Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDR1996-00007 SDR96 - 00007 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT/CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS SECTION I: SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASES: FILE NAME: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Site Development Review SDR 96-0007 Variance VAR 96-0005 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 96-0012 PROPOSAL: A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units; 3.) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. APPLICANT: Andrews Management Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2000). South side of SW Pfaff le Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, and 18.164. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 1 SECTION II: DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to the following conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Ra.ger of the Engineering Department) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaff le Street and all other work in the public rights-of-way. 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. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee, and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 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 or within the right-of-way. 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. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, 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. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007/VAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 2 5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will 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. Any use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing pavement section will meet current City standards. B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage. C. Curb and gutter. D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff. E. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. F. Street striping. G. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. H. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). I. Street signs (if applicable). J. Driveway apron (if applicable). K. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall either upsize the system or provide on-site detention. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 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. 8. 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. 9. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Calculation for shared outdoor recreation area. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 3 B. Swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wail with a minimum height of 4-feet with a self-latching door or gate. C. Buffering and screening along the west side of the western parking area. The proposed 5-6 wooden fence shall be continued along the west property line. A row of trees shall also be planted in accordance with 18.100.080. D. Provision of 11 bicycle parking spaces. E. Tree inventory, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than six-inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. F. Parking lot trees, spaced one tree for each seven parking spaces, to provide the required canopy effect. G. A plan that shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-off. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related to facility design and compatibility. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11. A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. TVF&R concerns and comments are noted in the Agency comment section at the end of this report. 12. A kiosk and security fence plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 13. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 4 SECTION 111_: S1TE_AND VICINITY INFORMATION Site 'history: Tax lot 200 was annexed into the City in 1969. Tax lot 300 was annexed to the City and zoned R-4.5 in 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Tax lot 2200 is within the original area of incorporation of the City. These parcels received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) to High Density residential, R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) in 1995. No other development applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these properties. Vicinity Information: Properties to the north are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). Property to east is zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). Property to the west is zoned R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) and C-P (Professional Commercial). The area is predominantly developed with single- family residential to the north and west. The General Motors Training Center and vacant property is located to the east. Highway 217 is located to the south. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is zoned R-25, (Residential, 25 units per acre). The approximately 4.12 acre site is currently vacant and is covered with assorted vegetation and trees. The site slopes from an elevation of approximately 246 feet along the southeast corner of the property to an elevation of approximately 222 feet along the northwest corner. The applicant has made a request for the following development applications: 1) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust tw;, parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres; 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 3) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units. A second access is proposed to be provided with proposed future phase of d' velopment. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a 7 building, 84 unit apartment complex. This proposal is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Multiple- Family Residential Units. Code Section 18.56.030 allows Multiple-Family dwellings as a permitted use in the R-25 zoning district. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 5 Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.56.050 states that the minimum lot area for each multi- family unit in the R-25 zoning district is 1,480 square feet There is no minimum lot width requirement in the R-25 zone. As discussed in the density section, adequate area is provided. Developments within the R-25 zone are required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping. The plan indicates that approximately 87,565 square feet (50%) of the site has been provided as landscaping, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Setbacks: Section 18.56.050 states that for multi-family dwellings the setbacks are as follows: front yard - 20 feet; side yard - 10 feet; side yard which abuts a more restrictive zone - 30 feet; rear yard - 20 feet. As indicated on the site plan, the proposal meets the setback requirements. The maximum building height is 45 feet. As shown on the exterior elevation plans (A3 - A6, R1), the proposed buildings are approximately 15 - 31 feet in height, well under the maximum allowed. Section 18.120.180(A)(1) (Site Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Chapters. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.94 (Manufactured/ Mobile Home Regulations), 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. Code 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. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees and that trees having a six- inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. Given the location of the buildings, parking areas, and accessway, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of existing trees will be removed. The arborist has recommended preserving approximately six (6) trees into the site plan. The arborist has recommended the removal of some trees which may have potential for being retained due to the type of tree, their root structure and system, and potential for blowdown due to loss of group protection. In order to mitigate the removal of trees greater than 12 inch caliper, the applicant is being required to provide a tree mitigation plan in accordance with the tree removal ordinance. Exterior Elevations: Section 18.120.108.3 states that along the vertical face of multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a) Recesses (decks, patios, etc.); b) Extensions (decks, patios, etc.); or c) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations. As indicated on the preliminary building elevations plans (sheets A3 - A6, R1) the design shows both recesses and roof elevation offsets, in accordance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 6 Buffering. Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This criteria shall be satisfied as addressed in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130) section below. 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. This criteria is satisfied as the landscape plan indicates screening within the required buffer area and around the perimeter of the property. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.108.5 requires that structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units, that the buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise, and on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses. Only two residences directly adjoin the proposed development site. These are on the west property line. Building C1 is screened from an existing residence by an existing cedar hedge. The second residential structure, located on tax lot 400, is located near SW Pfaff le Street. Fencing and landscaping are provided to help buffer the development from the residence on this .82 acre parcel. Building C3 is oriented such that only a portion of the building is in proximity to the rear of ;ax lot 400. The landscape plan indicates that landscaping shall be provided to further buffer and screen the rear portion of the adjoining property. On-site private space has been satisfied as there is building separation between each ground floor patio. The building design also provides for an off- setting of the patios so that a direct line of site of other patios is not provided. Landscaping has also been provided to further screen the private outdoor areas. Private Outdoor Areas: Section 18.120.108.6. requires that private open space such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 4:; Square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of 4 feet Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center. This criteria is satisfied as the applicant is proposing both balconies (63 square feet per unit) and a recreation center. Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Section 18.120.108.7 states that in addition to subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the amount of 200 square feet per unit for studio up to and including two-bedroom units and 300 square feet per unit for three or more bedroom units. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: 1) all outdoor space; 2) part outdoor and part indoor space; 3) all public or common space; 4) part common and part private, for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; 5) where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable for reasons of crime prevention and safety. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area (84 units @ 137 s.f.). A swimming pool and community building are provided on-site for shared recreation purposes, as well as open space area. The applicant has not provided information regarding the square footage of shared outdoor recreation area provided on-site. The applicant shall provide calculations of the shared outdoor recreation area which demonstrates compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SCR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 7 Demarcation of Spaces: Crime Prevention: Section 18.120.108.9 states that structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas, semipublic areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined in order to establish persons having a right to be in the space, in order to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility. The Tigard Police Department has requested, in similar developments, that appropriate signage be placed at entrances to apartment complexes and that adequate addressing be placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer should, therefore, be required to contact the Police Department prior to obtaining building permits for the complex for review and approval of the address signage of this development. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that windows be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that can be observed by others; mail boxes located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; exterior lighting levels selected and angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and light fixtures shall be provided in areas having pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed and approved the proposed lighting plan. Density Computation: Section 18.92 establishes the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. In determining the net acreage, the following are subtracted from the gross acreage: sensitive land area; park dedication; dedicated public right-of-way and private streets. To calculate the net units per acre, it is necessary to divide the net acreage by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. The subject site contains approximately 4.1 acres or approximately 178,950 square feet. Section 18.92.020(3)(b) requires the subtraction of 15% of the gross area for public facilities, or 26,842 square feet. The resulting net acreage is 152,108 square feet. Dividing the net acreage by 1,480 square feet per unit results in 102 net units. The applicant is proposing 84 units, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Additional Yard Setback Requirements: Section 18.96.020 requires that the building setback on SW Pfaffle Street (a collector street) shall be the setback distance required by the zoning district plus 30 feet measured from the centerline of the street. As indicated on the site plan, these setback standards are satisfied. Distance Between Multiple-Family Structures: Section 18.96.030 states that buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25 foot separation, buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15 foot separation, buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10 foot separation. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet. This section is applicable to buildings A6, B4, and C5. The proposed building lengths are approximately 145, 150, and 115 feet. The building elevation plans (sheets A3 - A6) show that the proposed buildings have windowed walls facing windowed walls. The required separations, therefore, are 25 feet. There is an additional separation ranging from Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 8 4-6 feet required because the building lengths are greater than 60-feet long. The total • building separation required for building, therefore, ranges from 29-31 feet. The proposed plan is designed such that all buildings are in compliance with the required distances, thereby, satisfying this criteria. In addition, driveways, parking lots and walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: 1) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and 2) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least 7 feet. As indicated on the site plan, all buildings satisfy the parking lot and walkway separation requirements. 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 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 two October Glory maple and two Northern Red Oak trees along SW Pfaff le Road, in accordance with the provisions of this section. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) states that trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. The applicant has partially provided shade ~ees that would provide the required canopy effect. Trees in some cases are separated from parking stalls by a sidewalk providing less effective shading than envisioned by this section. Therefore, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides for the required canopy effect and spacing on the basis of one tree for each parking space. Screening of Swimming Pools: Section 18.100.110(C) states that all swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4 feet with a self-latching door or gate. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides the specifications showing compliance with this section. r- :e of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 9 Screening of Refuse Containers: Section 18.100.110(D) states that any refuse container or disposal area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet in height All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. The plans show the provision of a 5-foot high, solid wood fence to provide screening of the trash enclosures, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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 multi-family development abuts a residential zone with 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 area. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall 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. The west buffer area contains approximately 4,400 square feet. Therefore, this buffer shall contain 40, five-gallon or 80, one-gallon shrubs, in addition to the one row of trees. The landscape plan shows the provision of an existing, mature cedar hedge buffering building Cl from the existing residence. The plan also shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area, in addition to a row of trees. The plan shows that low lying screening has been provided in accordance with these standards. Neither a fence or row of trees has been provided along the west side of the western parking area. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. 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. The plan shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area. Screening has not been provided along the west side of the western parking area (adjacent to tax lot 400). A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. It is recommended that the applicant continue the proposed 5-6 foot wood fence along this west side of the parking area. 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 feet in height The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three and eight feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight feet Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 10 are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring 30 foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated cn the site plan, this section is satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parkina: Section 18.106.030(A)(3) requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces for 1 bedroom ur,' :-, and 2 spaces for units with more than 1 bedroom. In addition, section 18.106.020(G) states that multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide shared parking for the use of all of the guests of all of the residents of the complex. The shared parking shall consist of 15 percent of the total required parking spaces and be centrally located within the development. The applicant is proposing 36, one-bedroom units and 48, one-plus bedroom units; thereby, requiring 150 parking spaces. The required number of shared parking spaces is 22. The total number of required parking spaces is, therefore, 172. This requirement is satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of 173 parking spaces. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 6 disabled parking spaces if 151 to 200 parking spaces are provided. The proposed site plan shows the provision of six disabled person parking spaces distributed throughout the site, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Bicycle Parkina: Section 18.106.020(0) requires one bicycle parking rack space for each 15 required vehicular parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Based on the requirement of 172 parking spaces, 11 bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The site plan does not show the provision of bicycle racks. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the location of the required 11 bicycle parking spaces. Access: Section 18.108.070(F) requires that multiple-family residential uses provide a minimum of two driveways when 50 - 100 units are provided. The minimum access width shall be 30 feet, with 24 feet of pavement, curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk. The site plan indicates the provision of 84 units, therefore, two accesses are required for this development. A 24-foot paved driveway shall be provided within a 30-foot-wide access width. Curbs and a fiv€ oot sidewalk are required. This section is partially satisfied as the site plan shows the provision of one access drive with a pavement width of 24 feet, and a sidewalk that leads into the development. The applicant is developing on a portion of tax lot 300. The applicant has provided the owner of this tax lot a lifetime lease to reside in the existing residence. When the applicant acquires title to the property, additional apartment units, parking and an access to SW Pfaff le will be constructed. This future phase is shown on the proposed plan. The applicant is requesting an access variance to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for a development with 84 units. An access variance will be granted for this development. The findings for this access variance are discussed in the following section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 11 • Access Variance: Section 18.108.150 states that a variance may be approved for an access variance based on findings that: 1. It is not possible to share access. Shared access is not possible as the adjoining property to the east is undeveloped and zoned for commercial use and property to the west is currently developed with a single-family residence with the owner granted a life estate allowing the owner to live on the property. 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street. The one proposed access is located to align with SW 83rd Avenue across SW Pfaff le Street. This alignment is made at the request of the City to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. The property does not have frontage on another street, nor does it adjoin an existing developed residential property that has access to another street. 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met. This section is not applicable as there are no access separation requirements applicable to this project. While no specified requirements are applicable, the City is requiring the alignment of the accessway to align with SW 83rd Avenue to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. Given the applicants frontage on SW Pfaff le Street, the proposed future access is at a more acceptable distance from the intersection and is preferred over a location closer to the proposed access and intersection. 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access. This request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access as a second access will be provided in the future.. When the applicant acquires title to the remaining tax lot 300, a second access will be provided to SW Pfaffle Street. In the interim, requiring the applicant to provide a second access within the existing frontage would not add to the efficiency of the design of the project. It also is preferable to locate a second access further away from the intersection of SW Pfaff le Street and SW 83rd Avenue than to require a second access within the available 217 feet of frontage currently available. The applicant shall be required to construct the second access within 12 months of acquiring the property. This construction shall take place regardless of the applicant receiving site development approval for the proposed additional units. The applicant shall be required to provide buffering and screening along the west property line in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. Given the City Council's interpretation of driveways, with the Arbor Heights (Triad) apartment development, the applicant would technically meet code requirements with a wider driveway separated by an island. In this case, an island would serve no practical purpose. 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access. Delaying the provision of a second access will still result in a safe access. The access provided meets the access standards as related to width. The one access and site design will provide for safe access as related to emergency vehicle access as the applicant shall provide an approved plan from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 6. The vision clearance requirements of chapter 18.102 will be met. As indicated on the site plan, vision clearance requirements shall be satisfied on the one access provided. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 12 Walkways: Section 18.108.050(B) requires that within multi-family developments ea residential dwelling shall be connected to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities shall be connected by a walkway system having a minimum width of four feet and constructed of an all weather material. As indicated on the site plan, walkways are satisfactorily provided. Signs: Section 18.114.130 (B) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the R-25 zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the Planning Division. 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 shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standard, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review and sign-off. The applicant will need to .,omit evidence or a plan that indicates compliance with this section. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler, a written sign-off on the location of and the compatibility of facilities. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, remove and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review ac.,lication. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identific..ition of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defin ,--g standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The proposed plan shows the location of some trees on the site. However, this plan does not identify the size of these trees, nor does it include all the trees on the site as discussed in the arborist report. A revised plan shall be submitted, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than 6 inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree press cation plan. as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.060 contains the following standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the Lot Line Adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district. Nc of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 13 The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. The proposed adjustment will reconfigure the lot lines, however, an additional parcel will not be created by the adjustment. Both lots will exceed the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of the R-25 zone. All site development improvements applicable to tax lot 300 will remain consistent with Code requirements. Development improvements on tax lot 200 shall be satisfied as addressed in this report and review process. Special Provisions for Lots Created Through Partition Process: Section 18.162.060 states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land Partition process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the int requirement of the applicable zoning district 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access easement 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 14 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Criteria 1 is satisfied as there is no minimum lot width required in the R-25 zone. Criteria 2 is satisfied as the lot areas are approximately .57 and 3.23 acres, exceeding the minimum 3,050 minimum lot size requirement. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the lots contain approximately 160 and 217 feet of frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, satisfying the minimum 15-foot, minimum width requireme-:. As indicated on the site plan, setbacks are satisfied on lot 300, thereby, satisfying Critera 4. As discussed previously, setbacks are satisfied for the proposed apartment project on lot 200. Criteria 5 is not amicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Criteria 6 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Fire .-iydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 is satisfied as a shared driveway is not proposed with this adjustment. Criteria 9 is satisfied on lot 300 as the residence will continue to utilize the existing driveway. As discussed previously, access shall be satisfied for the proposed apartment project. Criteria 10 is not applicable as neither parcel is within the floodplain. