Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SDR1997-00016
SDR97 -00016 CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISORI 97-0016 41: CITY OF TIOARD CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER Community Development Shaping S1 Better Community SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER CASES: Site Development Review SDR 97-0016 PROPOSAL: Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 19,800 square foot business professional office. APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNER: Alex and Lotti Finke Viking Development, L.L.C. Finke Trust 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 PO Box 23562 Portland, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Commercial; C-P. ZONING DESIGNATION: Professional Commercial; C-P. The Professional Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services and transient lodging, among others. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. The site is located west of SW Pacific Highway, east of SW Hall Boulevard, south of SW 81st Avenue and on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions of approval. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 1 OF 16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (503) 639-4171.) •,* 1 . Prior to issuance of a site and/or 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. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval (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 plat is 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 name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. 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. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet (NOTE: because the existing pavement on Pfaffle Street is in acceptable condition, the applicant will be permitted to sawcut the edge of the pavement and add onto the width); 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; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 2 OF 16 H. undergrounu utilities; I, driveway apron (if applicable); and J. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. A profile of SW Pfaffle Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site. 7. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to construction. 8. The applicant shall extend the existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 81st Avenue southerly to SW Pfaffle Street. The manhole location shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. 9. The applicant shall either upsize the existing 12-inch public storm line in SW 83rd Avenue or provide on-site detention as proposed on the preliminary plan. If on-site detention is provided, the design shall meet Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) design criteria. 10. 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. 11 . 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." 12. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. location of all roof mounted equipment and an elevation drawing demonstrating screening of this equipment from view from adjacent public streets; B. an additional parking lot tree adjacent to the three (3) parking spaces adjacent to the staircase on the west side of the building; C. removal of the impervious surface area within the buffer area, only a sidewalk connecting the staircase to the walkway adjacent to the parking lot shall be allowed within the buffer area; D. clarify whether or not the Emerald Arborvitae are proposed or represent the existing hedge. If the Emerald Arborvitae identified on the plans are the existing plantings, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides plantings in accordance with buffer standards; E. remove the parking spaces from the vision clearance area; F. location of one (1) off-street loading space; and G. written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 3 OF 16 13. A revised plan skull be submitted for review and ap,.,Jval by the City of Tigard Building Department that designs the parking lot to comply with turning radius designs of the Uniform Fire Code. 14. A lighting plan shall be submitted to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Staff Contact: Jim Wolf (639-6168 x220). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 15. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one (1)-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 16. 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. 17. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Pfaffle Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $6,463.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 18. All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plans. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: No development applications were found to have previously been filed with the City for this site. Vicinity Information: Adjacent properties to the east and west are zoned C-P (Professional Commercial) and are developed with the GM Training Center and a single-family residence respectively. Property to the south is zoned C-G (General Commercial) and is developed with commercial uses. Property to the north is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and is developed with single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The approximately 1 .06 acre vacant parcel is covered with grasses and several trees. The applicant is proposing to construct a three (3) story, 19,800 square foot office building. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 4 OF 16 SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE INDICATED IN THIS SECTION IN THE "BOLD" PRINT FOLLOWED BY A REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE AND FINDINGS, IF ANY, BY STAFF. 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 requirement 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. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure fee that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by 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 systems. Upon obtaining a building permit, the applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $52,972. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $165,537 ($52,972 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact on the collector and arterial system. Since the TIF paid is $52,972, the unmitigated impact can be valued at approximately $112,565 impact on the collector and arterial systems. The applicant will be required to dedicate an additional five (5) feet of frontage along SW Pfaffle Street. Based on past city purchases of property for street right-of-way (ROW), property is assessed at $3.00 per square foot. The applicant is being required to dedicate an additional 1 ,175 square feet (235 x 5) of right-of-way along SW Pfaffle Street. Assuming a cost of $3.00 per square foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the dedication is $3,525 (1 ,175 ft. x $3.00). The applicant has proposed to construct half-street improvements on SW Pfaffle Street. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of the half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. This conservative estimate was determined from current bid tabulations. Assuming a cost of $200 per lineal foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements to SW Pfaffle Street is $47,000 (235 feet x $200). The total cost for dedication and improvements is a total of $50,527. Given these estimates, the conditions are roughly proportional to the impacts since the unmitigated impact ($112,565) is more than the value of the dedication and improvements ($50,527). NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 5 OF 16 Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a commercial office building. Community Development Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) classifies an office as Professional and Administrative Services. Section 18.64.030(A)(2)(k)(i) lists Professional and Administrative Services as a permitted use in the C-P zone. Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.64.050 states that the minimum lot area shall be 6,000 square feet and the average minimum lot width shall be 50 feet. Developments are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The site has an average lot width of approximately 210 feet, thereby, exceeding the required 50-foot minimum lot width requirement. The site contains approximately 46,173 square feet, well in excess of the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing approximately 11 ,570 square feet or 26% of the site for landscaping, in compliance with the landscaping requirements. Setbacks: Section 18.64.050 states that no front, side, or rear yard setback is required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. The maximum building height is 45 feet. Zoning setbacks are not applicable as the site does not abut a residential zone. The applicant is proposing a building height of 42 feet, under the maximum 45 feet allowed. 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 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 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 18.80 (Planned Developments), 18.84 (Sensitive Lands), 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. Section 18.120.180(A)(2) 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. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 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) or 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces) and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. 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. There are several mature trees on the property. Given the location of the building, parking area and accessway, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, all but one (1) of the existing trees greater than 12-inch caliper will be removed. In accordance with Community Development Code Section 18.150, trees greater than 12-inch caliper will be mitigated. The proposed plan includes new parking lot, street trees, and mitigation trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 6 OF 16 Buffering, Screening and Compatibility between aaloininq uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This proposal abuts a use that requires buffering in accordance with the Buffer Matrix (Code Section 18.100.130). Buffering and Screening will be provided in accordance with the requirements of that section, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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. As indicated on the site plan, parking and storage areas are screened from adjoining properties. The applicant shall submit a revised plan that shows the location of all roof mounted equipment and an elevation demonstrating screening in compliance with this section. 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. A lighting plan showing that lighting fixtures are selected, designed and situated to direct light towards areas of the site vulnerable to crime shall be submitted in accordance with this section. The plan shall be reviewed by the City of Tigard Police Department. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement has been satisfied as the applicant has submitted a plan indicating the number, type and location of trees and shrubs. 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 landscape plan shows the provision of Gambel Oak trees along SW Pfaffle Street, spaced approximately 20-25 feet, in accordance with this section. 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. As indicated on the site plan, screening has been provided in accordance with this section. As indicated on the site plan, parking lot trees have been partially provided in accordance with this section. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides an additional parking lot tree adjacent to the three (3) parking spaces, adjacent to the staircase on the west side of the building. 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 proposed office building abuts a single-family use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 20 feet. The Matrix indicates that where a parking lot abuts a single-family use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 10 feet. Section 18.100.080.D contains the minimum improvement standards for the buffering NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 7 OF 16 area. The minimum init..ovements within a buffer area shad consist of the following: 1) At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall be not less than 10 feet high for deciduous trees and 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 1000 square feet of required buffer area; 3) The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, groundcover or spread with bark mulch. Section 18.100.080.E states that where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering; 1) a hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs which will form a 4 foot continuous screen within 2 years of planting, or; 2) an earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials which will form a continuous screen 6 feet in height within 2 years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover or bark mulch, or; 3) a 5 foot or taller fence or wall shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. There is an existing residence on the adjoining eastern property. Therefore, both a 20-foot and a ten (10)-foot buffer and screening area is required along this section of the proposed development. The 20-foot buffer area contains approximately 1,440 square feet. Therefore, the buffer shall contain ten (10), five-gallon; or twenty (20), one-gallon shrubs in addition to the one (1) row of trees. The ten (10)-foot buffer area contains approximately 1,330 square feet. Therefore, the buffer shall contain ten (10), five-gallon; or 20, one-gallon shrubs in addition to the one (1) row of trees. The proposed plan shows that a ten (10)-foot setback has been provided between the parking lot and the east property line. The plan also shows that a 20-foot setback has been provided between the building and the property line, however, there is an impervious surface area within the buffer area. A revised plan shall be submitted that only shows a sidewalk connecting the staircase to the walkway adjacent to the parking lot. The remainder of the buffer area shall remain as landscaping and buffer area. The proposed plan shows a row of Emerald Arborvitae along the entire length of the property adjacent to the adjacent single-family residence. Upon a site visit, staff observed that there was an existing hedge along the property line that provided screening. It is not clear from the plans whether or not the Emerald Arborvitae are proposed or represent the existing hedge. The applicant is required to provide screening on-site. If the Emerald Arborvitae identified on the plans are in addition to the hedge that is currently visible on the property line, the combination of the two (2) rows of plantings will provide screening in accordance with this section. If they are the existing plantings, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides plantings in accordance with buffer standards. Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.100.070.0 states that in-lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the typical buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening required by this code. If the Emerald Arborvitae identified on the plans are in addition to the hedge that is currently visible on the property line, the combination of the two (2) rows of plantings will meet and/or exceed the applicable code standards and provide the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 8 OF 16 Section 18.100.080.B states that a buffer area may only oe occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways, or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City. The proposed landscape plan shows that a five (5)-foot sidewalk has been placed within the ten (10)-foot buffer. This sidewalk will connect the main entrance of the building to the sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street. A sidewalk is allowed within the buffer area as stated in this section. Therefore, the proposed plan complies with this section. Section 18.100.070.B states that buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the buffer matrix. The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. There is a residential zone and existing residences on the north side of SW Pfaffle Street. The Matrix indicates that where a parking lot abuts a single-family use, the required buffer width shall be ten (10) feet. Therefore, a ten (10)-foot buffer is required along the northern boundary of the development. The buffer area contains approximately 1,850 square feet. Therefore, the buffer shall contain ten (10), five-gallon; or twenty (20), one-gallon shrubs in addition to the one (1) row of trees. Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.100.070.0 states that in-lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the typical buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening required by this code. The plans show that the parking lot setback is five (5) feet. While the parking lot is setback approximately five (5) feet from the property line, landscaping has been provided as a buffer that meets and/or exceeds the applicable code standards and provides the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. The plans show the provision of approximately 22, three-gallon Rhododendron "Hino Crimson" shrubs and six (6), four-inch caliper Gambel Oak trees along the frontage of the development. Therefore, this section is satisfied. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 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. As indicated on the site plan, parking areas have been provided in the vision clearance area. A revised plan shall be submitted that removes the parking spaces from the vision clearance area, thereby complying with this section. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 9 OF 16 Minimum Off-Street Pa...inq: Section 18.106.030.(C)(1) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 350 square feet gross floor area for Professional and Administrative Offices. The 19,800 square foot office building requires 56 parking spaces. As indicated on the site plan, 75 parking spaces have been provided, thereby, satisfying this criteria. As discussed in the vision clearance section, the parking lot will be redesigned to remove parking out of the vision clearance area. The plan will be reviewed to ensure that the minimum number of parking spaces has still been provided. 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 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 3 disabled parking spaces if 51 to 75 parking spaces are provided. The plan shows the provision of three (3) disabled parking spaces, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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 spaces shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures. Where possible, bicycle parking facilities shall be placed under cover. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Four (4) bicycle parking spaces are required for this development. The plan shows that a five (5) space bicycle parking area is provided, satisfying this criteria. 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. The plan does not show the provision of an off-street loading space. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides an off-street loading space in accordance with this section. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require less than 100 parking spaces provide one (1) access with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. This criteria is satisfied as the proposed plan shows the provision of a 30-foot-wide driveway onto SW Pfaffle Street. 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. There is a driveway near the west property line that serves the GM Training Center but the driveway is not adjacent to the property line and there is a grade difference between the driveway and the proposed parking area that makes a parking lot connection not practical. There is an existing single-family residence on the adjoining eastern property. The applicant is being required to provide a buffer between these two properties and has located a sidewalk connecting the entrance of the building to SW Pfaffle Street. The design of the parking lot does not make future modifications to accommodate a parking lot connection very practical. Therefore, the site plan shall not be required to provide for a parking lot connection with adjoining properties. NOTICE OF DECISION SDP 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 10 OF 16 Walkways: Section 1 b. .08.050(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. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. 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 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. The proposed site plan shows the provision of a five (5)-foot walkway that provides a connection from the entrance to the sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street. 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 plans show the provision of a trash enclosure. The applicant shall provide a written sign-off from the hauler regarding the location and compatibility of this facility. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 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. This section requires a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal for trees over 12 inches in caliper. The applicant has provided a report and plan that identifies all existing trees greater than six (6) inches in caliper. The inventory identified five (5) trees greater than 12-inch caliper. The proposed plan will be removing all but one (1) of the trees greater than 12-inch caliper, totaling 55 caliper inches. Since the applicant is retaining less than 25 percent of the five (5) existing trees, Section 18.150.025(B)(2)(a) requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D of no net loss of trees. The applicant shall, therefore, provide a mitigation plan that provides for mitigation of the 55 caliper inches being removed. This mitigation is in addition to the required minimum landscaping, street trees and parking lot trees. The applicant's narrative states that the 55 caliper inches will be mitigated on-site. Staff has reviewed the proposed landscape plan and verified that mitigation has been proposed to be satisfactorily provided on-site. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 11 OF 16 PUBLIC FACILITY CONL,ERNS: Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: STREETS: This site lies adjacent to the south edge of SW Pfaffle Street, which is classified as a minor collector on the City's Transportation Plan Map. The site is across from the intersection of SW 81st Avenue, a local residential street. Southwest Pfaffle Street is partially improved in this area with paving but is not fully improved to City standards. The existing right-of-way (ROW) on this roadway measures 25 feet from centerline presently. The minor collector designation requires an ultimate ROW width of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant proposes to dedicate additional ROW to provide the required 30 feet. The applicant is also proposing to construct a half- street improvement along the frontage of the site to help mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from the site. The half-street improvement will be constructed to meet City standards for a minor collector street. Traffic Study Since additional traffic will be generated from this site, and SW Pfaffle Street is a fairly busy minor collector with major intersections east (at SW 78th Avenue) and west (at SW Hall Boulevard), the applicant was required to submit a traffic impact study along with the site development review application. The traffic study was performed by Lancaster Engineering and is dated November, 1997. The traffic study indicates that this new project will generate 412 new trips on an average weekday, with approximately 50 percent entering the site and 50 percent leaving. During the AM peak hour, 54 new trips will be added to the system, with 48 trips entering the site and 6 trips exiting. During the PM peak hour, 57 new trips will be added to the system, with 10 trips entering the site and 47 trips exiting. Lancaster analyzed the two primary intersections in this area at SW Hall Boulevard and SW 78th Avenue. They found that the Hall Boulevard intersection presently operates at a level cr service (LOS) B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. When considering the new traffic added by this project, the LOS will then be between B and C during the AM peak and E during the PM peak hour. Generally, LOS E is acceptable at an unsignalized intersection. Lancaster also investigated traffic signal warrants at this intersection and found that under existing conditions, signal warrants are met. Warrants continue to be met when Lancaster considered the added traffic from this project. The signal warrants are met primarily because of the delays experienced by left- turning vehicles on Pfaffle Street. Because this condition is existing, Staff does not believe that the applicant should be required to install the signal. This improvement would likely need to be a part of a City capital improvement project. The intersection of SW 78th Avenue and SW Pfaffle Street was also investigated and it was found that under existing conditions, the AM peak hour LOS is A and the PM peak hour LOS is B. After the subject property is occupied, the LOS will be B during the AM peak hour and C during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact this intersection. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 12 OF 16 Based on the information L.ontained within the Lancaster traffic, study, Staff finds that this project will not have a significant negative impact on the street system. The project should be approved provided the applicant construct the half-street improvement on Pfaffle Street as proposed. WATER: This site is located within the Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan shows three new taps into the main water line in SW Pfaffle Street. This work shall be permitted by TVWD prior to construction. SANITARY SEWER: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 81st Avenue that terminates approximately 45 feet north of SW Pfaffle Street. The sewer line appears to have adequate depth to serve this site. Adjacent properties on Pfaffle Street appear to be connected to public sewer, so no further extensions of this sewer line are necessary. STORM DRAINAGE: The topography of this site falls to the northwest toward Pfaffle Street. There is an existing roadside ditch that flows to the west along the south edge of the roadway. A downstream analysis was performed by Harris-McMonagle Associates in conjunction with the Carriage House apartment project, which is located on the south side of Pfaffle Street across from SW 83rd Avenue. That analysis found that the roadside ditch system in Pfaffle Street becomes overloaded as it approaches SW Hall Boulevard. There are downstream local flooding problems that occur during heavy winter rains in that area. Harris-McMonagle recommended that the Carriage House site and the Pfaffle Street roadway drainage near that site be directed northerly in a storm line that lies within the SW 83rd Avenue ROW. As a part of the Carriage House project, partial downstream pipe system upsizing was completed on SW Steve Street: a 12-inch storm line was replaced with a 24-inch storm line. In addition, the developer tied into the existing storm line in 83rd Avenue, which at that time terminated north of Pfaffle Street, and extended a new 18-inch storm line to Pfaffle Street. There is still a section of 12-inch storm line in SW 83rd Avenue that was not replaced because the City felt that the cost of the entire downstream upsizing should not be carried by one developer (the downstream problems on 83rd and Steve Street were not due solely to development of the Carriage House site). Therefore, the applicant for this project will have two options for addressing the downstream system. One option is to upsize the 12-inch section of storm line in SW 83rd Avenue to a minimum of 18 inches, as was recommended in the Harris-McMonagle downstream analysis. The other option is to provide on-site detention and meet USA's design criteria. The applicant's plan indicates that they will provide on-site detention. 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 NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 13 OF 16 • indicating the frequency ,..11d method to be used in keeping 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 issuance of the building permit. The applicant's plan indicates that they will provide an extended dry detention pond that will perform both water quality treatment and 25-year detention. The area provided for the pond appears to be adequate for this site. 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 SW Pfaffle Street. 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 235 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 6,463.00. SECTION V. STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the application and has the following comments: 1 . A soil stability and (liquefaction) report shall be provided; 2. Parking lot layout does not provide maneuvering for fire trucks; 3. Provide fire hydrants within 250 feet of all exterior walls; 4. Additional fire apparatus access to rear of the building is needed as there are portions of the building exceeding 150 feet from truck access, is the building protected?; 5. Additional catch basins are required to meet Plumbing Code; 6. Provide a F.D.C. within 70 feet of fire hydrant; 7. Provide fire flow calculations; and 8. Hydrant flow test. The City of Tigard Police Department states that the applicant shall provide a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department and request that a clearly posted address sign be displayed near the entrance off SW Pfaffle Street as well as on or near the main entrance of the building. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 14 OF 16 The City of Tigard Mainz...Dance Services Department has reviewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and has the following comments: 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 sanitary sewer is available to up-hill 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 up-hill 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 flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. GTE states that the developer/owner to place conduits to GTE specifications. PGE has reviewed this application and has 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 ,-cord within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 25, 1998 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 15 OF 16 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 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 FEBRUARY 25, 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. Also-1 C 20., February 12, 1998 PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Associate Planner/AICP `��IG�P�' February 12, 1998 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewer o DATE Planning Man ger is\curpin\will\sdr97-16.dec NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160.CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 16 OF 16 • T W_ W MB _a ' ea eee . .PFAFFLE 3} _ S W F LE STREET+ e i s. -Ti- T i „-§ 1 �f.,,, I- (V..'777 �, � / �� .7/ ..61;' i A t • ../sir-i Z ----- - —_—_~ • 111 001 _�� - �. - ---- --- - — � rR.OU.ITr 11 m- i i �. pl1(wno.ado I I t•osuK 1 11 I d 1 1 TL � 0 1 - i 0^ \ h 1 ( I ! Z 1 Z ` !1/11 Rss ' .1• \s .