive, Block 31, WEST PORTLAND HEIGHTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. . •3 t THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVCNICIVL,C IN LUL:AIINU rriurcnI I nl.l, I nc „v.•.r n... ASSUMES NO LIA• 'TY FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCL(e D BY ACTUAL SURVEY S ~ (n7 'i. First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon •�~ An assumed business name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 2S 1W 1AD _ I I I 1 I t 20' 30' 800 h 0 n •1. 1-' 60' ' '..r' 60' .694c. N W I > • z 19 20 21 22 123 24 o- -b L o- .Z125�2512LL2SI21 i _ 1. I o I-,M VACATED a>, VACATED ° (S.W. GONZAGA E 0. 67-509010 I 86-44443 - I N M ■ Q P 0 VACATED 93-101917 1 es.- NI -' 19'T25'-/-25'1-25'T25' 25'T25'T25'T25' X25'' 254 25T25'T 257 25T23'' 25' .3-25.7-2577.257r 25' 2511- 2537T c o . AC. 2.20Ac. 30 Ac. 2700 I I 2400 1700 W 803 t Ac A 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 I 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Z — 1 61 2 3 4 5 6 I W ° • Km GaNZAG n u9 I loo - 1— i T J. L U I I f 1 L STREET N 2800 + 36 - - 36 Q -- _ _ 1600 N .38AC. J5 T .24AC. _ + - - 35 / 100' N 1 II i 34 s � - II t 34 - - - - - 34 N N 2900 + 33 - __ _ 12 (Ls.210,974) 33 < 1000 N .88 AC. /5 AC.•3+1 32 - - - -�32 32 _ 14-00 3�3 N 14 31 .� loo 3! .45Ac. T-- N I5 30 30 15 T 1--I - (CS.22,089) -I- N 16 + 29 - - 16 1 - 29 I - 16 I 29 N 17 28 _ _ 17 1 _ 1300 O 1 1 100 100 N 18 EASE -2798-33755' — 18 1 100' LL, a .34 AC. ( .45 AC. ■ 1 I 1 ` I I I I T T T T T T m - T T T T T 3000 r i o -C.: g .46 AC o B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 121 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23 24 z • (C.S. 12,174) o I III Cij L r too I I I 1 I I I 60'rc 60:,/t �''0ir c 1 o I- o I I I I 1 ` I I I I I 0 S.W. 'f -0 HAMPTON CD r- T T 741 T T T T / 0- 1 T T T T T T T "� r , I 1 I 1032/155 1052/!55 L Om S I I +- I 3300 3500 47 AC. 4.70 AC. Oo q 3100 3 x 5 6 7 8 I 3200 4 5 6 7 6 CO 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 �Z 2.74 AC. I I 2.38 AC. I so' 0 / - 1 L -- 1 + -L. ! L ..I F.. L 1 -L ± L L 1 -.I I- 1 L L .. 1 1 I N 9 36 36 9 36 9 / N 10 + 35 -1 I- 10 i 35 1 10 -- 35 ` .4_' I -I 1- + 1 I- 1I ' II + 34 1 II 34 , II 34 e7 1 -1 -, N I2 _ 3 . 312 33 ° f2 I 33 COMPASS Maintenance Schedule we, CORPORATION �.. tar Triangle Terrace Office Building Water Quality Facility Maintenance Defect When Needed Result Trash and debris Any trash & debris which Clear all visual which exceeds lft3 per evidence 1,000 sq. ft. (equal to 32 gal trash can) Tree growth No tree growth is permitted Remove as necessary if hinders operation or access Sediment Accumulated sediment that Remove and dispose exceeds 10% of design pond of to design shape depth Orifice Plugged or damaged Clean out to design opening Sumps Trash/debris or sediments that Clean exceed 1/3 depth of sump All items to be checked on semi-annual basis and make corrections. NACLERTINAL∎Workine02.99V1236 Feb.2.doc i)IVISWil CF S l' LANCS RECEI' c3 DSLWD# C0( ' 0/3(c 9 P I: III Wetland Determination Form for Parcels With No Wetlands This form may be used to document and report on the result of a wetland determination for small parcels that contain no wetlands or other waters such as streams or ponds(see OAR 141-85-GGG).It may not be used for parcels that contain wetlands or other waters.This form must be fully completed and include all attachments listed in#4. Include at least one wetland determination data form representing field data collected in the lowest area or other area most likely to be wetland.Check person#1 or#2 as the primary contact person for questions about the report.If in doubt about the appropriate use of this form,contact the Wetlands Program at the Division of State Lands. 