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: 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 SW Pfaffle Street at the intersection with SW 83rd Avenue. SW Pfaffle Street is classified as a minor collector street to be built to the following standard: 60-foot right-of-way (ROW), two 14-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane and 5- foot sidewalks on .1oth sides of the street. At present, there is 25 feet of ROW on the south side of the centerline. The applicant's plans indicate that they will dedicate additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline in order to meet current standards. A traffic analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 1995, to address the proposed zone change from commercial-professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to multi-family (R-25). The zone change was approved by the City and became effective on June 30, 1995. The analysis assumed a maximum of 137 multi-family units would be developer on the site. Based on that assumption, and considering existing traffic conditions, Kittelson determined that the proposed apartment development could be built without causing significant impacts to the existing street system and nearby intersections. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 15 • There were two existing traffic conditions that were mentioned in the analysis: 1) the intersection of SW 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street currently operates with a forced flow condition during weekday PM peak periods, and 2) there is a sight distance problem at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaff le Street. The forced flow condition at 78th Avenue is an existing condition resulting from the signalized intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and Pacific Highway. Kittelson stated that the apartment complex will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the 78th Avenue/Pfaffle Street intersection. The sight distance problem at Hall Boulevard is due to the presence of the overpass crossing of Highway 217. Accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition, according to the analysis. The applicant's plans indicate that a half-street improvement will be constructed in SW Pfaff le Street along the site frontage. This improvement will help mitigate the traffic impact from this development. In addition, the proposed site access will align with the centerline of SW 83rd Avenue to avoid turning movement conflicts. The plan contains a street section detail that suggests the applicant will simply tie onto the edge of existing pavement and widen the street. However, this assumes the existing pavement section meets current City standards (4 inches of asphalt pavement over 15 inches of rock base). Staff does not know if the existing pavement section meets City standards. Therefore, the applicant is required to build the half-street to centerline, unless he can show that the existing pavement section is adequate. The City Engineer will make the determination as to whether or not the City standard is met. Based on the findings of the traffic study, and based on the applicant's intention to construct half-street improvements in Pfaff le Street to meet City standards, Staff finds the project will meet City transportation requirements. Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Pfaff le Street that is available to serve this site. The plans indicate that a service line will be extended to serve the development. Storm Drainage: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW 83rd Avenue that presently terminates 300 feet north of Pfaff le Street. The applicant proposes to extend this line further south to reach Pfaffle Street to provide for street and site drainage. This concept will be approved if the applicant can show that the existing line will have enough cover and capacity to accommodate the extension. A downstream analysis will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts. If there will be adverse impacts related to the discharge of the storm water from this site, the applicant will be required to either upsize the downstream system or make provisions on the subject site for on-site detention. This analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 16 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 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 fac;' ty that will meet the intent of R&O 91-47. 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 plans indicate that a series of water quality swales is proposed. There were no calculations submitted with the application for Staff to review to determine if the swales will be adequately sized. USA provided comments related to the design and suggest that the applicant consider sizing the water quality facilities to account for the future development of Phase 2. Erosion Control: USA R&O 91-47 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 R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. SECTION VII: STAFF, AGENCY & CIT COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The applicant needs a kiosk sign at the entrance and a security fence along the Highway 217 property line. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans cannot be approved at this time. More than 20 dwelling units requires not less than two accesses or buildings need to be protected with automatic sprink ,ers. Fire flows shall not exceed 3000 gpm. Submit calculations for review and approval. Inadequate turnin6 .adius has been provided. Access distances around buildings are too great. Hydrant locations are not shown. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval. Contact: Gene Birchill (526-2502). Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Water will be served from a six-inch existing water line in SW Pfaffle Street. A master water meter and double check detector assembly (on fire line) will be required at the property line. Contact: Stewart Davis (642-1511). Notice or - sion SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 17 The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: A water quality facility is necessary and should be large enough to include phase 2. A copy of the approved erosion control plan should be provided to USA's inspection division. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Due to its proximity to Highway 217, it is recommended that the City require the applicant to construct a soundwall (or other noise mitigation measure acceptable to ODOT) along its highway frontage. In addition to reviewing plans for sound mitigation, we will need to review drainage plans for possible impacts to state facilities. If connection to the ODOT's storm drain system is planned, a permit will be required. Please contact: Bob Schmidt, Engineering Coordinator, ODOT District 2A at 229-5002 for further information. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to place conduit/trench to GTE's specifications. The City of Tigard Building Division, City of Tigard Public Works Department, and PGE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. SECTION VIII: 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 JULY 1, 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which 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 Hail, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 18 THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JULY 1, 1996. Questions: If you have questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard. Oregon at (503)639-4171. June 20. 1996 PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DATE Assistant Planner / ` l, f ',s�. .__ 1? ..-t , / June 20. 1996 AP" •OVED-IhY: Rich d Be , ersdo DATE Se r Planner Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 19 ----- lif • Id3C1 ONINNVid CI8V91. . JO 1110 1 vs re, 0 PFAFFLE ROAD MI eh _.___________.______r............._..............._.fr a■••■•■•moms*••■■■1 ta 4 . ...._ - . 0 t . ...._, 11-1 [Fro r -1 1 :: . 0 to re, ! Cr* 6 910 C 01 0 I AAR It Z tO a • Ste IC • Z ; 166.411.1 O•Pi 1 ill -.2- ni L.: I [ , OFF STREET PARKING LIJ IX 11 rm-) ---. - . • 109 k'a,Pr )t.`,.)0.AF'••■•II''. Sj 9,,X WI:.CI'•tg II.'11.11. b• • L- _ .....:./.121 1_ . ;I 9'0 X I9,0 51/1.4.If WA V 1,1 11:( it a _ L Iii . o II tout' ■vACr. VF.1.1 11. IPP1 0 t..) co . . -- C 0 - [0- 0\1 lib I WOO V...SIMI/4. Al •I At I. I CAR j I GAR - 1 I *Bee/1 IA.! e ft •..--..•.--.•........•..-...•.M1=41•....._.......11 AREA SUMMARY Lit, 1 a iir r IT f I ri , 1 /% 17-1 C._ 0— I I WI ct.,,rrx.t. rArb to*AIN,(C1.f.• L',Ai I.*. Z [114_ +I . sic I MI 910 9 C J111111111 —1 - - 1 g...... W-rl lit1-#1 1 1.1.-11 I v —1 1-9 - - se eft, 4 I [.\\ il-- I III 1--1-1-1C-r_n_uf 461 --,,ITEEff III --1 1 „tik.o:vtiolvy,A11'1111 4 ■4',..S••• 1, .• Alvr Axl"A lir 11 r--- I . Ilk ::, vi • I 1 ./ si-X • I-,, • 14-41 1 ••.4 I... 4t. all Z f< < 2 f _ N I°i ......, gi..._ .....1 , ...„._ i!.r.c_ i 1 I'D -- ,• . • I I. , ;\ . I %N. ( \II I ...[II _ [1 1"I.::I-Inv! - 1_ 0.. r--I — -n--------..„111 "II . 17-- ' II Emu. "'‘■,. .!c I 7 I : N-, 00..... C O. I 0 1111•=1 -- - - 1 lee 00.7/119 1 •• .- - \9, c- I i - --"- I• II•I • s — ........ ____- • ft...-Z--G.;---..---------..--------- :- --i \ \------ It OM X ••■<4.1.204 A LI.J --------—.......,—;.......- ,j,..............1 Pit)If _ ___------- .■. 5RR13c � ST ■n rr-NIF 2- i, _ Al • .:. 111-)P 6 a) Iiiipmum II 44E' 1 AA Re' 11,., III= - - Rim 1 -= . - cu - . .... . a NMI ;•• I -, .... .1.1 - ■ .1 I � p � 0 No III W. Ng"- p um ..g. � CT---> ! g 14 , 0) , i- •• !TiviTE_,__-.1K ->» 1. ../4, -A_ i 1110—* • 1 • °- co 72 cu . , t::.v, • J• it5 I .% - 1*tt. *S to w► U., r ■*--1 ■ Vicinity Map A CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. SDR 96-07/VAR 96-05 MEETING RECORDS ati2ci Agenda Item No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of q a LI t Ct CD WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council and Local Contract Review Board > Meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli 1.2 Roll Call > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Consultant Gary Alfson; Associate Planner Dick Bewersdorff; City Attorney Chuck Corrigan; City Librarian Kathy Davis; Deputy City Recorder Jo Hayes; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Assistant Planner Duane Roberts; and Senior Planner Nadine Smith. 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Executive Session adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Regular Session reconvened at 7:45 p.m. 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS 4. CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - STATUS OF DECISION S Y- 616 C00 - Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, informed the Council that while they could call up for review any matter that has gone before a lower body, in the case of an appeal they could only consider the specific issue that was appealed. Dick Bewersdorff, Planner, reviewed the history of the Carriage House Apartment development, pointing out that in 1995 the zoning was changed from R-4.5 Commercial Professional to R-25. Andrews Management applied for a site development review, lot line adjustments, and a variance to the access standard to reduce the number of driveways CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 1 required. He stated that staff granted administrative approval because the applicant met the variance criteria. He noted that in the future there would be a second driveway installed. He cited as an example the Triad development in which meeting the driveway standards had not been necessarily beneficial to the development. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that notice of the decision was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet; Mr. McGuire and Mrs. Morgan talked with staff and Mr. McGuire filed an appeal over the fencing issue. Notice of the appeal was again sent out but it might have been unclear to the citizens that the only issue under appeal was the fencing issue. Per the Code, the Planning Commission limited testimony at the hearing to the matter under appeal. Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff normally sent notice of an appeal to all property owners within 250 feet but that technically they only had to send notice to the applicants and the parties in the original decision. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the original 1995 traffic study done for the zone change included 1996 projections and was done after Costco and Cub Foods occupied their buildings. He said that while the real issue the neighbors had was with the traffic, this development did not generate all the traffic on Pfaffle Street. He pointed out that changing the zone to R-25 actually reduced the amount of potential traffic in the area. Mr. Bewersdorff reiterated that should the Council call this matter up for review, they were limited to considering the fence issue. He said that Oregon land use law was very specific and that staff didn't have much discretion; if an application met the standards, they had to approve it. Councilor Hunt expressed his uneasiness with the process, noting he had asked at the last meeting whether or not this was another situation in which the Council couldn't do anything about the issues of concern to the neighbors because the final decision was restricted. He said that he had left the last meeting with the understanding from staff and legal counsel that Council could consider the driveway issue, but now discovered that they couldn't consider that issue. Councilor Hunt expressed concern about the impression left with the public because Mrs. Morgan understood that Council would call this up for review. He asked staff to hold a work session for Council to educate them concerning the development code and procedures used by the City. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff could provide training to Council, commenting that doing so now was good timing because of the upcoming code rewrite. He apologized for giving the wrong impression last week regarding Council's options, noting that he should have emphasized more clearly that only one matter could be called up for Council consideration. Councilor Scheckla asked how aware the public at the Planning Commission hearing were of the appeal procedures. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff mailed notices of appeals to all participants at a hearing; the notice contained the appeal rights. Also the Planning Commission Chair read a prepared statement informing those present of their rights and the need to address the specific issues under review. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 2 Council discussed the confusion about the appeals process that appeared to occur in this situation. Mr. Hendryx stated that Mr. Bewersdorff would look at the notice provision process to make it clearer as to what items were under review. Councilor Rohlf suggested reviewing the 250 foot notice range and looking at notifying all the people affected by a decision (within reason) rather than sticking to the letter of the law. He expressed concern about the public's lack of understanding of the process. Councilor Moore concurred and suggested developing a method of teaching the general population about the land use process. Mr. Monahan said that staff has tried a variety of avenues to educate the public but would continue to look at other alternatives, such as a video or information on the Internet. He said that another opportunity for educating the public was the process of rewriting the Code. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that one of the key neighborhood people met with staff during the appeal period; staff explained the process to her. He said that for the neighborhood to come in now and say they knew nothing about this meant that the system broke down somewhere. Council discussed the traffic situation on Pfaff le. Mayor Nicoli said research hasn't been done to determine whether or not there would be a serious traffic problem on Pfaff le; however the neighbors who called him about this issue indicated they were using the traffic issue as an excuse to prevent a project they did not want in their neighborhood. Councilor Rohlf suggested that the City conduct a traffic study to find out if there was a problem. Council discussed various means of educating the public about the appeals process, including newsletters and informational handouts. Councilor Hunt stated that despite his concern over this particular situation, he supported the planning staff 100% and their intent to rewrite a confusing code. Mr. Monahan said that staff would prepare an outline of training needs for presentation at the September 17 meeting. He asked the Council if they had any other planning or code issues of concern. Mayor Nicoli suggested shortening the Code, commenting that its very length contributed to the confusion. In response to a question from the audience, Mayor Nicoli stated that Council would not call up this matter for review unless there was an appeal. Mr. Monahan explained that citizens could appeal to LUBA on the fencing issue and procedural irregularities. He reviewed the procedure for filing an appeal to LUBA, pointing out that at LUBA it was no longer a planning process but a legal process. Councilor Rohlf asked if staff could do a traffic count on Pfaff le. Mr. Monahan said they would look into it but noted that it was not a street identified as a problem during the CIT process for speed humps. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 3 5. REPORT: SPEED HUMP ELIGIBILITY LIST Gary Alfson, Consulting Engineer, presented the staff report on the list of streets eligible for speed humps. He reviewed the list of the 47 streets identified as possibly needing speed humps and the criteria staff used to reduce the list to 10 streets. These criteria included traffic moving faster than 5 miles per hour above the speed limit and neighborhood participation in a police traffic program. Mr. Alfson reviewed the streets staff proposed to install speed humps on this year: 128th from Walnut to Winterlake, North Dakota from 115th to 121st and from Springwood to Scholls, and the segment of Locust Street closest to the school. Mr. Alfson reviewed the remaining process. Following Council approval, staff would get neighborhood approval and then bid the project. He recommended holding off on the bid until February because of the poor bidding climate right now and to allow neighborhoods that wanted to participate in the 50/50 funding program an opportunity to get organized; the more projects in the bid, the better deal the City would get from the contractors. Councilor Hunt noted the comment made at the last meeting that people avoided the speed hump on Watkins by going up on the pedestrian walkway because there was no curb to stop them. He suggested including that consideration in the design of the speed humps. Mr. Alfson said that while they considered safety in the design, they also had to consider street drainage and not put speed humps all the way to a curb which would dam the water into the street. Councilor Scheckla asked if staff had received any feedback from the fire department. Mr. Alfson said they had not received any response from the first list they sent to the fire department. Mr. Monahan stated that staff would ask the fire department if they had any particular concerns with the designated streets, but pointed out that the fire department did not like speed humps because they slowed down response time. Mr. Alfson noted that the fire department did understand the safety concerns in the neighborhoods and would put up with speed humps. Councilor Hunt asked if anything has been done on the 50/50 funding program. Mr. Alfson said no, that the neighborhoods were waiting to see which streets made the 100% funding list before doing anything. Councilor Rohlf asked if the program had been widely advertised. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, said that the program appeared in Cityscape once and recommended publishing the project list and the 50/50 program in the newsletter again. Mr. Monahan raised the issue of how to handle the applications for streets in the 50/50 program. Mr. Alfson explained that any street had to meet the eligibility requirements. Right now the only streets eligible for speed humps, whether funded 100% by the City or 50/50 with the neighborhood, were those on the list of 10. Those on the original larger list could become eligible if they met the criteria; streets would be reviewed on an annual basis for speed hump eligibility; for example, a street that was not eligible because the neighborhood has not participated in a police traffic program could become eligible if the neighborhood participated. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 4 Councilor Rohlf expressed his disappointment that construction would not occur this year, noting that it meant two projects next year. Mr. Monahan noted that another issue was whether or not staff should keep the present list as accurate information and build out from it to get a running start on next year. Ms. Newton pointed out that the CITs were now aware of this process and could ask the City to consider a street at any time. Mr. Alfson commented that staff should look at not doing speed volume counts on every street each year but rather depend on public input to identify which streets should be re-measured. Councilor Rohlf noted that all these streets had a traffic problem of some sort, either real or perceived, and suggested looking at other traffic calming alternatives, should a street not meet the speed hump criteria. 6. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN AREA Mr. Hendryx noted the staff report presenting their research into the history of downtown development. Councilor Rohlf asked if there was anything in the code that would prevent adult oriented businesses from moving into the downtown. Mr. Monahan said that any jurisdiction was subject to the potential of adult oriented businesses; staff worked with attorneys and planners on language to keep Tigard from being an easy target, but there were no guarantees. Councilor Rohlf noted that high rents were the best way to keep them out. Councilor Hunt noted that the Council passed an ordinance that required any facility with booths to have those booths open to the street where anyone could see who was in them. He said that he did not know if that would serve as a deterrent or if the ordinance would hold up in court. Councilor Rohlf said that the Tigard downtown could either have good shops and a healthy economy or continue to deteriorate. He spoke for the City taking an aggressive role in helping the downtown merchants in recruiting desirable businesses and building a vision for the downtown. Mayor Nicoli concurred. He reported that a gentleman at the Triangle Task Force meeting who was involved in a lot of redevelopment stated that the first part of redevelopment was having the infrastructure in place; if it wasn't in place, nothing would happen. He suggested identifying the areas in the downtown that needed infrastructure and developing a plan to provide that infrastructure over time. He said that if the owners of the older buildings saw new infrastructure, it might motivate them to redevelop their properties. Council discussed the possibilities of redevelopment in the downtown. Councilor Rohlf spoke for including the downtown in the visioning process. Mayor Nicoli suggested having staff investigate potential funding sources other than tax increment financing, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Mr. Monahan mentioned other methods of funding, such as cooperation between private property owners and the City, local merchants forming an LID (Hillsboro), and economic development districts. He commented that they could use the visioning process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 5 Mayor Nicoli noted he has heard comments from citizens who wanted a better downtown identity, and expressed the hope that the visioning process would draw that out. He reiterated his interest in investigating CDBG grants or other revenue sources to fund downtown infrastructure improvements, stating that he wanted to keep the momentum going (after the Main and Commercial Street projects) and to reassure the downtown that the City was still interested in the downtown. Mr. Monahan explained that though urban renewal projects were once eligible for CDBG, the philosophy changed over the years and they were now almost exclusively granted to benefit low income residents. There might be some limited projects in the downtown area. Councilor Rohlf spoke for having an objective of what they wanted to do; having an objective made it easier to sell revitalization of an area to potential funding sources. He asked how many of the downtown buildings had absentee landlords, commenting that out- of-state landlords wouldn't care about improving the downtown. Councilor Hunt said that four years ago he had difficulty finding a resident landlord in the downtown. Councilor Moore suggested a demonstration project, citing the section of A Avenue in Lake Oswego that the City of Lake Oswego redid as a demonstration of what they could do in downtown redevelopment. Mayor Nicoli commented he has not heard anyone say they wanted the downtown to continue to deteriorate. Councilor Hunt noted there was a group that wasn't very vocal but who did not want to use their tax money to help the downtown businesses, but rather to fund road and other improvements in their area. Mayor Nicoli noted that Tigard has been growing with a lot of new development and that the citizens weren't accustomed to thinking in terms of redevelopment, even though the downtown has needed redevelopment for 10-15 years. He said that the City was not equipped to handle redevelopment, citing Portland's Redevelopment Agency with its specialists in redevelopment. He suggested developing a list of 15-20 projects that would help the downtown area, commenting that once a list was available, often opportunities for funding arose. Councilor Hunt spoke in support of Councilor Rohlf s suggestion of determining a long- range vision for the downtown area. Ms. Newton said they could include questions about the downtown in the survey portion of the visioning process; that way they could determine if it was an issue for the citizens. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that the citizens of Tigard were not oriented towards redevelopment because all they saw was the new development. He spoke for the City taking the lead in insisting on doing some redevelopment, even if their constituency didn't understand, citing the Tualatin Commons as an example. Mike Marr, Downtown Merchants Association, handed out a document to the Council. He stated he did not think they needed to "reinvent the wheel" and spoke for using the vision set forth in the 1987-89 study, which many felt was still valid. He spoke against spending more money to develop a vision for the downtown. He noted that some of the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 6 projects proposed in 1987-89 were not in sync with what people wanted today; today people wanted a pedestrian friendly downtown. On behalf of the Merchants Association, Mr. Marr invited the Council and staff to go on a Saturday tour of the redeveloped areas in the Portland Metro area, such as Sellwood, East Hawthorne, Gresham, Troutdale, Multnomah, Tualatin, and NW 23rd. He said that after viewing these areas and making notes on what worked and what did not work, they could sit down and develop ideas for their downtown. He concurred with the Mayor that good infrastructure was the first step in successful redevelopment. Mr. Marr noted the state and national organizations focusing on redevelopment and revitalization of downtown areas. He said that while he didn't feel they needed to look at spending $20 to $30 million dollars, there were a lot of different options available, such as mentioned earlier by Mr. Monahan. He said that the downtown area had tremendous potential and that there were a few who were willing to make an effort to make it happen. He agreed the absentee landlord issue was unfortunate. Mr. Marr said he thought that visioning could be easily accomplished through a tour of the redeveloped areas. He agreed they had to have a long-term plan. Council agreed to go on the tour. Mayor Nicoli directed staff to find an agreeable date sometime beyond September. Mr. Marr presented the information developed by Chuck regarding the readerboard. With the readerboard in operation 24 hours a day, 30% of the time would go to commercial advertising with 70% going to non-profit and city announcements. He reviewed the example of a business spending $12.50 a month ($150 per year) for 200 10 seconds spots. Chuck projected 100-350 businesses participating; this translated to $15,000 generated a year with $10,000 going to the Chamber, $3000 to the City and $2000 to the Merchant's Association. He pointed out that the City would recoup its $21,000 investment in seven years under these figures. However the maximum amount that could be generated in a year was $58,000 ($35,000 to the Chamber, $15,000 to the City, $8500 to the Merchants Association). In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Marr said the board would be located in the City park where the tree came down at the south end of Main Street. Mr. Marr noted the discussion on who should be allowed to advertise - the downtown merchants or all merchants. He said that in his opinion, since tax dollars were paying for the sign, all merchants within the City of Tigard should be allowed to advertise. Mr. Marr said they were still waiting for information on the cost of operations. Mr. Monahan noted that the cost of operations included power, maintenance, warranty and insurance. Mayor Nicoli stated that his opinion of the readerboard has changed since the last time they met. He has seen the readerboard at the Portland Airport and thought that it was an unobtrusive sign that did not flash messages at motorists. He said he was not concerned so much about recouping the cost of the board. He said he liked the idea because the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 7 majority of the time the board would be available to community and non-profit groups to advertise their activities. Mr. Marr mentioned the board would be mounted so that it would be aesthetically pleasing. Council discussed the financial issues involved, including funding for the initial costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs. Mr. Marr suggested they might negotiate a reserve fund for maintenance, etc., out of the revenue generated by the sign. Councilor Hunt said that before he could support this, he would have to see more written documentation on the City's involvement, especially who would operate it. Councilor Moore said he thought the City should have nothing to do with the board once it was installed. Mayor Nicoli suggested stating their concerns so that Mr. Man could address their concerns. Councilor Rohlf stated he was opposed to the project. Councilor Scheckla commented that he found the projected revenue figures optimistic. He said he would like to see more commitment from those who might take advantage of this in order to see if this was something worthwhile to pursue. Councilor Rohlf commented that the Mayor thought the community service portion of the readerboard was enough to go on without the advertising. He said he was more interested in the cost and liability, and a commitment from the Chamber that it would maintain the readerboard. Councilor Hunt agreed with Mr. Monahan on building a reserve fund for replacement up front. Councilor Moore said he supported the board as long as a lot of the use was for public and non-profit activities. Mayor Nicoli commented that non-profit organizations might be willing to pay a fee for advertising their fund raising activities or youth leagues to advertise their signups; it would be less than the commercial rate. Councilor Hunt noted the issue of who determined what went on the readerboard. Mayor Nicoli noted that Council wanted Mr. Man to move forward with the readerboard. 