� w l/7C1CYI S'p or i` fl As.l 1 WO�G1 Q uwlcxl fit/ 1 / s swn.. 1 11 FOYER \ 1ST FLOOR I ' CD 1 C 1 ,.M.TRAINING \ '�°"`ro?I.D`10.•I.9O1 i I . CENTER �1T��1.100 Sr WOK/1t00 1.100 Sr 1 1 U. 1 1 1 a IN = ..._,..r-4 lwJ1('.VI .74.-;�3___—___T_�.-_ - ___ --- - --_ _ _—_ T _— -- 117.1�• H — SEARS HOMELIFE CENTER U I s CASE NOM] &CASE!lAMEISk SITE PLAN t , SDR 91-0016 EXHIBIT MAP N CEI HEADQUARTERS '!3 MiT TO SGLLD ' MU' ~ L_-1—__- 1 i T--1 1 — ---_-1—.__1—1 l H L.1-11-1 i 1L__ CITY of T I G A R D SRRUCE ST I I a SPRUCE OFOOMARX1� IXFOR YATIOX SYATFY co IIIIIM III , 111 1 i- .. c WWII e PLANNIH6 DIVISION,, T VICINITY MAP - Pi rf- . , 1.11. ........., iitiME 016 STEVE '- SOB 910' � mi ��IMPI ■-__ CEI HEADQUARTER IN IN oIN _ M� co < Pm - will. sr;_ . 11 M■ lea ~ 1 FLE Nigl ,%EC ■ Sv ���.7 �A ipotILA-scit wow IV'i mil i k •i At N t -0 g 100 E00 Fast Io to T=400 fed ti� rs* _,,,. ,,,, tarty of Tigard _'�`-'--- Information on this map Is!a general Iocallon only end TTZ!T Development Services SW HaN RIvd1 OR 91227{4741111 w.d.tlperd.or.us . Plot date:Jan 5, 1998;c:lmag iclmagicdd.apr I Community Development MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: February 10, 1998 TO: Will D'Andrea, Planning Division FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SDR 97-0016, CEI Headquarters Description: This application is for a 3-story, 19,800 square-foot general office building to be located at 8060 SW Pfaffle Street (WCTM 1S1 36CD, Tax Lot 600). Findings: 1. Streets: This site lies adjacent to the south edge of SW Pfaffle Street, which is classified as a minor collector on the City's Transportation Plan Map. The site is across from the intersection of SW 81st Avenue, a local residential street. SW Pfaffle Street is partially improved in this area with paving but is not fully improved to City standards. The existing right-of-way (ROW) on this roadway measures 25 feet from centerline presently. The minor collector designation requires an ultimate ROW width of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant proposes to dedicate additional ROW to provide the required 30 feet. The applicant is also proposing to construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of the site to help mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from the site. The half-street improvement will be constructed to meet City standards for a minor collector street. Traffic Study Since additional traffic will be generated from this site, and SW Pfaffle Street is a fairly busy minor collector with major intersections east (at SW 78th Avenue) and west (at SW Hall Boulevard), the applicant was required to submit a traffic impact study along with the site development review application. The traffic study was performed by Lancaster Engineering and is dated November, 1997. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters PAGE 1 The traffic study indicates that this new project will generate 412 new trips on an average weekday, with approximately 50 percent entering the site and 50 percent leaving. During the AM peak hour, 54 new trips will be added to the system, with 48 trips entering the site and 6 trips exiting. During the PM peak hour, 57 new trips will be added to the system, with 10 trips entering the site and 47 trips exiting. Lancaster analyzed the two primary intersections in this area at SW Hall Boulevard and SW 78th Avenue. They found that the Hall Boulevard intersection presently operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. When considering the new traffic added by this project, the LOS will then be between B and C during the AM peak and E during the PM peak hour. Generally, LOS E is acceptable at an unsignalized intersection. Lancaster also investigated traffic signal warrants at this intersection and found that under existing conditions, signal warrants are met. Warrants continue to be met when Lancaster considered the added traffic from this project. The signal warrants are met primarily because of the delays experienced by left- turning vehicles on Pfaffle Street. Because this condition is existing, Staff does not believe that the applicant should be required to install the signal. This improvement would likely need to be a part of a City capital improvement project. The intersection of SW 78th Avenue and SW Pfaffle Street was also investigated and it was found that under existing conditions, the AM peak hour LOS is A and the PM peak hour LOS is B. After the subject property is occupied, the LOS will be B during the AM peak hour and C during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact this intersection. Based on the information contained within the Lancaster traffic study, Staff finds that this project will not have a significant negative impact on the street system. The project should be approved provided the applicant construct the half-street improvement on Pfaffle Street as proposed. 2. Water: This site is located within the Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan shows three new taps into the main water line in SW Pfaffle Street. This work shall be permitted by TVWD prior to construction. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters PAGE 2 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 81st Avenue that terminates approximately 45 feet north of SW Pfaffle Street. The sewer line appears to have adequate depth to serve this site. Adjacent properties on Pfaffle Street appear to be connected to public sewer, so no further extensions of this sewer line are necessary. 4. Storm Drainage: The topography of this site falls to the northwest toward Pfaffle Street. There is an existing roadside ditch that flows to the west along the south edge of the roadway. A downstream analysis was performed by Harris- McMonagle Associates in conjunction with the Carriage House apartment project, which is located on the south side of Pfaffle Street across from SW 83rd Avenue. That analysis found that the roadside ditch system in Pfaffle Street becomes overloaded as it approaches SW Hall Boulevard. There are downstream local flooding problems that occur during heavy winter rains in that area. Harris-McMonagle recommended that the Carriage House site and the Pfaffle Street roadway drainage near that site be directed northerly in a storm line that lies within the SW 83rd Avenue ROW. As a part of the Carriage House project, partial downstream pipe system upsizing was completed on SW Steve Street; a 12-inch storm line was replaced with a 24-inch storm line. In addition, the developer tied into the existing storm line in 83rd Avenue, which at that time terminated north of Pfaffle Street, and extended a new 18-inch storm line to Pfaffle Street. There is still a section of 12-inch storm line in SW 83rd Avenue that was not replaced because the City felt that the cost of the entire downstream upsizing should not be carried by one developer (the downstream problems on 83rd and Steve Street were not due solely to development of the Carriage House site). Therefore, the applicant for this project will have two options for addressing the downstream system. One option is to upsize the 12-inch section of storm line in SW 83rd Avenue to a minimum of 18 inches, as was recommended in the Harris-McMonagle downstream analysis. The other option is to provide on-site detention and meet USA's design criteria. The applicant's plan indicates that they will provide on-site detention. 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) ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters PAGE 3 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 issuance of the building permit. The applicant's plan indicates that they will provide an extended dry detention pond that will perform both water quality treatment and 25-year detention. The area provided for the pond appears to be adequate for this site. 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 SW Pfaffle Street. 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 235 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be $ 6,463.00. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters 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 site and/or 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. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval (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 name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. 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. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaff le Street to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters PAGE 5 5. The applicant shall construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: a. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet (NOTE: because the existing pavement on Pfaffle Street is in acceptable condition, the applicant will be permitted to sawcut the edge of the pavement and add onto the width) 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 d. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff e. 5 foot concrete sidewalk f. street striping g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer h. underground utilities driveway apron (if applicable) j. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. A profile of SW Pfaffle Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site. 7. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to construction. 8. The applicant shall extend the existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 81st Avenue southerly to SW Pfaffle Street. The manhole location shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. 9. The applicant shall either upsize the existing 12-inch public storm line in SW 83rd Avenue or provide on-site detention as proposed on the preliminary plan. If on-site detention is provided, the design shall meet USA design criteria. 10. 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters PAGE 6 11. 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 A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: 12. Prior to final building inspection, 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. 13. 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. 14. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Pfaffle Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $ 27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $ 6,463.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. is\eng\brianr\comments\sdr97-16.bdr ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 97-0016 CEI Headquarters PAGE 7 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C.OF IIGARD Community Development Shaping Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 TO: Pete Nelson,US West Communications FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:[5031639-4171 Fax:[5031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 9]-0016 ➢ CEI HEADQUARTERS < The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981 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: v (Please provide the following information)Name of Person's)Commenting: I Phone Number[sl: SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS �v.S\ 4� — ���� S�?►°vim 4\ea:siE • -� s c4- • E1—■c' v,5 w�s� RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 1 8 1998 CITY OF TIGARD 01/20/98 TUE 08:30 FAX 503 591 0986 TVWD ENGINEERING 2002 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ,_l CITY OF TIGARD Cm Development RECEIVED PLAIny er Community DATE: January 13,1998 JAN 2 0 1998 {Tualatin Valle Water District -ATTN: ADMIMISTRA "CES CITY OF TIGARD F110-i City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: ulia Powell HaiduK,Associate Manner Phone:(5031639-4171 fat 15031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's State i tTor yogi review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other informati•,. - - • .ui staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the pr-(osal in the near futur-. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: (FR Y - JANUARY 23,1998). You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments if you are unable to respo. 1 by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and con • m your comments '- riting as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 1312 - : ;.0 evard, 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: v ' (Please provide the following information)Name of Perseids)Commenting: • [Phone Numbertsl: N-jr - 3 cna 07.nn1c CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS 44 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CIry o TIGARD ommunity Development RECEIVED PLANNpingA Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 F'IVED 1JAN 16 1998 TO: City of Durham City Manager .JAN 14 i998 CS!OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STICWLTACTI ___IQ Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:(5031639-4171 M:15031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a . 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District: C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981 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: K 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: -17-1 c p2dPcY r1 bdrS /obi- RebicJin-F boa..4*r+ 's 4E-1//F 0..) atz__ /AJPUr. / 1/.444-:- E N G z.e S r J b. A- /`74i o r 7 u 4-4 t s ?(A-Akk A 1 4- /f-s t-e 7 4- F s. Y0,1/2- t 2-V=C-x C- U I2-Ff'f1-N1 I.cJdUt-r I/.14-0 r ?D gcs NcTI r---1eb D - ,F vEZE!pi`tE-✓TS />- 1 7774./4 -roar ai7t{ 1-IHl TS . IN e rcei-4-2, -roe- pi r- An-c -i-o,.'a 3a-(D6 Fr"--7— lats At-o-)\ 'fT At6 i0' A4A- a F al 0 e -f -rt. -- WIR T a - Ttf-,- 22 t Al--i_6, b JA-0-7-r try 'S L Q ST 1z--,J '3 6 02.4 rn V ,► (Please provide the following information)Name of Persontsl Commenting: Ro E. LU -f z,l_u r s Cto1 At HI,..l,sr0.- o2. Phone Number(sl: 63 9 -68 5-( I SDR 97.0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS p,1 �! ;� �A a •� � :; - „a -' -.sl,�.r:�.T.... �+T� - - �' _ Of 1. ji z <- .1:-°. . v-F:.•i _ 4. +..'``�. <. .r .+:P-` a m �$' ..}•3` .tl:. - 'F=F.kr:R' ��R !h: , SI 31143 ,.1 '.;f23 :"'-:';: e.,t c.. «° '-L` :` :ii 56..:.°•iY.... .l ...:uf"rc-V..`.[v .w`°Y.. �1' - W ' ...,>>: 3�`r•_ n,_+^x� :..•s� 7�t.,. v�xa-.� k•�:o•rc_•�. - - ,�.-x';;7,�. �-" `^: - °3_- �,r•:. ,:ter x ,,,...., �°��- r R�l1 p �....�. .- .:.::. _r �a , :.�°' .� wwEV' •:.°sue^ zrce:.�.=: ...;.,.k•>.a.,...�.:c.. •:• �^'-' `'-- 1=a,�,. -.. _ r "MN I -:55 '�'3r + .. .G: -.« -r :: 3- ��._.:.:� ._. �_,. .- e.i.e ...:S�n- _'-= >.ry,r - ":.y c - ` . _ __ f• t .»�.� s. . _ `rte c '-' r ivy ' 2"- ,., ; u, ®. ^., .s �,. z- _ _. : . = n �, � Re Tonal Land ` � -�' .n,-- ,-._ a-" xs �...:k,u. .y i_-s'-T-r'... y,+.fix_ -._ _ =r` a•,a� _ yam. n Y ..�.., ,t , ' � -f r R . -><• r _fin.._. --� - ; '�' - • :4-- MF'i him , `4'• 3. __..�,T ,_'r_ —761 . : F �-5<_ ,'W9711,1. �, tyi ' ,,"�-.t:'e. , -... ,� � , ,• -',F '--.._':i'..0 :1 ..:. - K.—?tr�-,. '�i�.:..1n •�_ ti�.. 'r-',, 11 •l � - - •-'1--ZS:_ _ _ : r .. '''' 1 R -_ info rm n stem _..,•.. _ � .�—,u-. _ - i •� �, - a•s � ;-�- --.�� � - atio Sys '�• jl_. x ..,.a-,. _.,.., °� ._ ,�,:'v-',,--'. ... ,.,-r'' :. te -.. --.77--- a 1 1r -,♦ _ •� 'S. Yr'L,-!, ' -; ;:.,. . _-'t, I .T.P'.4, -4 - � � .. >3*�,-.. �.��.,=1,-. i` -�•L:'-- :_=•-r- -- "� :... '-z ,-,:'�' 1 �,(�'a ,.-+ ,�, "'� _ -o -yam �--_- - _ s - ��p.� . .,--w .-t-.;y�,�'__ ..--¢�-; 'F�..-r' �i.. � `;,=;= _ �� '�:Jkt '�.�'� 1 !1 - e-.5'' '§�'� ��__ �T4'� _.-�.,�h_, ��LL jj33' -�}�'" -s-=... .-,,,"�- -,-a4 .,,.�_:per. �; ,#___------q---,...� .---,�._ "`+. _.w sr. �•-.-.- �F �. _ s I 1 t■ k � a��� -vy'� •s-.x.:t z7 ".7 -:;i � - __ _:;,c — '�� ,...._ � >. x.-. -� -,1-. �.�<. _rte: ....:,. -., :� , .a ��_ ,> .ate �' s' � - �`1 - .`. ' �i�$�ft�7 - _.,,_ _,.._z.. }. . �!._� rte � ,-.-...�..: ��r � --=tea -.+;." 1 11 III .� c}'- .-,-,�� �''-_ _ -::114m. ,-.- .,, -',:... -,-i: _er Via: ^ .....,.�. .-> . -,5� i- T - _"r.: ?' _rt„ - .a a----. :3 - et 1 _ _ •> . .. r, �, ::: ;_ .:, -, ' . '-+t" --ai •7.'az- .-.:`�4-,:71--,--i-=,-,---"---_ y. - - I f:r__..,_ tee: •�', - ,� .= - .' k(IP) 1 1 1 1 1 ` li• y --.r -t. ,,,- -,.-` ..,,-_ _ LLt., •_. „Y- -� .�I1111 11 I I r}r :>� :: - -r _ _ _- v. L- r ,,j I --_.r.,=;33 -�+,�,-`*q :.s� - - . ss- ,>. >r:--s - ` +--r,:".m _-- ??i 7 ,: ,� +A �`}i� i � 'Y- W --:. - __l-' }^_• 4'J- ,T.� :,:-„ � -_.�-µ - -Gs_._i'. h� �i�3;f� 1 ! 1 L =H�. - "@i =�:,�•.- �a ahi .• sr r -,� .� �=-'- ��_„- R`.,,;-;-�-, ��= e-- _;-� 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 - yhr+. �=-,'' � � --=„F:_-sue'. a't�.:"r` [' _ _ � -#�:r.__:,,,; �.L�-. �.;; ,... � �'! ..:- __ �.�.:� -,- :r-.- �.}'-.�-t - - - 1 1 11 111 I 1! ( -S'�'�.=,-, �' .:.:it. _ -,,.. 1 v„ - . y��-�:4'"'' �.L-._���� _ - ..3'-, ..__- :.-'.r .-- +'_."t;_�:_ �r'�•-r-,w.. -�Y 1 111 t 111 I I - -- v -;�S.<_�: �'� .-a.-`.+r,.5?Y= `�v Y�rw= -_ `'•i+' �`� :J. W_ �� ` a T.+:�`'. � -"-..1. nv -,_��.J �� z .._ 4_�.t:= ._.�-, _ --'�+,-!-�-, y+; � 1 1 I 1 1 '1 1 1 -°`.___-�.,- _ `.r-.i,.� _,»�. . __- `_'-'^` 3..�- _ _L__ :?e ' =7_ - d-y`=- R-_:. :r. . +,..- '`� 11 I 1 I t 1 1 .:. y... d r- _- ` * f �_*� �.L�V _- �e� F�.+ut-'�° �� _ ?,Si� ;��_�- r ".s- .I t I 1 t I t 1 t ( ..,.� rr,� � � ` ,---��-mss_ -`�-':`a -- �,n �-�yt �®t ©I� �©9p�yy�' c -` 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 !1 1 m'sa ®° a _ t?. --°- �'- / °= -� r. 3 '° 3Ki�CN � �(gNi Ai 4 _-_ A' ._� -_'^ _ -t _ / _.'- °'•S,ic. = S ,'gs/- :..,.:.`r+ '.�' .1 ._4 _ :r = °.:, n"`"r�i qW-.i_�-'z� , -- _st_ _ , I 1 1 1 I t 1 I 1 t t 1 t 1 1 t 1 :S rr- - -- a-ma y -- - Dui a31 L �+ 7" __ _ � _ -- - --:3i � t_ - s- J vr:�.a:6cs-xr .*v'` -, _' _ x, 3.4 .F+at ,":.i r ��':",:�.T�i"�'.'.:�s•' _ � � j� '`�` .^_� �'�”:._._��„� ::�'.� -�a+ t � -k- y. / I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 111 1 11 1 I 1 =-.��-,'.Wit.,..°.P t''•l'�� *-Y s� .s°!;G ��^ ,,.. �`_. I y, gym* - ;m�ti,y ..7_ va.... y_ d4 � .'�m -�� -:� lice- a =� � -_:. ;_.._Z r. :S' _ d i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 J t l - W - �i; -C. e...'.'a°t"` - I' 'sl h _ ,�...� - .m -'- �,.,..�+, d 3... "� .'._ ,�-r---a, I � -- .�!�- ` [ �_ � , '"'ter-DTI:-.'�'�`.. -fr..--,- n, -�. �-:.-- _ � - - aura iT sue+, ` rte- �,t.,..7 '�, �..._�. k-''-----v- i�`r 'v , {{�a� - -: - :' ; "_s - �,:T 2, ,..-,.,:_,.ate -. :- a`__. E"t il�gt��f _ i ��4. '�_ -�:-..,a,�. }� •k __-£C- � r7.�. - " �._.' / r�t� � k r - ,f�( �!� r�Trl�_, 1 u.: _ Land Use plan _! Y�� _ 7 5 _T „®r,�l���' �IYY ^ _ -T:e i-- n�� �. t`-'gr y rIj�17 1 :_- --•,, ..,.- tee" - -_ .° r?-:�'' ''�,�':�_ '4 - •� -F:9' `�:�/S,� �x}-Y !+n - - -g �. �l_-. -, �- "-a-*- {-;`r�' .sc a-,�F - �- _� -.f s �1 1 I I 1 I -_ `c -"' n--:. . 'a,-= -srs, - , ..,.-„ ±i. .',r _ ' C' -� r'� --5 ---T.*° IAliq - 11111 T t �. .*_' ' -K..- ors - s'- _ - - -r-„ ice,'..�.. - l--yw=•,a-a '`� :_ '' r 111 1 I 'id,"11�16�iL '(`:.:.,=i ="�--)-c :_ F ..- � I I -s �, :_ - = _ Single Family Residential(SF) 3.. ,z c--�-y :-r. r�., ..:-„�- �"�'-•_ - .. - .. . - 1 1 1 I 1 1���� I t I 1 y-. _-� s -''� - _ -3F �- - -_3 6 �r� . ' �1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l t l l t S..t-+��-=-fig -�t•�.-=� k . - - - �_ ,--'„-$. "T`�->„1-ih� �'-� � 1-�..yrt _'`�.�,a,- -;;-r.�.. 1 1 � �yY r '_r , -;�-.-,�. �. r��-s,�::::,i� r• %.5'-'_. �.°`i ,_ +r --t,.-< .1-�+- . ._- :=J ,-i ..'�_..__. 1.i._ I t 1 1111 I ,=._,c-='-� a,°r '�'�-.,� -2= ` � _- �— -.:. :r ..a,__nf: ,a 11 °u t_.� N Multi-Famil MF ..,.. .,.+,.- k- :vr... a_.9r� .1 -__ ,:`se --f- - �. I t 1 1 1 t I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 11 t 1 -- 'T - -T.r,.-'-.;: - ,-%z. # c” - s: .., ,,, .>. 3 ...A ..---�j# 5.:. - �`'_ - - i°.. 1 1 1 11 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 111 1 t 1 r - =r.. .-._� `��c--- .- ) �R z:�- A �- tom ` ffice Park(OP)sm.- plinV -:-`-f-�� ,-� �:-•-� -a•�" �"�.,=�-J-,3,:"-'4� .h'�'_�a �� ■.r.r*'r*�'hl1l�f ��-�. _v„- -"fir-� � `I ycL 3. ':�y e.t.;;_• s j a �� Industrial Par w, _ t � � sn � . Greenway(G) ::�.l, ;r__-7 ,.-r ' �i. _.=y. --c.,-.3,-,1 .. y�,dQ•RTfi1 � "-: - - �.�.1 '-�. r35 _ _ _ ;.ra bP -; ?;- ,., '�°' _ :iF” � ► data, v :. + -�.c- -v -i? _ - u �e= j� m '�..�tf9 1 a ;� _ Green Overlay(GO) - "r F r_ ��s C L C t T. S �r ,t - F ,� .^. �s7 ---� iii ■; Busin Bonus for Planned De :; :Tti ® .:1 'ice i",/!� - !'III'" .' - ' "_ .' � ,;--- 5 311/ gr � 'm ,_ 1 ..'. j - 'k-,.-.✓. mss '-- ��.* P�a`--- r > - ` � ,q T •'s a- Ir'L'� - �'�T�f+� ��� � r --,. _ - . <- -, 4-,----7-,-------:-. ...: 'tea�,� �.I � �- „i.: �Y1, /.'11T�.76 -14 •. '0--''' `-4' _ �IT%:t -_�+� [m�aR�m]t�m]I(���. ' '� ,�'�� � :-r�� V� � - ������I�1�11�17����,.1,..,� '�n �• � r-.Tt_�- � " ��-��- .4 s � _ nriLltal`" �- gy m. -1_. -� � -7.,,-:-.------,--- -='''-----7=' :".--=-'-',.- - n > tam ��L/7L���� -�,', _..r. �.y�;isv �"--- - -,- " _y r'^. � �?�� �^h ��2 -a� �.�au,•.r_,.'.s_,. i" +,� _ `>°iJ n '? .y _�-' , w�-'-i �� .v',��1:J ao ��+.,�� _ F-? c- _.K _II- .a --, ..-+:. . �-j.,_rt Al E� _ - �1> 'c _ '' „. ?ms's. ` ..:e4-'„tt+ }a-a}, 1+ r-,'''+- -i l -r '" --'"7.� '.r, ' --_.-- ,4. T -� c- '� ,,.'� s - „ t `' IIIIII , :. 111111."R�� � _ Scale 1” _ //� 650 w+ iii.T - --1 =3 ❑s _ - c - - - - .■ �u +n _"'n -vim,_y. - - mit s ._,_ - �, — 0 325 650 975 ,.,______,_=_,,,,_„,„,,,_,_,,„....... :y_v..�- .-_,..._ , _�- _..-y -- > _._ - - _1_....."J. .6 N r _µ ,. . e _ t --i:-._=..:=1 ,__ _._•_ •-_- -r __ - _ - - _ 1 i I _ ,...: ..___.;.. .. .. _ : '7 '... '- �. T_T..=1r. N � mot-' .F- ` _._..:_::- --.- _,:,:,,,-....-..";.. .f,--_---..-7-�- ._ - . ..,, ._.. ,,.._- '._. '''''.5";=--,,----,---,'=".---_,_ - ., `_... ._� ..._, :l.r;,a r3iad_i# a ._.. ."; �qr� - - �: -.l - - �t'�-r _ - S I 4s:�-,zi_,.._.,:-_ .�.:�,.:_..... __.,.,._. ..: ,, __., -::: '-- --` - .re=p �•d. ._s,�c _ �. .....,.T.,..s- a _- -�-- .� ""'--' .-per, - - - - �. ie•. may,_ �•-:_ ' -- _i.::� .. . < . _.- -_ --.: -• � ::'., :ter =°� c• s _ __ `74k,'-., -, __:--F.-,--'��: �p --, , _'_..::..__ ._ , ... ... .:-:-.... ,_ �fir - ..._.. :.::.. :.i a _. - M a +• ara�,._.�-,L__.____..i_b .... ::m: z.��,c=u.---§.--�l_4,�1--. ,. . :-._.t_+J a,J`�.s.r' au+-'`� a3a,.w...tm'a-,� - a , 94143,plot date: July 11,1995 01.26.98 09:54 V5037318259 ODOT - REGION 1 Z004/004 oIor Date: January 21, 1998 To: Sonya Kazen INTEROFFICE Develop ent RevGyeyv �� MEMO�� MEMO From: oel McC rroll Traffic Analyst Subject: CEI Headquarters Transportation Impact Study City of Tigard I have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study for the CEI Headquarters, submitted by Lancaster Engineering (November, 1997). I have the following comments. 1. The trip generation formula uses 19,000 square feet as the gross floor area. According to the site development the gross floor area is closer to 20,000 square feet. Changing the area adds about four trips per day and only one in the peak hour. It does not affect the analysis. 2. The study does not consider the affects of the development on the intersections of Hwy. 99W with Pfaffle and SW 78th. The volumes are probably not large enough to warrant further study. 3. We would prefer to see the traffic analysis completed using ODOT's Unsig program rather than Highway Capacity Manual software. If you have any questions please contact at 731-8222. . 31-028119-!+1) •Lk • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community Development RECEIVED PLANN ►G Shaping 9{Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 TO: Julia Huffman,USA/SWM Program JAN 2 6 19' IJ JAN 1 4 1998 CIT`!OF TIGA'1 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:15031639-4171 Fax:15031684-7291 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)91-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,1998). 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 following information)Name of Perseids]Commenting: )a 44/\,4,_ I Phone Numbertsl: - �. SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS urrA40 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 1998 TO: Julia Powell--4141k, City of Tigard FROM: Julia Huffman, USA J 0 SUBJECT: CEI Headquarters, SDR 97-0016 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. 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 Phone:503/648-8621 Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 FAX:503/640-3525 . 401114, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CI O TIiGARD RECEIVED PLANNING Community Development Shaping- Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 JAN 2 0 1998 TO: Brian Moore,PGE Service Design Consultant CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:[5031639-4171 Fax:[5031684-1297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]91-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981. 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: V b. (Please provide the following information)Name of Person(s)Commenting: l I Phone Numher(sl: 't- '(4O ' I SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 4 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C.„,,.o��GARD RECEIVED PLANNING Community Development CANNING Shaping91 Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 JAN 1 5 1998 TO: David Scott,Building Official CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:(5031639-4171 Fax:(5031684-1291 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,1998). 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: — a.) A. r0 !/ �/mj'a� 7 J.tj a n/ 1 y ti C le r -14i n AN 1-e,o - t Ire let Y1 /t / - o ,. ► _/ / r - 01► .e "-IA t 3, AyvI die /rs IJ clr�1 n 1- Lv►�11 /� Zi'() /,L A // eit et. ter- w a ill Li ADO, i-osra1 fii A/7,.rru 7cJ CrrerI1 7`v rear 9 G /aij If nee,/ d f f<ohf are t9,-*, +h D t /s, !'1t rr* n / I1. o t, . r l J� / ' � f v �i�n� �r�, r//� 4 �r o r l .. �l”��t� • f tee/ � � c. 1 Jap,7Lt 0, 1 ! e , 1 f/1 6 f j . C)+^e r'7 `1 7�) 4-7,-, 7 67/ -- �o,1P e Dovlde G I;D4-. w,Thvi. )1, J OJT /' ° hlyfran V .► (PCease provide the following information)Name of Person(s)Commenting: f'r' P 2. Pixya Plot, e4 /es I Phone Number(s): I J 4 € 1-- FC o 4,- 1-e; 1 SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD Community Development RECEIVED PLANt■IFIrdilining Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 JAN 1 5 1998 TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Of f icer CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:[5031639-4171 Fax:[5031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SDRI 91-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS < The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981 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: stRJ¢5k \ht a Cz k:',k-c(}c Vi\\n'c,v,q Oo.h \ ■00(.A-Ice, acct Uw(c)A tic *5 k Qo`Aca Gdci -`S11 A15c\aytd■ '1C (141 .4 0141°- o akC.\2. 06.9 V:l%\\ C4 0C\ of vt A i NNC11`41 7an�`�AH1ci o \ \C V (Please provide the foffowing information)Name of Person(sl Commenting: d1M V40\c I Phone Numbertsl: ■ ' ■ o\'o I SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TEL Tan 15 ' 98 13 :59 No .006 P .01 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS C OFT;aARD CmInuuuty Deve(opnsatt DATE Jurniar 13,1,9 Shaping A ,c nity TO: Tolled.Mils Part a Recreation Department Planning Manager FROM: CItf of Beard Plsuning Dlgl$lon STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Nsllliuk,Asclon Planner RE Phut 1503111394171 Fu 15031 e119.?!17 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDN 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1 S13SCD Ttax Lot a 00800. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; Zoning District is to groups C-P. The purpose of the�� 9 provide for rou s of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others, APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.108, 18.108, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. r 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 5Y: (FRIDAY - JANUARY 23,1991). 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 FOLLOWINO ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. of our office. Written comments-provided below' / 4 • 11,b 4 C49-7,1419.,7 (rase provide fogawing information)Name of Person(al Commenting: I Phone Numberi11J: r_ �� DR 97.00111 CEI NEAT OLIAI TERS FROPOSAl1NEOUEST FOR COMMENTS . � �L •ICI J REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIGARD RECEIVED PLAN Community Development PLANNING Shaping[Better Community DATE: lama 1 1998 .c.�1 �qN 6 1998 TO: ifeft,GTE Engineering ' CITYOFT1GARS FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:(5031639-4171 Fax:[503)6841297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR)91-0016 ➢ CEI HEADQUARTERS The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981 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: Ian .1_ - -i • v � (Please provide the follouting information)Name of Person[sl Commenting: jo / I Phone Number(s): 6717 — . —7_3 I•..7 I SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAVREQUEST FOR COMMENTS a*. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD RECEIVED PLANNiPirmunitY(Development Shaping Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 JAN 1 4 1998 TO: Michael Miller,Operations Water Department Manager CITY OF TIGARD FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Nalduk,Associate Planner Phone:(5031639-4171 Fax:15031684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDRI 91-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS Q The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981 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, "4-6JEc r (S Oc 7 /OE 06{2— rwic-J -. P t. E —7 Lill YEW— %)/S'rQ c -- ``Z-/S// 77-44-A/Z5 4 (Please provide the following information i Name of Person(sl Commenting: m/ez- M//-rE/t--- I Phone Number(sl: 39 I SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIiOARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community DATE: January 13,1998 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk,Associate Planner Phone:[5031639-4111 Fax:(50316847297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)91-0016 ➢ CEI HEADQUARTERS < The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 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 - JANUARY 23,19981 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: V � (Please provide the following information)Name of Person(s)Commenting: I Phone Number(s): SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE g COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Io-Indicates 13 Automatic Notifications MALL City Projects) I;RAre .LCHE) [s) LW] .,,;�,.,_ .. " CITIZEN INVOLVEMENTTEAMS ; . III Place ter review In Library CITbolds) FILE NMI:: >9k 9 - l00/ C FILE NAMES]: 4 G�� `"'F‘'''''"''s , . x ; CIWllCES t _ . ADVANCED PLANNING/Nadine Smith,vt.,,«.gs.o.,vi.« COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./D.a.,«.s,o..r.phmnu,. POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,cn,n.Pr«.