1.Landowner/Legal Agent Information ❑ Primary Contact Name: Craig Brown Firm Name: Matrix Development Address: 12755 SW 69th Avenue-#100,Portland,OR 97223 Phone: 503-620-8080 Fax: 503-598-8900 E-mail:. Permission is granteI • the Division of State Lands staff to access property if needed to verify reprt conclusions. Signature: 0 C' `�. Date: /if/d 1 2.Consultant Information • Primary Contact Name: Greg Summers Firm Name: Beak Consultants, Inc. Address: 317 SW Alder Street, Suite 800,Portland,OR 97204 Phone: 503-248-9507 ext.230 Fax: 503-228-3820 E-mail: gsummersabeak.com 3.Site Information County: Washington City: Tigard T 2S R 1W Section 12 QQ SE/NW TaxLot(s): 2S112BD02800 Street Address or Location: 14665 SW 79th Avenue Parcel Size:1.88 ac. NWI Quad: Beaverton, OR Date of Site Visit: March 14,2001 4.Attachments • Vicinity Map • NWI or LWI Map • Soil Survey Map • Parcel Map • Data Form 5.Investigation Results NWI or LWI Mapping: The NWI map for this area does not show any wetlands or other waters on the project site. Landscape Position/Site Description&Topography:The project site is a relatively level,undeveloped parcel that is surrounded by residential development Oregon Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE,Ste. 100 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Ph:503-378-3805 r DSL WD# 2Wf—tI -, Plant Communities and Dominant Plant Species: Project site is forested with a tree canopy dominated by Pseudotsuga menziesii and Acer macrophyllum. Shrub layer is dominated by Rubus discolor, Osmaronia cerasiformis,and Corylus cornuta. Vine layer is dominated by Hedera helix.Dominant plants in the herbaceous layer include Holcus lanatus, Geranium erianthum,and Galium aparine. Mapped and Observed Soils: The Washington County Soil Survey indicates that the site is underlain by Hillsboro Loam,0-3 %&3-7%slopes(21A&21B). Soil samples taken in the field had matrix chromas of l OYR 3/3 with some faint 10YR 5/8 mottling. Hydrology Observations: No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed on the project parcel during the site visit. Other Pertinent Observations or Information: 6.Conclusions Parcel is a forested upland site. Signature of Field Investigator: Date: 3/t'77o/ Review and Jurisdictional Determination of the Division of State Lands . There are no wetlands or other waters of this state on the parcel(s);therefore no state Removal-Fill Permit is required for site development. ❑ Based upon a site inspection by the Division,there are wetlands and/or other waters of this state on the parcel(s) that are subject to state permit requirements.A wetland delineation will be needed to determine the wetland boundaries (OAR 141-85-AAA to JJJ). The delineation report must be submitted to the Division for review and approval. ❑ The information provided is not sufficient for the Division to make a jurisdictional determination. This jurisdictional determination is based upon the information provided to us. Should additional information be brought to our attention or should site conditions change,we could consider the new information and re-evaluate the site and our jurisdictional determination, as needed. Comments: y�', • ! `' ,'� Welland. - Date: `-//2 o Determination b v..�. .•�f • . .� �"�►� Title: f? �th l f Date: Oregon Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE,Ste. 100 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Ph: 503-378-3805 Baia Gva, h r'K5 c T• DSL WD# 01-00( -0135' , Ph l� Wetland Determination Form forra'rcels i o vvetlands This form may be used to document and report on the result of a wetland determination for small parcels that contain no wetlands or other waters such as streams or ponds(see OAR 141-85-GGG).It may not be used for parcels that contain wetlands or other waters.This form must be fully completed and include all attachments listed in#4.Include at least one wetland determination data form representing field data collected in the lowest area or other area most likely to be wetland. Check person#1 or#2 as the primary contact person for questions about the report. If in doubt about the appropriate use of this form,contact the Wetlands Program at the Division of State Lands. 