7. REPORT: BALLOT MEASURE 47 - "PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION ACT" Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reviewed his staff report on Ballot Measure 47, noting nine items in particular. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 8 Mr. Lowry explained that Measure 47, sponsored by Bill Sizemore, limited the tax bills for 1997/98 on individual properties but didn't limit the City's ability to levy. This meant that although the City still had the authority to levy its tax base, the amount of tax an individual property owner had to pay in 1997/98 was limited to the amount paid in 1994/95 or in 1995/96, whichever was less, minus 10%. He said that the limit for most taxpayers would be the final phase of Measure 5 (1995/96), less 10%. The second item limited future increases to 3% per year as opposed to the present statutory increase in the tax base of 6% per year. This meant that an individual's property tax could only increase by 3% a year regardless of assessed value. There was an exception for currently existing debt levies. The fourth item allowed future increases in taxes on individual properties above the 3% limit only by a majority vote of general levies or by a 50% turnout. Mr. Lowry explained that this meant they could only get an increase above the 3% at a general election (as they could do now) or at an off cycle election in which 50% of the registered voters turned out to vote. This made it more difficult to pass tax measures during non-general elections. The exception was a more than 3% increase allowed for improvements, such as zone changes, subdivisions, etc. He pointed out that the language was unclear as to whether this applied to debt service property tax only or to the property tax. Mr. Lowry said that the next item, annexation increases to require a majority vote at general elections, meant that a City had to get voter approval to increase its tax base by the taxes on new properties annexed into the City; the City tax would mean a greater than 3% tax increase on the annexed properties. This "gummed up" the benefit of annexing property. Mr. Lowry said that he found item #7 contradictory. It mandated that the allocation of cuts among the jurisdictions for the properties within those jurisdictions be done to prioritize education and public safety, while at the same time minimizing the loss of local control for cities and counties. He stated that since the measure did not say who would make the decision on the allocations, it would fall to the state; how could cities and counties maintain local control with the state telling them how to allocate their taxing services? Mr. Lowry reviewed Item #8 which stated that the City had to get voter approval to increase fees and charges that would replace lost tax revenue. He pointed out that the provision was retroactive to June 30, 1995. If a City has increased its fees and charges since June 30, 1995 without a vote by the people, then they had to reduce the tax bill of anyone charged those unapproved increased fees by the amount of the fee increase until the increases were approved by the voters. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry said that one of the unanswered questions on Item #8 was what to do if those charged the increased fees weren't residents of the county. Mayor Nicoli asked if there was any discussion of court challenges to the wording. Mr. Lowry said that no one looked seriously at the legal aspects until the measure was enacted, though the Attorney General did usually issue an opinion on such things. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 9 Mr. Lowry noted that Item #9 allowed voluntary tax contributions for those who did not wish to participate in the cut. Mr. Lowry reviewed a chart showing what a tax bill would look like based on his projections, and a chart showing the estimated reduction in Tigard property tax revenue. He pointed out that projections were tricky because no one knew how to implement this measure. He reviewed several of the issues, including how the reduction was run back through the individual jurisdiction, since public safety and education had priority. He noted that the Washington County Assessor has not finalized their numbers, nor has the State Department of Revenue finalized its state wide projections by jurisdiction. Looking at two possible scenarios, Mr. Lowry said they could lose either $2.8 million (40% of the tax base) or $1.7 million (25% of the tax base). He said that the lesser amount was more consistent with the projections of other jurisdictions. He pointed out that Tigard could lose even more since they did not have a tax base in 1994/95 or 1995/96, the two base years used to pick the lowest amount; they could lose their tax base. Mr. Lowry reviewed a chart showing the potential effect of Measure 47 on City services. He said that if they looked at all the things charged to the general fund after looking at the revenue those things produced, they ended up with the Police Department being 57% of what was left over. He noted that the other revenues that were left (those not allocated to any specific purpose in the general fund) totalled $6 million. Mr. Lowry said the City would be faced with cutting $2.3 million or $1.7 million from its services; this was a discussion that needed to take place, possibly before the November election in order to have some reasonable specifics about the potential impacts of the measure. Mr. Lowry reviewed the unanswered questions: - How would the County assessors enforce these property tax adjustments between the various jurisdictions? - How would they apportion the cuts between jurisdictions? - Would the measure change the $5/$10 limits of Measure 5? - Did Section 3A, the vote to exceed the 3% limit, apply just to debt service, bond or did it include the tax base? > Mr. Sizemore stated he meant only bonds but he didn't write that into the measure; > If it didn't apply to the tax base, cities could never increase their tax base or effectively get additional revenue from existing property; How did they prioritize public safety and education while minimizing the loss of local control? • Who would tell the local jurisdictions how to spend their tax dollars? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 10 - What was the process for determining who paid fees and charges increased without a vote since the effective date? - How would the resulting reduction in property taxes be implemented? Mr. Lowry said this measure would reduce tax revenue unless the state stepped in and took the whole decrease from the school side and made it up in income taxes, thus leaving cities and counties untouched to protect public safety. He said that was what Mr. Sizemore had in mind when he wrote the measure, because that was the only logical conclusion he could see to the situation created by the measure. Mr. Lowry noted they never really lost anything from Measure 5 because they were in such a growth area, but Measure 47 would result in the loss of significant tax revenue. How much they lost and how much planning and services was reduced was a future discussion. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry said that after the first week of September when the state and the county came out with their projections, staff could start to figure out what the minimum and maximum effects would be. Councilor Rohlf noted that it was the policy of the City to take a neutral position on this type of thing. Mr. Monahan said that the City had to be neutral per state election law, but that Councilors could take a position. Mr. Lowry commented that staff could provide information the same way they did for Measure 5. Mr. Lowry reported that staff researched the state statutes on the tax abatement requested by Community Partners for Affordable Housing for their projects at Tiffany Court and Villa La Paz. He said it was important for their lending process to get a commitment from the City on tax abatement. Mr. Lowry reviewed the two ways a jurisdiction could provide tax abatement. The first statute was written for non-profits and private enterprise; the jurisdiction set standards and abated the taxes for 20 years; if the organization broke the standards, then the abatement was terminated. The other statute was for non-profits; the jurisdiction adopted the criteria listed in the statute and abated the taxes for one year at a time. Mr. Lowry said that Ms. Greenlaw-Fink preferred the year-to-year abatement, despite the assertion of the grant writer at the last meeting that the bigger block of time for tax abatement the better. He said she stated that they might not always need the exemption. He pointed out that the year-to-year was a simpler process and recommended it to the Council. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry explained they could lengthen the timeframe by including a clause that stated that the intent was for ten years, but Council would review the abatement annually. Mr. Monahan pointed out that Council could determine how thorough a review it wanted for any given year. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 11 • Councilor Hunt noted the discussion on waiving fees for renovations. He asked if the City meant to waive fees and provide a tax abatement or simply provide the tax abatement. The Council discussed the issue but decided to look at the permit issue when it arose. Mayor Nicoli noted that much of the renovations might not require a permit. 8. DISCUSSION: RECREATION POLICY Kathy Davis, City Librarian, reported that Recreation Round-up, the private contractor who provided the recreation program for the City, has chosen not to renew the contract. She explained the contract stipulated what kinds of classes the contractor had to offer, and that registration was so poor last year, the contractor operated at a loss. Ms. Davis stated that the library has offered the only City-sponsored recreation program for the last ten years, both free and fee based. They contracted out the fee-based program two years ago and that has now come to an end. Though there were organizations that provided a portion of the program offered by the City, there was no one to offer the complete spectrum. Ms. Davis proposed allowing the recreation program to lapse for a while in order to learn from the visioning process what the expectations and desires of the citizens were. She noted that out of the largest 11 cities in Oregon, only Tigard did not participate in a Recreation District or have its own Parks & Recreation Department. She suggested that perhaps now was the time to look at formalized recreation in the City. Ms. Davis noted that a problem with the library program was that it has never been large enough to take out because of lack of staff and facilities; the competition for space in the City was tough. She said they were at a point where they needed to reevaluate and decide what direction the City wanted to go in. Mr. Monahan noted they had devoted a large portion of Cityscape to publishing the Recreation Round-Up schedule; last year for the first time they began to get comments about the appropriateness of doing so. He said that the issue to consider was whether or not the City wanted to fund recreational programs or if they wanted to leave it in the private sector, a question the City has grappled with in the past. Ms. Davis said that the response to the program has been positive and supportive over the past two years. Councilor Rohlf asked if Recreation Round-Up would be interested in continuing if they were allowed free reign in designing the menu of classes. Ms. Davis said that right now the public was not interested in organized classes but rather in one shot deals; however the City contract had not included the one shot deals. She allowed that modifying the contract was a possibility but questioned why have a contract at all if the City had no control over the classes offered. Recreation Round-Up would be a market provider the same as any other organization in the City and treated in the same way. She noted that the "contract" was really more of a "cooperative agreement", as the City had never paid Recreation Round-Up for the program; instead they let them use City facilities. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 12 Mayor Nicoli asked about the use of the Metzger building. Ms. Davis said that they started a pilot program there last year but ran into difficulties because they didn't get an okay from the Parks Board until it was too late to schedule anything. 9. STATUS REPORT: TRIANGLE REZONING AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, reported that staff was working with consultants to refine the proposal to look at land use and transportation concepts. She that the Task Force met regularly and that they have scheduled a second open house for September 19. Councilor Hunt commented on the frustration he sensed in the public at the last general public meeting held on the Triangle. He asked if they still felt the same way. Ms. Smith said that while people came in angry at the workshop, the discussion and activities seemed to alleviate some of the frustration; people left feeling they had been listened to more than they had been in the past. She and Mr. Hendryx noted the composition and dynamics of the Task Force which they saw as leading to a consensus, even with the variety of viewpoints represented. Councilor Moore expressed his hope that this time the process would result in a completed project. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Hendryx said they intended to bring this to the Council in November, following the public hearings process. 10. REPORT: WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION OPTIONS Mr. Hendryx reported that staff would not have the necessary information about Council's three options until the September work session. He said that Mrs. Tibbetts told him that her group was still interested in annexing; their goal was to have sewer by next summer. Mayor Nicoli noted the issue of the sewer trunk line - how many people would hook up and how much could be recovered. 11. UPDATE: METRO 2040/REPORT AND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION - WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE (WCCC) RECOMLMENDATIONS ON FUNCTIONAL PLAN Mr. Hendryx reported that MPAC had taken into account some of the Council's concerns in the functional plan that would go to Metro Council next month. He said the Council needed to decide whether or not to continue advocating their original points or look at other options. Mayor Nicoli reported that WCCC felt there were certain concerns that the Metro staff did not want to consider. Therefore, WCCC drafted up the concerns that they felt were uniform to all the cities in the county. They have sent it to all the cities in the county and to the County Board of Commissioners to ask for their support for the entire document. WCCC felt that if all the cities in Washington County came before the Metro Council as a block, rather than as individuals, Metro would be more likely to listen seriously to their concerns. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 13 Mr. Hendryx said the WCCC document carried forward the general philosophy of the City and most of the Council's comments. Councilor Rohlf said he did not have a problem with the WCCC document, but asked what would be done with the original Tigard Council document. Council discussed what to do with the document. Staff pointed out the good working relationship they have maintained with Metro throughout this process, noting that losing it would not be in the best interests of the City. Mayor Nicoli commented that the document has gone only to the committee and staff levels; it has not been actually seen by the Metro Council as a whole. He suggested meeting with Mr. Kvistad, their Metro representative, or inviting him to a Council meeting for a presentation. Mr. Monahan commented there were other groups with whom they could work to get their points across. Councilor Rohlf said that in presenting their concerns to Metro they were simply saying that these were their concerns in their community, and that if Metro enacted the plan, it could have this result in their community; it was a dialogue, not a threat. Mayor Nicoli directed staff to meet with Mr. Kvistad to acquaint him with Tigard's concerns, and then invite him to a Council meeting, preferably a televised meeting, to hear a presentation. Mr. Monahan said they would aim for September 10. 12. REPORT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT PROPOSALS Duane Roberts, Assistant Planner, commented that Washington County was now accepting applications for the block grant funds for the 1997-2000 funding cycle. He recommended submitting the list of potentially eligible projects which staff has identified with input from CITs and non profit agencies. He said that the grants were intended to benefit low income people. Mayor Nicoli asked if they could include projects for the downtown. Mr. Roberts said no, that they have already passed the deadline for identifying potential projects. He said that they might be able to apply for limited projects in future years. Councilor Hunt asked for a report on the CDBG for the Senior Center. Mr. Roberts said the project was facing a 100% shortfall over the funding amount they were eligible for because of three and a half year old cost estimates. The project manager at the county has recommended helping them meet the shortfall with the same percentage amount they were contributing to the present project ($18,000 with the City putting in another $2,000 to $3,000). He said that the engineers estimated they were $20,000 short but if they bid now in this poor climate, it could be worse. Mayor Nicoli asked about the possibility of reducing the scope of work. Mr. Roberts said that Mr. Alison had recommended against doing that because the project scale was so small that reducing it did not save much money. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 14 13. UPDATE: CITY FACILI.r.Z.S SPACE I L Ni NG Mr. Monahan reported they were continuing discussions with the owner of the Precision Graphics property. Ms. Newton noted that Mr. Lowry was developing options on how the City might pay for the site. 14. NON-AGENDA ITEMS > Mr. Monahan asked for a Councilor volunteer to serve on the committee reviewing the RFPs for the code rewrite. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the procedure for selecting the consultant. Councilor Moore volunteered to serve. > Councilor Hunt asked about the land under consideration for the homeless shelter. Councilor Scheckla reported on the meeting held today, noting they would prefer a different site in the area because of problems with the proposed site; he commented they were running out of time in meeting their deadline. Mayor Nicoli reported that the consultant told him they could get all the approvals they needed in time. He said he would talk to the consultant and Roy Rogers. Councilor Hunt asked that Council be kept informed on what happened. Mr. Monahan reported that he and Mr. Hendryx met with Kim Brown and the planning consultant. Ms. Brown and the consultant would provide the City with plans, timelines, and a complete application. Mr. Hendryx noted the importance of their submitting a complete application in meeting their timeline. He pointed out that once this entered the public hearings process, staff could not control how long it might take because of the probability of appeals. Mr. Monahan said that the project was likely to be appealed in whatever neighborhood they went into. He said that Ms. Brown was aware of that. He said that Ms. Brown would report to the Council next week, including her thoughts on the severe weather shelter. 16. ADJOURNMENT: 11:07 p.m. Attest. Jo Ha e , Depu City Recorder 67:r, City of Tigar 1 li Qs%dre+ - Date: Q/o1 talf(i I:\ADM\CATHYICCM\960820.DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 15 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 5, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER President Wilson called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: President Wilson; Commissioners Anderson, DeFrang, Griffith, Holland, Neff, and Scolar Commissioners Absent Commissioners Collson and Padgett Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Will D'Andrea, Assistant Planner; Mark Roberts, Associate Planner; Brian Rager, Engineering Manager; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Griffith seconded a motion to approve the June 17, 1996, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Neff abstained. Commissioner Holland moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded a motion to approve the July 1, 1996, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96- 0004 HILL STREET HOMES SUBDIVISION A request for the following development applications: 1.) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 28,557 square foot parcel into 4 lots ranging between 1,917 square feet to 1,918 square feet; 2.) Planned Development Review to allow lot sizes less than the minimum required by the zone. LOCATION: (WCTM 2S1 2DB, Tax Lot 202). East of SW Ash Street, on the north side of SW Hill Street. ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 Units per acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family attached/detached residential units, multiple- family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5. 1996-Page 1 subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.160, and 18.164. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Mark Roberts presented the staff report on behalf of the City. He advised that the proposal was for 4 lots from 1917 to 1918 square feet. He said the property would have a Planned Development overlay which would allow for the smaller lot sizes. He said that the development complies with the Planned Development criteria of the R-12 standards, subject to conditions of approval, and that staff was recommending approval. Engineering Manager Brian Rager advised that the applicant had asked for revisions to 2 of the conditions of approval (#1 and #10). He said he was inclined to agree to the revisions. The revised conditions of approval will read: #1. Prior to approval of the fina■ plat, a Street Opening Permit will be required for this project to cover the sanitary sewer lateral extensions. The applicant will need to submit five (5) sets of the proposed public improvement plans for review and approval. NOTE: These plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include information relevant to the public #10. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit details of the proposed rain and foundation drain lines and outfalls to the Engineering Department for review and approval. He shall also submit details of the proposed driveway configurations and sidewalk construction on SW Hill Street. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Jim Atwood, 33 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, OR 97204, said he concurred with the staff recommendations. He said he was there to answer any questions. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Nobody signed up to speak on this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland moved to accept the proposal, as per the conditions of the changed staff report. Commissioner DeFrang seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5.2 APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007NARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 2 unit multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development. The appeal specifically concerns alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaff le Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Will D'Andrea provided the Commissioners with an overview of the case. He said that the application for the Site Development Review, Variance, and Lot Line Adjustment was approved on June 20, 1996, to allow construction of an 84 unit apartment complex. He reported that James McGuire has appealed the decision, stating that "factual nuisances and lifestyle adjustments demanded by this new construction are not appropriately addressed or adequate" as the City has conditioned. He said the appeal requests that a new condition, requiring a cinder block masonry wall instead of a six-foot fence, be placed along the entire east property line. D'Andrea advised that the appellant cited 3 "factual realities" in his appeal (lights, noise, lowering of property value). D'Andrea showed the proposed project on an overhead projection to portray the appellant's concerns. He showed where the buffering and screening (a wooden fence and row of trees) would be provided as required by condition #9C of the staff report. D'Andrea reported that the variance was to allow future construction with a required secondary driveway. He said that when this property is developed at a later date, the second driveway will be installed and there will be required screening along the property line. He advised that this property currently contains a single family residence. D'Andrea advised that the buffering and screening section of the Community Development Code allows for a 5' or taller fence or wall to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen. He said that more substantial buffering methods were not required because it was determined that potential noises were not found to be beyond that normally expected from a property zoned for multi-family development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 3 D'Andrea said staff was recommending denial of the appeal. APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION James McGuire, 8470 SW Pfaff le. Tigard, OR 97223, told the Commission that this was the first time he had seen the diagram that Will D'Andrea showed. He said that, prior to agreeing to rezone the property, neighbors on Pfaff le Street were led to believe there wouldn't be a significant change. He said they were not led to believe their own property values would go down. McGuire said this development would adversely affect his property and asked the Commissioners to protect his investment. He said that wood does not make a good light screen and that wood and trees may buffer noise, but do not block noise like a concrete wall would. He said that the proposed buffer was not adequate. President Wilson clarified with McGuire that he was only asking for a masonry wall. McGuire answered yes, that he didn't think they had a strong enough argument to prevent them from putting up the apartments. Wilson asked if McGuire had supported the zone change. McGuire answered yes, but he regrets it. Wilson commented that neighborhood agreement is not the criteria for granting a zone change. Commissioner Griffith clarified with McGuire that he was asking for the masonry fence to run all the way from the freeway fenceline to Pfaffle Street. McGuire answered yes, that his greatest concern was the future second exit. He said he was not aware that the project would be brought back for neighborhood comment later. He said his original appeal was based on the fact that he had great concern about the second exit. McGuire said he would like to have the masonry wall run from the street (wherever code allowed for view of traffic) down to the end of his property. Commissioner Griffith asked McGuire if he is amending his request for the wall to only border Phase 1 now and continue through Phase 2 later. McGuire answered that, since he only now aware that he could appeal Phase 2 later, it was too late to change the request. He said he wants the "whole enchilada" now, but is willing to consider where the masonry wall is placed. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - SUPPORTING APPEAL Anita Lipnos, 11305 SW 79th, Tigard, OR 97223, expressed concerns about increased traffic and more congestion the development would bring to Pfaff le Street. She questioned how people living in these apartments would be able to get enter and exit the parking lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 4 • Commissioner Holland suggested that Lipnos voice her traffic concerns at a CIT meeting and have them go to City Council. He advised her that this development had already been approved and the Planning Commission couldn't stop it. President Wilson said the Planning Commission had to follow procedures and the appeal being heard was only about the wood fence. He stated that traffic concerns were not on the agenda. Lipnos then said she agreed with Mr. McGuire about the masonry wall. President Wilson addressed the audience, saying testimony should stick to the actual appeal before the Planning Commission. He said that this was not the forum for addressing other concerns. Susan Rorman, 11250 SW 82nd, Tigard, OR 97223, said she was concerned about the proposed entrance/exit. She was also worried about the traffic and emergency access. Commissioner Griffith asked staff about the traffic study that was submitted during the zone change application for this parcel. Will D'Andrea advised that the traffic report submitted was based on 137 units and noted that the current application was for only 84 units. D'Andrea said the traffic report was reviewed by the Engineering staff who determined the traffic impact would not warrant additional conditions. Betty Morgan, 10940 SW 79th, Tigard, OR 97223, submitted letters from neighbors (Exhibit "A") stating their concerns about the limited access to these apartments. Morgan worried about emergency situations and what would happen if there was only one way into the apartment complex. Morgan also asked what year the traffic study was done. Will D'Andrea answered that the study was done in 1995. President Wilson advised Mrs. Morgan that the zone change was approved for this parcel, which allowed for apartments with this density. He said that the traffic study at the time of the zone change and that when the development goes through, it's just a matter of following code requirements. He said that if the developer meets the requirements, additional traffic studies wouldn't be required. President Wilson also advised Morgan that the appeal isn't for the access variance. Morgan referred to the public hearing notice and the statement regarding the variance. Will D'Andrea said that the decision for the site development review and variance was a staff level decision. He said that after the decision was made, a notice was mailed, and that one appeal was received from Mr. McGuire. D'Andrea told Morgan that the notice she had was for the appeal of this case. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 5 Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff advised that the hearing notice Morgan received lists the original application information and the appeal information. He said that the appeal was only for the masonry wall, and that all of the other issues were not appealed. Brian Haddix, 11220 SW 82nd, Tigard, OR 97223, said he agreed with the appellant about the masonry wall. He thought it would be appropriate to build the wall in separate phases as the development grew. Paul Brossia, 11260 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, signed up to speak but chose not to. Enola Coolman, 11160 SW 82nd At., Tigard, OR 97223, asked how the zone got changed without anybody knowing about it. Helen Pfaff le, 8225 SW Pfaff le, Tigard, OR 97223, said she remembered that several years ago, a rule was made that there would be no more driveways on Pfaff le. Will D'Andrea gave some background of the general process for this application. He said that the applicant was required to conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to making application for the zone change and that property owners within 250' were notified of the meeting. He said that minutes from that meeting showed there were 7 people in attendance. D'Andrea said there was a public hearing after the neighborhood meeting and that the decision went forward to approve the zone change. He said a notice of decision was mailed to surrounding property owners within 250', as required by law. He advised that he spoke to both Mr. McGuire and Mrs. Pfaff le about the application and what the options were for filing an appeal. He said that only 1 appeal was received. Commissioner DeFrang said that cases are also mentioned beforehand at CIT meetings so people have an opportunity to be informed. APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL Spencer Vail, 4505 NE 24th, Portland, OR 97211, told the Commissioners he concurred with the findings and conclusions of the staff report. He said notices went out and signs were put up for this application. He said letters were also sent to members of the CIT. Vail advised that his client does not yet own the property to the north and that it will not be developed with the second phase until the current owner exercises his life- stay option. He said that the second access to the complex will be installed during PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 6 the second phase of development. He also said that, because his client does not yet own this northern piece of property, he cannot install a fence on that portion of property. Vail reported that the proposed fence on the southern portion will be a solid wood fence, with the boards tightly fit together. He said that lights will not shine through the fence. He also advised that there would be sufficient landscaping in the area. Vail said that the current site plan has not radically changed since the applicant requested the zone change. He advised that traffic concerns were raised at earlier meetings and that when the traffic report was done, the full impact was analyzed. He said the applicant feels they have complied with code requirements and urged the Commission to deny the appeal. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Ron Naff, Project Designer, 18641 Benfield Ave., Lake Oswego, OR 97035, went over the landscaping plan of the project. He reviewed the code requirements for the fence and screening buffer. Will D'Andrea advised that there would be 1 row of trees and that the shrubs would be 5 gallon size. He said that code does not specify the type or species. D'Andrea addressed the fire and emergency access comments. He said that Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue requires 2 access points or that the buildings be sprinklered. He reported that the Fire Department had a problem with the inadequate turning radius of the internal circular drive. He said that prior to this plan being approved, condition #11 requires that the plan be signed off by the Fire District to accommodate all fire concerns and emergency vehicle access. APPELLANT'S REBUTTAL James McGuire said he did not believe that a solid wood fence would solve the problem of lights. He also voiced his doubts that the landscaping would be adequate. He asked the Planning Commission to grant his appeal. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Holland said he agreed with the staff report, that Planning Commission cannot set a precedent and force a developer to build a concrete wall for 1 residence that is zoned multi-family. He said he believes the applicant has met the code and that the Planning Commission does not have any right to demand more than the what the code requires. Commissioner Anderson requested a list of those people notified for this application be made available for anyone interested. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 7 Commissioner DeFrang encouraged the audience to get involved with their CIT so they could be more aware of how things work in the city. She commented that the Planning Commission had to go by the code and that she agreed with Commissioner Holland to deny the appeal. Commissioner Holland moved to deny the appeal. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 4-92!rtvi JerrGaynor, Planning Coynmission Secretary Z2A. ATT :T: President Nick Wilson PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES- August 5, 1996-Page 8 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jim H. FROM: Will D. DATE: August 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Carriage House Apts Hearing The following is a summation of the process of this application: 1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change was granted to change the zone from R-4.5 and C-P to R-25 in 1995. The applicants conducted a neighborhood meeting and went through Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. 2. Andrews Management applied for a Site Development Review/ Variance / Lot Line Adjustment for the apartment complex. A variance to the number of driveways was included. A neighborhood meeting was held prior to applying. 3. A notice of decision was mailed for the SDRNAR/MIS to property owners within 250 feet. Mr. McGuire and Mrs. Pfaffle talked to me during the appeal period. Mr. McGuire filed an appeal. He challenged condition 9c regarding a wood fence, he felt a masonry wall should be constructed. 4. Notice of the public hearing for the appeal was mailed to property owners within 250 feet. A public hearing was conducted to discuss the appealed condition related to concerns of lights, noise, and property value and the request to change the condition to require a masonry wall. The hearing was limited to the issues appealed. This follows the requirements of 18.32.370.A. The following is a response to the concerns raised in the Morgan letter: 1. Impression that the meeting was to discuss the variance. The notice stated it was an appeal with a bolded statement regarding the issue related to buffering. It did not specifically state that testimony would be limited to the appealed condition only, but it also did not state that the Planning Commission would discuss the variance. Impressions are open to interpretation and not arguable. Section 18.32.370.A states hat the approval authority snail affirm, reverse, or modify the decision which is the subject of the appeal; however, the decision shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 18.32.250. Based on this, the only thing under consideration at the meeting was the appealed condition. Therefore, the only item that the Council could review on call up is the issue related to the appealed condition (fence versus masonry wall), not traffic or land use. 2. Second class citizens. I thought the Planning Commission was diplomatic and explained the nature of the meeting while sympathizing with the citizen's position. The process was explained by staff and staff addressed areas of concern raised, though those issues were not under review. The people raised issue that they did not receive proper notice. Evidence in the record shows that property owners within 250 feet were notified for all applications and neighborhood meetings concerning this property. 3. Censor. The Planning Commission, while being diplomatic, followed the code provisions and the legal requirements. In the future, an effort to clarify the relevant issues in the notice would be appropriate. Code section 18.32.130.A.1.f specifies that notice of appeal shall be sent to the appellant and all parties to an appeal or petition for review. Staff may, in fact, have been too liberal in noticing all property owners within 250 feet. It could also be interpreted to just those of record in the original review. 4. Petition. The approval relative to the variance and the traffic study has passed the appeal date. It would have had to have been included within the appeal period of the original decision. The traffic study was done with 1996 projected figures. This study was after the occupancy of Cub Foods and Costco. Cub Foods received a C.of.O 4/4/94 and Costco received a C.of.O. on 10/24/94. The real issue in the Pfaffle Street area is the amount of traffic created by a number of uses not just this apartment complex. While traffic is certainly heavy it still falls within the street carrying capacity. The traffic study indicated that the traffic created by the apartments would be less than that of the prior C-P and R-4.5 zoning. Traffic in the Pfaff le Street area should be monitored as in other areas where there is neighborhood concern. Recommendation Because the Council is limited to the issues considered in the McGuire appeal (fence versus wall) by the City's code as well as legal due process, the only area that can be reviewed by Council is that which was under appeal. Traffic, access and land use were not appealed within appropriate appeal periods and those decisions are now final. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, !NC . Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice TT 8576 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ,titii. ,t I ON:. Legal Notice Advertising r.:1 Dr,OF (IGARI, 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 'Tigard,Oregon 97223-8109 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 'Accounts Payable–Terry • The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on Monday, ust 5 1996, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center– Town Ball, 13125 S.W.Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon.Both public oral and written testimony is invited.The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Municipal Code,and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the .,ATE OF OREGON, I. close of the hearing,accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) allow the hearings authority and all the parties to respond on the request, ecludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of A is based on that issue. 1, Kathy Snyder r Ply Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising S.W.Ilall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling 6394171. Director, or his principal clerk, of theT.gard-Tualatin__Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 PUBLIC HEARINGS and 193.020; published at __Tigard___ in the APPEAL aforesaid county and state; that the OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)96-0007/ Appeal of SDR_9_6-0007 Carriage_House Apts . VARIANCE(VAR)96-0005 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the >CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS< entire issue of said newspaper forONF successive and The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven consecutive in the following issues: building,84 unit multi-family apartment complex;and 2.)A Variance re- quest to allow the provision of one access,whereas,the code requires two July 25,19 9 6 access drives for this development.The appeal specifically concerns al- leged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. LOCATION: (WCTM IS136CC.Tax Lots 200,300 and 2200).South — -- side of S.W.Pfaffle Street,east of S.W. Hall Boulevard,and west of S.W. Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Cor- �' t z�J� __ - munity Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114., 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONE: R-25 Subscribed and sworn to fore me this?5th day of J1aly, 1 (Residential,25 Units Per Acre).The R-25 zone allows single-family at- tached,single-family detached,duplex residential units,multiple-family < resid ential units,residential care facilities, mobile home parks and sub- Notaic for Oregon sub- division,public support services,family day care, home occupation,tem- porary use,and accessory structures. My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT TT8576–Publish July 25, 1996. RECE"""clD SEP 0 9 .,39E R. G. NAFF, Designer 18641 SW. Benfield Ave. Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035:639-8045 Fax 639-5377 COMMUrni1 ,r1ENT September 6, 1996 Will D'Andrea, Planner Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW. Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Resubmittal of plans for conformance to conditions of approval for the Carriage House Apartments. Dear Will, Please find the enclosed revised drawings and review them for conformance as indicated above. I have responded in the same order and numbering as the conditions of approval as they pertain to my office and are as follows: 9A. See revised site plan for shared outdoor space areas and the area summary for the total area provided. Please note that the recreation building is included in the total. 9B. See pool enclosure detail on sheet R3. 9C. Previously provided. 9D. See revised site plan for bike parking locations. 9E. Same as 9C above. 9F. Same as 9C above. 9G. Plan submitted to Pride Disposal. 10. Same as 9C above. 11. Plan and letter sent to Jerry Renfro at TVF&R. 12. See project directory on sheet S2. Letter and plan sent to Police Department. I hope that the above information will satisfy the review requirements of this project and will enable you to issue building permits at the earliest possible time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, G. NafF er'flee , r - AGENDA ITEM '- 5.2 Mr; '5.. MEMORANDUM Aploot CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tigard Planning Commission FROM: William D'Andrea DATE: July 24, 1996 SUBJECT: Appeal of Decision by James McGuire for the Following Land Use Application: Site Development Review (SDR) 96-0007 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 96-0012 Variance (VAR) 96-0005 On June 20, 1996 the Director of Community Development approved an application for a Site Development ReviewNariance/Lot Line Adjustment (SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96- 0005). (See "Exhibit A") I & ('L!)A1 James McGuire has appealed the decision stating that "factual nuisances and lifestyle adjustments demanded by this new construction are not appropriately addressed or adequate", as the City has conditioned in the decision. (See "Exhibit B") The appeal requests that a new condition, requiring a cinder block masonry wall not less than 6 feet high and 8-inches thick along the entire east property line of tax lot 400, be imposed in place of the staff recommended Condition #9C. This condition requires a six-foot fence. The appeal states that there are three "factual realities" as a result of the proposed apartment complex. These items consist of the following: 1.) Lights: Vehicles parking and exiting the complex will shine headlights directly into windows of the appellant's home and the conditioned fence cannot be an adequate light screen. 2.) Noise: There will be additional traffic noise directly outside the home as cars slam doors, accelerate, start and stop while parking and exiting the property. When the proposed second access is installed, there will be even additional noise and safety problems. 3.) Value: As a result of the above stated problems, the proposed apartments will result in lowering the value of our home, as these nuisances are not desirable features for prospective buyers. 8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE: PAGE 1 OF 3 APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 R DISCUSSION Issue #1 - Lights: Vehicles exiting the site will do so by a driveway approximately 300 feet to the east and on the same side of the street of the existing residence. There is an intervening single-family residence between the appellant's residence and the main driveway entrance. In the future, when the existing residence on tax lot 300 is removed and development of the proposed additional building, parking area, and access drive is requested; screening shall be provided along tax lot 400 in accordance with buffering and screening standards in effect at that time. Section 18.100.080.E currently allows the construction of a five-foot or taller fence or wall to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen as one of three alternative screening measures. Requiring Andrew's Management to construct a wall (or other type of screen) the entire length of the property line at this time would be unjustified, as the northern 160 feet of tax lot 300 will remain as a single-family residential use. Headlights within the parking area, adjacent to building C3, will be screened by a six-foot, solid wood fence. This fence will completely screen the appellant's property from shining headlights, as well as screen the residence that is to remain on tax lot 300. Issue #2 - Noise: The appellant's residence is approximately 80 feet from the parking lot adjacent to building C3. Andrew's Management will be constructing a solid wood fence and a row of trees to help attenuate potential noise due to the development. The code does not require the elimination of all off-site impacts, but rather, measures which minimize those impacts. As previously stated, development of the future access will be buffered in accordance with standards in effect at that time. In either case, the property shall comply with Department of Environmental Qualities (DEQ) noise standards related to the level of off-site noise. DEQ standards require no greater than 55dba. Failure to comply with these standards would result in a citation and action directed by the Municipal Judge if necessary. The appeal mentions additional safety problems with the development of the future access. There is no evidence to suggest a safety problem will result, nor how the construction of a masonry wall would contribute to reducing this safety problem. Issue #3 - Loss in Value of Property: Property value is not a standard for development review. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) established the proposed use as a permitted use in the newly designated R-25 zone. While it may be a permitted use, the code provides standards to review and limit, the impacts a proposal may have on adjoining property. Buffering and screening shall be provided in accordance with the standards established by the code. Condition #90 addresses those standards. Section 18.56.050.A.3.e. states that where the side yard or rear yard of multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district, such setbacks shall not be less than 30 feet. The appellant's could have received a greater buffer, and presumably greater protection of property value had they not been a co-applicant along with Andrew's Management, to change the zone on tax lot 400 to R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). 8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE: PAGE 2 OF 3 APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 Appellant's Proposed Condition: To impose a condition of development approval, the condition must be related to the impact created by the proposed development. A masonry wall the entire length of the property line is not proportional to the impact created by this proposed project. The northern 160 feet of the property line of tax lot 400 will remain a single-family residential use. Construction of a masonry wall along this section is not needed to mitigate impacts from this existing single- family residential use. A solid wood fence and landscaping will be provided along the southern half of the property line, in accordance with buffering and screening standards. While Section 18.100.080.E allows the construction of a five-foot or taller, fence or wall to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen, this measure is only one of three screening alternatives allowed by this section. More substantial buffering methods were not required because it was determined that potential noises were not found to be beyond that normally expected from a property zoned for multi-family development, nor is it incompatible as would a drive-thru window abutting a single-family residence. Given the distance between the existing residence and the parking area, along with the provision of a solid wood fence around the parking area adjacent to lot 400, it was determined that more substantial screening measures were not necessary. ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Condition #90 to require a masonry wall. 2. Modify Condition #9C to provide alternative buffering and screening. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this appellant's request for a modified condition be denied. Attachments: Exhibit A > Notice of Decision (SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005) Exhibit B > Appeal Form Exhibit C > Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan Exhibit D > Applicant's Response to the Appeal is\cu rpin\wilI\sdr96-07.mem July 24, 1996 8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE: PAGE 3 OF 3 APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT/CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS SECTION I: SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASES: FILE NAME: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Site Development Review SDR 96-0007 Variance VAR 96-0005 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 96-0012 PROPOSAL: A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units; 3.) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. APPLICANT: Andrews Management Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 COMPREHENSIVE P LA.:' DESIGNATION: High Density. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2000). South side of SW Pfaff le Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, and 18.164. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 1 • .�'l ..L • L11 SECTION II: DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to the following conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager of the Engineering Department) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaff le Street and all other work in the public rights-of-way. 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. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee, and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 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 or within the right-of-way. 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. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, 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. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 2 5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Pfaff le Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet. Any use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing pavement section will meet current City standards. B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage. C. Curb and gutter. D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff. E. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. F. Street striping. G. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. H. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). I. Street signs (if applicable). J. Driveway apron (if applicable). K. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall either upsize the system or provide on-site detention. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 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. 8. 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. 9. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Calculation for shared outdoor recreation area. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area. Notice of Decision SOR 96.0007NAR 96-0005■MIS 96-0012-Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 3 B. Swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4-feet with a self-latching door or gate. C. Buffering and screening along the west side of the western parking area. The proposed 5-6 wooden fence shall be continued along the west property line. A row of trees shall also be planted in accordance with 18.100.080. D. Provision of 11 bicycle parking spaces. E. Tree inventory, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than six-inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. F. Parking lot trees, spaced one tree for each seven parking spaces, to provide the required canopy effect. G. A plan that shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-off. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related to facility design and compatibility. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11. A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. TVF&R concerns and comments are noted in the Agency comment section at the end of this report. 12. A kiosk and security fence plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 13. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 4 SECTION III: SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION Site History; Tax lot 200 was annexed into the City in 1969. Tax lot 300 was annexed to the City and zoned R-4.5 in 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Tax lot 2200 is within the, original area of incorporation of the City. These parcels received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) to High Density residential, R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) in 1995. No other development applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these properties. Vicinity Information; Properties to the north are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). Property to east is zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). Property to the west is zoned R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) and C-P (Professional Commercial). The area is predominantly developed with single- family residential to the north and west. The General Motors Training Center and vacant property is located to the east. Highway 217 is located to the south. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is zoned R-25, (Residential, 25 units per acre). The approximately 4.12 acre site is currently vacant and is covered with assorted vegetation and trees. The site slopes from an elevation of approximately 246 feet along the southeast corner of the property to an elevation of approximately 222 feet along the northwest corner. The applicant has made a request for the following development applications: 1) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres; 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 3) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units. A second access is proposed to be provided with proposed future phase of development. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a 7 building, 84 unit apartment complex. This proposal is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Multiple- Family Residential Units. Code Section 18.56.030 allows Multiple-Family dwellings as a permitted use in the R-25 zoning district. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 5 Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.56.050 states that the minimum lot area for each multi- family unit in the R-25 zoning district is 1,480 square feet. There is no minimum lot width requirement in the R-25 zone. As discussed in the density section, adequate area is provided. Developments within the R-25 zone are required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping. The plan indicates that approximately 87,565 square feet (50%) of the site has been provided as landscaping, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Setbacks: Section 18.56.050 states that for multi-family dwellings the setbacks are as follows: front yard - 20 feet; side yard - 10 feet; side yard which abuts a more restrictive zone - 30 feet; rear yard - 20 feet. As indicated on the site plan, the proposal meets the setback requirements. The maximum building height is 45 feet. As shown on the exterior elevation plans (A3 - A6, R1), the proposed buildings are approximately 15 - 31 feet in height, well under the maximum allowed. Section 18.120.180(A)(1) (Site Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Chapters. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.94 (Manufactured/ Mobile Home Regulations), 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. Code 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. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees and that trees having a six- inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. Given the location of the buildings, parking areas, and accessway, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of existing trees will be removed. The arborist has recommended preserving approximately six (6) trees into the site plan. The arborist has recommended the removal of some trees which may have potential for being retained due to the type of tree, their root structure and system, and potential for blowdown due to loss of group protection. In order to mitigate the removal of trees greater than 12 inch caliper, the applicant is being required to provide a tree mitigation plan in accordance with the tree removal ordinance. Exterior Elevations: Section 18.120.108.3 states that along the vertical face of multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a) Recesses (decks, patios, etc.); b) Extensions (decks, patios, etc.); or c) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations. As indicated on the preliminary building elevations plans (sheets A3 - A6, R1) the design shows both recesses and roof elevation offsets, in accordance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 6 Buffering. Screening and Co g tibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This criteria shall be satisfied as addressed in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130) section below. 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. This criteria is satisfied as the landscape plan indicates screening within the required buffer area and around the perimeter of the property. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.108.5 requires that structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units, that the buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise, and on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses. Only two residences directly adjoin the proposed development site. These are on the west property line. Building C1 is screened from an existing residence by an existing cedar hedge. The second residential structure, located on tax lot 400, is located near SW Pfaffle Street. Fencing and landscaping are provided to help buffer the development from the residence on this .82 acre parcel. Building C3 is oriented such that only a portion of the building is in proximity to the rear of tax lot 400. The landscape plan indicates that landscaping shall be provided to further buffer and screen the rear portion of the adjoining property. On-site private space has been satisfied as there is building separation between each ground floor patio. The building design also provides for an off- setting of the patios so that a direct line of site of other patios is not provided. Landscaping has also been provided to further screen the private outdoor areas. Private Outdoor Areas: Section 18.120.108.6. requires that private open space such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 43 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of 4 feet. Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center. This criteria is satisfied as the applicant is proposing both balconies (63 square feet per unit) and a recreation center. Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Section 18.120.108.7 states that in addition to subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the amount of 200 square feet per unit for studio up to and including two-bedrcom units and 300 square feet per unit for three or more bedroom units. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: 1) all outdoor space; 2) part outdoor and part indoor space; 3) all public or common space; 4) part common and part private, for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; 5) where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable for reasons of crime prevention anc safety. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area X84 units @ 137 s.f.). A swimming pool and community building are provided on-site for shared recreation purposes, as well as open space area. The applicant has not provided information regarding the square footage of shared outdoor recreation area provided on-site. The applicant shall provide calculations of the shared outdoor recreation area which demonstrates compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005JMIS 964012-Carriage House AptslAndrews Management Page 7 Demarcation of Spaces: Crime Prevention: Section 18.120.108.9 states that structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas, semipublic areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined in order to establish persons having a right to be in the space, in order to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility. The Tigard Police Department has requested, in similar developments, that appropriate signage be placed at entrances to apartment complexes and that adequate addressing be placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer should, therefore, be required to contact the Police Department prior to obtaining building permits for the complex for review and approval of the address signage of this development. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that windows be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that can be observed by others; mail boxes located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; exterior lighting levels selected and angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and light fixtures shall be provided in areas having pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed and approved the proposed lighting plan. Density Computation: Section 18.92 establishes the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. In determining the net acreage, the following are subtracted from the gross acreage: sensitive land area; park dedication; dedicated public right-of-way and private streets. To calculate the net units per acre, it is necessary to divide the net acreage by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district The subject site contains approximately 4.1 acres or approximately 178,950 square feet. Section 18.92.020(3)(b) requires the subtraction of 15% of the gross area for public facilities, or 26,842 square feet. The resulting net acreage is 152,108 square feet. Dividing the net acreage by 1,480 square feet per unit results in 102 net units. The applicant is proposing 84 units, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Additional Yard Setback Requirements: Section 18.96.020 requires that the building setback on SW Pfaffle Street (a collector street) shall be the setback distance required by the zoning district plus 30 feet measured from the centerline of the street As indicated on the site plan, these setback standards are satisfied. Distance Between Multiple-Family Structures: Section 18.96.030 states that buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25 foot separation, buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15 foot separation, buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10 foot separation. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet This section is applicable to buildings A6, B4, and C5. The proposed building lengths are approximately 145, 150, and 115 feet. The building elevation plans (sheets A3 - A6) show that the proposed buildings have windowed walls facing windowed wails. The required separations, therefore, are 25 feet. There is an additional separation ranging from Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptslAndrews Management Page 8 4-6 feet required because the building lengths are greater than 60-feet long. The total building separation required for building, therefore, ranges from 29-31 feet. The proposed plan is designed such that all buildings are in compliance with the required distances, thereby, satisfying this criteria. In addition, driveways, parking lots and walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling uni°s within eight feet of the ground level: 1) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and 2) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least 7 feet As indicated on the site plan, all buildings satisfy the parking lot and walkway separation requirements. 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 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 two October Glory maple and two Northern Red Oak trees along SW Pfaffle Road, in accordance with the provisions of this section. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) states that trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. The applicant has partially provided shade trees that would provide the required canopy effect. Trees in some cases are separated from parking stalls by a sidewalk providing less effective shading than envisioned by this section. Therefore, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides for the required canopy effect and spacing on the basis of one tree for each parking space. Screening of Swimming Pools: Section 18.100.110(C) states that all swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4 feet with a self-latching door or gate. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides the specifications showing compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 9 Screening of Refuse Containers: Section 18.100.110(D) states that any refuse container or disposal area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. The plans show the provision of a 5-foot high, solid wood fence to provide screening of the trash enclosures, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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 multi-family development abuts a residential zone with 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 area. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall 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. The west buffer area contains approximately 4,400 square feet. Therefore, this buffer shall contain 40, five-gallon or 80, one-gallon shrubs, in addition to the one row of trees. The landscape plan shows the provision of an existing, mature cedar hedge buffering building Cl from the existing residence. The plan also shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area, in addition to a row of trees. The plan shows that low lying screening has been provided in accordance with these standards. Neither a fence or row of trees has been provided along the west side of the western parking area. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. 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. The plan shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area. Screening has not been provided along the west side of the western parking area (adjacent to tax lot 400). A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. It is recommended that the applicant continue the proposed 5-6 foot wood fence along this west side of the parking area. 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 feet in height The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three and eight feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight feet Notice of Derision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 10 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 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated on the site plan, this section is satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030(A)(3) requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for units with more than 1 bedroom. In addition, section 18.106.020(G) states that multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide shared parking for the use of all of the guests of all of the residents of the complex. The shared parking shall consist of 15 percent of the total required parking spaces and be centrally located within the development The applicant is proposing 36, one-bedroom units and 48, one-plus bedroom units; thereby, req+.siring 150 parking spaces. The required number of shared parking spaces is 22. The total number of required parking s7aces is, therefore, 172. This requirement is satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the p ovision of 173 parking spaces. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAJ requires 6 disabled parking spaces if 151 to 200 parking spaces are provided. The proposed site plan shows the provision of six disabled person parking spaces distributed throughout the site, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(0) requires one bicycle parking rack space for each 15 required vehicular parking spaces in any development Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Based on the requirement of 172 parking spaces, 11 bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The site plan does not show the provision of bicycle racks. A revised plan sha'I be submitted which shows the location of the required 11 bicycle parking spaces. Access: Section 18.108.070(F) requires that multiple-family residential uses provide a minimum of two driveways when 50 - 100 units are provided. The minimum access width shall be 30 feet, with 24 feet of pavement, curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk. The site plan indicates the provision of 84 units, therefore, two accesses are required for this development. A 24-foot paved driveway shall be provided within a 30-foot-wide access width. Curbs and a five-foot sidewalk are required. This section is partially satisfied as the site plan shows the provision of one access drive with a pavement width of 24 feet, and a sidewalk that leads into the development. The applicant is developing on a portion of tax lot 300. The applicant has provided the owner of this tax lot a lifetime lease to reside in the existing residence. When the applicant acquires title to the property, additional apartment units, parking and an access to SW Pfaff le will be constructed. This future phase is shown on the proposed plan. The applicant is requesting an access variance to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for a development with 84 units. An access variance will be granted for this development. The findings for this access variance are discussed in the following section. Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-00051MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 11 Access Variance: Section 18.108.150 states that a variance may be approved for an access variance based on findings that 1. It is not possible to share access. Shared access is not possible as the adjoining property to the east is undeveloped and zoned for commercial use and property to the west is currently developed with a single-family residence with the owner granted a life estate allowing the owner to live on the property. 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street. The one proposed access is located to align with SW 83rd Avenue across SW Pfaffle Street. This alignment is made at the request of the City to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. The property does not have frontage on another street, nor does it adjoin an existing developed residential property that has access to another street. 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met. This section is not applicable as there are no access separation requirements applicable to this project. While no specified requirements are applicable, the City is requiring the alignment of the accessway to align with SW 83rd Avenue to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. Given the applicants frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed future access is at a more acceptable distance from the intersection and is preferred over a location closer to the proposed access and intersection. 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access. This request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access as a second access will be provided in the future.. When the applicant acquires title to the remaining tax lot 300, a second access will be provided to SW Pfaffle Street. In the interim, requiring the applicant to provide a second access within the existing frontage would not add to the efficiency of the design of the project. It also is preferable to locate a second access further away from the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 83rd Avenue than to require a second access within the available 217 feet of frontage currently available. The applicant shall be required to construct the second access within 12 months of acquiring the property. This construction shall take place regardless of the applicant receiving site development approval for the proposed additional units. The applicant shall be required to provide buffering and screening along the west property line in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. Given the City Council's interpretation of driveways, with the Arbor Heights (Triad) apartment development, the applicant would technically meet code requirements with a wider driveway separated by an island. In this case, an island would serve no practical purpose. 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access. Delaying the provision of a second access will still result in a safe access. The access provided meets the access standards as related to width. The one access and site design will provide for safe access as related to emergency vehicle access as the applicant shall provide an approved plan from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 6. The vision clearance requirements of chapter 18.102 will be met. As indicated on the site plan, vision clearance requirements shall be satisfied on the one access provided. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 12 Walkways: Section 18.108.050(B) requires that within multi-family developments each residential dwelling shall be connected to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities shall be connected by a walkway system having a minimum width of four feet and constructed of an all weather material. As indicated on the site plan, walkways are satisfactorily provided. Signs: Section 18.114.130 (B) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the R-25 zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the Planning Division. 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 shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standard, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review and sign-off. The applicant will need to submit evidence or a plan that indicates compliance with this section. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler, a written sign-off on the location of and the compatibility of facilities. Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, remove! and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The proposed plan shows the location of some trees on the site. However, this plan does not identify the size of these trees, nor does it include all the trees on the site as discussed in the arborist report. A revised plan shall be submitted, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than 6 inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards; Section 18.162.060 contains the following standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the Lot Line Adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96.0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 13 The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. The proposed adjustment will reconfigure the lot lines, however, an additional parcel will not be created by the adjustment. Both lots will exceed the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of the R-25 zone. All site development improvements applicable to tax lot 300 will remain consistent with Code requirements. Development improvements on tax lot 200 shall be satisfied as addressed in this report and review process. Special Provisions for Lots Created Through Partition Process: Section 18.162.060 states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land Partition process: 1. Lot Width; The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage; Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access easement 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 14 10. Floodplainz Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Criteria 1 is satisfied as there is no minimum lot width required in the R-25 zone. Criteria 2 is satisfied as the lot areas are approximately .57 and 3.23 acres, exceeding the minimum 3,050 minimum lot size requirement. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the lots contain approximately 160 and 217 feet of frontage on SW Pfaff le Street, satisfying the minimum 15-foot, minimum width requirement. As indicated on the site plan, setbacks are satisfied on lot 300, thereby, satisfying Criteria 4. As discussed previously, setbacks are satisfied for the proposed apartment project on lot 200. Criteria 5 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Criteria 6 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 is satisfied as a shared driveway is not proposed with this adjustment. Criteria 9 is satisfied on lot 300 as the residence will continue to utilize the existing driveway. As discussed previously, access shall be satisfied for the proposed apartment project. Criteria 10 is not applicable as neither parcel is within the floodplain. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: 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 SW Pfaff le Street at the intersection with SW 83rd Avenue. SW Pfaff le Street is classified as a minor collector street to be built to the following standard: 60-foot right-of-way (ROW), two 14-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane and 5- foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. At present, there is 25 feet of ROW on the south side of the centerline. The applicant's plans indicate that they will dedicate additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline in order to meet current standards. A traffic analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 1995, to address the proposed zone change from commercial-professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to multi-family (R-25). The zone change was approved by the City and became effective on June 30, 1995. The analysis assumed a maximum of 137 multi-family units would be developed on the site. Based on that assumption, and considering existing traffic conditions, Kittelson determined that the proposed apartment development could be built without causing significant impacts to the existing street system and nearby intersections. Notice c' - vision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 15 ,<R There were two existing traffic conditions that were mentioned in the analysis: 1) the intersection of SW 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street currently operates with a forced flow condition during weekday PM peak periods, and 2) there is a sight distance problem at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaffle Street. The forced flow condition at 78th Avenue is an existing condition resulting from the signalized intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and Pacific Highway. Kittelson stated that the apartment complex will have minimal impacts on_the operation and__safety of the 78th Avenue/Pfaffle Street intersection. „The sight distance problem at Hall Boulevard is due to the presence of the overpass crossing of Highway 217. Accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition, according to the analysis. The applicant's plans indicate that a half-street improvement will be constructed in SW Pfaffle Street along the site frontage. This improvement will help mitigate the traffic impact from this development. In addition, the proposed site access will align with the centerline of SW 83rd Avenue to avoid turning movement conflicts. The plan contains a street section detail that suggests the applicant will simply tie onto the edge of existing pavement and widen the street. However, this assumes the existing pavement section meets current City standards (4 inches of asphalt pavement over 15 inches of rock base). Staff does not know if the existing pavement section meets City standards. Therefore, the applicant is required to build the half-street to centerline, unless he can show that the existing pavement section is adequate. The City Engineer will make the determination as to whether or not the City standard is met. Based on the findings of the traffic study, and based on the applicant's intention to construct half-street improvements in Pfaffle Street to meet City standards, Staff finds the project will meet City transportation requirements. Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Pfaffle Street that is available to serve this site. The plans indicate that a service line will be extended to serve the development. Storm Drainage: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW 83rd Avenue that presently terminates 300 feet north of Pfaffle Street. The applicant proposes to extend this line further south to reach Pfaffle Street to provide for street and site drainage. This concept will be approved if the applicant can show that the existing line will have enough cover and capacity to accommodate the extension. A downstream analysis will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts. If there will be adverse impacts related to the discharge of the storm water from this site, the applicant will be required to either upsize the downstream system or make provisions on the subject site for on-site detention. This analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptslAndrews Management Page 16 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 require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. T7e 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 audition, 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 R&O 91-47. 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 plans indicate that a series of water quality swales is proposed. There were no calculations submitted with the application for Staff to review to determine if the swales will be adequately sized. USA provided comments related to the design and suggest that the applicant consider sizing the water quality facilities to account for the future development of Phase 2. Erosion Control: USA R&O 91-47 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 R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. SECTION VII: STAFF. AGENCY & CIT COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The applicant needs a kiosk sign at the entrance and a security fence along the Highway 217 property line. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans cannot be approved at this time. More than 20 dwelling units requires not less than two accesses or buildings need to be protected with automatic sprinklers. Fire flows shall not exceed 3000 gpm. Submit calculations for review and approval. InadegLL_:te turning radius has been provided. Access distances around buildings are too great. Hydrant locations are not shown. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval. Contact: Gene Birchill (526-2502). Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Water will be served from a six-inch existing water line in SW Pfeifle Street. A master water meter and double check detector assembly (on fire line) will be required at the property line. Contact: Stewart Davis (642-1511). Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 17 • The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: A water quality facility is necessary and should be large enough to include phase 2. A copy of the approved erosion control plan should be provided to USA's inspection division. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Due to its proximity to Highway 217, it is recommended that the City require the applicant to construct a soundwall (or other noise mitigation measure acceptable to ODOT) along its highway frontage. In addition to reviewing plans for sound mitigation, we will need to review drainage plans for possible impacts to state facilities. If connection to the ODOT's storm drain system is planned, a permit will be required. Please contact: Bob Schmidt, Engineering Coordinator, ODOT District 2A at 229-5002 for further information. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to place conduit/trench to GTE's specifications. The City of Tigard Building Division, City of Tigard Public Works Department, and PGE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. SECTION VIII: 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 JULY 1, 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which 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. Notice of Deasion SCR 96-0007NAR 96-00051MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 18 THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JULY 1, 1996. Questions: If you have questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503)639-4171. v� i�s Cc.. L'.. June 20. 1996 PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DATE Assistant Planner • i �. _die°`l «� '�� June 20. 1996 APPROVED.-6Y: Richard Be , •rsdo DATE Serti6r Planner Nonce of Cecs4on SCR 96-0007NAR 96-000.5/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrewrs Management Page 19 •-- 9jil I n.220� -'rr;Jr=rLg ROAD zn _ _ (. t , . --- - - II 1 yf - ....r bet C L 117 xL.Le W .M JTr -- 11 r xr ct PLANS —.uTER nJaurr auKt 1 _F- --1 lop ..L0 , WE CZ_r-1.4a I AM :';. ■1:: i s 1 rej - ET.:. ..9 ° ‘ -.P1WE \•••■ I :: t: _. `ICI, ,... F:• —5 5, Jile : ii-ri, - - . .,. .•.......11.1000 -s, L — CL iii. ' 11 t u /TY rr.. 1.',:u. AL b.I : - ..- -- , I II'��--- 3 T1— t v"vim - ::y ° w� 1 . _—--_Ai IS•Pir- POLS 1411R.1! 97 w nd 1, �t r� MIN - �v ..LI.4 /T...--4 I 'N , ire 111:r ��♦ 1 «' AI� 1� II Q sii.fp ir_ATI allaV;1111r 1 ,,,:,7,...v...:::;:-..;.(„-..:::,,,,A •f;..:',e,%..4 ' ''''- : 44i'"TAAll;..."°- a4 --1"; 44\I . ,,, ,:,,,,, .. . N. T.ALL • 1 '.;--STati."7II PN_ \ Pa./MAO.OW4/ al Of T'` xt ._ .- .4". w'.;• . , CC s' \ 44 XTERIOR LIGHTING rJ1) 4 "�,..„.LE.E40 ,5 .,..� -KEE>E S y OREA v ;jTVtA.TCN• 13.7 X 00 • I Tc ♦ `�I (r M OCLCIE •f AO 'c •+I.1 - l% VAlA K JO . r / yiA LLLS 4A1KM • )0'X:00 • 1.c �} \ 1 • WALL mCV,T.ry-KEENE 5.t+L os•Lx•1 \ 1 .LAMA 3 ILL.P+MATtON .a,•x:J'• !rc `. ' AT GARAGES WE Ys.T r•vUr P.-`R LL CAR'•CIT-KE E" ca24C C:10L PERK ` EvL RT 004R!TAIL .44•••• , O,),\IYZ/•T SstSLE Ah0 OAa54.E.EAO.4r5 LA• •5 ch 4 X.•X 10.!T!!L RCPT! \\ WALL IY'AiT.P0 Q-.fit GRACE I 6,15.:A H sccsros- r Ox•o e+cioau.t Vi 0'o urn.c 0..a 1 ti �• 8. hTtRMATIGT.AL.6%7C ICrr ———- Exist .t.are r.TTER■ Co) �P IT NTSAL NEW C.'-11C.CCTX3 PLOT PLAN CASE NO. EXHIBIT CARRIAGE HORSE APTS. EXHIB SDR96-0001 1 T MAP . '� VAR 96-0005 MIS 96-0012 11111 I -i lir. in AM rill ) 111111111710.11111FP III.._IIIIIIIf Elk 116. S siirmumns II c am I= on irml a , , > um IV moo -iri ' \ EN ..... .... .. .. . ... - — co 1 ■■=1 :- r Ilk ..n 0.. --.........g. - „... :8 .. —I- , All . —1 Nit is MIN No MN I n, 0,0000 , ,,,,11 :1 . gr---> 140,- .0. E j---' • 7777-E 11-. ---.>» -1/04 c _ < ra, liOardip jrA iiii C11 r '4 1 P... O. I* co co , .... •, •,1 t OW o 0) i= . th --. .,, (./ k$1 P R A r �V • Vicinity Nap CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. Q ' SDR 96-07NAR 96-05 _ Of•._ N . `Z35 . 12s-6 ,h of jtiLy I EXHIBIT B LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Oode therefore sets out specific requirements for f: -_•__ filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITY OF TIGARD The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. ' .11-3- kIIREh -p5Si5ra'.rr R.' 1 - 1 . APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: (1Q/-77,9pe /47s-t- Q/JQIf,,IIC�f SL)R 74 -0007/ VAR Q -DODS �1/s QG/—DOIa- 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: 2 6-eytr7e/. _0f' lrs/d-z- -- mad ,--"ey- Qf £q'rO _S-Ad o`z/272,Ti3ara; a2 ( ' .,-.CnatvA as 7h x L0,4 qoo, Qixs fir�c y _,. - - - cam _ i d. s 3 . SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: CS /-e ✓G/ •e S r d� 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: S. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECI::CN WAS GIVEN: 6. SIGNATURE(S) : ow v\E W-S 4 rO P c O 44f. . (C1t s O'to} #LtC-GNtRE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: 9LrtAJ2Lt!Cim1 .ate:; Q7 /q� Time: //:&57,' f Approved As To Form By: Date: Time: Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. C76- - 2/ Amount: '$ 2- (' .c'-7 X K-K-K X4-OH4-X*f K-K-K X K-!f t 13125 SW Hall Btvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 • I t ::,,,,z 3 SPECIFIC GRp The M s rOR APp //Of' On t fa yhasr QRIZ Cr appr0Pri n sided at ��'. de o f Tlgard fo ' d�esse�and llf Pre�nt address for over There are �'}. and scree by ded ny yew it A. Li is realities hods ( cones�nen net'oO4strt, ; °ag toW our.vehicles Par as a rat°fth ion 9C for a�given by �e our dev °� h 71.ot: e' At n, �d e do e Pr°p°s app pPro °f site e ade��went :4:::)es tlat proo ent�� lNo; ght r�n� fens ,ea �tr bir t �mPlex \. by the C; row of ti. g w travel 9C aOnud de ouro rOPose°r n' cannot ees (see 3'into direct'y st'bPoie ::; motor ent cord and not tion 9C n f s of pr°bl its 4 Of S D 1 °jes result mPlete jy be site 9 o° m an C ��. �0� � instal pr°Posedac�erate�d'p°nal t� �ompl As a result there fond $ x and sto ° noise din features �tt�°flowe above stated �be even� (see awhile p�y �O osed prOSP�Ye Ong the P�bl °�noise s.�an�3' If Conditions home buyers value of our om A and and safety following w apnent these nu�an Proposed are notes r �'e, t6e o conditions of pA old is apProv le al n�a�� °f� Of Tax.Lot 4 � we PrOPose asaC co_:du; cgndr�o�0 Strongly r the review We up �onstrtr,°g co utr�ng the'arune�d that th unpose re�e e�se a ender.b �On debns �a sound barrier� (Andre s Of Tigard �e SPOnsib pr°P 1°e� :Zs:: qty of Jule o frmasomy fene -d Light creep nth to Conditai we belie ap,L. ax Lot 40�. e, not less as propo Ptr°hase n of our ve tbis (Andrews The total parr 6 f sed bejOW all as Oblect'oneve thi e°ndit;on `nageThenr}st of s f ce and 8 inch Resp Proposed cO4�oee �vpe OtY to and consttuouo c• alOng the eS lY submitt ns. went. the inrrisi to be the k ° n b Thomas p You for' uisanoes, an Sarah J 1l1rre Your co d safe w 6. DOwC (-I u de oa o f our (��E, McGuire cre� r miners) cCtrire PFAFFLE ROAD EXHIBIT c Con.' CUM .�.i.. ` .i.e.' 'a.are C f)C)r..ni.. t� ',ate 41Mk. \ aliw,A.w. -.,.., -....,. =„........., - APPELLANT'S ' .,�� s, • 9.0.110. RESIDENCE :a.. �*L�. �� I c:)vi....... ,w c� rl�. WM'- ` ou iiiejlie• ilk-� , - C M e.1 / u . I / 1 411:11 C I)Mote . .ur • c J Ara,,�... / i =9114c r.).)•=44c :0 •4 co)a.w . 1� r r I i t /i i , • 2'116~1 Argil- i C C 4) mom") V..:.� .. ... '. p b . 2 4 co r .ae.,.•c c,)L IS. . + ;—$. CA MC t 5=.."4.d r_as va)s / I. ,..4.1117#5: c n r, . !e - ,4,Almui...■.....a.o IN:=C1do r...r..;o r.......) e f � `,, i�� C s)n. .•G' .• . „AIR -+�. r �.I C S)?•...'Await A......•C:0 J. � C D) C.u.rw..i•. r; • v "+ I C 4S)'..we. a:,N... C 2.i..) C/ co,P.n.ir.......--1 - ').. ...... ta,.'.4.",I,,'''' vriklinloal _ 1, _ _L_ _ 226 -t _ . .d •ere •. 24)Via.........• vr,...e,....• s \ ■ j I ∎ I I j I , I l I l �. cJ+Ae:..e:.... •a�rr . I I l i l C 0!6.....14x. CI).fie.,. - c 0)Vt......:f.r c;4)vb.. I •Via....:...:• _....-ti 1 i L......1 ; 1 ,(r)r.,............. , 1 1 e .. ,...,,". OA m a. . . • C 2)N..:w•)) , new. •/ • I —� . t c.7)vknM� 4.1 c:)/tor creme.. =�I 202 II 1.7.1) r"Tr �" C:6)I .\ ^ W- et 1 I 7:�•j'• �t• •- . C.; J I . c2) tr.as 1 ( )Vi.ee. -1 .K :'mac. ve &' IS.. ?GD _ l 1• ,,i 0 ih.:301, --4‹.0 i•0•••• r PVII L-11 t ��.^ C 1)'ra ie c.A ,, , � � -• 0 56'17 -1 '46' .0------ ... . • t• / • • I ,C)) w,e.e.r..,v ( - .a.• - t .•.0 r I /ll■: 'al Ci)awe*ni. - 1 C=)v..a.a,.•rw / 1 1 111 h„aa , 1. 3 t •cs" s�.XHlti11 D 5r3ENCER VAIL O PLANI •J I NG CONSULTANT July 21, 1996 Planning Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Mark Roberts Re: SDR 96-007 Dear Mark I have had an opportunity to review the appeal filed by Thomas McGuire et al on the above referenced case file. I believe the appeal should be denied for the following reasons: 1. The McGuire's property is zoned r.25, the same as that of the subject property. 2. The McGuire's, and others, participated with Andrews Management in a Plan Amendment and Zone Change that changed the zone C-P and R4.5 to current R-25 (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002). 3. The McGuire's property is not significantly different that other properties within R-25 zones where one property precedes the other in developing to the density allowed by the zone. There is no compelling reason why the appellants' parcel should be treated differently than other similarly zoned parcels 4. The Zoning Code does not require 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block sound walls to separate developments within the same zone. The screening and buffering proposed by the developer and approved by staff more than satisfies the intent and purpose of the applicable Code sections. 5. The McGuire's raised the issue of the "sound" wall at the neighborhood meeting conducted prior to the submittal of development plans. The applicant did consider the costs and benefits constructing a 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block wall 275 +/-feet in length prior to submitting for site development review. The plan submitted, as modified by staff conditions is deemed to be appropriate for this development. 4505 N.E. 24TH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97211 • 503/281-8245 • FAX 503/284-5506 Mark Roberts July 22, 1996 page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal. We will be present at the scheduled public hearing to present testimony and answer questions the Commission may have. Very truly yours - /encer H. Vail cc: James McGuire file Decision issued Date: 6/20/96 it Appeal Date: 7/ 1/96 3.) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005/ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 > CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS -: The Tigard Planning Director has APPROVED, (subject to conditions, attached), a request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units; 3.) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2000). South side of SW Pfaff le Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. (Vicinity Map below) (Plot Plan/Map attached) xE ST Ili� Iii VI 11,', ��� ■ ...4111�� � y •tai Mil IMMO 7, MN Ala • IllivErn _____ , 111.111.;1.111.114. — -MI M* - . I _ uIliii � ► !j "i iriiil OPP 0 0 $ 40 , , il _.1= ., .11;* .. -.:,.. 4 ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, and 18.164. h:Uoginlpatty\6-21-96.m2 (Memo Cover Page 3/4) ..—....—....■•. /J 1111 t r—.. - - _ i __ ___ . . - __, T ,. , r3a.o.OA -� _ - -)C1— - ■ 4eve':i.. \ ; =C .F . 1-11-11_[1] i •• 1T) N• k , _ a1. 913, _ J HI I [H'fl •� I`JT fTl l l l r tV 4 .:•1 ►.ob.1 t�k+V II lb .. -1� 7� I r 4- .Z •.0► . . .:.4%.. I,N.W'h.i/v ifYvlsV __ 01i• y't •••nY •••••:►1.YIV fANI:IVJ II t:: lr...� •:•VS/h7)IJl • '� I D t-LI ' 1111llllf l�-FJ.Y��� • --- ---,IZIV'WWfl9 'V'3Z1d tai _ r_., �.._._._.� r� I . uosyso .11v t. Iv ..loin, .14.a1I IN 1 \ — 1 — 3 -1' n..,rt •111•►'•YI .4)1.1. 'Iv 141 Ill \ -`_ ._ I y E `�) •.1► til 1i1. 1 •v.a►•i....41.14—..:;TV. .,•i1 w JTp ►• ' -` ` J V ►•.f 11V11. IS/1r.v1G 0.31 w O•i if • p • lin/A ••t >,N'Vdvo.C..;tt 4.1..M YI 1 l (, ( ru t� �l'1 VNI�iZlVd 133119 d�0 ` ICI rill 1 •/.•.,a.. g 1 o M O 1•• r i • a o • ! ! _! - I _i l � - . t 9►I: ten 0 42 ul• VI CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. .5 !, (CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 1 of 3) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager of the Engineering Department) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaff le Street and all other work in the public rights-of-way. 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. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee, and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 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 or within the right-of- way. 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. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, 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. 5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will construct standard half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Pfaff le Street. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet. Any use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing pavement section will meet current City standards. B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage. C. Curb and gutter. D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff. (CARRIAGE HOUS' ''.ARTMENTS-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 2 of 3) E. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. F. Street striping. G. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. H. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). Street signs (if applicable). J. Driveway apron (if applicable). K. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaff le Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall either upsize the system or provide on-site detention. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 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. 8. 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. 9. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Calculation for shared outdoor recreation area. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area. B. Swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4-feet with a self-latching door or gate. C. Buffering and screening along the west side of the western parking area. The proposed 5- 6 wooden fence shall be continued along the west property line. A row of trees shall also be planted in accordance with 18.100.080. D. Provision of 11 bicycle parking spaces. (CARRIAGE HOU: ARTMENTS-CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) (Page 3 of 3) E. Tree inventory, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than six-inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. F. Parking lot trees, spaced one tree for each seven parking spaces, to provide the required canopy effect. G. A plan that shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Ntinimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-off. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related to facility design and compatibility. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11. A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. TVF&R concerns and comments are noted in the Agency comment section at the end of this report. 12. A kiosk and security fence plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 13. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. 07/16/96 13:23 $503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL Z001/002 R1 D DISPOSAL COMPANY P.O. Box 820 Sherwood, OR 97140 (503)625-6177 TELEPHONE: (503) 625-6177 FAX 0 (503) 625-6179 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: 7 ( G - Ito TO: l lD _lie/es..., TELEPHONE: 6q(-( FAX NUMBER: — 7 Z, 97 ATTENTION: C ( ( D d FROM: WE ARE SENDING 2-- PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) . IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THESE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AS SOON A POSSIBLE. THANK YOU! ,:z46 D.:,,r .7 lnno, , fiJ . _ . _ g A RF 1., / ELM lire \ vi , -I Ln 89 4 I g . a 1 _ 1---I c D u E.-; _. 4 ' a CA- Y- 1, 0,-41 - 0 v S-•e- �1 IN , r� 1 I 1 f'1 fj- D-- u co •158, 11' �i►- a� J `9 22 i �' �- � 0-e(3 ,�0 p"`� U - 6 CAF? 6C ` � � 1 I II GARAGE f . POPLAR U 24' UM A9E u if _ % �� ' •` cn • r„rn„ ,Th OMNI- L r GAG ill •RED RAMPS ror� 1 .� b 3 1 r Po�•L.V. r'U LM __ tt) 13 110141111. "II !.. ..d iii ' si 1 A _ € Ii.... irt) #;::: Ex- . .... , -1--kr) 4,1/4 5. (fe:/:;51:seucovo"---::1,91 1,(,r/Lilisig:4_4"-- ,! r� Mallirragglaill . r P,A11 1,4 I Q�5 TN J L+ 4 Ca- 1�. `lif ■ MAIL all + .se, • TAT IO,�' AN wd `� • STALL ' ' N Jf _ -_ � !• BARK:::1 O • O. - - '\ O AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD are +,, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 �. J 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVE MINUTES 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SUBDIVISION (SUB) 96-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 96-0004 HILL STREET HOMES SUBDIVISION A request for the following development applications: 1.) Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide an approximately 28,557 square foot parcel into 4 lots ranging between 1,917 square feet to 1,918 square feet; 2.) Planned Development Review to allow lot sizes less than the minimum required by the zone. LOCATION: (WCTM 2S1 2DB, Tax Lot 202). East of SW Ash Street. on the north side of SW Hill Street. ZONE: R-12 (Residential, 12 Units per acre). The R-12 zone allows single-family attached/detached residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, residential fuel tank, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.160, and 18.164. 5.2 APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007NARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development. The appeal specifically concerns alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200. 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street. east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM 1: 5.2 MEMORANDUM -4111 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Tigard Planning Commission FROM: William D'Andrea DATE: July 24, 1996 SUBJECT: Appeal of Decision by James McGuire for the Following Land Use Application: Site Development Review (SDR) 96-0007 Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 96-0012 Variance (VAR) 96-0005 On June 20, 1996 the Director of Community Development approved an application for a Site Development Review/Variance/Lot Line Adjustment (SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012/VAR 96- 0005). (See "Exhibit A") James McGuire has appealed the decision stating that "factual nuisances and lifestyle adjustments demanded by this new construction are not appropriately addressed or adequate", as the City has conditioned in the decision. (See "Exhibit B") The appeal requests that a new condition, requiring a cinder block masonry wall not less than 6 feet high and 8-inches thick along the entire east property line of tax lot 400, be imposed in place of the staff recommended Condition #90. This condition requires a six-foot fence. The appeal states that there are three "factual realities" as a result of the proposed apartment complex. These items consist of the following: 1.) Lights: Vehicles parking and exiting the complex will shine headlights directly into windows of the appellant's home and the conditioned fence cannot be an adequate light screen. 2.) Noise: There will be additional traffic noise directly outside the home as cars slam doors, accelerate, start and stop while parking and exiting the property. When the proposed second access is installed, there will be even additional noise and safety problems. 3.) Value: As a result of the above stated problems, the proposed apartments will result in lowering the value of our home, as these nuisances are not desirable features for prospective buyers. 8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE. PAGE 1 OF 3 APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 DISCUSSION Issue #1 - Lights: • Vehicles exiting the site will do so by a driveway approximately 300 feet to the east and on the same side of the street of the existing residence. There is an intervening single-family residence between the appellant's residence and the main driveway entrance. In the future, when the existing residence on tax lot 300 is removed and development of the proposed additional building, parking area, and access drive is requested; screening shall be provided along tax lot 400 in accordance with buffering and screening standards in effect at that time. Section 18.100.080.E currently allows the construction of a five-foot or taller fence or wall to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen as one of three alternative screening measures. Requiring Andrew's Management to construct a wall (or other type of screen) the entire length of the property line at this time would be unjustified, as the northern 160 feet of tax lot 300 will remain as a single-family residential use. Headlights within the parking area, adjacent to building C3, will be screened by a six-foot, solid wood fence. This fence will completely screen the appellant's property from shining headlights, as well as screen the residence that is to remain on tax lot 300. Issue #2 - Noise: The appellant's residence is approximately 80 feet from the parking lot adjacent to building C3. Andrew's Management will be constructing a solid wood fence and a row of trees to help attenuate potential noise due to the development. The code does not require the elimination of all off-site impacts, but rather, measures which minimize those impacts. As previously stated, development of the future access will be buffered in accordance with standards in effect at that time. In either case, the property shall comply with Department of Environmental Qualities (DEQ) noise standards related to the level of off-site noise. DEQ standards require no greater than 55dba. Failure to comply with these standards would result in a citation and action directed by the Municipal Judge if necessary. The appeal mentions additional safety problems with the development of the future access. There is no evidence to suggest a safety problem will result, nor how the construction of a masonry wall would contribute to reducing this safety problem. Issue #3 - Loss in Value of Property: Property value is not a standard for development review. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) established the proposed use as a permitted use in the newly designated R-25 zone. While it may be a permitted use, the code provides standards to review and limit, the impacts a proposal may have on adjoining property. Buffering and screening shall be provided in accordance with the standards established by the code. Condition #9C addresses those standards. Section 18.56.050.A.3.e. states that where the side yard or rear yard of multiple-family dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district, such setbacks shall not be less than 30 feet. The appellant's could have received a greater buffer, and presumably greater protection of property value had they not been a co-applicant along with Andrew's Management, to change the zone on tax lot 400 to R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). 8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE PAGE 2 OF 3 APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 Appellant's Proposed Condition: • To impose a condition of development approval, the condition must be related to the impact created by the proposed development. A masonry wall the entire length of the property line is not proportional to the impact created by this proposed project. The northern 160 feet of the property line of tax lot 400 will remain a single-family residential use. Construction of a masonry wall along this section is not needed to mitigate impacts from this existing single- family residential use. A solid wood fence and landscaping will be provided along the southern half of the property line, in accordance with buffering and screening standards. While Section 18.100.080.E allows the construction of a five-foot or taller, fence or wall to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen, this measure is only one of three screening alternatives allowed by this section. More substantial buffering methods were not required because it was determined that potential noises were not found to be beyond that normally expected from a property zoned for multi-family development, nor is it incompatible as would a drive-thru window abutting a single-family residence. Given the distance between the existing residence and the parking area, along with the provision of a solid wood fence around the parking area adjacent to lot 400, it was determined that more substantial screening measures were not necessary. ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Condition #9C to require a masonry wall. 2. Modify Condition #9C to provide alternative buffering and screening. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this appellant's request for a modified condition be denied. Attachments: Exhibit A r Notice of Decision (SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005) Exhibit B Appeal Form Exhibit C Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan Exhibit D .- Applicant's Response to the Appeal I:\curpin\will\sdr96-07.mem July 24, 1996 8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE PAGE 3 OF 3 APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT/CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS SECTION L SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASES: FILE NAME: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Site Development Review SDR 96-0007 Variance VAR 96-0005 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 96-0012 PROPOSAL: A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units; 3.) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. APPLICANT: Andrews Management Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 COMPREHENSIVE PLA`'J DESIGNATION: High Density. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2000). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, and 18.164. Notice of Dec:s+on SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 1 SECTION II: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to the following conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager of the Engineering Department) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaffle Street and all other work in the public rights-of-way. 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. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee, and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 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 or within the right-of-way. 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. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, 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. Notice of Decision SCR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 2 5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will 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. Any use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing pavement section will meet current City standards. B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage. C. Curb and gutter. D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff. E. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. F. Street striping. G. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. H. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). I. Street signs (if applicable). J. Driveway apron (if applicable). K. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall either upsize the system or provide on-site detention. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 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. 8. 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. 9. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Calculation for shared outdoor recreation area. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area. Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 3 B. Swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4-feet with a self-latching door or gate. C. Buffering and screening along the west side of the western parking area. The proposed 5-6 wooden fence shall be continued along the west property line. A row of trees shall also be planted in accordance with 18.100.080. D. Provision of 11 bicycle parking spaces. E. Tree inventory, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than six-inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. F. Parking lot trees, spaced one tree for each seven parking spaces, to provide the required canopy effect. G. A plan that shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-off. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related to facility design and compatibility. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11. A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. TVF&R concerns and comments are noted in the Agency comment section at the end of this report. 12. A kiosk and security fence plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALLYBE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS 13. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 4 SECTION ILL_ SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION Site History; Tax lot 200 was annexed into the City in 1969. Tax lot 300 was annexed to the City and zoned R-4.5 in 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Tax lot 2200 is within th original area of incorporation of the City. These parcels received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) to High Density residential, R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) in 1995. No other development applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these properties. Vicinity Information; Properties to the north are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). Property to east is zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). Property to the west is zoned R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) and C-P (Professional Commercial). The area is predominantly developed with single- family residential to the north and west. The General Motors Training Center and vacant property is located to the east. Highway 217 is located to the south. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is zoned R-25, (Residential, 25 units per acre). The approximately 4.12 acre site is currently vacant and is covered with assorted vegetation and trees. The site slopes from an elevation of approximately 246 feet along the southeast corner of the property to an elevation of approximately 222 feet along the northwest corner. The applicant has made a request for the following development applications: 1) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into to parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres; 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 3) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units. A second access is proposed to be provided with proposed future phase of development. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a 7 building, 84 unit apartment complex. This proposal is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Multiple- Family Residential Units. Code Section 18.56.030 allows Multiple-Family dwellings as a permitted use in the R-25 zoning district. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 5 Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.56.050 states that the minimum lot area for each multi- family unit in the R-25 zoning district is 1,480 square feet. There is no minimum lot width requirement in the R-25 zone. As discussed in the density section, adequate area is provided. Developments within the R-25 zone are required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping. The plan indicates that approximately 87,565 square feet (50%) of the site has been provided as landscaping, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Setbacks: Section 18.56.050 states that for multi-family dwellings the setbacks are as follows: front yard - 20 feet; side yard - 10 feet; side yard which abuts a more restrictive zone - 30 feet; rear yard - 20 feet As indicated on the site plan, the proposal meets the setback requirements. The maximum building height is 45 feet. As shown on the exterior elevation plans (A3 - A6, R1), the proposed buildings are approximately 15 - 31 feet in height, well under the maximum allowed. Section 18.120.180(A)(1) (Site Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Chapters. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.94 (Manufactured! Mobile Home Regulations), 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. Code 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. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees and that trees having a six- inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. Given the location of the buildings, parking areas, and accessway, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of existing trees will be removed. The arborist has recommended preserving approximately six (6) trees into the site plan. The arborist has recommended the removal of some trees which may have potential for being retained due to the type of tree, their root structure and system, and potential for blowdown due to loss of group protection. In order to mitigate the removal of trees greater than 12 inch caliper, the applicant is being required to provide a tree mitigation plan in accordance with the tree removal ordinance. Exterior Elevations: Section 18.120.108.3 states that along the vertical face of multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a) Recesses (decks, patios, etc.); b) Extensions (decks, patios, etc.); or c) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations. As indicated on the preliminary building elevations plans (sheets A3 - A6, R1) the design shows both recesses and roof elevation offsets, in accordance with this section. Notice of Derision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 6 Buffering. Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This criteria shall be satisfied as addressed in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130) section below. 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. This criteria is satisfied as the landscape plan indicates screening within the required buffer area and around the perimeter of the property. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.108.5 requires that structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units, that the buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise, and on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses. Only two residences directly adjoin the proposed development site. These are on the west property line. Building C1 is screened from an existing residence by an existing cedar hedge. The second residential structure, located on tax lot 400, is located near SW Pfaffle Street. Fencing and landscaping are provided to help buffer the development from the residence on this .82 acre parcel. Building C3 is oriented such that only a portion of the building is in proximity to the rear of tax lot 400. The landscape plan indicates that landscaping shall be provided to further buffer and screen the rear portion of the adjoining property. On-site private space has been satisfied as there is building separation between each ground floor patio. The building design also provides for an off- setting of the patios so that a direct line of site of other patios is not provided. Landscaping has also been provided to further screen the private outdoor areas. Private Outdoor Areas: Section 18.120.108.6. requires that private open space such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of 4 feet Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center. This criteria is satisfied as the applicant is proposing both balconies (63 square feet per unit) and a recreation center. Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Section 18.120.108.7 states that in addition to subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the amount of 200 square feet per unit for studio up to and including two-bedroom units and 300 square feet per unit for three or more bedroom units. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: 1) all outdoor space; 2) part outdoor and part indoor space; 3) all public or common space; 4) part common and part private, for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; 5) where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable for reasons of crime prevention and safety. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area (84 units @ 137 s.f.). A swimming pool and community building are provided on-site for shared recreation purposes, as well as open space area. The applicant has not provided information regarding the square footage of shared outdoor recreation area provided on-site. The applicant shall provide calculations of the shared outdoor recreation area which demonstrates compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 7 Demarcation of Spaces: Crime Prevention: Section 18.120.108.9 states that structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas, semipublic areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined in order to establish persons having a right to be in the space, in order to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility. The Tigard Police Department has requested, in similar developments, that appropriate signage be placed at entrances to apartment complexes and that adequate addressing be placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer should, therefore, be required to contact the Police Department prior to obtaining building permits for the complex for review and approval of the address signage of this development. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that windows be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that can be observed by others; mail boxes located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; exterior lighting levels selected and angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and light fixtures shall be provided in areas having pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed and approved the proposed lighting plan. Density Computation: Section 18.92 establishes the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. In determining the net acreage, the following are subtracted from the gross acreage: sensitive land area; park dedication; dedicated public right-of-way and private streets. To calculate the net units per acre, it is necessary to divide the net acreage by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. The subject site contains approximately 4.1 acres or approximately 178,950 square feet. Section 18.92.020(3)(b) requires the subtraction of 15% of the gross area for public facilities, or 26,842 square feet. The resulting net acreage is 152,108 square feet. Dividing the net acreage by 1,480 square feet per unit results in 102 net units. The applicant is proposing 84 units, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Additional Yard Setback Requirem nts: Section 18.96.020 requires that the building setback on SW Pfaff le Street (a collector street) shall be the setback distance required by the zoning district plus 30 feet measured from the centerline of the street. As indicated on the site plan, these setback standards are satisfied. Distance Between Multiple-Family Structures: Section 18.96.030 states that buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25 foot separation, buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15 foot separation, buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10 foot separation. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet. This section is applicable to buildings A6, B4, and C5. The proposed building lengths are approximately 145, 150, and 115 feet. The building elevation plans (sheets A3 - A6) show that the proposed buildings have windowed walls facing windowed walls. The required separations, therefore, are 25 feet. There is an additional separation ranging from Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 8 4-6 feet required because the building lengths are greater than 60-feet long. The total building separation required for building, therefore, ranges from 29-31 feet. The proposed plan is designed such that all buildings are in compliance with the required distances, • thereby, satisfying this criteria. In addition, driveways, parking lots and walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: 1) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and 2) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least 7 feet As indicated on the site plan, all buildings satisfy the parking lot and walkway separation requirements. 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 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 two October Glory maple and two Northern Red Oak trees along SW Pfeifle Road, in accordance with the provisions of this section. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) states that trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. The applicant has partially provided sh 3de trees that would provide the required canopy effect. Trees in some cases are se,..arated from parking stalls by a sidewalk providing less effective shading than envisioned by this section. Therefore, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides for the required canopy effect and spacing on the basis of one tree for each parking space. Screening of Swimming Pools: Section 18.100.110(C) states that all swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4 feet with a self-latching door or gate. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides the specifications showing compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 960005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 9 Screening of Refuse Containers: Section 18.100.110(D) states that any refuse container or disposal area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet in height All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. The plans show the provision of a 5-foot high, solid wood fence to provide screening of the trash enclosures, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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 multi-family development abuts a residential zone with 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 area. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall 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. The west buffer area contains approximately 4,400 square feet. Therefore, this buffer shall contain 40, five-gallon or 80, one-gallon shrubs, in addition to the one row of trees. The landscape plan shows the provision of an existing, mature cedar hedge buffering building Cl from the existing residence. The plan also shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area, in addition to a row of trees. The plan shows that low lying screening has been provided in accordance with these standards. Neither a fence or row of trees has been provided along the west side of the western parking area. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. 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. The plan shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area. Screening has not been provided along the west side of the western parking area (adjacent to tax lot 400). A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. It is recommended that the applicant continue the proposed 5-6 foot wood fence along this west side of the parking area. 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 feet in height The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three and eight feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight feet Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96.0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 10 • 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 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated on the site plan, this section is satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030(A)(3) requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for units with more than 1 bedroom. In addition, section 18.106.020(G) states that multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide shared parking for the use of all of the guests of all of the residents of the complex. The shared parking shall consist of 15 percent of the total required parking spaces and be centrally located within the development The applicant is proposing 36, one-bedroom units and 48, one-plus bedroom units; thereby, requiring 150 parking spaces. The required number of shared parking spaces is 22. The total number of required parking spaces is, therefore, 172. This requirement is satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of 173 parking spaces. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 6 disabled parking spaces if 151 to 200 parking spaces are provided. The proposed site plan shows the provision of six disabled person parking spaces distributed throughout the site, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(0) requires one bicycle parking rack space for each 15 required vehicular parking spaces in any development Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Based on the requirement of 172 parking spaces, 11 bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The site plan does not show the provision of bicycle racks. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the location of the required 11 bicycle parking spaces. Access: Section 18.108.070(F) requires that multiple-family residential uses provide a minimum of two driveways when 50 - 100 units are provided. The minimum access width shall be 30 feet, with 24 feet of pavement, curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk. The site plan indicates the provision of 84 units, therefore, two accesses are required for this development. A 24-foot paved driveway shall be provided within a 30-foot-wide access width. Curbs and a five-foot sidewalk are required. This section is partially satisfied as the site plan shows the provision of one access drive with a pavement width of 24 feet, and a sidewalk that leads into the development. The applicant is developing on a portion of tax lot 300. The applicant has provided the owner of this tax lot a lifetime lease to reside in the existing residence. When the applicant acquires title to the property, additional apartment units, parking and an access to SW Pfaffle will be constructed. This future phase is shown on the proposed plan. The applicant is requesting an access variance to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for a development with 84 units. An access variance will be granted for this development. The findings for this access variance are discussed in the following section. Notice of Decision SCR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 11 Access Variance: Section 18.108.150 states that a variance may be approved for an access variance based on findings that 1. It is not possible to share access. Shared access is not possible as the adjoining property to the east is undeveloped and zoned for commercial use and property to the west is currently developed with a single-family residence with the owner granted a life estate allowing the owner to live on the property. 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street. The one proposed access is located to align with SW 83rd Avenue across SW Pfaffle Street. This alignment is made at the request of the City to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. The property does not have frontage on another street, nor does it adjoin an existing developed residential property that has access to another street. 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met This section is not applicable as there are no access separation requirements applicable to this project. While no specified requirements are applicable, the City is requiring the alignment of the accessway to align with SW 83rd Avenue to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. Given the applicants frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed future access is at a more acceptable distance from the intersection and is preferred over a location closer to the proposed access and intersection. 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access. This request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access as a second access will be provided in the future.. When the applicant acquires title to the remaining tax lot 300, a second access will be provided to SW Pfaffle Street. In the interim, requiring the applicant to provide a second access within the existing frontage would not add to the efficiency of the design of the project. It also is preferable to locate a second access further away from the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 83rd Avenue than to require a second access within the available 217 feet of frontage currently available. The applicant shall be required to construct the second access within 12 months of acquiring the property. This construction shall take place regardless of the applicant receiving site development approval for the proposed additional units. The applicant shall be required to provide buffering and screening along the west property line in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. Given the City Council's interpretation of driveways, with the Arbor Heights (Triad) apartment development, the applicant would technically meet code requirements with a wider driveway separated by an island. In this case, an island would serve no practical purpose. 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access. Delaying the provision of a second access will still result in a safe access. The access provided meets the access standards as related to width. The one access and site design will provide for safe access as related to emergency vehicle access as the applicant shall provide an approved plan from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 6. The vision clearance requirements of chapter 18.102 will be met As indicated on the site plan, vision clearance requirements shall be satisfied on the one access provided. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 12 Walkways: Section 18.1O8.O50(B) requires that within multi-family developments ea`lt,a, residential dwelling shall be connected to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities shall be connected by a walkway system having a minimum width of four feet and constructed of an all weather material. As indicated on the site plan, walkways are satisfactorily provided. Signs: Section 18.114.130 (B) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the R-25 zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the Planning Division. 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 shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standard, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review and sign-off. The applicant will need to submit evidence or a plan that indicates compliance with this section. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler, a written sign-off on the location of and the compatibility of facilities. 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. The proposed plan shows the location of some trees on the site. However, this plan does not identify the size of these trees, nor does it include all the trees on the site as discussed in the arborist report. A revised plan shall be submitted, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than 6 inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.07O.D. for these trees. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards; Section 18.162.060 contains the following standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the Lot Line Adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 13 The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. The proposed adjustment will reconfigure the lot lines, however, an additional parcel will not be created by the adjustment. Both lots will exceed the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of the R-25 zone. All site development improvements applicable to tax lot 300 will remain consistent with Code requirements. Development improvements on tax lot 200 shall be satisfied as addressed in this report and review process. Special Provisions for Lots Created Through Partition Process: Section 18.162.060 states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land Partition process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access easement 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation. Notice of Decision SCR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96.0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 14 10. F000dplain; Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Criteria 1 is satisfied as there is no minimum lot width required in the R-25 zone. Criteria 2 is satisfied as the lot areas are approximately .57 and 3.23 acres, exceeding the minimum 3,050 minimum lot size requirement. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the lots contain approximately 160 and 217 feet of frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, satisfying the minimum 15-foot, minimum width requirement. As indicated on the site plan, setbacks are satisfied on lot 300, thereby, satisfying Criteria 4. As discussed previously, setbacks are satisfied for the proposed apartment project on lot 200. Criteria 5 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Criteria 6 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 is satisfied as a shared driveway is not proposed with this adjustment. Criteria 9 is satisfied on lot 300 as the residence will continue to utilize the existing driveway. As discussed previously, access shall be satisfied for the proposed apartment project. Criteria 10 is not applicable as neither parcel is within the floodplain. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: 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 SW Pfaff le Street at the intersection with SW 83rd Avenue. SW Pfaff le Street is classified as a minor collector street to be built to the following standard: 60-foot right-of-way (ROW), two 14-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane and 5- foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. At present, there is 25 feet of ROW on the south side of the centerline. The applicant's plans indicate that they will dedicate additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline in order to meet current standards. A traffic analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 1995, to address the proposed zone change from commercial-professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to multi-family (R-25). The zone change was approved by the City and became effective on June 30, 1995. The analysis assumed a maximum of 137 multi-family units would be developed on the site. Based on that assumption, and considering existing traffic conditions, Kittelson determined that the proposed apartment development could be built without causing significant impacts to the existing street system and nearby intersections. Notice c _-c.sion SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 15 There were two existing traffic conditions that were mentioned in the analysis: 1) the • intersection of SW 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street currently operates with a forced flow condition during weekday PM peak periods, and 2) there is a sight distance problem at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaff le Street. The forced flow condition at 78th Avenue is an existing condition resulting from the signalized intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and Pacific Highway. Kittelson stated that the apartment complex will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the 78th Avenue/Pfaffle Street intersection. The sight distance problem at Hall Boulevard is due to the presence of the overpass crossing of Highway 217. Accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition, according to the analysis. The applicant's plans indicate that a half-street improvement will be constructed in SW Pfaffle Street along the site frontage. This improvement will help mitigate the traffic impact from this development. In addition, the proposed site access will align with the centerline of SW 83rd Avenue to avoid turning movement conflicts. The plan contains a street section detail that suggests the applicant will simply tie onto the edge of existing pavement and widen the street. However, this assumes the existing pavement section meets current City standards (4 inches of asphalt pavement over 15 inches of rock base). Staff does not know if the existing pavement section meets City standards. Therefore, the applicant is required to build the half-street to centerline, unless he can show that the existing pavement section is adequate. The City Engineer will make the determination as to whether or not the City standard is met. Based on the findings of the traffic study, and based on the applicant's intention to construct half-street improvements in Pfaff le Street to meet City standards, Staff finds the project will meet City transportation requirements. Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Pfaff le Street that is available to serve this site. The plans indicate that a service line will be extended to serve the development. Storm Drainage: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW 83rd Avenue that presently terminates 300 feet north of Pfaffle Street. The applicant proposes to extend this line further south to reach Pfaffle Street to provide for street and site drainage. This concept will be approved if the applicant can show that the existing line will have enough cover and capacity to accommodate the extension. A downstream analysis will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts. If there will be adverse impacts related to the discharge of the storm water from this site, the applicant will be required to either upsize the downstream system or make provisions on the subject site for on-site detention. This analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 16 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 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 R&O 91-47. 