«,o„on,c.. c_BUILDING DIV./David Scott,B.iio on,cw ENGINEERING DEPT./Brian Rager,atonInt a«iew Enq,n.« WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,op.r.eon....,,, _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,cn,,A.««d. _OPERATIONS DEPTJJohn Roy,a.00.ny.,I.,,.9.r _OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS EJ TUALATIN HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.2 TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE EI TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT RI UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 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 .. RI CITY OF BEAVERTON 0 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, .i-ma.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. 0 METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street, NE 2 CITY OF DURHAM 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310.1380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 PO Box 23483 _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. Durham,CR 97281-3483 _Paulette Allen,GrowthMerugemereCOOKIMIOr _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV.&DVLP. 333 SW First Avenue _Mel Huie,GrewspecesCoordrWOr(CPA'YZOA's) 1175 Court Street,NE PO Box 2946 0 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) 0 WASHINGTON COUNTY King City,OR 97224 Building#16,Suite 540 Aeronautics Division Dept.of Land Use&Trans. Portland,OR 97232-2109 Tom Highland,Pwnrg 155 N.First Avenue 0 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 0 ODOT,REGION 1 _Brent Curtis(cPA#( PO Box 3621 Sonya Kazen,D.ipm*aev.coord. _Scott King(cpA's) _CITY OF PORTLAND Portland,OR 97208-3621 123 NW Flanders _Mike Borreson(erg,r,.en David Knowles,Ptanrunq Bureau Dir. Portland,OR 97209-4037 _Jim Tice(IGAS) Portland Building 106, Rm. 1002 OREGON,DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY _Tom Harry(co,.entp apps 1120 SW Fifth Avenue 811 SW Sixth Avenue 0 ODOT,REGION 1-DISTRICT 2A _Phil Healy,Current PI apps, Portland,OR 97204 Portland,OR 97204 Jane Estes,Penns specwi9 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 1313 W. 11th Street Twin Oaks Technology Center 9480 SW Boeckman Road 3500 SW Bond Street Vancouver,WA 98660-3000 1815 NW 169th Place, S-6020 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97201 Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 _COLUMBIA CABLE COMPANY —PORTLAND WESTERN R/R _TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Craig Eyestone _NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY Steve Myhr, Region Manager Michael Kiser,Project Planner 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Scott Palmer Catellus Property Management 710 NE Holladay Street Beaverton,OR 97005 220 NW Second Avenue 999 Third Avenue,Suite 2120 Portland,OR 97232 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Seattle,WA 98104-4037 GENERAL TELEPHONE Paul Koft,Engineering _OREGON ELECTRIC R/R _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.R/R _US WEST COMMUNICATION MC: OR030546 (111RUNc7ONNORiwrRNSAN TAFERAZPREVASSORJ Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Pete Nelson Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Reed Fay,Division Superintendent 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard 421 SW Oak Street 1313 W. 11th Street Portland,OR 97232 Portland,OR 97204 Vancouver,WA 98660-3000 n:\patty\mastarsVtcnotice.mst 2-Jan-98 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CRY OFT1OARD Community Detizlopment Shaping ,Better Community S'TA(11.t OF OREGON' ) County of'Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) I, Patricia L. Lunsford being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am an Administrative Specialist II for the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (0r094:c aonYe Ba4s)Bel.,) E NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: 5-De 6fl-c U ' caI e-n%)( 1Z7 uN , ❑ AMENDED NOTICE - / (FieNo.MemeReffeence) [� City 9 of Tigard Planning Director 9 ❑ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: I AMENDED NOTICE (Fie No Name Reference) (Date of PUDIC Heanng) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director O Tigard Hearings Officer O Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council El NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER FOR: i ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) (Date of Pudic Heanng) O City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard City Council 0 NOTICE OF FOR: (TyperKlod of Notice) (File No Name Reference) (Date of Public Heanng,rf app icaole) A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICEIS] of which is attached, marked 31 11 "A", was mailed to each_pamed person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit -,An 1 e /c ' day o . .�. 1998, and deposited in the United States Mail on the i ay o�- /. '/ AK, 1998,postage prepaid. 7/MIA ' i , , tC W4l.7570 ---- Wor • (Person that P -par- otice)Ard jjl NW, Or Subscribed and sworn/affirmed'bifore m- on the .-7 ,day of essaits4, , 1• a . e„4., OFFICIAL SEAL I �r*-f DIANE M JELDERKS L Jar / L��� A. `.� . NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON "it COMMISSION NO 046142 N I .0/Y PUBLIC OF(MEGA N MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07.1999 My Commission 1 II . FXT-TTRTT A v NOCE'QFEiON REVIEW II conuffunqviceopmi DEVEtOPMENT o- --+ I K CITY OF TIGARD �I 111 CEINEADO RS ENI SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER CASES: Site Development Review SDR 97-0016 PROPOSAL: Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 19,800 square foot business professional office. APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNER: Alex and Lotti Finke Viking Development, L.L.C. Finke Trust 7150 SW Hampton, Suite 226 PO Box 23562 Portland, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Commercial; C-P. ZONING DESIGNATION: Professional Commercial; C-P. The Professional Commercial zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services and transient lodging, among others. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. The site is located west of SW Pacific Highway, east of SW Hall Boulevard, south of SW 81st Avenue and on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Communityi lc�i Dire ct s�gl � has APPROVED the above request subject to cert�° r app.:, The findings and conclusions on which the decision is bas poled In n iV NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 1 OF 16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR i O TIDE 1SSU INCE OF it AN ` 4 � ITS THE FOLLOWING CONDOIONS-SH LL ED (Unless otherwise noted,the stave*s tp . 0- Engineerin partmen#` 1. Prior to issuance of a site and/or 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. Once redline comments are addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8) sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final review and approval (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 name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. 3. 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. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 5. The applicant shall construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet (NOTE: because the existing pavement on Pfaffle Street is in acceptable condition, the applicant will be permitted to sawcut the edge of the pavement and add onto the width); 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; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk; F. street striping; G. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 2 OF 16 H. undergrouna utilities; I. driveway apron (if applicable); and J. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. A profile of SW Pfaffle Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site. 7. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to construction. 8. The applicant shall extend the existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW 81st Avenue southerly to SW Pfaffle Street. The manhole location shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. 9. The applicant shall either upsize the existing 12-inch public storm line in SW 83rd Avenue or provide on-site detention as proposed on the preliminary plan. If on-site detention is provided, the design shall meet Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) design criteria. 10. 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. 11 . 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." 12. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division. Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. location of all roof mounted equipment and an elevation drawing demonstrating screening of this equipment from view from adjacent public streets; B. an additional parking lot tree adjacent to the three (3) parking spaces adjacent to the staircase on the west side of the building; C. removal of the impervious surface area within the buffer area, only a sidewalk connecting the staircase to the walkway adjacent to the parking lot shall be allowed within the buffer area; D. clarify whether or not the Emerald Arborvitae are proposed or represent the existing hedge. If the Emerald Arborvitae identified on the plans are the existing plantings, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides plantings in accordance with buffer standards; E. remove the parking spaces from the vision clearance area; F. location of one (1) off-street loading space; and G. written solid waste hauler approval of facility location and equipment compatibility. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 3 OF 16 13. A revised plan shad be submitted for review and app.oval by the City of Tigard Building Department that designs the parking lot to comply with turning radius designs of the Uniform Fire Code. • 14. A lighting plan shall be submitted to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Staff Contact: Jim Wolf (639-6168 x220). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHAT B PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING ISR 15. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one (1)-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 16. 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. 17. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Pfaffle Street underground as a part of this project, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $6,463.00 and it shall be paid prior to a final building inspection. 18. All site improvements shall be installed as approved, per the revised site plans. THIS APPRO VAL SMALL BE R lamp S FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF DEMON. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: No development applications were found to have previously been filed with the City for this site. Vicinity Information: Adjacent properties to the east and west are zoned C-P (Professional Commercial) and are developed with the GM Training Center and a single-family residence respectively. Property to the south is zoned C-G (General Commercial) and is developed with commercial uses. Property to the north is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and is developed with single-family residences. Site Information and Proposal Description: The approximately 1 .06 acre vacant parcel is covered with grasses and several trees. The applicant is proposing to construct a three (3) story, 19,800 square foot office building. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 4 OF 16 SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA ANA, FINDINGS THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE INDICATED IN THIS SECTION IN THE "BOLD" PRINT FOLLOWED BY A REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE AND FINDINGS, IF ANY, BY STAFF. 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 requirement 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. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) is a mitigation measure fee that is required at the time of development. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by 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 systems. Upon obtaining a building permit, the applicant will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $52,972. Based on the estimate that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this projects traffic impact is $165,537 ($52,972 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid, and the full impact, is considered an unmitigated impact on the collector and arterial system. Since the TIF paid is $52,972, the unmitigated impact can be valued at approximately $112,565 impact on the collector and arterial systems. The applicant will be required to dedicate an additional five (5) feet of frontage along SW Pfaffle Street. Based on past city purchases of property for street right-of-way (ROW), property is assessed at $3.00 per square foot. The applicant is being required to dedicate an additional 1 ,175 square feet (235 x 5) of right-of-way along SW Pfaffle Street. Assuming a cost of $3.00 per square foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the dedication is $3,525 (1 ,175 ft. x $3.00). The applicant has proposed to construct half-street improvements on SW Pfaffle Street. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of the half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. This conservative estimate was determined from current bid tabulations. Assuming a cost of $200 per lineal foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements to SW Pfaffle Street is $47,000 (235 feet x $200). The total cost for dedication and improvements is a total of $50,527. Given these estimates, the conditions are roughly proportional to the impacts since the unmitigated impact ($112,565) is more than the value of the dedication and improvements ($50,527). NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 5 OF 16 Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a uummercial office building. Community Development Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) classifies an office as Professional and Administrative Services. Section 18.64.030(A)(2)(k)(i) lists Professional and Administrative Services as a permitted use in the C-P zone. Dimensional Requirements: Section 18.64.050 states that the minimum lot area shall be 6,000 square feet and the average minimum lot width shall be 50 feet. Developments are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The site has an average lot width of approximately 210 feet, thereby, exceeding the required 50-foot minimum lot width requirement. The site contains approximately 46,173 square feet, well in excess of the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing approximately 11 ,570 square feet or 26% of the site for landscaping, in compliance with the landscaping requirements. Setbacks: Section 18.64.050 states that no front, side, or rear yard setback is required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zoning district. The maximum building height is 45 feet. Zoning setbacks are not applicable as the site does not abut a residential zone. The applicant is proposing a building height of 42 feet, under the maximum 45 feet allowed. 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 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 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 18.80 (Planned Developments), 18.84 (Sensitive Lands), 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. Section 18.120.180(A)(2) 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. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 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) or 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces) and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. 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. There are several mature trees on the property. Given the location of the building, parking area and accessway, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, all but one (1) of the existing trees greater than 12-inch caliper will be removed. In accordance with Community Development Code Section 18.150, trees greater than 12-inch caliper will be mitigated. The proposed plan includes new parking lot, street trees, and mitigation trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 6 OF 16 Buffering, Screening and Compatibility between a..joininq uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This proposal abuts a use that requires buffering in accordance with the Buffer Matrix (Code Section 18.100.130). Buffering and Screening will be provided in accordance with the requirements of that section, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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. As indicated on the site plan, parking and storage areas are screened from adjoining properties. The applicant shall submit a revised plan that shows the location of all roof mounted equipment and an elevation demonstrating screening in compliance with this section. 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. A lighting plan showing that lighting fixtures are selected, designed and situated to direct light towards areas of the site vulnerable to crime shall be submitted in accordance with this section. The plan shall be reviewed by the City of Tigard Police Department. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement has been satisfied as the applicant has submitted a plan indicating the number, type and location of trees and shrubs. 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 landscape plan shows the provision of Gambel Oak trees along SW Pfaffle Street, spaced approximately 20-25 feet, in accordance with this section. 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. As indicated on the site plan, screening has been provided in accordance with this section. As indicated on the site plan, parking lot trees have been partially provided in accordance with this section. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides an additional parking lot tree adjacent to the three (3) parking spaces, adjacent to the staircase on the west side of the building. 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 proposed office building abuts a single-family use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 20 feet. The Matrix indicates that where a parking lot abuts a single-family use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 10 feet. Section 18.100.080.D contains the minimum improvement standards for the buffering NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 7 OF 16 area. The minimum imp.ovements within a buffer area sha,. consist of the following: 1) At least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall be not less than 10 feet high for deciduous trees and 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 1000 square feet of required buffer area; 3) The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, groundcover or spread with bark mulch. Section 18.100.080.E states that where screening is required the following standards shall apply in addition to those required for buffering; 1) a hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen shrubs which will form a 4 foot continuous screen within 2 years of planting, or; 2) an earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials which will form a continuous screen 6 feet in height within 2 years. The unplanted portion of the berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover or bark mulch, or; 3) a 5 foot or taller fence or wall shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. There is an existing residence on the adjoining eastern property. Therefore, both a 20-foot and a ten (10)-foot buffer and screening area is required along this section of the proposed development. The 20-foot buffer area contains approximately 1,440 square feet. Therefore, the buffer shall contain ten (10), five-gallon; or twenty (20), one-gallon shrubs in addition to the one (1) row of trees. The ten (10)-foot buffer area contains approximately 1,330 square feet. Therefore, the buffer shall contain ten (10), five-gallon; or 20, one-gallon shrubs in addition to the one (1) row of trees. The proposed plan shows that a ten (10)-foot setback has been provided between the parking lot and the east property line. The plan also shows that a 20-foot setback has been provided between the building and the property line, however, there is an impervious surface area within the buffer area. A revised plan shall be submitted that only shows a sidewalk connecting the staircase to the walkway adjacent to the parking lot. The remainder of the buffer area shall remain as landscaping and buffer area. The proposed plan shows a row of Emerald Arborvitae along the entire length of the property adjacent to the adjacent single-family residence. Upon a site visit, staff observed that there was an existing hedge along the property line that provided screening. It is not clear from the plans whether or not the Emerald Arborvitae are proposed or represent the existing hedge. The applicant is required to provide screening on-site. If the Emerald Arborvitae identified on the plans are in addition to the hedge that is currently visible on the property line, the combination of the two (2) rows of plantings will provide screening in accordance with this section. If they are the existing plantings, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides plantings in accordance with buffer standards. Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.100.070.0 states that in-lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the typical buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening required by this code. If the Emerald Arborvitae identified on the plans are in addition to the hedge that is currently visible on the property line, the combination of the two (2) rows of plantings will meet and/or exceed the applicable code standards and provide the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 8 OF 16 Section 18.100.080.B s.ces that a buffer area may only Je occupied by utilities, screening, sidewalks and bikeways, and landscaping. No buildings, accessways, or parking areas shall be allowed in a buffer area except where an accessway has been approved by the City. The proposed landscape plan shows that a five (5)-foot sidewalk has been placed within the ten (10)-foot buffer. This sidewalk will connect the main entrance of the building to the sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street. A sidewalk is allowed within the buffer area as stated in this section. Therefore, the proposed plan complies with this section. Section 18.100.070.B states that buffering and screening is required to reduce the impacts on adjacent uses which are of a different type in accordance with the buffer matrix. The owner of each proposed development is responsible for the installation and effective maintenance of buffering and screening. When different uses would be abutting one another except for separation by a right-of-way, buffering, but not screening, shall be required as specified in the matrix. There is a residential zone and existing residences on the north side of SW Pfaffle Street. The Matrix indicates that where a parking lot abuts a single-family use, the required buffer width shall be ten (10) feet. Therefore, a ten (10)-foot buffer is required along the northern boundary of the development. The buffer area contains approximately 1,850 square feet. Therefore, the buffer shall contain ten (10), five-gallon; or twenty (20), one-gallon shrubs in addition to the one (1) row of trees. Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.100.070.0 states that in-lieu of these standards, a detailed buffer area landscaping and screening plan may be submitted for the Director's approval as an alternative to the typical buffer area landscaping and screening standards, provided it affords the same degree of buffering and screening required by this code. The plans show that the parking lot setback is five (5) feet. While the parking lot is setback approximately five (5) feet from the property line, landscaping has been provided as a buffer that meets and/or exceeds the applicable code standards and provides the same degree of buffering and screening as required by this code. The plans show the provision of approximately 22, three-gallon Rhododendron "Nino Crimson" shrubs and six (6), four-inch caliper Gambel Oak trees along the frontage of the development. Therefore, this section is satisfied. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 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. As indicated on the site plan, parking areas have been provided in the vision clearance area. A revised plan shall be submitted that removes the parking spaces from the vision clearance area, thereby complying with this section. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 9 OF 16 Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030.(C)(1) requ.ues a minimum of one (1) parking space per 350 square feet gross floor area for Professional and Administrative Offices. The 19,800 square foot office building requires 56 parking spaces. As indicated on the site plan, 75 parking spaces have been provided, thereby, satisfying this criteria. As discussed in the vision clearance section, the parking lot will be redesigned to remove parking out of the vision clearance area. The plan will be reviewed to ensure that the minimum number of parking spaces has still been provided. 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 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 3 disabled parking spaces if 51 to 75 parking spaces are provided. The plan shows the provision of three (3) disabled parking spaces, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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 spaces shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures. Where possible, bicycle parking facilities shall be placed under cover. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Four (4) bicycle parking spaces are required for this development. The plan shows that a five (5) space bicycle parking area is provided, satisfying this criteria. 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. The plan does not show the provision of an off-street loading space. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides an off-street loading space in accordance with this section. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require less than 100 parking spaces provide one (1) access with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. This criteria is satisfied as the proposed plan shows the provision of a 30-foot-wide driveway onto SW Pfaffle Street. 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. There is a driveway near the west property line that serves the GM Training Center but the driveway is not adjacent to the property line and there is a grade difference between the driveway and the proposed parking area that makes a parking lot connection not practical. There is an existing single-family residence on the adjoining eastern property. The applicant is being required to provide a buffer between these two properties and has located a sidewalk connecting the entrance of the building to SW Pfaffle Street. The design of the parking lot does not make future modifications to accommodate a parking lot connection very practical. Therefore, the site plan shall not be required to provide for a parking lot connection with adjoining properties. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 10 OF 16 Walkways: Section 1 v. .08.050(A) requires that a walkw_y be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. 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 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. The proposed site plan shows the provision of a five (5)-foot walkway that provides a connection from the entrance to the sidewalk along SW Pfaffle Street. 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 plans show the provision of a trash enclosure. The applicant shall provide a written sign-off from the hauler regarding the location and compatibility of this facility. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 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. This section requires a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal for trees over 12 inches in caliper. The applicant has provided a report and plan that identifies all existing trees greater than six (6) inches in caliper. The inventory identified five (5) trees greater than 12-inch caliper. The proposed plan will be removing all but one (1) of the trees greater than 12-inch caliper, totaling 55 caliper inches. Since the applicant is retaining less than 25 percent of the five (5) existing trees, Section 18.150.025(B)(2)(a) requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D of no net loss of trees. The applicant shall, therefore, provide a mitigation plan that provides for mitigation of the 55 caliper inches being removed. This mitigation is in addition to the required minimum landscaping, street trees and parking lot trees. The applicant's narrative states that the 55 caliper inches will be mitigated on-site. Staff has reviewed the proposed landscape plan and verified that mitigation has been proposed to be satisfactorily provided on-site. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 11 OF 16 PUBLIC FACILITY CONC,L_RNS: Sections 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100 (Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below: STREETS: This site lies adjacent to the south edge of SW Pfaffle Street, which is classified as a minor collector on the City's Transportation Plan Map. The site is across from the intersection of SW 81st Avenue, a local residential street. Southwest Pfaffle Street is partially improved in this area with paving but is not fully improved to City standards. The existing right-of-way (ROW) on this roadway measures 25 feet from centerline presently. The minor collector designation requires an ultimate ROW width of 30 feet from centerline. The applicant proposes to dedicate additional ROW to provide the required 30 feet. The applicant is also proposing to construct a half- street improvement along the frontage of the site to help mitigate the additional traffic that will be generated from the site. The half-street improvement will be constructed to meet City standards for a minor collector street. Traffic Study Since additional traffic will be generated from this site, and SW Pfaffle Street is a fairly busy minor collector with major intersections east (at SW 78th Avenue) and west (at SW Hall Boulevard), the applicant was required to submit a traffic impact study along with the site development review application. The traffic study was performed by Lancaster Engineering and is dated November, 1997. The traffic study indicates that this new project will generate 412 new trips on an average weekday, with approximately 50 percent entering the site and 50 percent leaving. During the AM peak hour, 54 new trips will be added to the system, with 48 trips entering the site and 6 trips exiting. During the PM peak hour, 57 new trips will be added to the system, with 10 trips entering the site and 47 trips exiting. Lancaster analyzed the two primary intersections in this area at SW Hall Boulevard and SW 78th Avenue. They found that the Hall Boulevard intersection presently operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. When considering the new traffic added by this project, the LOS will then be between B and C during the AM peak and E during the PM peak hour. Generally, LOS E is acceptable at an unsignalized intersection. Lancaster also investigated traffic signal warrants at this intersection and found that under existing conditions, signal warrants are met. Warrants continue to be met when Lancaster considered the added traffic from this project. The signal warrants are met primarily because of the delays experienced by left- turning vehicles on Pfaffle Street. Because this condition is existing, Staff does not believe that the applicant should be required to install the signal. This improvement would likely need to be a part of a City capital improvement project. The intersection of SW 78th Avenue and SW Pfaffle Street was also investigated and it was found that under existing conditions, the AM peak hour LOS is A and the PM peak hour LOS is B. After the subject property is occupied, the LOS will be B during the AM peak hour and C during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact this intersection. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 12 OF 16 Based on the information contained within the Lancaster trahR, study, Staff finds that this project will not have a significant negative impact on the street system. The project should be approved provided the applicant construct the half-street improvement on Pfaffle Street as proposed. WATER: This site is located within the Tualatin Valley Water District's (TVWD) service area. The applicant's plan shows three new taps into the main water line in SW Pfaffle Street. This work shall be permitted by TVWD prior to construction. SANITARY SEWER: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located in SW 81st Avenue that terminates approximately 45 feet north of SW Pfaffle Street. The sewer line appears to have adequate depth to serve this site. Adjacent properties on Pfaffle Street appear to be connected to public sewer, so no further extensions of this sewer line are necessary. STORM DRAINAGE: The topography of this site falls to the northwest toward Pfaffle Street. There is an existing roadside ditch that flows to the west along the south edge of the roadway. A downstream analysis was performed by Harris-McMonagle Associates in conjunction with the Carriage House apartment project, which is located on the south side of Pfaffle Street across from SW 83rd Avenue. That analysis found that the roadside ditch system in Pfaffle Street becomes overloaded as it approaches SW Hall Boulevard. There are downstream local flooding problems that occur during heavy winter rains in that area. Harris-McMonagle recommended that the Carriage House site and the Pfaffle Street roadway drainage near that site be directed northerly in a storm line that lies within the SW 83rd Avenue ROW. As a part of the Carriage House project, partial downstream pipe system upsizing was completed on SW Steve Street; a 12-inch storm line was replaced with a 24-inch storm line. In addition, the developer tied into the existing storm line in 83rd Avenue, which at that time terminated north of Pfaffle Street, and extended a new 18-inch storm line to Pfaffle Street. There is still a section of 12-inch storm line in SW 83rd Avenue that was not replaced because the City felt that the cost of the entire downstream upsizing should not be carried by one developer (the downstream problems on 83rd and Steve Street were not due solely to development of the Carriage House site). Therefore, the applicant for this project will have two options for addressing the downstream system. One option is to upsize the 12-inch section of storm line in SW 83rd Avenue to a minimum of 18 inches, as was recommended in the Harris-McMonagle downstream analysis. The other option is to provide on-site detention and meet USA's design criteria. The applicant's plan indicates that they will provide on-site detention. 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 NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 13 OF 16 indicating the frequency id 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 issuance of the building permit. The applicant's plan indicates that they will provide an extended dry detention pond that will perform both water quality treatment and 25-year detention. The area provided for the pond appears to be adequate for this site. 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 SW Pfaffle Street. 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 235 lineal feet; therefore the fee would be S 6,463.00. SECTION V. STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed the application and has the following comments: 1 . A soil stability and (liquefaction) report shall be provided; 2. Parking lot layout does not provide maneuvering for fire trucks; 3. Provide fire hydrants within 250 feet of all exterior walls; 4. Additional fire apparatus access to rear of the building is needed as there are portions of the building exceeding 150 feet from truck access, is the building protected?; 5. Additional catch basins are required to meet Plumbing Code; 6. Provide a F.D.C. within 70 feet of fire hydrant; 7. Provide fire flow calculations; and 8. Hydrant flow test. The City of Tigard Police Department states that the applicant shall provide a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Police Department and request that a clearly posted address sign be displayed near the entrance off SW Pfaffle Street as well as on or near the main entrance of the building. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 14 OF 16 The City of Tigard Main...nance Services Department has rciiewed this application and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed the application and has the following comments: 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 sanitary sewer is available to up-hill 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 up-hill 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 flow. Water Quality: Developer should provide a water quality facility to treat the new impervious surface being constructed as part of this development. GTE states that the developer/owner to place conduits to GTE specifications. PGE has reviewed this application and has 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: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 25, 1998 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 15 OF 16 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 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 FEBRUARY 25, 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. %%i&? February 12, 1998 �C G� PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Associate Planner/AICP — February 12, 1998 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewer o DATE Planning Man ger is\cu rpi n\wiI Iisdr97-16.dec NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 97-00160-CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER PAGE 16 OF 16 . T W = W i Q 4 CIO 44111 w CO} E'S.W.PFAFFLE STREET+ y L root c RIM N -7 1, if P ifj—t. w�q1 dirrtv ��R A V. . ,.41-4 u---r...-0,-,...p, --'Mc:—71,TL 600 M. LO6 CI 1 % .. I Z o o _. 1 v'..._,l - Z ` *� i-- i ( 1111 tglii1 11 1 r::::- I CL. 0 CC s FOYER ; J 1 .1ST FLOOR I CD E UL TUNING 1 PRPRG[x1[1.0.O•K/NO�. , _-_u M37 i10M 0.100 A I I •w`fii��R,rte. SECPA FLOOR 1.900 Si 1 ' O i - 1 '1017'- 1 3- \i„..1 ufo3uR ti "`3'-°° -- -T-�--- - -- --- -------_ '- !i I U SEARS NOMELIFE CENTER CASE NOM)&CASE NAMEISk t--,_ SITE PLAN 1111 SDR 97-0016 EXHIBIT MAP N CEI HEADQUARTERS (MAP IS NOT TO SCALD , l SRRUCE ST J CITY of TIGARD Ia SPRUCE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 1 ) ,r, virationnwin i ' I i I PLANNING DIVISION. .--.j ,. ST U f z d ,EN o u- ___0 I { VICINITY MAP �`� STEVE ~- ������m ff__ SDR 97-0016 — CEI HEADQUARTERS ��W� a Q LiJ I. jEE -r N 6L I IN 11111 V AIN . ,_____ • II in • aFFLE ,•. • Ilipp41 X11 *tit 0,.., ;� IV 0 tt Atte-c''At I_ r '114111 0 • N 0. ..0 $ 90 0 200 400 600 Feet 7, 1'=406 feet 2 . Oa v -A 0 l 11 City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location ony and should be verified with the Development Services Division. • 13125 SW Hall Blvd m �� 1 Tigard,(503)OR 9171 (503)639-4171 /� I• httpitwww.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Jan 5, 1998;c:lmagiclmagicdd.apr O- 614- x CE1 •DQuii- 125 (pi ua) EXHIBIT B iS136CA-03300 1S136CA-03301 LOOS HELEN A LIPNOS TIMOTHY AND ANITA 7935 SW PFAFFLE 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 • 1S136CB-01900 1S136CB-02000 PFAFFLE HELEN N TR RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC&ROSAURA 8225 SW PFAFFLE 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-02100 1S136CB-02200 RORMAN JAMES M&SUSAN M HADDIX BRYAN S AND JODI A 11250 SW 82ND AVE 11220 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-02800 1S136CB-06600 PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE WEBB NORMAN A 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST 11315 SW 81ST TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-06700 1S136CB-06800 CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L&DEBRA K BARKER KENNETH W 11287 SW 81ST AVE 11263 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD,OR 97062 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-09500 1S136CB-09600 INGLE TIMOTHY MARK WOO SANG KIL AND OK SON 11268 SW 81ST AVE 11300 SW 81ST AVENUE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CC-00100 1S136CD-00401 BARASCH STEPHEN PFAFFLE ROAD PARTNERS 485 W MILWAUKEE AVE 13612 SW 130TH PL DETROIT,MI 48202 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C D-00500 1 S 136CD-00600 SORG NORMAN J ET AL FINKE ALEX TRUSTEE 8000 SW PFAFFLE ST PO BOX 23562 TIGARD,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97281 1S136CD-01000 1 S136CD-01001 MONAGHAN FARMS INC CHEVRON USA INC 14120 EAST EVANS AVE PO BOX 285 AURORA,CO 80014 HOUSTON,TX 77001 s?)k,q1- cord ca 4D(PL rF,Rs (Py , af0) 1 S136CD-01002 1S136CD-01100 PFAFFLE ROAD PARTNERS PACIFIC CROSSROADS PROPERTIES I 13612 SW 1 806 SW BROADWAY STE 700 JI ,OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR 97205 ED CHRISTENSEN ALEX AND LOTTI FINKE VIKING DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. FINKE TRUST 7150 SW HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 226 PO BOX 23562 PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97281 ALEX AND LOTTI FINKE FINKE TRUST PO BOX 23562 TIGARD OR 97223 s rn�q�' ll� w D r 41 ce-i . COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice TT 9 0 3 8 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 rsY ` SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)97-0016 Legal Notice Advertising >CEI HEADQUARTERS< '� The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site f Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot profes- •City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice sional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1312 5 SW Hall Blvd . 1S136CD,Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, *Tigard ,Oregon 97 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to P - provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses in- *Accounts Payable • elude: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency ad- ministrative services,Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities,Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services,Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services,Communica- tion services,Children's day care;Medical and dental services, Research AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services,among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code STATE OF OREGON, Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.150 and .. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )SS. 18.164. — I, Kathy Snyder L . j•r•I•1•1��■ •Il1I-Mill • being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising ��`�tt111111.�� ■ Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard—Tualatin Times MI EIVI/I] , r �ia-� I • . a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 —� =� ,`; ` �� and 193.020; published at Tigard in the r� -�r� EMI mn aforesaid county and state; that the •l�rrlial MI. ■= SDR CET F3c'adquart Prs - `� �� _ ■ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the 1 L I•.■� tf>• sow In ~ e In ntire issue of said newspaper for ONP -- �� �mig� Wr m successive and � �� �� I; 1 ,, consecutive in the following issues: 1 IFI! m, 1998 , �� I 1 �� ,., ; ...I IIC� J MY COMMi S �� .., :Ir..:..: ,"' --\\ 0111. \ V .. i:-!.17.-......, xa.1.4\e„. ....1tos ___ - yf-. Subscribed and sw• to before me this-12th day of February, 1998 \F. _.,,, L \-----. �. rA -\ Notary Public for Oregon \ti My Commission Expir= --- , r AFFIDAVIT = _ Fr - 1 r..-'-.-I r _. +�-^mod' .rte-r.�w,.. '.Y Y L 4 - `'•- \ ,...,--......c.\\C \,,, ' Y- -w;... 'u -41; ^: : i, The adopted finding of facts,decision,and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Division,Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. The decision shall be final on February 25.1998.Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A)and Section 18.32.340 of the Com- munity Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing an appeal is 3:30 P.M.,February 25.1998. TT9038—Publish February 12, 1998. M in -..ITY of IG • ' '\ • *SOORAPN IC INFORYA7ION CO co S136CB0220 ��� AREA NOTIFIED / _ ,i 36CB06800 % - = S D R 97-0016 4 1. 36CB I 'III I- S136C60210 I 15136CB09500 1S136CA03301 N- 1S136CB01900 1S1 6CB09 00 ----I S136C60200 1 36CB02800 151. 6CB0600 L 11136CA03300 r--1 ST 1: 36CD00401 1S136C000600 -5136CD00500 151360001002 I ' I 1S136C001000 - - ___ 1S136C000100 1S136C001100 • Z N 1S136CD01001 0 90 100 190 200 Feet 1'•109 fist Al‘.161 City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 99\1\1 13125 SW Hall She Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 http:Nwww.ci.tigand.or.us Community Development Plot date:Jan 5, 1998;a lmagiclmagicdd.apr SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW .> 411 APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: ✓O IA DATE OF PRE-APP.: S/4 i 1`I Property Address/Location(s): $oGe' SA/ PFi4FFLE S r. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Tax Map & Tax Lot#(s): 1 51 3( O O GOO Case No.(s): U�L 9 7 CO 16 Other Case No.(s): P•)// Site Size: /. 06 a, Receipt No.: `l 7 - 30�D, Application Accepted By: a, Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)*:ftN+ttiE rieu sr- Ae41( ,; s•rre Date: Address: Pe Q.X 235 Z Phone: City: 7-1 4A R V, o R Zip: 9'12 2 3 Date Determined To B Complete: Applicant*: V »f c..t .c. //y 7g pp f Kam s Di v E a d P N r CEO cK4 srE.v5Ea) Comp Plan/Zone Designation: Address: /50 SN MA4,7er , sr, I'22G Phone:SetS-/' G7 CP/C -P ('�mMUC,Q,I City: PAIRri./94'P 49R Zip: 9`122 CIT Area: When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant Rev.4/21/97 i:lcurpinMastersrsdra doc must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS PROPOSAL SUMMARY ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Cr Application Form The owners of record of the subject property request Site Development Review approval to allow (please be specific): ! Owner s Signature/Written Authorization O Title Transfer Instrument or Deed coNSrRvGripAi o/= /911500 Sf Ovsi-vESS ! Q Site/Plot Plan /16 s. r y PRoF-S 55/0N.41. 0PA 0 C /G4 Go. , .t)( (#of copies based on pre-app check list) 0' Site/Plot Plan (reduced 8'/2"x 11") B' Applicant's Statement 115 s.r$ (#of copies based on pre-app check list) Construction Cost Estimate Q USA Sewer Use Information Card (Distributed/completed at application submittal) • Filing Fee (Under 5100.000) $ 300.00 (5100,000-5999,999) $1,600.00 H (51 Million B Over) $1,73€1.00 (+S5/510,000) 1 List any VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE, SENSITIVE LANDS, OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Ne41E I 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 ILaerty. • 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. (71 i4 DATED this ' day of (0 ,C--e'Y )'O'er ,1p 1772 Owner's Sign-ture Owner's Signature q). L MJIe Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shapingsl Better Community PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS= 4/18/98 FILE NO(S): SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISDRI 97-0016 FILE TITLE: CEI HEADQUARTERS CENTER APPLICANT: Ed Christensen OWNER: Alex and Lotti Finke Viking Development, L.L.C. Finke Trust 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 PO Box 23562 Portland, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97281 (503) 598-1867 REQUEST: Site Development Review approval to construct a 19,800 square foot professional office center. LOCATION: 8060 SW Pfaffle Street; WCTM 1S136CD, Tax Lot 00600. ZONE: Professional/Administrative Office, Commercial District; C-P. The purpose of the C-P Zoning District is to provide for groups of businesses and offices in centers. Permitted uses include: Professional and Administrative services, Public agency administrative services, Cultural exhibits and library services, Public support facilities, Lodges, fraternal and civic assembly, Postal services, Animal sales and services, Business equipment sales and services, Communication services, Children's day care; Medical and dental services, Research services, and Financial, insurance, and real estate services, among others. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.64, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.120, 18.150 and 18.164. CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request DECISION MAKING BODY: DATE COMMENTS DUE: Friday January 23,1998 )( STAFF DECISION DATE OF DECISION: Thursday February 5,1998 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 1:30 PM COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPE PLAN X NARRATIVE X SITE PLAN X TREE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ARBORIST REPORT OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Julia Powell Hajduk, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171 Ext. 407. SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS RF^•• .i■., February 4, 1997 FEg > - 1998 JO: 97-112.01 COi�NvUUtjy DEVELOPMENT RE: SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS Dear Julia: On behalf of the applicant and per your discussion with Mr. Christensen,we are submitting the preferable minor modifications to the file. With the necessity of providing an elevator to serve upper floors, it has become more cost effective to provide three floors in lieu of two,with the same total square footage of 19,800 square feet. The window to lease area ratio also is increased,providing enhanced marketability. With the elimination of a portion of the ground floor building footprint,we are able to provide eight(8) additional parking spaces. Plans reflecting this improved option are attached. A full-size copy and reduced versions of the plans and elevations have been provided for your use. Please feel free to contact us @ 598-1866 if we may provide any further assistance. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. N. Erik Larsen Design Engineer cc: Viking Development 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,Oregon 97223 • Phone:(503)598-1866 • Fax: (503)598-1868 E-Mail: cei @cybernw.com GRAPHIC SCALE U °6 II q Hz =o! gz €�i II 1 FS W PFAFFLE k _f J ------- ia..:�! —_ :I -- -- -- -- - w. owurr - 4 4,- �+ DEminON row .� 1, i w. i IA 1 U it 600 PROJECT DATA: 4: 106 Ac. \ I I • TAX MAP NO: 1S136 CD ' • 2.--� • ' SITE AREA: 1.06 AC z\ I I - AREA AFTER _L) J ■ DEDICATION: 1.03 AC ■ 'Rs_ • LANDSCAPE REQUIRED: 15% \ $ a. I • LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 26% (11,570 SF) r24 1 ry ^ &;° A. .•E • 75 TOTAL PARKING SPACES: a MOM 1 70 STANDARD; 9' X 18'Fon C— is ,�� ,,�''O�" , 3 HANDICAP; 8' X 18' i--I 5 rovER ' �-' o R 7 \ a FLOOR 2 COMPACT; 8' X 18' e • 1 SPACE / 280 S.F. Gx., ! - '�°'�°°m 11 601 1 SPACE / 350 S.F.) O I „ GM IIGIIIIO 1 = not ROOM e'. v - § R SECOND FLOOR SAO v j •• TIMID ROM SAO SE i =' 9 S -- -- E UVIDSCAPE __ __.�--_- serxenot _ l� R l /. o a SAW NOIfzIRwnn N w � - F N N E- m S X V, $ • IY O Z o ∎ W F°, w i °z $ 0 < = f 8 U s o a -VICINITY MAP . \ " J / 1 .o,oto+ 4 § v.: i .0 -V g h m g '''i •At . je 9 to t INIIIII�IIIYIIIII olo'O�i°jto I I __ i I I g E t ,,,,,4 . NM ■ g g , a • 5- I , 016 A 4'llltlllll■ *! ° - Si___ctolo?it _ __■ItipO.•(•O O I _ III I 'FM II y I I I � I I I � 1 I I � LI I __ II 0 0 • * e fic 1 1 i 1 Iliri ° i I Sg � � 30i pa 2 S § e R 8 t = F C �g i ti 0 4 O 8 • 0 qy� O P P Py , 1= a e . n n 5 I / VIKING DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C1 CITY OF TIGARD� CEI HEADQUARTERS V.HRI STENSEN \ 7150 S.R. HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 226 OEPM19ENi OF 0000300v OENCLOPNENI,RAMMING DRAWN LNOINHERINO,INC. PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 13125 SRI FRU BLVD.,DCARIL OR 07223 PLANNERS.CIVIL IN0INIIRIL AND IURY5100$ (503)595-1667 PAL(503)506-1666 J PNONE:(503)530-4171 EAI:(503)ee.-728I / \ PREIIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN J \eC"""''''s N mm °"°'J lk d R ; 1 b• 1- i I'll r G Ilk . O 3W 864]' —�1I, - I e SS.. SS y — i 1 I all A - ] neE • ■Hi' g E I I. . y is 1 , " aUNG i .. �x ' 1 x f roe Ali il ..11Mitilk L...... 1 ' a� - --- � P l t 1 1 I - 1 sts,2Tsv°'E o •}1 WHOA „ $annnaa e ; 9 fa S 4 it bT 2 VIKING DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. "CITY OF TIGARD� CEI HEADQUARTERS �{.HRISTHN88N 7150 S.W. HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 229 ocr°osoom or cowuo�in oro 00000*.°I,wwuc omsioo LNOINHERIN�,INC. PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 +e+Ze ew+uu 900..iwNa,OR 97213 PRHA(NARY UI1L Y AND run�u,crvo,vao+eeae,AND tusvrroaa (503)sae-190? FAX (eos)sae-lees P.O.,.(50e)5ee-3+1+ FM'(503)ae°-ne+ / \ DRAINAGE HAN J \"AYOSOR WID esir ZILLO elm011p 1 / • / 1 96 / J � m i . m O rm O 70 ~. m9 Y • / VIKING DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. CITY OF TIGARD� CEI HEADQUARTERS HKISTHNSBN 7150 S.W. HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 226 oEww,rE9*a coyUUwn oEVEtovurxr,n.wH�xc omvoN �NOINHHRINO,INC. PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 +3113 SW MALL BLVD..nWO.03 9nls PLNMm.CIVIL INCams.9710 9UI9W90/I (609)606-1609 MI:(603)360-1606 ` P1gNE:(303)339-.,)l F.R.(303)!N-n9) / ` 1ST FRAM RAN ` \~p' MI==1:Q Ate!01993391 IY c 1 1 i ••-a TY ••-a 4 ...0. r L U i 11 .r-o. fTt I T < s I ■ I ■ ,. 1 te-o- 1 • D• O 1 • . 1 : 1 Z 1 l 1 11 � 11 . 111 II .... 1 Y pug Y +� MN o II I III m II rn 1 1 Z •.1.IlL 11 . 1 11 1 1 II . 11 iJ D 0 i . • i ... R g 1 i VIKING DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. 1CITY OF TIGARD� CEl HFADQUARTERS (. HRISTENSEN 7150 S.R. HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 228 ovAIIrAICNr Or cos uuum o[vriovuort,(ROAM on55pN �NOINEERINO,INC. PORTLAND. OREGON 97223 13125 sw�w.1 a<w.,rrwnn.on RIM '4NN59w.CIPN.INGINim.AND BUMYMVOR7 (503)S0e-Iee7 PAX:(503)59e-15!e ` ow000 (503)535-.(7( (-AR.(503)55.-uDx / \ PRELIM/NARY ELEVA1IONS I \~a WIND amL OS a x®"Y®1.O 1111=151115=wiz MAIMS , CITY OF TIGARD December 19, 1997 OREGON Ed Christianson Viking Development, L.L.C. 7150 SW Hampton St., #226 Portland, OR 97223 RE: Notice of Acceptance of Site Development Review (SDR) 97-0016 Dear Mr. Christianson: Staff has received your application for Site Development Review for a 19,800 square foot office complex. After a preliminary inspection of the file, staff finds that all required submittal information has been provided. This letter is to inform you that your application has been accepted as complete and we will begin reviewing your proposal. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning your application. Sincerely, Julia Powell Hajduk Associate Planner is\curpin\julia\sdr\viking.acc c: SDR 97-0016 land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 T AMER , r_ „'� First Amt.scan Title Insurance Comj.any of Oregon \\ ,,,� An assumed business name of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON -...;;;.-,--%Ni. � .a_e WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES e BEAVERTON LINCOLN TOWER TANASBOURNE 4650 S.W.Griffith Dr.,Suite 100 10260 S.W.Greenburg Rd.Suite 170 2554 N.W.185th Ave. Beaverton,Oregon 97005-8720 Portland,OR 97223 Portland,Oregon 97229-3579 FAX(503)627-0921 FAX(503)2443-8377 FAX 503)4 645-6351 August 05, 1997 EDWARD CHRISTENSEN 7150 SW HAMPTON, SUITE 226 TIGARD, OR 97223 Re: Escrow No: 97051943 Seller: FINKE TRUST Property: SW PFAFFLE STREET • Dear EDWARD CHRISTENSEN: We are pleased to advise you that your escrow as captioned above has been placed 'with our office. We will do our best to effect a smooth and efficient closing on your behalf. As soon as all necessary information and documentation have been obtained, 1 we will contact you to set up an appointment for your closing. The following is applicable if marked: / It will be necessary that we receive proper evidence of your new fire insurance coverage prior to closing. In order to avoid possible delays in closing, we recommend at this time that you get in touch with your fire insurance agent and have him contact us. At the request of your real estate broker, we have enclosed a copy of the Broker's Instructions to Escrow containing information pertinent to this transaction. Any funds deposited into escrow must be in the form of a Certified or • Cashier's Check, made payable to First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon. We look forward to meeting with you soon. Should you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely, First American Title Insurance• Company of Oregon Lincoln Tower `..4 , VA:"LL t-UVI2An- ct611 /Y.)5C. -A., . Gloria Miller Escrow Officer THE GRE' '7R PORTLANDNANCOUVER CC'"MERCIAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS- PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT FOR EARNEST MONEY (Oregon-Commercial Form) Dated: June ? 1 997 1 BETWEEN: l' in::e Trust. ("Seller") 2 AND: Edward K. Christensen ("Buyer") 3 Buyer agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell, on the following terms, the real property and all improvements thereon 4 (the "Property")commonly known as 1;3' 1 3 6 CD `Tax lot 6 C O 5 (Legal to fol lo,,,) APproxi.inate1v l . L6 Acres 6 and located at S .1e:. P f a f f 1 e St. 7 in the City of T 1clarc' , County of Washington , 8 Oregon legally described as follows: '? o Loll ow 9 10 EDWARD K. CHRISTENSEN ..: 2088 i, -DBA CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING I flEi RI S T E N S E N PH. 503-598-1866 ' i NGINEERING PH. 503-598-1868 FAX • f` CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 7150 SW HAMPTON ST., STE. 226. G�J' • ��/ _ 24-22Pt4 • PORTLAND, OR 97223 DAT `�// 1230• PAY TO THE , t,� , �] ///� �/ x 1 ORD OF l /G�N�L-a /"' C I } -L- 1lJ2,'440/ /1C/1 c '/ lop DOLLARS 0 i. I; III.S. BANK - .• - •, } KRUSE WOODS BRANCH' ; • ~'. k 146CO KRUSE OAKS OR..LAKE OSWEGO,.OR B7O36 -:1 ( UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON ^� l•4 FOR ESC4C/SGt) 672 t S/3Coi.C D rL Coln' . - • --- - - - 1 • AP ..:W mow" .,_ �._._:. 3. CONDITIONS TO PURCHASE. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property is conditioned on the following: 27 Sc c, Ariclrnr311: . 28 29 and/or Buyer's approval of the results of its property inspection described in Section 4 below. If Buyer has not approved 30 the results of Buyer's property inspection by written notice given to Seller within See Addendum days after the 31 Execution Date(defined below),the Agreement shall be terminated, and the Earnest Money shall be promptly returned 32 to Buyer. 33 4. PROPERTY INSPECTION. Seller shall permit Buyer and its agents,at Buyer's sole expense and risk,to enter 34 the Property,at reasonable times after reasonable prior notice to Seller and after prior notice to the tenants of the 35 Property as required by the tenants'leases,to conduct inspections,tests,and surveys concerning the structural 36 condition of the improvements, all mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, hazardous materials, pest infestation, 37 soils conditions,wetlands, American with Disabilities Act compliance,and other matters affecting the suitability of the 38 Property for Buyer's intended use and/or otherwise reasonably related to the purchase of the Property. Buyer shall 39 indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Seller from all liens, costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys'fees 40 and experts'fees, arising from or relating to Buyer's entry on and inspection of the Property.This agreement to 41 indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Seller shall survive closing or any termination of this Agreement. 42 5. SELLER'S DOCUMENTS. Within NA days after the Execution Date, Seller shall deliver to 43 Buyer, at Buyer's address shown below, legible and complete copies of the following documents and other items 44 relating to the ownership, operation, and maintenance of the Property,to the extent now in existence and to the extent 45 such items are within Seller's possession or control: 46 47 . 48 6. TITLE INSURANCE. Within 1 0 days after the Execution Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a 49 preliminary title report from the Title Company(the "Preliminary Commitment"),together with complete and legible 50 copies of all documents shown therein as exceptions to title, showing the status of Seller's title to the Property. Buyer 51 ., lI ho.,e..,..t la,00 than 1 rtave aftar ranaint of a r'nnv of tha Praliminary CnmmitmAnt within 52 proposi /W&rry afv2 APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF LEI HEADQUARTERS TIGARD, OREGON Applicant: Viking Development, LLC 7150 SW Hampton St., Ste. 