1.Landowner/Legal Agent Information ❑ Primary Contact Name: Craig Brown Firm Name: Matrix Development Address: 12755 SW 69th Avenue-#100,Portland,OR 97223 Phone: 503-620-8080 Fax: 503-598-8900 E-mail: Permission is grant•. i r the Division of State Lands staff to access property if needed to verify report conclusions. Signature: Date: ?/Z 3 A+ 2. Consultant Information • Primary Contact Name: Greg Summers Firm Name: Beak Consultants, Inc. Address: 317 SW Alder Street, Suite 800,Portland,OR 97204 Phone: 503-248-9507 ext. 230 Fax: 503-228-3820 E-mail: gsummersna,beak.com 3.Site Information County: Washington City: Tigard T 2S R 1W Section 12 QQ SW/NW Tax Lot(s): 2S112BC00300 Street Address or Location: S. of Bonita Rd.,N. of SW Viola St., E. of 81St Ave.,W. of 79th Ave. Parcel Size:2.48 ac. NWI Quad: Beaverton,OR Date of Site Visit: March 14,2001 4.Attachments • Vicinity Map • NWI or LWI Map • Soil Survey Map • Parcel Map • Data Form 5.Investigation Results NWI or LWI Mapping: The NWI map for this area does not show any wetlands or other waters on the project site. Landscape Position/Site Description&Topography:The project site is a relatively level,undeveloped parcel that is surrounded by residential development Oregon Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE,Ste. 100 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Ph: 503-378-3805 DSLWD# WOI -0/3c Plant Communities and Dominant Plant Species: Project site is forested with a tree canopy dominated by Alnus rubra,Pseudotsu•a menziesii Acer macro•h Hum and Thu'a •licata. Shrub la er is dominated b Osmaronia cerasiformis, Corvlus cornuta, and Ilex aguijolium.Vine layer is dominated by Hedera helix.Dominant plants in the herbaceous layer include Polystichum munitum and Hedera helix. Mapped and Observed Soils: The Washington County Soil Survey indicates that the site is underlain by Hillsboro Loam, 3-7%slopes(21B). Soil samples taken in the field had matrix chromas ranging from 10YR 3/2 to 10YR 3/3 with no apparent mottling. Samples were similar to the soil survey's typical pedon description for this soil type. Hydrology Observations: No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed on the project parcel during the site visit. Other Pertinent Observations or Information: 6.Conclusions Parcel is a forested upland site. 3//i�0� Signature of Field Investigator: ---. ,..-X-- --, fr- Date: Review and Jurisdictional Determination of the Division of State Lands XThere are no wetlands or other waters of this state on the parcel(s);therefore no state Removal-Fill Permit is required for site development. El Based upon a site inspection by the Division,there are wetlands and/or other waters of this state on the parcel(s) that are subject to state permit requirements.A wetland delineation will be needed to determine the wetland boundaries (OAR 141-85-AAA to JJJ).The delineation report must be submitted to the Division for review and approval. Cl The information provided is not sufficient for the Division to make a jurisdictional determination. This jurisdictional determination is based upon the information provided to us. Should additional information be brought to our attention or should site conditions change,we could consider the new information and re-evaluate the site and our jurisdictional determination,as needed. Comments: We 4lu rtd S 1//71210, Determination by: ��„ ,i. .I. �i(t� �.. �� � , itle: i nPGt�l�IS�Date: / # • r Oregon Division of State Lands 775 Summer Street NE,Ste. 100 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Ph:503-378-3805