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 p (503) 598-1867 f(503) 598-1868 Applicant's Representative: Ed Christensen, P.E. Christensen Engineering, Inc. 7150 SW Hampton St., Ste. 226 Portland, Oregon 97223 p (503) 598-1866 f(503) 598-1868 Comprehensive Plan Designation: C-P; Professional/Administrative Office - Commercial District Zoning Designation: C-P; Professional/Administrative Office - Commercial District Location: Tax Map 1 S 1 36 CD; Tax Lot 600. The site is located at the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 81"Avenue on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street. Submittal Date: December 12, 1997 INTRODUCTION This application is for site development review for a 19,800 square foot professional office building in the C-P district. The development will occur on an existing vacant lot of record; Tax Lot 600 on Tax Map 1S1 36 CD. This parcel is currently zoned C-P and professional offices are an allowed use. . The site is bordered on the north by SW Pfaffle Street at the intersection of SW 8151 Avenue. SW Pfaffle Street is a two-lane minor collector street. There are curbs in place along the majority of the street with intermittent sections of sidewalk on both sides of the street. The frontage of this parcel on SW Pfaffle Street is currently unimproved,but as part of this proposal, dedications will be granted to increase the existing 25-foot half-width right-of way to the comprehensively planned 30-foot half-width. The existing pavement will be expanded to 20 feet on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street along the frontage of this property along with curbs and 5-foot sidewalk. Access to the proposed site will be via a single 30-foot commercial approach on SW Pfaffle Street, aligned with SW 8151 Avenue. The site is bordered on the west by the GM Training Center and is bordered on the south by the Sears Homelife Center. The Sears Homelife Center maintains a 20-foot setback on its property. To the east of the parcel is residential. Along this east property line a 20 foot building setback will be maintained because of the abutting residential zone. Within this setback will also be a 10-foot landscape buffer to the residential zone. This buffer will include 10 feet of space not encroached by any parking and will include a solid row of Arborvitae Evergreen hedging. Within this landscaping buffer, there will also be a five foot sidewalk providing a pedestrian link from the building to the street. The site is designed to provide 67 total parking spaces. Sixty-two of these spaces will be standard; 3 will be handicapped including one van accessible space; 2 will be compact. The site slopes gently downward from the south to the north. Utilizing this natural topography, the building is placed on the southerly portion of this parcel with all drainage back to the north to a water quality detention pond which will be constructed to collect the drainage from all new impervious surfaces. The remainder of the parcel will be landscaped providing a landscape ratio of approximately 20%. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 CEI HEADQUARTERS Page 2 of 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS CHAPTER 18.64 C-P Professional/Administrative Office Commercial Development 18.64.030 Permitted Uses Professional and administrative services are an allowed use in the C-P District. 18.64.050 Dimensional Requirements The minimum lot area in the C-P District is 6,000 square feet; The average minimum lot width is 50 feet. This parcel contains more than 1 acre and has an average lot width of 200 feet in excess of the requirements of this section. Therefore,these criteria are met. No front, side, or rear setbacks are required except where the parcel abuts a residential district. This parcel abuts a residential parcel to the east and the applicant has provided a 20 foot setback on that property line. Therefore, this criterion is met. utti No building shall exceed 45 feet ' height in the C-P zoning district. The applicant is proposing a building height of feet as shown on the attached elevations, well below the maximum permitted height. his criterion is met. The maximum site coverage in the C-P zoning district is 85% including all buildings and impervious surfaces and the minimum landscaping requirement is 15%. The applicant I, has provided 21% landscaping which meets this criterion. The remaining 79%building ecoverage is less than the 85%required. Therefore, this criterion is also met. CHAPTER 18.100 Landscaping and Screening This section requires street trees to be planted on the frontage on Pfaffle street as part of this development. It also requires landscaping of the parking areas and buffering requirements for the lot line that abuts the residential district to the east. On the 235 feet of frontage on Pfaffle Street, 7 trees are being provided. The parking areas are landscaped with a variety of ground cover, low shrubbery and shade trees in compliance with this section. A solid Arborvitae Evergreen hedge is also being provided on the east property line where the parcel abuts the residential district. The criteria of this section are met. CHAPTER 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements For administrative and professional services, 1 parking space is required for each 350 square feet of gross floor space. For the 19,800 square foot building, as shown on the attached site plan, 57 parking spaces are required. Sixty-seven parking spaces have been proposed. Of these 67 parking spaces, 2 are compact spaces and 3 are handicapped spaces, APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 CEI HEADQUARTERS Page 3 of 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW including 1 van accessible handicapped stall. The ADA requirements of this site of 50 to 75 total parking spaces is 3 handicapped spaces including one van accessible space. Therefore, these criteria are found to be met. Provision for bicycle parking is also required at a ratio of 1 space for every 15 required spaces. Based on 57 required parking spaces, 4 bicycle parking spaces would be required. Four bicycle spaces are being provided at the northeast corner of the building as shown on the attached site plan. Therefore, this criterion is met. CHAPTER 18.108 Access Egress and Circulation Commercial and industrial uses which require less than 100 parking spaces are required to provide 1 access of a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. A 30 foot commercial approach is shown on the attached site plan. This criterion is met. A walkway extending from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street that provides the required ingress and egress is required. A five foot sidewalk meeting these requirements is shown on the attached site plan. The sidewalk is allowed to be contained within the 10 foot landscape buffer to the east. CHAPTER 18.150 Tree Removal A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. A plan is to be provided that includes the identification of all existing trees over 12 inches in caliper and removal of trees over 12 inches in caliper. The attached arborist report identifies 9 trees existing on the site which are greater than 12 inches in caliper. Of these 9 trees, 2 have been determined dead; those being a 20 inch diameter spruce and a 7 inch cherry. As shown on the site plan all of these trees are being shown to be removed in order to construct the proposed improvements. The aesthetic character of the site will be greatly enhanced with new trees and hedges as shown on the attached landscape plan. As indicated on the landscape and existing site survey, all 55 diameter inches of impacted on-site trees will be mitigated on-site. We are requesting that oversized diameter trees along Pfaffle be counted towards our required mitigation, e.g, 4" diameter planting would account for a 2" mitigation. CHAPTER 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as street, sewers and drainage. Pfaffle Street is classified as a 2-lane minor collector with an ultimate right-of-way width of 60 feet. The current half-width of Pfaffle Street on the side of the parcel is 25 feet. An additional 5 feet will be dedicated and pavement expansion improvements will be provided to provide an APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 CEI HEADQUARTERS Page 4 of 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ultimate 20-foot pavement half-width to the minor collector street standard. Though at this time no curbs or sidewalks exist on the frontage of this property,both curbs and 5-foot sidewalk will be provided with the development of this parcel. Sanitary sewer service is available from Sist Avenue and will be extended on-site to serve the new building. Water is available to this site via an existing 6 inch cast iron water line located in Pfaffle Street. Service will be extended from this main to provide both domestic fire and irrigation flows. An additional fire hydrant will be placed on-site and the building will be sprinkled. Provisions for storm drainage will follow the natural contours of the site draining from the south portion of the site, where the building is located, to the north and being collected and treated in a storm water quality detention pond located in the northwest corner of the site. Fire hydrants are available nearby in Pfaffle Street. APPLICATION FOR CEI JO:97-112.01 CEI HEADQUARTERS Page 5 of 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE Within Seven(7)Calendar Days of the Sign Posting,Return This Affidavit To: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard,OR 97223 I, c`4' ln'feh Mend i( , do affirm that I represent the party initiating interest in a proposed±19,000 square-foot commercial building affecting the land located south of the intersection of S.W. 81$`Avenue and S.W. Pfaffle Road(Tax map and Tax Lot# 1S1 36 CD 600), and r did on the / day of August , 1997 personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a Site Development Review application, and at the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at krt)n+ Sae) (state location you posted notice on property) <e/L j/C, Signatur (In the presence of otary Public) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of _n , 19 CT- / .0$7, OFFICIAL SEAL SAN'S FICKERQ �/ J NOTARY Pt/KC-OREGON C J' COMMISSION NO.027539 NOTAR PUBLIC OF OREGON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG.30,1907 My Commission Expires: Pre-App.No.: AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS City of Tigard ) M€ v i t 1a , being duly sworn, depose and say that on d 7--q(1 I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed ±19,000 square-foot commercial building located south of the intersection of S.W. 81st Avenue and S.W. Pfaffle Road (Tax map and Tax Lot# 1 S 1 36 CD 600), a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office box located at 7000 SW Hampton Street, Tigard, Oregon, with postage prepaid thereon. „ -44 Si ure Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me this day of , 19 % . LFRAlG OFrija SEAL � � ` LC 97 Notary Public • My commission expires: Pre-App. No.: HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS August 5, 1997 JO: 97-112.01 SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT- CEI HEADQUARTERS - 8060 S.W. Pfaff le Road, Tigard, OR Dear CIT Member/Property Owner/Resident: We are writing this letter on behalf of the owner of the property located south of the intersection of S.W. 81'Avenue and S.W. Pfaffle Road(Tax map and Tax Lot # 1 S 1 36 CD 600) who is considering proposing a±19,000 square-foot(1.0 acre)commercial building at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits,we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with members of the Community Involvement Teams (CIT)and surrounding property owners and residents. Therefore,you are cordially invited to attend a meeting on: August 21, 1997 City of Tigard Town Hall Room 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:00 p.m. Please note this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City of Tigard. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting and hearing your thoughts on the proposed project. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. 7.A.____ . Jennifer Mendiola Project Assistant 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,Oregon 97223 • Phone:(503)598-1866 • Far:(503)598-1868 E-,t tail: cei@c)bertm.com = M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y R E P O R T = Washington (OR) County ********************************************************************* * Date : 08/06/97 * _Prepared For: JENNIFER * Time : 10 : 22 : 29 * Prepared By: REBECCA-CUST SERV * Report Type: User Format * Company: CHRISTIENSEN ENGINEERING * Sort Type: Parcel Number * Address : 1S136CD-600 (250 FT AROUND) * * Target Properties : 28 * City/St/Zip: ********************************************************************* ********************* * SEARCH PARAMETERS * ********************* ********************************************************************* * ITEMS SELECTED INDEX USED ********************************************************************* * * 1S136CC 00100 Reference Parcel * * 1S136CB 09600 * * 1S136CB 09500 * * 1S136CB 09400 * * 1S136CB 06900 * * 1S136CB 06800 * * 1S136CB 06700 * * 1S136CB 06600 * * 1S136CB 02800 * * 1S136CB 02300 * * 1S136CB 02200 * * 1S136CB 02100 * * 1S136CB 02000 * * 1S136CB 01900 * * 1S136CB 01800 * * 1S136CA 03600 * * 1S136CA 03500 * * 1S136CA 03301 * 4 1S136CA 03300 * * 1S136CD 01100 * * 1S136CD 01002 * * 1S136CD 01001 * * 1S136CD 01000 * * 1S136CD 00500 * * 1S136CD 00401 * * 1S136CD 00300 * ********************************************************************* • Page 1 * 1 * First American/Washington * Owner: LOOS HELEN A Parcel : R0282811 Site : 7935 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 05/05/89 Mail : 7935 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD OR 97223 Price : Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $44, 890 Telephone : 503-639-4569 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $76, 270 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CA 03300 96-97 Tax: $1, 689 . 62 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 1 . 00 YB: 1920 Lot -Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 520 Ac : * 2 * First American/Washington * Owner: ROBINSON THOMAS V;SUSAN E Parcel : R0282820 Site : 11300 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 02/13/96 Mail : 1527 LAKE FRONT RD LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 Price : $155, 000 Use: 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $131, 120 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CA 03500 96-97 Tax: $2, 524 . 08 Bedrm: 4 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1940 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 3 , 369 Ac : * 3 * First American/Washington * Owner: KNIGHT ROBERT W Parcel : R0282839 Site : 11290 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : 11290 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $52, 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : 503-639-6324 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $55, 700 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CA 03600 96-97 Tax: $1, 472 . 34 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 1 . 00 YB: 1957 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 120 Ac : * 4 * First American/Washington * Owner: DAVIS DWIGHT J DONIS L Parcel : R0283552 Site: 11215 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : 11215 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $47, 500 Telephone : 503-639-5896 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $83, 640 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 01800 96-97 Tax: $1, 828 . 78 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 1 . 00 YB: 1955 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 164 Ac: * 5 * First American/Washington * Owner: PFAFFLE HELEN N TR Parcel : R0283561 Site : 8225 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 06/25/93 Mail : 8225 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD OR 97223 Price : Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $55, 580 Telephone : 503-639-3442 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $67, 470 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 01900 96-97 Tax: $1, 715 . 95 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1948 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 248 Ac : * 6 * First American/Washington * Owner: RUIZ-PRADO CUAUHTEMOC;ROSAURA Parcel : R0283570 Site: 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 05/19/95 Mail : 8175 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $131, 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $42 , 750 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $113 , 920 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 02000 96-97 Tax: $2 , 184 . 82 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1955 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 675 Ac : * 7 * First American/Washington * Owner: RORMAN JAMES M;SUSAN M Parcel : R0283589 Site : 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 01/31/91 Mail : 11250 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: $95 , 000 Use: 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $47 , 500 Telephone : 503-684-5595 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $102, 990 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 02100 96-97 Tax: $2, 098 . 63 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 1 . 00 YB: 1955 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 727 Ac : The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. * 8 * First American/Washington Owner: HADDIX BRYAN S;JODI A Parcel : R0283598 Site : 11220 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 01/05/94 Mail : 11220 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $106, 500 Use: 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $47 , 500 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $81, 690 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 02200 96-97 Tax: $1, 801 . 58 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 1 . 00 YB: 1955 Lot;Sgft : Bldg Sf : 1, 218 Ac : * 9 * First American/Washington Owner: SCHOENEMAN THOMAS J Parcel : R0283605 Site : 11190 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : 11190 SW 82ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $62 , 200 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $47, 500 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $70, 310 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 02300 96-97 Tax: $1, 642 . 88 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1958 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 222 Ac: * 10 * First American/Washington Owner: PETERSEN MARGARET ESTATE Parcel : R0283650 Site : 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : 8035 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD OR 97223 Price : Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $55, 580 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $133 , 930 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 02800 96-97 Tax: $2 , 642 . 76 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB : 1969 Lot Sqft : 15, 681 Bldg Sf : 1, 305 Ac : . 36 * 11 * First American/Washington Owner: BARASCH STEPHEN Parcel : R0284052 Site : 11765 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 10/12/94 Mail : 485 W MILWAUKEE ST DETROIT MI 48202 Price: $220, 000 Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: $1, 265, 700 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $1, 257, 790 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CC 00100 96-97 Tax: $34, 934 . 2 Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft : 329, 314B1dg Sf : Ac : 7 .56 * 12 * First American/Washington Owner: MILLAR TED L TRUSTEE Parcel : R0284132 Site : 11705 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 04/28/95 Mail : 3030 SW MOODY AVE #200 PORTLAND OR 97201 Price : $800, 000 Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: $235, 310 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 00300 96-97 Tax: $3 , 257 .54 Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft : 20, 473 Bldg Sf : Ac : . 74 * 13 * First American/Washington Owner: PFAFFLE ROAD PARTNERS Parcel : R0284150 Site : 7920 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 02/06/95 Mail : 13612 SW 130TH PL TIGARD OR 97223 Price : Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: $56, 490 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 G3 Imp: $32 , 930 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 00401 96-97 Tax: $1, 237 . 90 Bedrm: Bth: YB : Lot Sqft : 14, 810 Bldg Sf : Ac : . 34 * 14 * First American/Washington Owner: SORG MARGARET LIFE ESTATE Parcel : R0284178 Site : 8000 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 09/19/94 Mail : 8000 SW PFAFFLE ST TIGARD OR 97223 Price : Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $72, 680 Telephone: 503-639-1930 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $120, 650 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 00500 96-97 Tax: $2, 676 .38 Bedrm: 4 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1950 Lot Sqft : 29, 620 Bldg Sf : 2 , 008 Ac : . 68 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. f * 15 * First American/Washington Owner: MONAGHAN FARMS INC Parcel : R0284196 Site : 11745 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 05/31/95 Mail : 14120 E EVANS AVE AURORA CO 80014 Price: $3 , 575, 000 Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: $322 , 010 Telephone : 303-743-0100 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $3 , 473 , 160 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 01000 96-97 Tax: $52 , 538 . 8 Bedrm: Bth: YB: 1995 Lot ,Sgft : 96, 703 Bldg Sf : Ac : 2 .22 * 16 * First American/Washington Owner: CHEVRON U S A INC Parcel : R0284203 Site : *NO SITE ADDRESS* Xferd: 06/15/90 Mail : PO BOX 285 HOUSTON TX 77001 Price : Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: $207 , 780 Telephone : Thomas Bros : Imp: Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 01001 96-97 Tax: $2 , 876 . 43 Bedrm: Bth: YB : Lot Sqft : 28, 749 Bldg Sf : Ac : . 66 * 17 * First American/Washington Owner: CHEVRON USA INC Parcel : R0284212 Site : 11747 SW PACIFIC HWY TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : PO BOX 285 HOUSTON TX 77001 Price: Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $314, 620 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 01001 96-97 Tax: $4, 355 .47 Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : Ac: * 18 * First American/Washington Owner: MILLAR TED L TRUSTEE Parcel : R0284221 Site : *NO SITE ADDRESS* Xferd: 10/30/95 Mail : 3030 SW MOODY AVE #200 PORTLAND OR 97201 Price : Use: 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: $228, 950 Telephone : Thomas Bros : Imp : $759, 330 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 01100 96-97 Tax: $13, 681 . 3 Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft : 31, 363 Bldg Sf : Ac : . 72 * 19 * First American/Washington Owner: LIPNOS TIMOTHY;ANITA Parcel : R0952909 Site : 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 03/20/89 Mail : 11305 SW 79TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: $57, 294 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : 503-620-9643 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $106, 070 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CA 03301 96-97 Tax: $2, 174 . 76 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1978 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 292 Ac : * 20 * First American/Washington Owner: WEBB NORMAN A Parcel : R0977697 Site : 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : 11315 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: $65, 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : 503-639-5678 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $87, 940 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 06600 96-97 Tax: $1, 921 . 93 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 416 Ac : * 21 * First American/Washington Owner: CHAPMAN DOUGLAS L;DEBRA K Parcel : R0977704 Site : 11287 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 11/29/90 Mail : 11287 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: $77 , 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp : $97, 700 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 06700 96-97 Tax: $2 , 058 . 04 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB : 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 326 Ac : The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. * 22 * First American/Washington Owner: BARKER KENNETH W Parcel : R0977713 Site : 11263 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 03/14/90 Mail : 11263 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $74, 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone: 503-624-8272 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $90 , 800 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 06800 96-97 Tax: $1, 961 . 81 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB : 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 437 Ac : * 23 * First American/Washington Owner: POTTER GENE C;LISA E Parcel : R0977722 Site: 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 10/25/91 Mail : 11235 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $87, 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $84, 360 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 06900 96-97 Tax: $1, 871 . 99 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 360 Ac: * 24 * First American/Washington Owner: CHONGWAY FRANK U;CHRISTINE S Parcel : R0977973 Site : 11242 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 12/09/93 Mail : 11242 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: $108, 800 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49 , 880 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $85, 230 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 09400 96-97 Tax: $1, 884 . 17 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 392 Ac : * 25 * First American/Washington Owner: INGLE TIMOTHY MARK Parcel : R0977982 Site : 11268 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 12/03/93 Mail : 11268 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price : $114, 000 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $100, 140 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 09500 96-97 Tax: $2, 092 . 08 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 331 Ac : * 26 * First American/Washington Owner: WOO SANG KIL;OK SON Parcel : R0977991 Site : 11300 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD 97223 Xferd: Mail : 11300 SW 81ST AVE TIGARD OR 97223 Price: $69, 540 Use : 1014 RES, IMPROVED Land: $49, 880 Telephone : 503-620-6058 Thomas Bros : 655 F3 Imp: $99, 340 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CB 09600 96-97 Tax: $2 , 080 . 92 Bedrm: 3 Bth: 2 . 00 YB: 1979 Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : 1, 392 Ac : * 27 * First American/Washington Owner: PFAFFLE ROAD PARTNERS Parcel : R2045167 Site : 7920 SW. PFAFFLE ST TIGARD 97223 Xferd: 02/06/95 Mail : 13612 SW 130TH PL TIGARD OR 97223 Price : Use : 2002 VACANT, COMMERCIAL Land: $27, 280 Telephone : Thomas Bros : 655 G3 Imp: Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 01002 96-97 Tax: $377 . 64 Bedrm: Bth: YB: Lot Sqft : 14, 810 Bldg Sf : Ac : . 13 * 28 * First American/Washington Owner: MYERS MARY JENSINE Parcel : R2050038 Site : *NO SITE ADDRESS* Xferd: 04/28/95 Mail : PO BOX 880 SHERWOOD OR 97140 Price: Use : 2012 COM, IMPROVED Land: Telephone : Thomas Bros : Imp: $1, 108, 330 Map and Tax Lot : 1S136CD 00300 96-97 Tax: $15 , 343 .2 Bedrm': Bth: YB: Lot Sqft : Bldg Sf : Ac : The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. i"(/ I,; I - CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY INVOIVEMENTHEAMS IC WSJ XOTIIJCAIWWI'(LIST Fab APPLICANTS WITH IhD USE PIOFOSAIU WEST CIT LAND UBt:9UCCOMM11TTEB �'1EAJtTef ' j SOUTH CITY CENTRAL CIT I • bdullah Alkadi Clark G. Zeiler leverly Froude Cra1g Hopkins VA'' S Jack Bioth n Eklan Mar1v 0 A 11905 SW 125th Court 13200 SW Shore Drive 12200 SW 8uU Mountain Road 7430 6W Varrc Street 15525 SW 109th Avenue 10955 SW Pathfinder Way Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 07223 Tigard,OR 97224 ' Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97224 Tpard,OR 97223-3930 (303) 524.1068 (503)524-0994 (503) 839-2529 1 Bike Gross Larry We sterman Ke1hy Smith Mork F.Mahon/�1‘,41 �( John Bannall1 CO SW 135th Avenue 13665 SW Fern State, 11845 SW Claud Court 11310 SW 91st Court 15550 SW 109th Avenue ~r NJ • Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard,OR 07223 Tigard,OR 97224 Tigard,OR 87223 Tigard,OR 07224 (503) 524-6325 (503)524-4550 (503)839-0694 Kalfrle Keith) Christy I lair Linda Masters ,„ Pat WYden 12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 11388 SW Ironwood Loop 16120 SW 141st Avenue ,\,'-,1122 SW Spruu Street Tigard,OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 07224 `b Tigrud,OR 07223 <- (503)524-5200 (503) 590-197W(503)624-6009 (503)1320-788? tIarhua Saltier Scot)Russell cue f.�'r=r.rr' Ed liowdan Sue Raman n 11629 SW Morntne 1 till 11245 SW Morgan Court i 31291 Raymond Creek Road 11250 SW 82nd Avows Tigard, OR 07223 Tigard, OR 97223 Scappoose,OR 97058 ,Tigard,OR 97223 (503) 524.6040 (503)684.9303 (503)643-2434 c) . Bonne&Jwn Roach Juno Suttiridge Cal Woolery 14441 SW Twakesbury Wye 15940 SW 140th Avenue 12356 5W 132nd Court Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard,OR 07224 Tlpard,OR 97223 (603) 500-0461 (603)5900523 (503)590-4297 Karl Swanson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard,OR 97223 (503) 500.3369 PLEASE NOT In addition to properly owners within 250 tool, milk*of meetings an land use proposals,;ball Oo eonl to alillu names on this list. Post-it'Fax Note 7671 IIVAIW ag`r� am \N l�r> I!1� / / Phonc x / r •'one / • 1 .�� �i% �/, o , Fnx x •• ,4 . 2/, /997 . 6-77 /_//5./ . - A D.17255 rfo� /� 10a/fir 1/ 7°f 's(-.) « iftA y - T `{ 2.-_._.7��cc p(NMD. Lkl _ _Co.o$,q -" ., pi,J(n ? `- S�� 81706 P lac i {p 1 !- L22,1 Pam 4 92a So Poor 14z — 1- . ( L.oD 6e4k v" ts►J+ -. Js_`#" C rrt C watr t 12'42- Sw 81'—_ �._ `:68-- 7 Nov10 97 06: 29p Torres/Stone (503) 452-2921 p. 2 Peter Torres,Arborist. 8325 SW 42nd Ave. Portland, OR 97219 (503)452-8160 ISA Certified Arborist(1'N-0650) CC/3 89108 12 November 1997 Mr. Edward Christensen, Viking Development LLC 7150 SW Hampton St. Portland, OR 97223 RE Tree Survey Mr. Christensen, Following is the tree survey required by the Tigard municipal code for the site on Pfaffle St in Tigard. The site is opposite No. 8035 Pfaffle St. ARBORIST REPORT NO. is the numbered tag affixed to each tree at approximately eye level. These tags are affixed to the side of the tree towards Pfaffle St. Diameter is in inches, measured at standard height, which is 4 'V2 feet above grade. Condition is either good, fair, poor, or dead. NO. Species Diameter Condition 60 cottonwood 14 fair 61 spruce 20 dead 62 cherry 7 dead 63 cherry 14 fair 64 cottonwood 15 fair 65 cottonwood 6 fair 66 cottonwood 7 fair 67 cottonwood 12 fair 68 linden 15 good NA NA rn • 7: Pfaffle St. Site/Torres 12 November 1997 c 7- IN • GRAPHIC SCALE Z zwg11 MO z �� °`z g 1 x t SyW PFAFFLE_aL - r� J � - I � P -TQ /G4 \ - 41 % . ■ xj /, I ' R I. s 400949 •' !'A_, - —-, -+R.v.49.".. ��wM ------- n9rt9 awm I—-• A R� •, -w %wost9� ,�` 9O ,p. , 1 1...osc...t,.,,, 'F., Fh 1 T1 PROJECT DATA: 1 106 AC. I \ I •I • TAX MAP NO: 1S136CD ', _,,._ _,;- ; • SITE AREA: 1.06 AC W 1 V I v V I I • AREA AFTER `U J LI •• LANDSCAPENREQU RED: 15% �Q- !I? 1 I "' I • LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: 21% (9,420 SF) i F.'A ill 91 • 67 TOTAL PARKING SPACES: Q i• "" I 'ES ' 62 STANDARD; 9' X 18' a .1 4` "°""` ���' �r "�`• 3 HANDICAP; 8' X 18' I—I g \ r i r 2 COMPACT; • 1 SPA 8' X 18' e ` SPACE / 300 S.F. 4•. - LL I (REQUIRED 1 SPACE / 350 S.F.) O ; A A O•,'.— 1 IRADMG C•1L9U6 004.01 w' s' y I I >4 F :. R CAM n9s.nooM 9.900 u .$]i S - %CGMO(LOOM 9,900 V 1095•.-4 H■+ d -_[— — -- ---- II )c _ te;; r .: ► p 1, 9�9��. \ 1 �11T'I/[I 1 'r f !t � (7.V r Yi9s MOrurtorru `• _ � •77 .•7 N �! ^ -,:i' sad- o N • wig 7y�k E " P s z • . 4 VICINITY MAP _ x 7 / GRAPHIC SCALE U a I x0 _ MO:IT1 7GZ 3 gziPi Vi glt 4 ,1 , !, $ W PFAFFLEL __ _____ 11,1 S..______ A __ MAN*01 w s�p�[i1 p� o�y Kam•m.o.rMr a vrt cww.crt. 'F-'- s.ng_ •.o y.J 0-- _-- -- '....11,7!!!:'. ... .' .'___-.-_________. ____ rr.f•�C e s A LLTS 6'Ws MEr•LWe(1.I r NO.[ .1 SIO7 BASC M r^ �. _ M%MOMCC xr..51X.05955'AMC...Ouof11[S litiii 111.411", m, w „000..,0 0 0,� eu t w1�5 viw170099.60 i.�°'a 0 rc TO a.mla SWAGE M°`t'vo •t WE {al.e Rum n 50030N 55009.6 OOMR.1.0.0 ,,�'7, mum.mu.R M52610.F•RLLr.Vrer+M V.00.050.4 TIMM Q• 0 V (l 71. 17 I racumcorc. M ( 605017077 m.O.Gf.(. .7090S7E5 CNN. 1 on. 30'00 4 • 1.06 AC. I 0•13,C en NOM Kin'01.760' 1 i I .•ror 1r oe. ♦,�:. E9Y5ca x.1[ Spb..(16 wbC 595.S1x ptt wcS rT�� \e �' I Ye5f00•r 000, 000 5020000000'0M5 0000 Z•Col.11191 00 0 �f) / 10,0. f0' ; ® as u 7ENCLO un. n a I ry -744 V moon..6.1.IS(wu.(.I.S..c ems) SYSR 05556 .C6n nuen M•m y.S(r .•06 sae • 9 jZy I , ( n..c(.npq nw .nl.+VS cEM7.p.15wwouo'Y va.a•• e ° r g R '!t * \!I V8I •I �./ • 1 y e1 H $ c ,x 61.0016 .i src.5.m cEOM .nu.6.uu.. .•CA. AU ) 6 4 -.(:) o w i r CM I7,1t•O.c ° o 5010'5(.ow..015000 •- N w� .5(WO150G K5(i(s. 6'0...ne ) 0 O ff r 010712 0 e0'6.6S' a -0R 0000U-a n. - u r ° MT MOOR 9.000 57 x_41 O I 5(0070 ROM 0900 59 Ili I 56 TWA >_o S - o •1 f*.1 j 9594 3 Dorn 59 M.CM 004(510'CO✓.R.' 10.(.M.It'5.. 120 1000.0 6•6900•'50.040 M•e00. __ - . m 5GfI050M6C06.A MM TO o a OCC006•05 16-00-.3 00 U N '50•00'205540 •-i ..d e N i 59 NWIESES SOLE *0W...NY'OPORINW.(IAI w•-7 f'•' 'n P S 444.Sr.5750009.0005 500oc00505 105,*05N.0' a � Q n 8 o.1 zz 0 . HMO coo.S05&MLA IM0000(.go5 5010 065700' 3 0.l 4] O w z i 2 0 = 3 - 0 I; .Y. 3 7—S • • i _- A. i� 'l) � � • U ...., • rz.-...... .routs77 , L .1 . . 1'b f 1 O C ) i Ir 1 1 x f lL • $ I ) ss i. i 1 4 r a I 09$gig x 1 1 I 8I. k1 i c 3 roc Smomas RI 1 I 1 r 1 �I X`. Y 1 X '.._ _— _. X X M --I' 1 I •711T7 • . 1 ----- -- ---- -rEH � --- 1. , I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stgv:Ev°'S b 'Y x 4 S 6 0 i n W x DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. 1-CITY OF TIGARD C HEADQUARTER ��HRISTIANSEN 7 HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 226 ocsmo.[wr or musks.r onncac.r.nws..c On+bc« Nt7IN6PJtINd,INC. PORTLAND. OREGON 97223 ISM S.. SM.swMe.a 07I11 PRP1A1@IARY UTILITY AND ruxnlm,CIVIL fucwreN.OM fveniofe (1 1 I S-1N1 ?AM ISO])SN-1!N \ roc:WO)SA-�i)t fu:llo))w-)M) DRAINAGE PLAN ,NR W/R.Ay=Am a 1m1M......s . ,. / ■ 3 i r rn in 1111 . 1 D Ii . O 1i, t .. I I :.q� .0 • i4 r 61K 1 • 13 ajv 4._ .Z_r o �g 11 1 •C . RZ:3 _r T, -j m -_ ,r g 1 i1 z I . 1 - rn lIt• D -........./ . . to • (ii • I. _ i i VIKING UEVF:LUNb1EN'C. L.L.C. l ��I'I'Y OF TIGAIZI� (CEI HEADQUARTERS may- 1, HRISTHNSL'N 7150 S.M. HAMPTON STREET, SUITE.226 otrwnawr Of cnwwu rr oenopvcwr,puw,.,wc u+swlw NGINeERlNG,INC. POKIIJNO, 11RY.U0N 1)7222 1s,n s.....,.aw.rr w,a vin .IANYlr19.N ENGINEERS .MOs •Wort mosl see-tae) vAx.1,0.31 see-lee,, / \ 03 ;()03)534-.+7I WI 15011...-r Mt \ PRF14r1Q'JARY ELEVA'110NS / \••. w...r...-..arom.w,®..a' t. , y-o 41 ro. -, I t. t. * 0 _ 4 r0 m $ Ox) XI Nr- t ■ VIKING DEVELOPMENT. L.L.C. �C lrl' 1 OF TIGARD� CEI HEADQUARTERS � RISTENSEN 71 SO S.W. HAMPTON STREET, SUITE 226 el.MllYpt of cu.,,.,.m ocrtlowrt.*.nNwwc aMS�o�. NO[NEERIN(7,INC. PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 13123 SM IOU sn..efeq.a 17133 nawHix3.CIVIL uwwean.ono wemoie AWC.256!)116-ff 1� fM.(356)!M-)MI PREIA@iAICY 6T FLOOR PLAN / `s`t.MV1P PIt.auk Al I�MY aml f0 (603)see-lee/ FAIL(5631 396-lees \ / ` lws wwv<ar>ti HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE FOR CEI HEADQUARTERS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION DATE: 12/12/1997 BY: NEL DESCRIPTION COST SW PFAFFLE ST.IMPROVEMENTS $24,495.00 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $144,545.00 SANITARY SEWER $10,500.00 STORM DRAINAGE $2,320.00 WATER SYSTEM $14,200.00 19,800 SF 2-STORY OFFICE BLDG @$50.00/SF $990,000.00 PROJECT TOTAL $1,186,060.00 NOTE: These costs are based upon preliminary plans and are subject to change depending upon final approved construction documents and seasonal variations in construction techniques. 97-112.01 PAGE 1 OF 3 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,Oregon 97223 • Phone: (503)598-1866 • Fax: (503)598-1868 E-Mail: cei a cybern .com ............... • LANCASTER ENGINEERING T* . Studies •• Planning •• Safely .................... .................... ...................... ..................... CEI HEADQUARTERS Traffic Impact Study Tigard, Oregon � �ERED PROF lam' NGIN F�� s• J _ ,,oREG.Na �Q 9S R' LANG ' • I. -?2? Prepared By TOM R. LANCASTER, P.E. TODD E. MOBLEY, E.I.T. November, 1997 Utild. Station,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 9 Trip Distribution 10 Operational Analysis 14 Summary 18 Appendix 19 -2- ■STER ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION A 19,800 square foot office building has been proposed for development on the south side of Pfaff le Street, directly opposite 8151 Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed devel- opment on the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative meas- ures. The analysis will include level of service calculations and traffic signal warrant comparisons. Detailed information on level of service, traffic counts, trip generation calcula- tions, and level of service calculations is included in the appendix to this report. -3- • 4 LANCASTER ENGINEERING The nearest public transit routes to the site are Tri-Met routes 12, 78, and 95X that stop at a transit center at the intefsection of Greenburg Road and Highway 99W. To the north, route 43 travels along Taylors Ferry Road. Manual turning movement counts were made at the study area intersections in October 1997, from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hours for the study area were approximately 7:25 to 8:25 AM and 4:40 to 5:40 PM. The vol- umes for the morning and evening peak hours are shown in the traffic flow diagram on page 8. -5- Ji . I(CHESTNUT I I .i /T_ •a i 1 _________ „ BORDERS ST. r- � J CRESCENT T;1pvE � CEKIERT r.t; LEHMAN I' _ ST. —• ..� HEMLOCK rs u.P. E.OE 'a mo Co> i T. a L !' .CORAL STR LARCH I '�26 25 LANDAU I I — I ST. v I o Metzger >35 36 �� w - LOCUST I ST. co ` LOCUST a .4 ST. W U , ZL uET2GER Z�� Z f c4i n SCM. W r 91 L MAPLELEAF ST.> W > a a 1 MAPLELEAF ST. MAPL_ERAF m I I `t' OAKWAT ST. IST. • JC 050 r~- l �. . l "AK ! j I ST. OAK ST. c.3 vi I v' f PINE ST. ~ r( creek N ° L .,, . ...._ a SHADY IN. ` HPRUCEL m _ST. .7._____________17 7 -1 !II THORN ST. T > /� (� I I vi �.i z a O m I 1. I a a THORN > rXO- LONGSTAfF X99 — W l a STEVE 1 (-)ST. > a>Q • a O r NORTH DAKOTA t° a ST. 1 Z j U m m / F F \�.. P0. c......1 lu a N < PFAFfLE 1// ST. JV criv _PROJECT ° W SITE GRfNSU` a a = `� PQ NO. S -"\------ _ LET�IS LN. = J Li o C• TANGELA > a > = > ST. oa N Z•P aD N > 4 h.c. Cn LONDON TANGELA CT r a •90 .S • co CT. ANGEL g O \v,�\/ J i PL '� = a �� CfkT GOON P 35 36 Z T f- I ��.�MeR sr. �. • �\`� C/4 $4 S1 A. \ SC GoDEH PL• . ` r C 4 s KNOL( HERMOSA WAY • . Oli \ed i k‘ �e9r P,, � AN .te S, ST.ANINaT q/ �Gig( 4 D. ,p p 9 �,4r G gy ti y4 C� \ A• 4,4,,,,../FR 6V E L AND S ►nil LEES scw.O � 1 -50.-:9 ru ,T AREA MAP INz< :: " ) CASTER ENGINEERING -6- n) o � c Study Area Q m Intersections Q t Too IN 99 Cr Pfoffle Street K77 t y. PROJECT ��o SITE C. talk No��,Scale • y o z > c o Q 0 m .c o N. 2 Pfoffle Street l Pfoffle Street > it\tt:‘,. 1 Private Driveway x ' F:_, VICINITY MAP LANCASTER ENGINEERING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS Plof2.dwg -7- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR �°' x-203 No3 i93 (:): �3 ,_,n 13 v-- v N too 155 cv v v E- 150 .l. y Nr 24 .Ly X26 E .Ly ,F28 011-> •V 65 Tr> Tf 11-1' <-1Tf> 21-IN 1T1> con ^co 3—> c000w) 10—> C-"4-(71 �`N to`n 159-� N- 284 rnv— o Q 3 m c c o m Ar Waffle Street , k -5=' PROJECT .54.SITE T No Soa10 r TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions '3 LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours Pfof2.dwg -8- tEl El LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed office development, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, published by the In- stitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The trip rates used were for land-use code 710, General Office Building. The trip generation rates are based on the gross floor area. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 54 trips generated by the development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 48 will be entering and 6 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour 57 trips are expected with 10 entering and 47 exiting the site. A weekday total of 412 trips are ex- pected with half entering and half exiting. A summary of the trip generation calculations is shown in the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY CEI Headquarters Entering Exiting Total Trips Trips Trips AM Peak Hour 48 6 54 PM Peak Hour 10 47 57 Weekday 206 206 412 -9- rip LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRIP DISTRIBUTION The directional distribution of the trips generated by the proposed development was estimated based on the distribution of population areas in relation to the site. Also considered were the easiest routes between the site and major arterials such as Highway 217 and Highway 99W. The traffic flow diagram on page 11 shows the distribution of the projected site trips for the morning and evening peak hours. The diagram on page 12 shows the as- signment of the site trips from the proposed development. The diagram on page 13 shows the total of existing traffic plus site generated traffic during the morning and evening peak hours. -10- 1 A 0 0 c c b Q 9g'S 0 171 L 01 Vii 0 0 = Pfoffle Street <402 602 t 202 40Xv , 60X �J 1 • / L _ _ _J a 9�y PROJECT 20 SITE Q0° CP N�O oarf�O�fh Street ll�O$ N e, ,,,, a, A o V 0 No Scale t SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Fj Inbound & Outbound Percentages LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours Plc f3.dwg -11- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR t 1 t_5 t 0 t o 0Lo o-- 000 <-9 000 F- 1 4,14 . -2 .1,4 .Y 14 tJJ,L .c° 04.L .F° Tr> Try oi' EiTO 0--T r-> ov� o 00-> -000 0 u00o 3-� 28� Q) C CO° Q r \Vr Pfoffle Street \ i 177.. l _ _ _ J y' PROJECT o SITE VD /4\i, No Scale . ............. ....... ...... ... SITE TRIPS LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours Pfof4.dwg -12- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR �cvv X204 N� i98 0 1`3 ,_ t 13 v vcv --moo E— 164 c.�"vv E— 151 ,i, 14 X26 ,t,L> X40 0,t,1.4 X28 E-1.1/1-> X65 T Tr> 11-1' <-1Tr> 21-T �Tr� cot. ^rn 3—> 20041 10 -> ova, �"� Lo 162 `D 312 °'v� b cu o o 7 Q) C o C, co > Q t o g9� (r Pfoffle Street r , 1 _ _ _ J "5=' PROJECT .1. SITE 0 ell lkir No Scale • TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing + Site Trips LANCASTER ENGINEERING AM & PM Peak Hours Pfof5.dwg -13- q14 LANCASTER ENGINEERING OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Traffic Signal Warrants A traffic signal warrant comparison was made to determine if a traffic signal will be warranted at either of the study area intersections. The Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant, and the Peak Hour Warrant from the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, published by the Federal Highway Administration, were examined. Seventy percent of the stan- dard warrants were used for the intersection of Hall and Pfaff le because the 85th per- centile speed on Hall was observed to be in excess of 40 mph. One hundred percent of the standard warrants were used for the intersection of Pfaff le and 78th Avenue. When evaluating the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant and the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant, it is assumed that the evening peak hour is 10 percent of the average daily traffic (ADT) and that the 8th highest hour is 5.3 percent of the ADT. At the intersection of Hall and Pfaff le, existing traffic volumes are sufficient to satisfy all three of the warrants examined, with the Peak Hour Warrant being satisfied during both peak hours. As discussed in the following section, levels of service are expected to be acceptable at the intersection and a traffic signal is not recommended. For the existing plus site trips scenario at the intersection of Pfaff le Street and 78th Avenue, none of the warrants examined are satisfied, and a traffic signal is not rec- ommended. Capacity Analysis To determine the level of service at the study area intersections, a capacity analysis was conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to level F, which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The analysis was made for the morning and evening peak hours for existing traffic and existing plus traffic from the proposed development. A generally acceptable minimum level of service is D for signalized intersections and E for unsignalized intersections. -14- LANCASTER ENGINEERING The study area intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized, two-way stop controlled and all-way stop controlled intersection analysis methods in the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board. The results of the capacity analysis show that the intersection of Pfaff le Street and 78th Avenue is currently operating at level of service A during the morning peak hour and level of service B during the evening peak hour. With the addition of traffic from the proposed office building, the intersection is expected to operate at level of service A during the morning peak hour and between level of service B and C during the evening peak hour. The "T" shaped intersection of Hall Boulevard and Pfaff le Street is currently operating at level of service B during the morning peak hour and level of service D during the evening peak hour. This level of service refers to traffic turning left from Pfaff le Street since this movement experiences the most delay. With the addition of traffic from the proposed development, this movement is expected to operate between levels of service B and C during the morning peak hour and level of service E during the evening peak hour. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the Levels of Service (LOS) and delay are shown in the following table. Tables showing the relationships delay and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. -15- F_ir LANCASTER ENGINEERING LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY CEI Headquarters AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Pfaffle Road at 78th Avenue Existing Conditions A 3 B 8 Existing + Site Trips A 4 B/C 10 Pfaffle Road at Hall Boulevard Existing Conditions B 9 D 22 Existing + Site Trips B/C 10 E 40 LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds — Cut-Through Traffic and Traffic Calming Measures Much of the existing traffic on Pfaff le street is "cut-through" traffic, or traffic travelling between Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W that uses Pfaff le Street to avoid the congested intersection of Hall and Highway 99W. To discourage high speeds and cut-through traffic along Pfaff le Street, it may be appropriate to install traffic calming features on the street. There are a variety of traffic calming measures that are avail- able. Cul-de-sacs and other traffic barriers can be installed to partially or fully close streets to through traffic, but this defeats the objectives of providing connectivity. A common traffic calming technique is to install curb extensions at intersec- tions. These extensions are usually located at the intersection crosswalks and extend through the parking lane to the edge of the traffic lane. Curb extensions assist pedestri- ans by reducing the curb-to-curb width of the street that must be crossed. For this rea- son extensions are most often used at locations that are frequently used by pedestrians, particularly school children. Curb extensions can sometimes reduce traffic speeds slightly due to the narrowing of the street width. Speed humps are used to reduce traffic speeds. The humps can be designed for the speed zone on the street. For residential streets the speed humps would normally be designed for 25 mph. For collector streets they are usually designed for 35 mph. They -16- LANCASTER ENGINEERING are typically installed at spacings of about 300 to 400 feet to maintain relatively consis- tent traffic speeds. Speed humps have-been found to be effective in controlling speeds. Speed humps are sometimes used in combination with curb extensions at cross- walks. The combination is typically used at intersections with unusually high pedes- trian volumes such as near schools, or at locations where crosswalks would not nor- mally be expected such as at mid-block locations. A specialized version of this combi- nation is a raised intersection, where the level of the entire intersection is raised by a few inches. This has the effect of a speed hump that encompasses the intersection in- cluding all the crosswalks. Raised median islands can be installed in streets to assist pedestrians crossing the street. This enables pedestrians to cross the street one-half at a time. Raised medi- ans are typically used on collectors or arterials where speeds are high. The medians typically have little effect on traffic speeds. On residential streets, medians interfere with parking and can cause circulation difficulties with school buses and other large ve- hicles. Stop signs should be used only sparingly for traffic calming purposes. Stop signs installed for speed control typically result in high violation rates, and often pro- duce higher traffic speeds between Stop signs than would occur without the Stop signs. Better results will usually be obtained if the traffic calming devices are planned, designed, and installed as part of the original street construction. If the devices are ret- rofitted at a later date they sometimes are not as attractive and can create drainage problems. For a traffic calming program to be effective along Pfaff le Street, the street pattern in this part of the City should be examined before the exact types and locations of the devices are determined. This would include locations of connections to future developments and areas with potentially high pedestrian volumes. -17- LANCASTER ENGINEERING • SUMMARY 1. The proposed CEI Headquarters building is expected to generate approximately 54 trips during the morning peak hour peak hour, with 48 of these entering the site and 6 exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, 57 trips are expected with 10 entering and 47 exiting the site. A weekday total of 412 trips are expected with half entering and half exiting. 2. The intersection of Pfaff le Street and 78th Avenue is currently operating at level of service A during the morning peak hour and level of service B during the evening peak hour. With the addition of traffic from the proposed office building, the intersection is expected to operate at level of service A during the morning peak hour and between level of service B and C during the evening peak hour. 3. The intersection of Hall Boulevard and Pfaff le Street is currently operating at level of service B during the morning peak hour and level of service D during the evening peak hour. This level of service refers to traffic turning left from Pfaff le Street since this movement experiences the most delay. With the addition of traffic from the pro- posed development, this movement is expected to operate between levels of service B and C during the morning peak hour and level of service E during the evening peak hour. 4. At the intersection of Hall and Pfaff le, existing traffic volumes are sufficient to sat- isfy all three of the warrants examined, with the Peak Hour Warrant being satisfied during both peak hours. Levels of service are expected to be acceptable at the intersec- tion and a traffic signal is not recommended. None of the warrants examined were sat- isfied at the intersection of Pfaff le Street and 78th Avenue. 5. Much of the existing traffic on Pfaff le street is "cut-through" traffic, or traffic trav- elling between Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W that uses Pfaff le Street to avoid the congested intersection of Hall and Highway 99W. Several different methods of traffic calming could be used to discourage this cut-trough traffic. To the extent that these measures are employed, traffic speeds and volumes could decrease on Pfaff le Street. -18- LANCASTER ENGINEERING APPENDIX -19- fL. LANCASTER 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. HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFASTPM2 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) HALL BOULEVARD (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING + SITE TRIPS, PM PEAK HOUR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - ---- No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 511 59 289 479 39 198 PHF .91 .91 .91 . 91 .91 . 91 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 1 1 1 CV' s (%) 0 0 0 PCE' s 1.00 1 .00 1 . 00 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 .00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT PFAFFLE STREET AT 78TH AVENUE l'i 39 3 • T= 2.9's P=.663 N 161 • DATE OF COUNT: 10/28/97 O �19 DAY OF WEEK: Tue R 11 50 0 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H -221 4-I 1 L. 4-193 10 J L2 T= 2.2% T= 3.60 1 —► 4-16 - P=.813 P=.817 181 28 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • * T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH �l I �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 192 — 47 7 3 4 —► ERJJ Peak Hour 1259 • 07:05-08 :05 Traffic Smithy T= 3 .1% P=.791 �57 TEV=503 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO —► 4J 1 14. . I r4. _l L ALL 07:00-07:05 12 0 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 29 07:05-07:10 5 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 3 10 0 25 07:10-07 :15 13 0 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 1 11 0 34 07:15-07 :20 21 0 0 1 4 0 6 0 0 3 15 0 50 07:20-07:25 17 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 12 0 35 07:25-07:30 11 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 1 13 1 33 07:30-07:35 19 0 1 2 5 0 8 0 0 2 12 1 50 07:35-07:40 16 0 2 0 8 0 4 1 0 0 8 0 39 07:40-07:45 12 0 0 0 7 0 4 1 0 5 16 0 45 07:45-07 :50 18 0 0 1 7 0 2 1 0 1 17 0 47 07:50-07 :55 24 0 5 1 1 0 5 1 0 3 15 0 55 07:55-08 :00 9 0 0 2 4 0 5 0 1 2 20 0 43 08:00-08 :05 16 1 1 1 4 0 5 0 0 5 14 0 47 08:05-08 :10 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 15 08:10-08 :15 9 0 1 1 3 0 4 0 1 2 9 0 °30 08:15-08:20 11 2 0 0 6 0 3 0 1 1 18 1 43 08:20-08:25 8 0 0 1 2 0 6 2 1 6 9 0 35 08:25-08:30 15 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 1 3 14 0 40 08:30-08:35 4 1 0 2 2 1 5 0 1 1 8 0 25 08:35-08:40 8 0 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 2 12 0 30 08:40-08:45 7 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 7 0 24 08 :45-08 :50 14 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 32 08 :50-08 :55 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 17 08:55-09 :00 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 8 1 22 Total Survey 287 6 19 19 82 3 72 13 11 55 273 5 845 1.41F .84 .25 .42 .69 .57 0 .73 .58 .75 .7 .78 .25 .855 % Trucks 1.4 0 15.8 10.5 1.2 0 4.2 0 0 14 .5 1.5 0 3 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 177 0 10 10 52 0 44 7 3 25 154 3 485 07:15-08 :15 178 1 11 10 51 0 45 7 3 26 155 2 489 07:30-08 :30 163 3 13 10 50 0 49 8 5 30 156 2 489 07:45-08 :45 135 4 13 12 36 2 39 7 8 30 147 1 434 -08:00-09 :00 110 6 9 9 30 3 28 6 8 30 119 2 360 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFASTAM2 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) HALL BOULEVARD (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING + SITE TRIPS, AM PEAK HOUR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 316 37 124 436 26 204 PHF .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 4 3 3 CV' s (%) 0 0 0 PCE ' s 1.02 1 . 01 1 . 01 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 .00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT PFAFFLE STREET AT HALL BOULEVARD I 1- '1I • T= 3 .6% P=.788 N 555 DATE OF COUNT: 10/28/97 • O 1519 DAY OF WEEK: Tue R 0 436 119 TIME STARTED: 07 :00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H —0 .4J 1 L. 4-227 0 J L203 T= 0% T= 3 .2% 0 —► 4-0 P=0. P=.737 0 24 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • j T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH .4-1 I r► P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —► 0 316 23 142 — JMBR Peak Hour 1460 07:25-08 :25 Traffic Smithy i T= 4% •P=.892 1339 TEV=1121 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD FROM - TO ; —► 3 '-I I L► 41 I r• r '- L ♦ ♦ ALL 07 : 00-07 : 05 0 0 0 0 34 4 0 15 0 1 0 11 65 07 :05-07 : 10 0 0 0 0 32 6 0 17 1 8 0 8 72 07:10-07 :15 0 0 0 0 36 9 0 14 1 0 0 25 85 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 0 16 10 0 21 2 4 0 13 66 07:20-07 :25 0 0 0 0 24 8 0 20 2 2 0 15 71 07:25-07 :30 0 0 0 0 39 13 0 23 1 2 0 17 95 07:30-07 :35 0 0 0 0 34 14 0 24 1 1 0 13 87 07:35-07 :40 0 0 0 0 38 9 0 30 7 3 0 15 102 07:40-07 :45 0 0 0 0 40 9 0 15 1 2 0 21 88 07 :45-07 :50 0 0 0 0 46 18 0 24 3 2 0 24 117 07 :50-07 :55 0 0 0 0 51 10 0 25 0 5 0 23 114 07 :55-08 :00 0 0 0 0 39 12 0 37 1 1 0 21 111 08 :00-08 : 05 0 0 0 0 37 10 0 29 1 2 0 12 91 08 :05-08 :10 0 0 0 0 25 5 0 26 1 0 0 9 ,. 66 08 :10-08 : 15 0 0 0 0 29 4 0 18 4 1 0 11 67 08 :15-08 :20 0 0 0 0 28 6 0 31 0 2 0 18 85 08 :20-08 :25 0 0 0 0 30 9 0 34 3 3 0 19 98 08 :25-08 :30 0 0 0 0 22 6 0 36 3 2 0 19 88 08 :30-08 :35 0 0 0 0 38 6 0 29 0 2 0 9 84 08 :35-08 :40 0 0 0 0 24 6 0 30 1 2 0 10 73 08 :40-08 :45 0 0 0 0 19 8 0 23 2 4 0 11 67 08 :45-08 :50 0 0 0 0 29 6 0 25 4 2 0 8 74 08 :50-08 :55 0 0 0 0 22 7 0 15 2 2 0 9 57 08 :55-09 :00 0 0 0 0 22 4 0 24 0 1 0 10 61 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 754 199 0 585 41 54 0 351 1984 PHF 0 0 0 0 .8 .74 0 .86 . 52 . 67 0 .75 . 819 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 3 .6 3 .5 0 3 . 8 7.3 7 .4 0 2 . 6 3 .6 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 07 :00-08 :00 0 0 0 0 429 122 0 265 20 31 0 206 1073 07 :15-08 :15 0 0 0 0 418 122 0 292 24 25 0 194 1075 07 :30-08 :30 0 0 0 0 419 112 0 329 25 24 0 205 1114 07 :45-08 :45 0 0 0 0 388 100 0 342 19 26 0 186 1061 08 :00-09 : 00 0 0 0 0 325 77 0 320 21 23 0 145 911 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFAEXPM2 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) HALL BOULEVARD (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 511 56 288 479 26 193 PHF .91 . 91 .91 . 91 .91 . 91 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 1 1 1 CV' s (%) 0 0 0 PCE ' s 1.01 1.01 1 . 01 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 .00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 19.0 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate:Ln(7)=0.777Ln(X) + 1.674 Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.737Ln(X) + 1.831 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional 89% 11% 17% 83% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends Trip Ends WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate:Ln(7)=0.756Ln(X) + 3.765 Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.863Ln(X) + 0.306 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional 50% 50% 50% 50% Distribution Distribution ......... Trip Ends NiigOT:;:i:; Trip Ends Source:TRIP GENERATION,Fifth Edition HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d PFAEXAM2 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets: (N-S) HALL BOULEVARD (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Major Street DirectionNS Length of Time Analyzed60 (min) Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R --- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - ---- No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 316 23 119 436 24 203 PHF .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) 0 0 0 SU/RV' s (%) 4 3 3 CV' s (%) 0 0 0 PCE ' s 1.02 1 .01 1 . 01 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Hall Boulevard Minor Street: Pfaff le Street Existing Conditions, PM Peak Hour Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used 100 percent of standard warrants used X 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 12,740 7,400 Minor Street 1 2,190 1,850 Yes Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 12,740 11,100 Minor Street 1 2,190 950 Yes Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant Major Street 2 1,274 Minor Street 1 219 100 Yes HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFASTAM1 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) 78TH AVENUE (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING + SITE TRIPS, AM PEAK HOUR All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 11 3 162 28 164 3 67 8 5 0 52 10 PHF . 86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 . 86 .86 . 86 .86 . 86 .86 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 13 33 78 0 RT Flow Rate 188 3 6 12 Approach Flow Rate 204 227 93 72 Proportion LT 0 .06 0 .15 0 .84 0 . 00 Proportion RT 0 .92 0 . 01 0 .06 0 .17 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 227 204 72 93 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 165 165 431 431 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .34 0 .38 0 .16 0 .12 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .38 0 .34 0 .12 0 .16 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 2 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 33 13 0 78 RT, Opposing Approach 3 188 12 6 LT, Conflicting Approaches 78 78 46 46 RT, Conflicting Approaches 18 18 191 191 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .15 0 . 06 0 . 00 0 .84 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 01 0 . 92 0 .17 0 .06 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .47 0 .47 0 .11 0 .11 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .11 0 .11 0 .44 0 .44 Approach Capacity 459 977 475 192 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 204 459 0 .44 5 .4 B WB 227 977 0 .23 2 .4 A . NB 93 475 0 .20 2 .1 A SB 72 192 0 .38 4 .2 A Intersection Delay = 3 .6 Level of Service (Intersection) = A LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL Wr WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Hall Boulevard Minor Street: Pfaff le Street Existing + Site Trips, PM Peak Hour Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400. 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used 100 percent of standard warrants used X 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 13,380 7,400 Minor Street 1 2,370 1,850 Yes Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 13,380 11,100 Minor Street 1 2,370 950 Yes Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant Major Street 2 1,338 Minor Street 1 237 100 Yes HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d PFAEXAM1 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) 78TH AVENUE (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Analyst ' TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 11 3 159 28 155 3 48 8 5 0 52 10 PHF .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 .86 . 86 .86 .86 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate t 13 33 56 0 RT Flow Rate 185 3 6 12 Approach Flow Rate 201 216 71 72 Proportion LT 0 . 06 0 .15 0 .79 0 . 00 Proportion RT 0 . 92 0 . 01 0 . 08 0 .17 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 216 201 72 71 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 143 143 417 417 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .36 0 .39 0 .13 0 .13 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .39 0 .36 0 .13 0 .13 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 2 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 33 13 0 56 RT, Opposing Approach 3 185 12 6 LT, Conflicting Approaches 56 56 46 46 RT, Conflicting Approaches 18 18 188 188 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .15 0 . 06 0 .00 0 .79 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 01 0 . 92 0 .17 , 0 . 08 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .39 0 .39 0 .11 0 .11 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .13 0 .13 0 .45 0 .45 Approach Capacity 506 1022 452 200 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 201 506 0 .40 4 .5 A WB 216 1022 0 .21 2 .2 A NB 71 452 0 .16 1.8 A SB 72 200 0 .36 3 . 9 A Intersection Delay = 3 .2 Level of Service (Intersection) = A le LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Pfaff le Street Minor Street: 78th Avenue Existing + Site Trips, PM Peak Hour Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St, 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used X 100 percent of standard warrants used 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 5,710 8,850 Minor Street 1 1,570 2,650 No Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 5,710 13,300 Minor Street 1 1,570 1,350 No Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant Major Street 2 571 Minor Street 1 157 375 No LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Pfaff le Street Minor Street: 78th Avenue Existing + Site Trips, AM Peak Hour Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St.. Minor_St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used X 100 percent of standard warrants used 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 3,710 8,850 Minor Street 1 800 2,650 No Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 3,710 13,300 Minor Street 1 800 1,350 No Warrant 11: Peak Hour Warrant Major Street 2 371 Minor Street 1 80 400 No HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFAEXPM1 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) 78TH AVENUE r (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R --- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - --- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 21 10 284 65 150 13 90 44 19 4 45 21 PHF . 93 . 93 . 93 .93 . 93 .93 . 93 . 93 . 93 . 93 . 93 .93 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 23 70 97 4 RT Flow Rate 305 14 20 23 Approach Flow Rate 339 245 164 75 Proportion LT 0 . 07 0 .29 0 .59 0 .05 Proportion RT 0 . 90 0 .06 0 .12 0 .31 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 245 339 75 164 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 239 239 584 584 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .41 0 .30 0 .20 0 . 09 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .30 0 .41 0 . 09 0 .20 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 2 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 70 23 4 97 RT, Opposing Approach 14 305 23 20 LT, Conflicting Approaches 101 101 93 93 RT, Conflicting Approaches 43 43 319 319 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .29 0 . 07 0 . 05 0 .59 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 .06 0 .90 0 .31 0 .12 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .42 0 .42 0 .16 0 .16 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .18 0 .18 0 .55 0 .55 Approach Capacity 473 973 524 294 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 339 473 0 .72 15 .2 C WB 245 973 0 .25 2 .6 A NB 164 524 0 .31 3 .3 A SB 75 294 0 .26 2 .6 A Intersection Delay = 7 .9 Level of Service (Intersection) = B LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Hall Boulevard Minor Street: Pfaff le Street Existing + Site Trips, AM Peak Hour Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used 100 percent of standard warrants used X 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 9,130 7,400 Minor Street 1 2,300 1,850 Yes Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 9,130 11,100 Minor Street 1 2,300 950 No Warrant 11: Peak Hour Warrant Major Street 2 913 Minor Street 1 230 125 Yes HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFASTPM1 .HCO Page 1 Lancaster Engineering Union Station, Suite 206 800 NW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97209- Ph: (503) 248-0313 Streets : (N-S) 78TH AVENUE (E-W) PFAFFLE STREET Analyst TODD E. MOBLEY Date of Analysis 11/4/97 Other Information EXISTING + SITE TRIPS, PM PEAK HOUR All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 21 10 311 65 151 13 94 44 19 4 45 21 PHF . 93 . 93 . 93 .93 .93 . 93 . 93 . 93 .93 . 93 . 93 .93 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 23 70 101 4 RT Flow Rate 334 14 20 23 Approach Flow Rate 368 246 168 75 Proportion LT 0 .06 0 .28 0 .60 0 . 05 Proportion RT 0 .91 0 . 06 0 .12 0 .31 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 246 368 75 168 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 243 243 614 614 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .43 0 .29 0 .20 0 . 09 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .29 0 .43 0 . 09 0 .20 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 2 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 2 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 70 23 4 101 RT, Opposing Approach 14 334 23 20 LT, Conflicting Approaches 105 105 93 93 RT, Conflicting Approaches 43 43 348 348 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .28 0 . 06 0 .05 0 .60 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 06 0 .91 0 .31 0 .12 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .43 0 .43 0 .15 0 .15 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .18 0 .18 0 .57 0 .57 Approach Capacity 480 974 527 293 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 368 480 0 .77 18 .4 C WB 246 974 0 .25 2 .6 A NB 168 527 0 .32 3 .4 A SB 75 293 0 .26 2 .6 A Intersection Delay = 9 .5 Level of Service (Intersection) = B LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS • Major Street: Hall Boulevard Minor Street: Pfaff le Street Existing Conditions, AM Peak Hour Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% WARRANT 1 Warrants Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 8,850 6,200 2,650 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 WARRANT 2 1 1 13,300 9,300 1,350 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used 100 percent of standard warrants used X 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 2 8,940 7,400 Minor Street 1 2,270 1,850 Yes Warrant 2:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 2 8,940 11,100 Minor Street 1 2,270 950 No Warrant 11:Peak Hour Warrant Major Street 2 894 Minor Street 1 227 125 Yes • HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFAEXAM2 .HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 399 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 869 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 869 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .71 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 413 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1090 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1090 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .86 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1076 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 252 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 .86 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .86 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .86 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 218 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 29 218 > 663 9 .4 2 .4 B 9 .4 WB R 250 869 > SB L 148 1090 3 .8 0 .5 A 0 .8 Intersection Delay = 2 .3 sec/veh INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT ` � PFAFFLE STREET AT HALL BOULEVARD I �'t c'( a • T= 1% P=.921 N 1767 DATE OF COUNT: 10/28/97 • O 704 DAY OF WEEK: Tue R 0 479 288 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 H -0 A-1 1 Lo. A-219 • • O J L193 T= 00 T= 1.2% 0 —► A-0 P=O. P=.855 O 26 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME 4-1 • r''rr T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH . P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —► 344 —► JMBS 0 511 56 Peak Hour 1505 16:40-17:40 Traffic Smithy -1 T= .8% P=.875 •567 TEV=1553 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO ; —► J 4J ( 14. .4 1 1 r' r '- L ♦ • ALL 16 :00-16 :05 0 0 0 0 38 22 0 39 8 1 0 13 121 16 :05-16 :10 0 0 0 0 34 17 0 34 4 2 0 13 104 16 :10-16 :15 0 0 0 0 37 19 0 37 7 2 0 9 111 16 :15-16 :20 0 0 0 0 38 22 0 39 4 2 0 15 120 16 :20-16 :25 0 0 0 0 32 10 0 27 3 4 0 10 86 16 :25-16 :30 0 0 0 0 32 16 0 30 3 2 0 10 93 16:30-16:35 0 0 0 0 36 28 0 38 4 2 0 19 127 16:35-16:40 0 0 0 0 43 23 0 34 8 0 0 13 121 16 :40-16 :45 0 0 0 0 31 37 0 46 5 5 0 17 141 16:45-16:50 0 0 0 0 49 17 0 40 5 3 0 19 133 16 :50-16 :55 0 0 0 0 26 18 0 36 7 3 0 11 101 16 :55-17 :00 0 0 0 0 36 25 0 39 3 1 0 18 122 17:00-17:05 0 0 0 0 46 18 0 35 2 3 0 14 118 17:05-17:10 0 0 0 0 37 20 0 41 4 1 0 16 119 17:10-17:15 0 0 0 0 51 24 0 44 6 0 0 17 142 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 0 41 26 0 50 4 2 0 19 142 17:20-17:25 0 0 0 0 33 24 0 51 7 3 0 23 141 17:25-17:30 0 0 .0 0 48 22 0 48 1 1 0 12 132 17:30-17:35 0 0 0 0 45 21 0 44 9 4 0 13 136 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 0 36 36 0 37 3 0 0 14 126 17:40-17:45 0 0 0 0 35 33 0 32 4 4 0 18 126 17:45-17:50 0 0 0 0 39 31 0 33 3 1 0 25 132 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 0 29 19 0 39 4 3 0 14 108 17:55-18 :00 0 0 0 0 29 12 0 36 7 3 0 14 101 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 901 540 0 929 115 52 0 366 2903 PHF 0 0 0 0 .89 .91 0 .86 .82 .59 0 .82 .913 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 1.6 .2 0 .8 .9 1.9 0 1.1 1 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 22 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 0 0 0 0 432 254 0 439 61 27 0 167 1380 16 :15-17 :15 0 0 0 0 457 258 0 449 54 26 0 179 1423 16 :30-17:30 0 0 0 0 477 282 0 502 56 24 0 198 1539 16:45-17:45 0 0 0 0 483 284 0 497 55 25 0 194 1538 17:00-18 :00 0 0 0 0 469 286 0 490 54 25 0 199 1523 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFAEXPM2 .HC0 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 593 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 693 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 693 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .69 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 624 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 864 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 864 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .63 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1435 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 156 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 .63 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .63 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .63 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 99 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 29 99 > 403 22 .1 4 .5 D 22 .1 WB R 213 693 > SB L 318 864 6 .6 2 .0 B 2 .5 Intersection Delay = 4 .3 sec/veh • INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT PFAFFLE STREET AT 78TH AVENUE I L13C Lf • T= 1.4% P=.795 N 70 • DATE OF COUNT: 10/28/97 O �78 DAY OF WEEK: Tue R 21 45 4 TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 H 4-261 43 1 L. 4-228 21 J L13 T= .3% T= 1.1% 10 -► 4-150 P=.915 P=.876 284 ; 4-65 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH �l I �► P=PHF BY APPROACH 315 -> 90 44 19 33 -4. ERJK Peak Hour 1394 16:40-17:40 Traffic Smithy 1 •T= 0% P=.869 153 TEV=766 (503) 641-6333 EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO -► J 4_1 1 L. 'l 1 r' l L ALL 16 :00-16 :05 16 1 3 0 8 0 3 3 0 12 10 3 59 16 :05-16:10 19 2 3 1 4 1 4 1 1 6 12 3 57 16 :10-16:15 22 1 1 1 2 0 3 4 1 6 9 0 50 16:15-16:20 14 1 2 4 4 2 5 1 3 4 11 1 52 16:20-16 :25 20 1 0 6 4 0 4 2 1 11 5 0 54 16 :25-16 :30 15 1 0 3 2 0 7 3 0 10 6 1 48 16 :30-16 :35 15 2 3 1 0 0 3 3 1 2 11 3 44 16 :35-16:40 23 1 3 0 4 0 6 1 2 2 10 1 53 16 :40-16 :45 28 2 3 1 2 1 9 2 2 5 13 0 68 16 :45-16 :50 29 0 1 5 2 0 5 4 0 3 19 1 69 16 :50-16 :55 20 1 2 3 3 0 7 5 3 13 9 2 68 16:55-17 :00 20 0 2 1 7 0 7 2 2 5 11 0 57 17:00-17:05 24 1 2 2 4 0 12 4 2 6 5 0 62 17:05-17:10 20 1 1 0 5 1 1 7 2 3 17 3 61 17:10-17:15 23 0 2 2 8 0 5 2 0 8 14 1 ` 65 17:15-17:20 25 1 0 2 4 0 11 3 2 5 11 0 64 17:20-17:25 24 1 2 2 2 0 12 2 1 4 19 2 71 17:25-17:30 22 2 2 0 5 1 7 4 2 5 10 0 60 17:30-17:35 21 1 2 2 2 0 8 4 3 4 9 3 59 17:35-17:40 28 0 2 1 1 1 6 5 0 4 13 1 62 17:40-17:45 28 0 4 2 5 0 3 1 2 5 6 1 57 17:45-17:50 31 1 1 2 5 0 9 4 2 3 17 4 79 17:50-17:55 30 1 1 1 1 0 7 4 1 2 13 0 61 17:55-18 :00 16 0 3 3 4 2 3 1 1 9 13 1 56 Total Survey 533 22 45 45 88 9 147 72 34 137 273 31 1436 PHF . 92 .63 .88 .58 .66 .5 .75 .85 .68 .68 .85 .65 .934 % Trucks .2 0 2.2 4 .4 0 0 0 0 0 .7 1.5 0 .6 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 13 0 Hourly Totals 16 :00-17:00 241 13 23 26 42 4 63 31 16 79 126 15 679 16 :15-17 :15 251 11 21 28 45 4 71 36 18 72 131 13 701 16 :30-17:30 273 12 23 19 46 3 85 39 19 61 149 13 742 ,16 :45-17:45 284 8 22 22 48 3 84 43 19 65 143 14 755 17:00-18 :00 292 9 22 19 46 5 84 41 18 58 147 16 757 . HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFASTAM2 .HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB r- Conflicting Flows : (vph) 408 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 860 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 860 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .71 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 430 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1069 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1069 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .86 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1090 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 248 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 .86 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .86 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .86 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 212 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 32 212 > 639 10 .1 2 .6 C 10 .1 WB R 251 860 > SB L 154 1069 3 . 9 0 .5 A 0 . 9 Intersection Delay = 2 .5 sec/veh . LANCASTER ENGINEERING LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOP 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 • A • HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d PFASTPM2 .HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 594 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 692 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 692 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .68 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 627 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 862 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 862 Prob . of Queue-Free State: 0 .63 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 1438 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 156 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 .63 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .63 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .63 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 98 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 43 98 > 346 40 .3 7 .7 E 40 .3 WB R 218 692 > SB L 318 862 6 .6 2 .0 B 2 .5 Intersection Delay = 7 .3 sec/veh PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES q11 III CITY OF TIGARD 44,. .4." PH E-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES 0t‘,77,vrr',` ` '7;;;',:;t, -.4.-F— NON-RESIDENTIAL CATE g/S/ STS: APPLICANT: �dvArnl P f.s-6ns�r.) AGENT: Teri? . cSi Phone:[ l 5-9 g -1'84'6 Phone: ( l PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS: 8060 St.) PFD crk S're. I TAX MAP/TAX LOT: /Sf 36 4 CD TA. 4-QO f NECESSARY APPLICATION'S): PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: 615/rid /9/50 . /7 Lc,455 frfs /1Q/?c4e. Cp 'hcyx COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: (.o///ri. ,�/ Prro4,Ss/t / (6- P) ZONING DESIGNATION: Corrrefe,9/ Pt .401"..! (CI) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 0451- FACILITATOR: rce /s.A TEAM AREA: PHONE: [503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size:le'msq. ft. Average lot width: -(-- ft. Maximum building height: ; ft. Setbacks: Front ft. Side ft. Rear c' ft. Corner c- - ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: , % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: %"_< % [Refer to Code Section 18. A,q, 050) ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partitio cess. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of front _of--have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2 . -- - average width, unless the parcel is less than 1 M times the minimum lot size . - - . .p icable zoning district. [Refer to Code Section X4.060-Lots) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page l of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section w 410 Post-it-routing request pad 7664 ROUTING - REQUEST Pleas READ To 1'A G Jf "- `t 9 ❑ HANDLE WD C/ G D V ❑ APPROVE M/c n1Y and t L 1 FORWARDS L� ❑ RETURN ❑ KEEP OR DISCARD SF ❑ REVIEW WITH ME D$� Date r0,7 From fUA.6•. SPECIAL SETBACKS • ➢ Streets: ,>C feet from the centerline of Pi 1rh 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] SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROYISIO 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(I/) of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. [Refer to Code Section 18.98.020] PAR AND ACCESi —equire d parking for this type of use: ro.r Ac/m,i,.ftp#4-5i4 I( Servi4:3— /_'35-o S9, A = Ss Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): 70 L' 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. [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: / Minimum access width: ---(2 Minimum pavement width: ,2y0 All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: t'';�. [Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.108] CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section S WALKWAY REQUIREMEN 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) 4ADING AREA REQUIREMEN Every commercial or industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.010-090) ''`EAR VISION AREA- 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 18.102) 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 18.1001 The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: feet along north boundary. 2o feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along LANDSCAPING 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 18.108) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section SIGN> 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 18.114) SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 perce or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-ap. ' ation conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify ensitive lands areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the ••finitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensit e lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodplains. [Refer to Code Section 18.84] STEEP SLOPES When steep slopes exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical re..rt must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development C-•de Section 18.84.040.B. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall i lude 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 Purpose: Land development adjacent to sensitive areas shall preserve a maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functionin f the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet ide, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approva as been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the corridor. If approval is gr.nted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface ater in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet 'de. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No r'ore than 25 percent of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can b: ess than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimu .f 25 feet. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: No structures, development, const •ction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or o 'er activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by e vegetated corridor, except as allowed below: A gravel walkway or b e 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 t be constructed closer than 10 feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved b he Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturban a to existing vegetation; and Water quality facilities may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of 10 feet with the approval of the Agency or City. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section S 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 (TREE REMOVAL PLANEQUIREMENTS A tree pan for tfie plan—frog, 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: Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent 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; Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; Retainage of 75 percent 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 18.150.0251 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Nesidential appllcatlon/Planning Department Section - ➢ 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(D) SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION Prior to submitting a Subdivision land use application with the City of T... • . :: • s are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with I_ .s ington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdi ' - ame. Applications will not be accepted as complete until th- - -- - - - - -• confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. [County Surveyor's Office: 648-88841 TIME e 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 18.321 CODE SECTIONS 18.80 18.92 / 18.100 ✓ 18.108 18.120 18.150 18.84 18.96 J 18.102 ✓18.114 18.130 18.160 18.88 / 18.98 4./ 18.106 18.116 18.134 18.162 18.164 IMPACT STUDY art 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.0501 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) E GHBQ001100D MEW - The 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) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section (111.11- ILDING PERM Piar 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. ECYCLING pplicant 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] ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: ��11 nn - —/ / 1 / 4 1U /o : o � /!•rdovv/ Jl4!t�0/5 i C49a/irce -/Need 4ri;,. �1 vl 804-baclL 40 t;( j,.� �1- A7Z ) re 1V d Y�'L►l�t n� �� s /EA /) 9,-■ r 1 1-./4. / f�i N-s l/(\Yr ( J " H 1 T Y/V l`t I A / f 7'021,_)^.4 T r �� � oc if ova • 1' n r 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), 81/2" x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page/of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section S 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, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard P(gnnieg �Cir^.rn s�l �, . 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. 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: J„ut CI F TIGARD NNING DIVISION PHONE: 15031639-4171 FAX: (5031684-1297 h:lloginlpattylmasterslpreapp-c.mst [Engineering Section:masterslpreapp-c.engl 21-Mar-91 CITY OFTIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential application/Planning Department Section 411111 111111 CITY OF TIGARD N DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DE ELO E 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: Date: 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 / E) Filing Fee $ SITE-SPECIFIC MAPS)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ✓ MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies 1. Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 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 c (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 2.-- 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 1 1 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways 't>/ LAND USE APPLICATION I LIST PAGE I OF 5 r S a 8) Site Development Plan indicating: No. of Copies k.' 1 . The proposed site and surrounding properties 0/ 2. Contour line intervals 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties - 07 (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site ✓ag.../ (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 ./e"- (C) Loading and services area ak. '. - (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation °d (e) Outdoor common areas L.. ar--- (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 with} in 25 feet of the site ,42K (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 7. Sanitary sewer facilities —ea- 8. The location areas to be landscaped --�'' 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10. The location of mailboxes e � 11 . The location of all structures and their orientation --cam 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements ^A Er- 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 (b) Slope ratios ❑ (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) ❑ (d) Approximate time of year for the proposed site development e o� 2. A statement from a registered engineer supported by data factual substantiating: (a) Subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering report 0 --Q. , (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigat d �! LAND USE APPLICATION J LIST PACE 2 OF 5 r 11110 D) Architectural Draw. s Indicating: o. of Co ies P - 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 x' 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 -rY 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials ' 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions c� (b) Erosion control measures that will be used a' 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: ---6� H) Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Map Indicating: No. of Copies r 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 arrow and date ❑ 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ 5. Location, width and names of streets, easements and er public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑ 6. Location of all permanent buildings on and 'thin 25 feet of all property lines ❑ 7. Location and width of all water co es 8. Location of any trees within 6" f greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level ❑ 9. All slopes greater than /o ❑ 10. Location of existin ilities and utility easements ❑ 11 . For major land rtition which creates a public street: (a) The pj posed right-of-way location and width ❑ (b) Aystaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ❑ 12. Any ipplicable deed restrictions ❑ 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION"LIST PAGE 3 OF 5 I) Subdivision Prelimi. Plat Map and Data lndicatingleNo. 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 /o 3. Vicinity map showing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, 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 owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2-fo4t intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% c 9. The purpose, location, type and size of all the following ithin and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and private right-of-ways and easements c (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrant ❑ (d) Major power telephone transmission lines ( 0,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations for parks, open space , pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles of proposesanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on e plans ❑ 11 . Plan of the proposed water distributio system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydra►ts 0 12. Approximate centerline profiles sh•.wing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a --asonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed street right-of-way(s) ❑ 14. The location of all areas s eject to inundation or storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & directi•n of flow of all water courses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot confi: rations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where ots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall ►e indicated upon such lots. ❑ 17. The location of al trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above gr. nd level, and the location of proposed tree plantings ❑ 18. The existing u-es of the property, including the location of all structures and the pres-nt uses of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to rem. n after platting 0 19. Supplem- tal information including: (a) Pr.posed deed restrictions (if any) ❑ (b) ;roof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ 20. Exi ting 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 c LAND USE APPLICATION.LIST PAGE 4 OF S S J) Solar Access Calculations: o K) Other Information No. of Copies o h:Uogm\patty\mastersUtkl ist.mst May 23.1995 LANG USE APPLICATION d LIST PAGE 5 OF 5 41ho City of Tigard, Oregon PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ENGINEERING SECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (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: ( ) p� to 3 a I _ feet from centerline. - ( ) to feet from centerline. ( ) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: ( ) street improvements will be necessary along Pik ( ) street improvements will be necessary along ( ) Street improvements on Zo shall include 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 five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 5 Engineering Department Section streets, or in the Ce usiness District), necessary strjns 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 utility wires (a fee may be collected if determined appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider 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. ( ) 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. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW . Prior to , the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: (1.) (2.) Pedestrianways/bikeways: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located in $'v 8( 1 . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to . ,/ , z CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 5 Engineering Department Section Water Supply: The 7, V Water District - Phone:(503) a-''s'- 33f rovides public water service in the area of this site. The District 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 subbasin 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. - _ • ! _ . _ / Ala - R�o �6 - ¢ 4 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 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 5 Engineering Department Section 65 percent of the phospho ontained in 100 percent of thLn 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 $180.00. 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. 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. 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 5 Engineering Department Section NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required, the applican must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Department. Building Department Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Department. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, contact the Development Services Counter at 639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: ,e.n5/17 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 h 11oginlpatty\preapp eng (Master section preapp-r mst) December 23. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 5 Engineering Department Section 7/Z?/97 C //l .iD r7re--"en/C/9770,0 dth'=-7e-i-eE/OcE, A • Evt,<J•527eD 1 C, T z/1/425'�ti1 Apet. T 7/ 54 5-cc) /f•9-0-r PT-D‘J c57' Sc- 77—z__ zz / 4 , 02 972Z-3 — 8-36, CP /3. Si 7-E ,��v �� �- /4 TritC • ORc,si D CJSe_ - ��(JS/.r.) (67Lj�--C� D . 779-x- //45'-/ moo . .• /.s 730 c L.oT /0 o . , sec E . Cu,e2 7' Ocv,CJ E--2 N /EL u`sy j. s/77z11_ 701OG2!tp - cS f -7i9Ct l- 7-� R -,41■J u t SE 1/4 SW I/4 SECTION 36 T I S RI W W.M. m w 1341.0$TO RE-ENE CCR.OLC I =uj 1 'WASHINGTON COtNTY OREGON SCALE I"=1100' I -1 ti Q I INI71A I. POINT ~>' r g( j(FRIEND�7 ACRES a I !/J WUR2 SEE MAPt�t 36CA 1 j ® 1 . }_. __ .4 M E COR. T $491.26.E T S W "T T e.m.rmli.to wCOR PFAFFLE c•R.9fs 395 4$` STREET !42.72 70 NW COR.C.M.PFAFF.E 2 HAMMER • �.•:.. 129.05 105.sr I 130.05 130.03 500 aoi !00 1! a Is2.16 60 W 196.70 476.1 200 111 600 .684e. '34 Ac 300 200 102 101 /.o6 Ac. \ ' I Ac. .74AC. .117Ac. N ;? .69Ac. .33. c. 01 I 0 12 300AI 200 AI ,A r o 102 AI o 101 Al 4.,,,7 V \ 0 ^ w • o m / 1 1 1 " I • o it Ili 1 nom^„ JF S A 1, ..,o .n I t00 1 o ... -1 +► wr. O .1'_ 43 ,n 0 ON O 1A • *Dig, ,,I !e a 4T AC. �G �s r' �� `e4 �`U \ "`• h� 74"6 130.05 1" :00AI �` *� 150.42 . n or qr 55.9 129.92 I l O 1 1000 \ M.S.25,446/ I ^ g$$ aI 132.16 O I6 00 \ 2.22Ac. ;y o a y6 121.06 3408 p a0 .45Ac. S w .IS2 1 1300 8 4 A'S ` wk I ��4. tl I 129.91 I A4j7j "t300AI • P. Z 110\____ 130.05 L27.7` _ 130.03 1.. 4?�S� 3E = 1700 r r. 1 1T{-Nei•zs'r I42.0s : B�Zp �e BSAe o• `l1 1 !100 1e ° c°' 11 i.72 Ac. s`A0 >>e' coo a N° O G To 1 4 !al I O. .118°074C. A 0 0 1001 Al s 11! I 1900 °� ° ,' ';III 1 .32 AC. Q0 p• O s :r.................................„.../......\', Z i�w / ,19\Z 00 . C O{ 664c. 0 1 �•� s::°z2 E : w e.l o 0'096 id`V .�}�'.'r 40 ''1 l� ,�1 ,.. o,• . L•` ��p�y�t 266.42 .s 567I• Imes L Q P '(I<`8 �22 00 , N85.2 2'30 w S 1 ;00°i .1 /2.90Ae. I` L • . 10 `p M \( CASEMENT 2000 011c.• .0 L 6.45AC 0 X11 • ', i 3° a 1 1.e2 1 44 . Y SEE MAP 4 '4 11 I' 2004 o ` 16, f. 0. y • _ y IS136CC x g ' X \ � • I .3/At! Week of Sunday, August 03, 1997 Pre-Apps (CD Meetings) 3 Sun 4 Mon 5 Tue 6 Wed 7 Thu 8 Fri 9 Sat 8:00 8:30 9:00 C `> ............................... �1i...............�Q............ 9:30 ............................... ................................ 10.00 Edist : 10:30 1$136 c))3;€< 1 11:00 899-2732 RE: MLP on 11:30 three parcels... ... ..................,.,--- 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 More Notes: 4:17PM Tuesday,July 29, 1997 ajar Alti CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL DATE: I - At ,, �. STAFF: MBA', i ks J APPLICANT: 4/i /kilt' tai LP yy Q` ale r ► AGENT: M° rg0'1 Phone: ( ) 6 5 3- 25P-/ Phone: I ) 1cau%N 144tasedi 6S?j ZSI�{ PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS: 0 %O S'(.() D/e TAX MAPITAX LOT: I S l 5 D +.# Iel- 6 613 NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): 5-t`f. i etic( • �,,fv----1e-vile L. r irfartAMMIiirgriMMIra PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: (,tri 000 s c.idrair- Sode ear �f �COMPREHENSIVE �/�/ / f`p✓off/d�'IaPLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: -P.7141 141+el�Ca / , CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACILITATOR: e� I-id-- TEAM AREA: PHONE: (503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Mir inum lot size:606 sq. ft. Average lot width: CO ft. Maximum building height: 16 ft. Setbacks: front f161i4. ft. side flake ft. rear tiOke ft. corner 114 ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: 'g5 % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: 15 °ro (Refer to Code Section 18. 6_{•(1_ ) ( pR /d� ..� K - .• C_Jedv- vSrdh/ ;k" - - u�vet.44.e s l2trtd 1 se C "'• .�. 1,5 - , r 1 . - '. 1'A, Ij/ CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON Resit}enitsl arohoticn.Plamtmc Or.armrnt S et:oi I routing request pad 154 ROUTING - REQUEST Please \ 1' READ To v I HANDLE A)0 APPROVE Skz and II^^ FORWARD D RETURN Li KEEP OR DISCARD u REVIEW WITH ME Date L'-1 / 30 F • I I•t ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSION• REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 5 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of . partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide acc- s easement. The depth of all lots shall no exceed 2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1 times the minimum lot size • the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 ots) SPECIAL SETBACKS ➢ Streets: j`f feet from the centerline of Established areas: y� 4 feet from Lower intensity zones: /AP feet, along the site's boundary. • Flag lot: 10 foot side yard setback. (Refer to Code Section and 18.96) SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PR•VISIONS Building Height Exceptions - :uildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: • A maximum buildin floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1 .5 to 1 will exist; • All actual building set: -cks will be at least IA (half) of the building's height; and • The structure will not ab a residential zone district. (Refer to Code Section 18.98.020) PARKING AND ACCESS Required parking for this type of use: r 360 �o c � r ii Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): .'' Xrd Secondary use required parking: 3 4-6 ©chi Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): .pr `z No QQQQ No more than 40% of required spaces may bet d aced a fi dimensioned as comi5act spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. 7 Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. (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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 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: 1 u1 Minimum access width: 36 Fe2 f Minimum pavement width: 2-4 ce. t All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: P/Ar (Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.108) ALKWAY ' a I REMENTS 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) LOADI • ' • REQUIREMENTS Every commercial or industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070-090) LEAR VISION AREA 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 18.102) 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 t 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 Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of B Nf1N.O..:a.....t...,i..,......91........fl..,........,C...... The required buf er widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: A ft. along north boundary. 2d ft. along east boundary. h1 ft. along south boundary. Q ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along LANDSCAPING Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A minimum of one (1) tree for every seven (7) parking spaces must be planted in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. (Refer to Code Chapters 18.100, 18.106 and 18.108) 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 18.114) SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations fo ands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, :tural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff wi .ttempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available • formation. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely i•- f -n i •v- . • . -. -n -ir is nit._ i- i h- r- .• i. li if h- .•. i . 1r-- m- - • h- . - i i .• if - i .v- i.n. m :: I-.fl • . -. •n • . .•ui* -. • • ,- development application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NfIN-0•e M•nrul. i,r sr„.'Dhnn,nn rl•nxtmrni Sect nn Chapter 18.84 also • ovides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential dev- •pment is prohibited within floodplains, In most cases, dedication of 100- year floodplain areas to t•e City for park and open space areas is required as a condition of the approval of a development a.plication. (Refer to Code Section 18.84) (17R—EE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS ^--� A tree pan for the planting, removal and protection o 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: ➢ Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; ➢ Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires 18.150.070.D; :- Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D; Retainage of 75 percent 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) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of B NUN-R•vd.nr,al arnlmrinnl.an,■nn n...,.,..nr c•r,nn ITIGATION 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 I 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 j 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 (D) NARRATIVE 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) CODE SECTION _ 18.80 _ 18.92 18.100 08 _ 18.120 £ 18.150 18.84 _ 18.96 .102 18 4 18.130 18.160 18.88 18.98 18.106 18.116 18.134 18 162 164 EIGHBORHOOD MEETING The 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 min n..a.rm.r fa-+.nn 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) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: do'ill- sae/r vQ ±tt Vac vAr «5 �Lrc-4 s-ce7 r l e 1/-Q Y P.1/t sis S s hU,4J w t a 1 e_ 4,6! .)y ocr Va- 012_s YLY odefik-es5 '144e i/ei-t(pte -S actliV401Ai71 /a sp 701/ „ill Ad 10 u O ,-) i ( �- s eitc. var i akCe ¢-0 paiv. �l ,, sia id_ - 6Lc ���e a f4 KJu a L I Q I ��� i LvtONST✓l 7 *C a.ar__ .t . ••_4 - S Lc C a , / 2v G. Wv-o rr d lOas O tit o✓�c otetAfamd Fob 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 sr sr.. . - . .f . a - . . s -r w' so • . sin• DM i. . - • . - . - • - - I - . Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M, on Fridays or 4:30 on other days. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch 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, to 20 day public appeal period fopws all land upe dfecisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard Pig HK kti wrdh . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from t1 e 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. 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. Additional pre-application conference(s) is/are required if an application(s) israre to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 ^-ic oin•patty+maszerslpreaDo-c.mst lcngtneenng Sermon:masterstpreapp•c.engl CITY OF TIGARD Pre•Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Rpt■d.nt,.1 annlra+inn�tannrnn Orna.•nrne Csrrnn Kt - te, cD City of Tigard, Oregon PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ENGINEERING SECTION PUBLIC FACILITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: (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 or 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 De.elopment Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: (1.) F�'fr to 501 feet from centerline. (25 f151-S-) (2.) to feet from centerline. PMw� (3.) to feet from centerline. Street improvements- (1.) Z street improvements will be necessary along (Pt=> t • (2.) street improvements will be necessary along (3.) Street improvements shall include 2-0 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 five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wider on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs. streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 3 Engineering Department Section , In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the street 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 owners right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district formed to improve: (1.) (2.) Pedestrianways/bikeways: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located in �►�! Pal�� A . The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to 1E445 Tt mot,. Water Supply: . I The T -t VAux4 Water District - Phone:(503) 245 -$331 provides public water service in the area of this site. The District 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. Other Agency Permits: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 3 Engineering Department Section Storm sewer improvements: '5 Ste' P 1 Pomp DE of-Cc-t-1. 44e S A rw4& PL 4 virc4 954,44s46/44 Ar y si T. Di A-046 ,a,At IMRAc-r>. 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 $180.00. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. A ci-- &44taTI I cr.f l S (21:6A4/LE� 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. STREET OPENING PERMIT No work shall be performed within a public right-of-way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS All projects that require a grading plan also require that the applicant shall submit a typical floor plan for each lot. This floor plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. . 4cc S : Pt2 t QRAu 5 PREPARED BY:_ At-+.�►.4 �4c� f�-1 Stns �t .a�r�. � . �� - .E J AU4+,1 kMa ENGINEERING DE RTMENT "jam-uNE Pes is , Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 h Vogul\patty\preapp eng (Master section preapp•r.rnst) April 23. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 3 Engmeenng 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: 1714 { Date: �f 3e* APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENTS) SUBMITTAL REQUIREM NTS INCLUDE I 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 20 E) Filing Fee $ SP_Q rp • SITE-SPECIFIC MAPS);PLAN(S) SLBMIT TAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE / MARKED ITEMS I/ A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies 1 . Vicinity map 2. Site size & dimensions Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) t>I 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 c (d) Areas with high seasonal water table C (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential C(fl Areas having severely weak foundation soils 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: (a) Wildlife habitats (b) Wetlands C 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings V.12 (b) Trees with 6" = caliper measured 4 feet from ground level 8. Location of existing structures and their uses hl/ 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 _15 �,C- ' B) Site Development t.un Indicating: No. of Copies -2-6 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties • 2. Contour line intervals 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public w ays 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 (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation (e) Outdoor common areas a (f) Above ground utilities o/ 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 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 7. Sanitary sewer facilities 8. The location areas to be landscaped 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10. The location of mailboxes 11. The location of all structures and their orientation 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 (b) Slope ratios (c) Soil stabilization proposal(s) (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 repot e (b) The validity of sanitary se'.ver and storm drainage service proposals C (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated C ±,..D :_5c v'°L:C+.7;CN t!_:S7 ?.ACE : CF 5 D) Architectural Drava Indicating: Jv. 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 • E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 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 e / 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings d� 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces.. 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials �f 5. Landscape narrative which also addresses: (a) Soil conditions (b) Erosion control measures that will be used ❑ 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: C� H) Preliminary Partitio Lot Line Ad'ustment Ma. Indicating: No. of Copies 2. 1 . The owner of the subject parcel The owner's authorized agent 3. The map scale (20,50,100 or 200 feet- 1) inch north arrow and date 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries 3. Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel 6. Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines . . Location and width of ail water courses 8. Location of any trees within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ercund level 9. All slopes greater than 25% c l 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easements 1 i. For major land partition which creates a public street: (a) The proposed right-of-way location and width (b) A scaled c-oss-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip 12. Any applicable deed restrictions 13. Evidence that lard partition will not preclude efficient future and division where applicable �,� .E a?°r_.C� :C•�/ ST PACE 3 CF 5 I) Subdivision Prelin -v Plat Ma. and Data Indicatin•: No. of Copies 1. Scale equaling 31 50,100 or 200 feet to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet a 2. The proposed nam: of the subdivision 3. Vicinity map showi g property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresses an. telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer ano designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6. Boundary lines of tract o be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un- ubdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines related to : City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% ❑ 9. The purpose, location, ty•e and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed .ubdivision): (a) Public and private ri:ht-of-ways and easements ❑ (b) Public and private sa itary and storm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water main. including fire hydrants ❑ (d) Major power telepho e transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations for •.rks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profile- of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes ,ind sated on the plans ❑ 11 . Plan of the proposed water dist ibution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire h drants ❑ 1 2. Approximate centerline profiles howing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a r'asonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed treet right-of-way(s) 14. The location of all areas subject to'inundation or storm water overflow 15. Location, width & direction of fow\ f all water courses & drainage-ways vays ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. ❑ 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings 18. The existing uses of the prcoerty, including the location of 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) ❑ (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ 20. Existing natural features inc.uding rock outcroppings. wetlands & marsh areas 21 . if any of the foregoing information cannot pracr cabiv be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a arrative and'submitted with the application J) Solar Access Calculations: a K) Other Information No. of Copies n:.:cprzaw.^:nasters‘4-exis:.:Tist .%9v 23. I3•93 _SE APPt_.C.A7;C L:ST ?AC::3 CF 5 iiii . , , ' 1 g t 5_■J, i'v.o-,', -.Ai. ,.-r.z�LSPe,•.LOr " - MORRISON BUILDING COR 3�-_r,� A35 r, � - fi _- . s•s w_SEAL Y t t KEVIN L.HANSEN _ �._ -Al — —— fir —_ .._. _ .. - �;• I `• . _.. ten Itigli, 9166 5 law^IM:kt H°.a. r_.. Clackamas,Oi. '-,7111 as — r ON, -. 653 2514 4e.-tit 0198 1 10 13 '':- L XLSTSNLa HOME MOMitlSOM CONS1AUt.T10N-IfMNW06J 71V5tL1FM9 .1 rf _o' ' - - • (_oCAT Iowa ti ' 1 2 r pl oI�_ - { I N� • l;ytY - V1t..AiiO. r. ` ' (w, " j I - - -- 1 ✓I ✓(7 0 • 1A+t Lo r — (7 ,, • lj., II �rko osED aG,000 # 013 LM,, C . . -.-( T I - I t -)Q.FT_ S 0L.'--E R _ 8 E kv, oI — i - 1 -A X04 SY2E 1_Gh 4 I- -5 `trs, DEVtI.OgEG f‘.Fkb r(,;7 t '- I I ti �• I �. sf. 1 w _ .-- — HJ 7 rR)v_-. 2 L. A O K ' tAOY 14- r E A PARKiNI, Rec.n. I Pete inn sf. �IDP E YD 7 < L 1 .� fr r. .2-�otNU 5.c. - ion - 13.3 '.v A:-GS. i YTweeRTs OFF•11:., '•i,� ,�r,Y PRK2NU Y( ..:seta = T°i. I 1T _ _ •}�Set]t' r ail �nNOIGnV '..�:. E.: - '� fit _ co_ I If _ '•. i 1 L—Z -. -�' - I_J 1l .. _ fS l ! 11 _-� .. .I N_-._J }0 1 PFAiFt,-- .,TTE/ t .., . • Qt-t1 P. v } .• { ✓ i - June 17, 1998 Ed Christensen CITY OF TIGARD Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 97-0016/CEI Headquarters Dear Mr. Christensen: Thank you for your letter dated June 12, 1998 requesting approval of a minor modification to the above referenced project. Staff has reviewed your site modification plan dated 6/12/98 and letter from David Cram of Lancaster Engineering dated 4/13/98. You propose an increase in gross floor area from 19,800 square feet to 20,752 square feet according to the site modification plan. To review a modification as a Minor Modification, the Director must first find that the expansion does not invoke one or more of the 11 criteria discussed within Section 18.120.070(B) of the Tigard Development Code. Each of the criteria are listed below in bold, followed by the Director's finding. Please note that staff's review of this modification request has considered only the specific criteria listed below as they pertain to the square footage expansion. Any other revisions to the approved site plan have not been reviewed. Staff will review the final site plan for compliance with the conditions of approval prior to issuance of site development and/or building permits. The Director shall determine that a major modification will result if one or more of the following changes are proposed. There will be: 1. An increase in dwelling unit density or lot coverage for residential development. The proposal does not involve a residential development, therefore, this standard does not apply. 2. A change in the ratio or number of different types of dwelling units. This criterion is not applicable, as this request does not involve a residential development. 3. A change that requires additional on-site parking in accordance with Chapter 18.106. The required parking for this use is one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. With the addition of 952 square feet, the building will equal 20,752 square feet. Therefore, 59 parking spaces are required for the project. The plans indicate a total of 75 parking spaces will be provided with the project, in compliance with the minimum standard. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 4. A change in the type of commercial or industrial structures as defined by the Uniform Building Code. No change in the structural occupancy type of the building is proposed. Therefore, this criteria is not applicable. 5. An increase in the height of the building(s) by more than 20 percent. No increase in the height of the existing building is proposed. The proposed expansion will be achieved through an increase in the building footprint area from 6,600 square feet to 6,998 square feet. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 6. A change in the type and location of accessways and parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. This request will not require a change in accessways or parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 7. An increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and the increase can be expected to exceed 20 vehicles per day. The original application submittal included a trip generation study based on the trip generation rates of the current edition of the Traffic Engineering Manual. The consulting traffic engineer has revised the expected number of trips to the site due to the additional square footage proposed. Based on the Engineer's letter of 4/13/98, the applicant states that the proposed expansion will not generate or exceed 20 additional vehicle trips to the site each day. Staff concurs and finds that this criterion is satisfied. 8. An increase in the floor area proposed for a non-residential use by more than ten percent excluding expansions under 5,000 square feet. The modification will increase the floor area from 19.800 square feet to 20,752 square feet. The net increase is a total of 952 square feet, less than the 5,000 square foot threshold. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 9. A reduction in the area reserved for common open space and/or usable open space that reduces the open space area below the minimum required by this code or reduces the open space area by more than ten percent. There is no area reserved for common open space, therefore, this standard does not apply to the proposal. 10. A reduction of project amenities (recreational facilities, screening; and/or, landscaping provisions) below the minimum established by this code or by more than ten percent where specified in the site plan. The proposed building expansion will result in the loss of some of the originally planned landscaping. However, the reduction will be from 26% to 21.8% and will still exceed the 15% minimum requirement. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant must verify that 15% landscaping is being maintained. 6i17/98 Letter to Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering Page 2 of 3 Re: CEI Headquarters Minor Mod. Approval 11. A modification to the conditions imposed at the time of Site Development Review approval that are not the subject of criteria (B).1 through 10 above. The applicant has not proposed any modification to the conditions of the original Site Development Review approval. The Director's decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny this minor modification shall not imply that any of the original conditions of approval of SDR 97-0016 have been met to the Director's satisfaction. The Planning Division shall review final site plans for compliance with the original conditions of approval prior to issuance of site development or building permits. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.120.080.C, the Director finds that approval of this minor modification does not violate any code provisions and based on the above findings, is not a major modification as defined under 18.3120.070.B. Therefore, your request to modify the approved site plan for the CEI Headquarters building to allow a building size of 20,752 gross square feet is approved. If you have any questions about this approval or regarding compliance with the original conditions of approval, please call me at 639-4171 (ext. 315). Sincerely, . %i' '116. M. J. Roberts Associate Planner iacurpin\mjr197-0016.Iet c: SDR 97-0016 Land use file 6/17/98 Letter to Ed Christensen, Christensen Engineering Page 3 of 3 Re: CEI Headquarters Minor Mod. Approval HRISTENSEN NGINEERING, INC. RECEIVED • PLANNERS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND SURVEYORS JUN 15 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 12, 1998 JO: 97-112.01 Mark Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 97-0016 CEI HEADQUARTERS We are requesting approval of a minor modification to the above-referenced project. The proposed modification is an increase of+/-20,680 square feet which is changed from the approved 19,800 square foot office complex. This modification will effect the building size by +/-4.4%. In accordance with the Community Development Code,we had the additional traffic generation evaluated by Lancaster Engineering who found a net increase of 15 vehicle trips per day. Their report is attached. The net effect of this change does not exceed the 25 trip allowance for a minor modification approval criteria, and thus should be approved. Three copies of the proposed site modification plan are enclosed. If you should have any questions regarding this matter,please call me at 598-1866. Sincerely, 7.6--______ Ed Christensen, P.E. Principal Attachments 7150 SW Hampton Street,Suite 226 • Portland,Oregon 97223 • Phone:(503)598-1866 • Fax:(503)598-1868 E-Mail:cei @cybernw.com .LAN ASTER ENGINEERING RECD APR 14 1998 Ira 1 Studies • Planning • Safety "�f K April 13, 1998 Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7150 SW Hampton Street, Suite 226 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ed: At your request, we have recalculated the trip generation for the CEI Head- quarters building proposed for development on Pfaffle Street in Tigard. The original traffic impact study of November 1997 addressed a building size of 19,800 square feet. Our understanding is that you intend to increase the building size to 20,860 square feet. The trip generation in the original report was based on the TRIP GENERATION, Fifth Edition, and showed a total of 412 daily site trips. TRIP GENERATION has recently been updated to the Sixth Edition, with a slightly different trip generation rate for Land Use Code 710, General Office Building. Rather than compare the revised square foot- ages with the Fifth Edition rates, the Sixth Edition rates were used to reflect the more recent data. Based on the Sixth Edition rates, a 19,800 square foot office building would generate approximately 383 daily site trips, and a 20,860 square foot office building would generate approximately 398 daily site trips. The net increase is 15 daily site trips. This is below the 25 daily trip threshold established by the City of Tigard as an allowable increase. The trip generation worksheets are attached as an appendix to this letter. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, pleas feel free to call. Yours truly, David C. Cram Senior Engineering Technician Union Station,Suite 206 • 800 N .6th Avenue • Portland,OR 97209 • Phone(503)248-0313 • FAX(503)248-9251 LANCASTER ENGINEERING • TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 19.8 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate:Ln(7)=0.797Ln(X)+1.558 Trip Rate: T=1.121(X) + 79.295 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.88 0.12 Distribution 0.17 0.83 Trip Ends �5 � 5T Trip Ends WEEKDAY SATURDAY Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.768Ln(X)+3.654 Trip Rate: T=2.136(X)+18.473 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 • Trip Ends Trip Ends 3Q: Source:TRIP GENERATION,Sixth Edition • LANCASTER ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 20.9 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.797Ln(X)+1.558 Trip Rate: T=1.121(X) + 79.295 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.88 0.12 Distribution 0.17 0.83 Trip ,Ends 121 `` .- `� <_ ;,, $A83 Trip Ends 37.,........$ WEEKDAY SATURDAY Trip Rate:Ln(T)=0.768Ln(X)+3.654 Trip Rate: T=2.136(X)+18.473 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional Directional Distribution 0.5 0.5 Distribution 0.5 0.5 Trip Ends 199 39E Trip Ends Source:TRIP GENERATION,Sixth Edition