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 plans indicate that a series of water quality swales is proposed. There were no calculations submitted with the application for Staff to review to determine if the swales will be adequately sized. USA provided comments related to the design and suggest that the applicant consider sizing the water quality facilities to account for the future development of Phase 2. Erosion Control, USA R&O 91-47 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 R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. SECTION VII: STAFF. AGENCY & CIT COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The applicant needs a kiosk sign at the entrance and a security fence along the Highway 217 property line. Tua,,atin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans cannot be approved at this time. More than 20 dwelling units requires not less than two accesses or buildings need to be protected with automatic sprinklers. Fire flows shall not exceed 3000 gpm. Submit calculations for review and approval. Inadequate turning radius has been provided. Access distances around buildings are too great. Hydrant locations are not shown. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval. Contact: Gene Birchill (526-2502). Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Water will be served from a six-inch existing water line in SW Pfaffle Street. A master water meter and double check detector assembly (on fire line) will be required at the property line. Contact: Stewart Davis (642-1511). Notice of Derision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 17 The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: A water quality facility is necessary and should be large enough to include phase 2. A copy of the approved erosion control plan should be provided to USA's inspection division. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Due to its proximity to Highway 217, it is recommended that the City require the applicant to construct a soundwall (or other noise mitigation measure acceptable to ODOT) along its highway frontage. In addition to reviewing plans for sound mitigation, we will need to review drainage plans for possible impacts to state facilities. If connection to the ODOTs storm drain system is planned, a permit will be required. Please contact: Bob Schmidt, Engineering Coordinator, ODOT District 2A at 229-5002 for further information. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to place conduit/trench to GTE's specifications. The City of Tigard Building Division, City of Tigard Public Works Department, and PGE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. SECTION VIII: 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 JULY 1, 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which 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 Hail, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptslAndrews Management Page 18 THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JULY 1, 1996. Queszons: If you have questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503)639-4171. l! ,�.w C't..d/L. . June PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea 2 DATE DATE Assistant Planner c —Ar _ ..1*1 �►�1 P - ire./ �1� June 20. 1996 APPROVED-6Y: Ric - d Be , -rsdo DATE Seer Planner Notice of Cession SCR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 19 -------- J1 )IIL 1 20 iT —r'�FAF:FL)_r�iO�AD —.",- — — - II -„, . _ I II - — — — — -- — .....- ----- — i. WATER.,,•,ITT SWALE �'� •-*—WATZR O1LaLITT auALE eercE Pt ws f xE u.el-4w 4::.::; .....i..A o...rt t 1 Ilea; -I ri,� i1 -�� = 4illit ,i, ',IN :, A (--- ?.....; to — _o `ii Y •♦'.+r.4 Iaocv I L . v r ll�l 1 IL II Lirs . 1'. PENCE ALCNC raACaa'� ., 90-,c,M,r „? ∎,• ..� �� 'S -•f a, a. ill. I !I - u 1 /rrmc..L :•.W MOLE • - •.WCS =i Q C.-Z.*. ‘...mo ours._ N g - g q g cl:.-- -......_ -.k. 1 a...A ,,...,.., 1 IOU - I 'Mg. = Oaf %.. .-:•- •.a 13 (45 04 1 4,- rizpikk, , _ O ;r. � ��T TI � , z Fir \ IIPài -.I..., z 47114.0‘..1111 f"/ t;, , TALL . ' iy, 7 . p,� ' 6G ' '4: 4411>... N ,...v.- 1., :,,: . . „. a .p,), ......., ... _ fj\ ` (5 •• SINGLE I.EAO 'SOW.4.5 -KEEN I- ‘—gr 41 I AREA OP ILLLJI-m.ATIOV • t3 •X UDC' • I'C •• , BM •-■ CCIE_"LE•E AD I(?CW.q . SYLVAMIA:rC:10 .. / \ I • AREA ILLIJ+PVAtIC7■ • UO•x:00-•1'c C,�.-V 1 ■ WALL�+CLNT.�S-KEET.E 5.au eYQx•I • iJ:•a- ,LLJ l. rCH . ....1•x:J• • !'c N%. / AT GAR?GE!WC•Ac�IG+T►NU�GD...'.'R • ` UM CARIr'RT -KEE..E C12a0=01.PIOlt 1 Even"'OTf{R!TAIL O rICWT S.ICLf i+.G CQ.aLE.IAD...el LAP-P.5 OY ••x a•x:0'STEEL P•Cyts \\ WALL r1CLP+T•• 0 Q'AE1Cvf GRACE Sv 'BOL5 / . SiMTANT CI•CJ•CCx ANC CC.OEU.E 1L T \ 2•A 1:1'C I.RECTCL P . h b, NTI ATK7.AL.I- G'CAP S'fl .. ExIIT.DRAP,.AGE..ATTERN V I POTENTIAL vIEW C.:RPtCCR! I CASE NO. PLOT PLAN 1 CARRIAGE ROUSE APTS. EXHIBIT MAP 7 SDR 96-0001 VAR 96-0005 1 MIS 96-0012 IN Ewa Eirum 1 mu . . rwrapill1111 . . 11■11111 MIR Ilk 'Tmi 111 II 1111;11. WI „aim , MI hi iniummi 1111V IIII MI IN litiftilli , 11111 Min iilmonve II 411 gm • Di sr= EN < 111111 MI 11111 MIL 2.- i .,\ ,.... .... . . - . --.... al° a 1 ONICIE 11101111/.:WWII AM a) ) NI n ail .111.111 ° : 0) 1 ( 1 i & Nioao impl .-E , 1-,411 :1 . CT---> 1001 i C rs:a — 11111 'II' IT if k-, -r S 1 cm Ai C I (t3 'P. , 0o* 0 co . / ,IN � r o P-- 2 . t.4%,....1,4 iiii ›, ::. k a . ,, «iniri Map A CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. SDR 96r07NAR 96r05 -. - N '22S 2s6 ,� of J L,Ly I E BI�' B LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use �j5 Code therefore sets out specific requirements for i 11 filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITY OF TIGARD The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Plann�iin�`g1� Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. W4LLN�NDREA -ASSiSrpwrr PLMNFR. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: (,t,77 ¢P / 2!ce 47A7/-77z/7.7e2/7/ i7Z -0007, VAR 9l�-DOOJS; ?T?ls 9G -,0070- 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: 2Xe 6"-eiibrIp/ps f', � lrS/J1—2 C .ar ,fy Q f dv'TO . .0342AYe, Tiyaz; a'. (fcv754cr,C/1.0LOA 1S T 2Z x Lof4 470.0, cii f-• C74 y an.a/.oc�nc�f 3 . SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: / s� , ✓ Pse 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: 6. SIGNATURE-CS) : P.-E-PRESe.fvTt J1 Cs A t_t_ ✓\EYLS cf)14.&-( O S ) P Res ci"-LE 7-%(.A1-120 /- ' k ((pi-VS-0'0) E 41.-4-c-GLA.tRe. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: .4/1 sate: 0700 Time: //: 35h1/ Approved As To Form By: Date: Time: Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. C((^ -72l > "- Amount: $,-21.57. .cr-7 . X X-X X X 3HE-x-X*M x-x-X�f 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 r a • 3. SPECIFIC GROUND." FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: The McGuire family has resided at its present address for over forty years. It is our strong opinion that factual nuisances and lifestyle adjustments demanded by this new construction are not appropriately addressed or adequate, as set by the code recommendations given by the City of Tigard for buffering and screening methods (see condition 9C for approval of site development review). There are three factual realities as a result of the proposed apartment complex. A. Lights: Vehicles parking and exiting at proposed apartment complex will travel directly toward our home. At night, this will result in headlights shining directly into windows of our home. The 5 - 6 ft. wooden fence and row of trees (see condition 9C of site development review) recommended by the City cannot and will not completely be an adequate light screen. B. Noise: The proposed apartment complex will result in additional traffic noise directly outside our home as motor vehicles slam doors, accelerate, start and stop while parking and exiting the premises. When the proposed second access (see access variance: subpoint 4 of S.D.R. 96-0007) is installed, there will be even additional noise and safety problems. C. Value: As a result of the above stated problems, (points A and B) the proposed apartment complex will result in lowering the value of our home, as these nuisances are not desirable features for prospective home buyers. Proposed Conditions If the new apartment complex is approved, we propose that the review authority impose the following conditions of approval: We, the owners of Tax Lot 400, strongly recommend that the City of Tigard manifest a condition as part of the permit conditions, requiring the applicant (Andrews Management) to purchase all materials, conduct all excavation, construct a sound barrier and light screen as proposed below, as well as clean up all construction debris. We propose a cinder block masonry fence, not less than 6 feet high and 8 inches thick, along the entire east property line of Tax Lot 400. The total cost of this fence and construction is to be the responsibility of the applicant (Andrews Management). We believe this proposed condition is compensatory to the intrusions, nuisances, and safety issues of our long established residence and investment. Thank you for your consideration of our objections and proposed conditions. Respectfully submitted, Thomas P. McGuire Robert J. McGuire Sarah A. Dowell (McGuire) William A McGuire James E. McGuire (Owners) — F rFLE ROAD EXHIBIT•c • _ 1"---% \ !..." I.— . • ■4—. APPELLANT'S A""` ` a RESIDENCE "',ago....... `• v. • � .TIW I %Li i..WN 1 1 I C ...w.aa i C'1 ....um / / � � 1 i j Tit ,N__ ___ iL1 j...„..."" (s):.oz _ W C.2)L'U....' 22,:,...17.7-v..,..,._ (2)i's,r„ —S YCri._pc t sC.."`TG1-L.i�4evss <'y 1 �I C»6u,.. •...e�- :..r,n,. �r^7.7- -. (:bc"mg r..;o•.R.....1 �! <1) cs)rn...•c1..• C 3).'rw'Amato ti....'C:O'L maser) ! • �. _��—� -+'�S.i. `v ,J V<rswrw r 1 ' ' CN)^-�-+.....CS..J ', L.aw .- �— C1,)G.d►..-..ats% ,4.. C!S)!•.".......'$iv A4....'(5 ago.) 4,04111 1 ,:,...� C d)A.._ ....,...._....,...._____I C .as` '' ( J I J -�_:,:s t :• .,rte i � �{,; '� a ��'j_ -,-•� — '� { I 1 I 1 , f III 1 -d �e l )v1..,u.:..y ,`� .—,VJ..,...:.,...� ��� i I 1 E c..tai..: i CI)1.....Ages I { I nn , _ <I)I rs...n a I C:C)VVo.":.rt I I `r l C:•)Vim s\s\—\.— y^,7 K' i \ I i IC:)I'.var.•� 1 I 1 CI)Z.`..^G.?w• J- ,__, ave. dab. ,ice C 2)Y..i.. e%o= �i �r 1 C2:e - , • I c 7.)Aram wink • )4 i Nor.---. 7 '",-Lit.a.‘ .i . .,, ! .:,: i/,, .1'''' A 1 ___ 1 Mil C 4)Vfadro ' mol(a...trtr--"t= ,---' I * ''' II ll ! ! 'q.16••4 .I' kW... : I CC) ''....... (7)14.,.. 1 . I ff ,�.` 4:WW/rr- :I C-) ere.'Swam' — j 51. t Aga await I ilt ( - ---. .sc7 L .1..t7 c...41.,.. • I t j• . i c r: .' C i Ic• � c:e )� I ♦ C3)/ w . /J Q c r slog :-. ,_-• Th7,--. sco —1 le 1 I I p - O O\ 1 co ,..4 •Q C 1) area mars—� ■i 1 il \ ' ' -•-•‘ 4) ‘...V i ilk, . I i al ■40,:scal-e '7.--exr- scv al i ! \ .II.:..•. 411. • lit -• od.+e I 00• 4 -0 I CU Area nine C9)v.eu..rw. { � .�- a 1 i ! .A„l ZZZ s..'71.1.Oar• - Id EXHIBIT n SPENCER VAIL ° PLANNING CONSULTANT 4 July 21, 1996 Planning Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Mark Roberts Re: SDR 96-007 Dear Mark I have had an opportunity to review the appeal filed by Thomas McGuire et al on the above referenced case file. I believe the appeal should be denied for the following reasons: 1. The McGuire's property is zoned r.25, the same as that of the subject property. 2. The McGuire's, and others, participated with Andrews Management in a Plan Amendment and Zone Change that changed the zone C-P and R4.5 to current R-25 (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002). 3. The McGuire's property is not significantly different that other properties within R-25 zones where one property precedes the other in developing to the density allowed by the zone. There is no compelling reason why the appellants' parcel should be treated differently than other similarly zoned parcels 4. The Zoning Code does not require 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block sound walls to separate developments within the same zone. The screening and buffering proposed by the developer and approved by staff more than satisfies the intent and purpose of the applicable Code sections. 5. The McGuire's raised the issue of the "sound" wall at the neighborhood meeting conducted prior to the submittal of development plans. The applicant did consider the costs and benefits constructing a 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block wall 275 +/- feet in length prior to submitting for site development review. The plan submitted, as modified by staff conditions is deemed to be appropriate for this development. 4505 N.E. 24TH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97211 • 503/281-8245 • FAX 503/284-5506 Mark Roberts July 22, 1996 page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal. We will be present at the scheduled public hearing to present testimony and answer questions the Commission may have. Very truly yours r .0110.r t/encer H. Vail cc: James McGuire file SPENCER VAIL 0 PLANNING CONSULTANT mESIirm RECEIVED PLANNING JUL231996 July 21, 1996 Planning Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attn: Mark Roberts Re: SDR 96-007 Dear Mark I have had an opportunity to review the appeal filed by Thomas McGuire et al on the above referenced case file. I believe the appeal should be denied for the following reasons: 1. The McGuire's property is zoned r.25, the same as that of the subject property. 2. The McGuire's, and others, participated with Andrews Management in a Plan Amendment and Zone Change that changed the zone C-P and R4.5 to current R-25 (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002). 3. The McGuire's property is not significantly different that other properties within R-25 zones where one property precedes the other in developing to the density allowed by the zone. There is no compelling reason why the appellants' parcel should be treated differently than other similarly zoned parcels 4. The Zoning Code does not require 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block sound walls to separate developments within the same zone. The screening and buffering proposed by the developer and approved by staff more than satisfies the intent and purpose of the applicable Code sections. 5. The McGuire's raised the issue of the "sound" wall at the neighborhood meeting conducted prior to the submittal of development plans. The applicant did consider the costs and benefits constructing a 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block wall 275 +/- feet in length prior to submitting for site development review. The plan submitted, as modified by staff conditions is deemed to be appropriate for this development. 4505 N.E. 24TH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97211 • 503/281-8245 • FAX 503/284-5506 Mark Roberts July 22, 1996 page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal. We will be present at the scheduled public hearing to present testimony and answer questions the Commission may have. Very truly yours /, /encer H. Vail cc: James McGuire file CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY AUGUST 5. 1996 AT 7;30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 FILE TITLE: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS APPELLANT: James E. McGuire et. Al. APPLICANT: Andrews Management, Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way, Suite #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 REQUEST :> The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development. The appeal specifically concerns alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. L_OCATION: South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED PPEAL OF SDR 96-0007NAR 960005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. NOTICE OF 815/96 P .PUBLIC HEARING BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON r--^QUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4-1, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684- 2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIO. DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LE:. 1-HAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SET-UP. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER JULY 15, 1996. ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25c) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25 ) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER WILLIAM D'ANDREA AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. ll I n Hain Immo NOW NC II " M__J [ ' 411:1_ CT > • • 14P-40014 I\ APPEAL OF SOR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS NOTICE OF 8/5/96 P.C.PUBLIC HEARING TAB.Ct OP ALL 0�1Y1 T E11T, �B'�E SOUND an a ,t! / r •- a,- * - I l Co NioiSe �nsitive SO 70 65 �r , Industrial 55 5'0 70 Statutory A'ist� •R`"�fere 6 s •75 1 70 8.12070 §.2 ( 1 �g 1 pv Exceptions , �3. variances.yes.> Exceptions. The fo sounds are ex ,enpt provisions of chapter:tzl caused by the performance °f emer- gency c ork yehicl Airtraa ©Petatl ons in compliance with aFpli.Gab1e federal laws or to gu4vo(C) Railroad activities de ' . in Subpart P aIrt 2Q j 4 fTiz10CPR a f fin nb1 , en Stec_tlo Agency's railmad e issron n mss, incorporated by ,tere e• FFPFFL 1O ■17 (1e) Canes (2) Am-nb,a, 1 ,rcio,,,f•ra 'Oc.Gby' (I) Feu, ,..■4 s . .. xilLi. a • ‘..1%, e�a9T c>r,I* A • Vitt,..'li".Z71111111.MithaMV4 7 v.;... . 57%3 j (s) Co,r, I►��!,`I -9093 . lectors ill jelt be -----------J (12) P ; 1' SOD 1041�?r./ 0 __- _22 c .1 (2) Jiu!\i:*'� -ruts 'OL.'t C 25) V `� �w. :U. „ C D Vaccn+un ov.k,n .. t ,/ Gs `��I C 2)zr...' 1 n C I) 77. dwe,.st+es C 2) /rte rul nn, l:X]S9fNC RE517ENCE i�41 C, Vacs v"ar.�,n •• / . ___ . CIO) �o — _ '' 11.1 26(burtun d.wda 0 — t (4) Nwdhi•• r ' (2) Py,»...urya,.— . ( diM.1 et....-(3) R.'� - Ili it 22 Oi' (7271.. tr16y (4) Ne drr . darost,n 5' P-!roc rcIZ sc N ma ma:s "' W ( ) ; .'"4 i� \ .4 t„,_• _.a�I Cp •���°t (5) Pnnes'OL.' ? OW MITER(160 fart bra,10 feet wide): (5) Praises'//ban/pglaes' (10 ft.mt,r,un) - 1 'ma(2) Vs= 'o�un � C 13) liakl+ena'halal 4 IC 41) Catcr+raster ractaer C 5 fin) ► � C 20) • •. skim .� Va c iun organ NO .(6) Pwu.Mg (45) Pyracantin 'RUN Mcud' C 3 cation) I (lertlicr9•1- d f ,�. Ili,; -IVV -- Jrm 226 Feu .p,�,pj'r, .1 �.. fir • iggli`�� i iata' 's,.--ig,670 17 'ea t 6 �!► -t,. - / t' r 44/11V �+ f1S 0 R�ra !r c 2) M iran.dv,r•t,ra ...4 . I i�' • 2: I I I •• a 6.4 .-I.erudlfbra • 1 C D Marostfr 011...... 1 (19) Vbu,un d.Hdn C 14) V*. . (21) Vb „ddn ■ _ • %V (3) Pius `•,• 0o I I I t :!i c v Ila vt,. , -4111111. rio ,.. AM& oilrbs. oiler ssillais,„ . oho° 111r."—! c v eseaaca, • ,.• ji nbrs 1-latie� �.1 C 9) Vb:rr,a 6.•04e0 . � 1 1 1 941 (�) P,,,,,la) I 1\ � 52) anitinne I (5) ;ludo liticp.' I � (I) /�ar crct+abri \i` —.j SOD (2) ker cr cr,.ba,(9) Prvus i OL.'L•• •\1, I (4) c' it ( C16) �;. `a z (S2) GaAtt+eria ! o '- I C 2) Nand C I'7) (4) Pnn» 1 /-b7 O Q_ t ` ♦ (1) Mar e�re+la �:�� r �,• Rpcb -• , -,, O' 0' �_CZ?_N.+de. ■�i•.ri� —••,•1 C r r — 1 O •_4„ vo ,-,..... .. ..,.111111k IA. IF 0 040400000••• 111 A r '4."/ ° let: (3) Pyus 1• ', __ ___ � � I% 5O° norm snare 1,1Z5 C 5) Plus pa,dervsa \ � Vd01010- c � III 10 � - (II) Nor ca cdrforn,m ri %°ot' N• 0 I • •• I '� ;1 �� (1) Morana I. - • (2D Varaaun oraban f 0.,,'` (3) \r' 40,,,,,,To -12-. !lMeryl� w,t,Galhsta • • / ,` ' (I) Pr eel»'Mir Aer n}ry 'oetabrr O •O t�V o6 .� .,i —, , • .:' v -114k - goo• C 2) Ptus C ' ; �o L�► • "C"i•■ N N _ m M N Z Oq ■ � mA v v v X -THING A5 STOTT 111.C.53 50 .o ' E 992.9 + t— GEORGE C.RICHARD .N O.L.C.55 A Ng s a 17 b a A 'o K (A O a s x �� f 401.42 0.1di0'E 401.90 it.N9f No ''o x 116\141 u \ �� S 00 11'W 410.90 50°36.E 451.30 Sr. y 4' O K NZ D ;s m o e -11 LP ` • * S. 'D m 1 L IN 3 u c O _ _- N 442.11 0' i- O 3 00.y0 35 • cn 80 R15 211 T W .PV 17 N A 10 V UI I s.w w ym a) AV to -I Xi m m 25 35 5g435 • s13°24112 E i n -7, • 1135 425-U h of RECEIVED PLANNING LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM 44,0 1 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use 411/%11" ` Code therefore sets out specific requirements for 4 _� !.k filing appeals on certain land use decisions. CITY OF TIGARD The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. Wil-I-VNNDREAr -455;STA•J'Pi,p,N&R 1 . APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: exi/-/Qly'e Awse a/ /'f/tle�Jf sod 7/L, -007 VAR 94,-DDDS /I?is 9/ -0,070- 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: ,9J, Sothfirrs Df' f& /ss-i41r/2ee 171/261/042eW71), Qf gt/re9 .sue ola /e, 7 ate a/2(furl r."-,C,main as Tax Lai qoo, Qre - � Ar. .. i CO/,reedX 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW: s iq/c ) 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN: 6. SIGNATURE(S) : RE PRES6 AT t iN C_s ow A4E LS a 1 � $4W s ) PFcccLE i ic Qi3 O' ( - _ VI/C- s lo4S-o4�► **** **)(**-)H0000(*)(X X)(X0E 4(XFX*X*X c �,,� *M• FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: 9 /1.4.Lt6U( al Date: 070/q6 Time: //:35/0/ Approved As To Form By: Date: Time: Denied As To Form By: Date: Time: Receipt No. '-/[- --��? l .- ('1 Amount: K X X X-)HHH(#)(M-*X M X X -k-X-X-k-)E)E•)E • , ••••••••••••",•""""X*X X (-)H(•)E•)E• X-X-X-X*X X X X X X X WX4HHE 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 3. SPECIFIC GROUND. JR APPEAL OR REVIEW: The McGuire family has resided at its present address for over forty years. It is our strong opinion that factual nuisances and lifestyle adjustments demanded by this new construction are not appropriately addressed or adequate, as set by the code recommendations given by the City of Tigard for buffering and screening methods (see condition 9C for approval of site development review). There are three factual realities as a result of the proposed apartment complex. A. Lights: Vehicles parking and exiting at proposed apartment complex will travel directly toward our home. At night, this will result in headlights shining directly into windows of our home. The 5 - 6 ft. wooden fence and row of trees (see condition 9C of site development review) recommended by the City cannot and will not completely be an adequate light screen. B. Noise: The proposed apartment complex will result in additional traffic noise directly outside our home as motor vehicles slam doors, accelerate, start and stop while parking and exiting the premises. When the proposed second access (see access variance: subpoint 4 of S.D.R. 96-0007) is installed, there will be even additional noise and safety problems. C. Value: As a result of the above stated problems, (points A and B) the proposed apartment complex will result in lowering the value of our home, as these nuisances are not desirable features for prospective home buyers. Proposed Conditions If the new apartment complex is approved, we propose that the review authority impose the following conditions of approval: We, the owners of Tax Lot 400, strongly recommend that the City of Tigard manifest a condition as part of the permit conditions, requiring the applicant (Andrews Management) to purchase all materials, conduct all excavation, construct a sound barrier and light screen as proposed below, as well as clean up all construction debris. We propose a cinder block masonry fence, not less than 6 feet high and 8 inches thick, along the entire east property line of Tax Lot 400. The total cost of this fence and construction is to be the responsibility of the applicant (Andrews Management). We believe this proposed condition is compensatory to the intrusions, nuisances, and safety issues of our long established residence and investment. Thank you for your consideration of our objections and proposed conditions. Respectfully submitted, Thomas P. McGuire Robert J. McGuire Sarah A. Dowell (McGuire) William A. McGuire James E. McGuire (Owners) REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: June 20, 1996 TO: Will D' Andrea, Planning Division FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer t- 4- RE: SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments Description: The project will be an 84-unit multi-family apartment complex located south of and adjacent to SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway (Tax Map 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). Findings: 1. Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Pfaffle Street at the intersection with SW 83rd Avenue. SW Pfaffle Street is classified as a minor collector street to be built to the following standard: 60-foot right-of-way (ROW), two 14-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. At present, there is 25 feet of ROW on the south side of the centerline. The applicant's plans indicate that they will dedicate additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline in order to meet current standards. A traffic analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 1995, to address the proposed zone change from commercial- professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to multi-family (R-25). The zone change was approved by the City and became effective on June 30, 1995. The analysis assumed a maximum of 137 multi-family units would be developed on the site. Based on that assumption, and considering existing traffic conditions, Kittelson determined that the proposed apartment development could be built without causing significant impacts to the existing street system and nearby intersections. There were two existing traffic conditions that were mentioned in the analysis: 1) the intersection of SW 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street currently operates with a forced flow condition during weekday PM peak periods, ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments PAGE 1 and 2) there is a sight distance problem at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaffle Street. The forced flow condition at 78th Avenue is an existing condition resulting from the signalized intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and Pacific Highway. Kittelson stated that the apartment complex will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the 78th Avenue/Pfaffle Street intersection. The sight distance problem at Hall Boulevard is due to the presence of the overpass crossing of Highway 217. Accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition, according to the analysis. The applicant's plans indicate that a half-street improvement will be constructed in SW Pfaffle Street along the site frontage. This improvement will help mitigate the traffic impact from this development. In addition, the proposed site access will align with the centerline of SW 83rd Avenue to avoid turning movement conflicts. The plan contains a street section detail that suggests the applicant will simply tie onto the edge of existing pavement and widen the street. However, this assumes the existing pavement section meets current City standards (4 inches of asphalt pavement over 15 inches of rock base). Staff does not know if the existing pavement section meets City standards. Therefore, the applicant is required to build the half-street to centerline, unless he can show that the existing pavement section is adequate. The City Engineer will make the determination as to whether or not the City standard is met. Based on the findings of the traffic study, and based on the applicant's intention to construct half-street improvements in Pfaffle Street to meet City standards, Staff finds the project will meet City transportation requirements. 2. Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Pfaffle Street that is available to serve this site. The plans indicate that a service line will be extended to serve the development. 3. Storm Drainage: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW 83rd Avenue that presently terminates 300 feet north of Pfaffle Street. The applicant proposes to extend this line further south to reach Pfaffle Street to provide for street and site drainage. This concept will be approved if the applicant can show that the existing line will have enough cover and capacity to accommodate the extension. A downstream analysis will be required to ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments PAGE 2 determine if there will be any adverse impacts. If there will be adverse impacts related to the discharge of the storm water from this site, the applicant will be required to either upsize the downstream system or make provisions on the subject site for on-site detention. This analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 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 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 R&O 91-47. 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 plans indicate that a series of water quality swales is proposed. There were no calculations submitted with the application for Staff to review to determine if the swales will be adequately sized. USA provided comments related to the design and suggest that the applicant consider sizing the water quality facilities to account for the future development of Phase 2. 5. Grading and Erosion Control: USA R&O 91-47 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 R&O 91- 47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments PAGE 3 Recommendations: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: Note: Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact for the following conditions will be Brian Rager, Engineering Department (639-4171). 1 . Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaffle Street and all other work in the public rights-of- way. 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. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 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 or within the right-of-way. 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. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, 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. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments PAGE 4 5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will 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. Any use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing pavement section will meet current City standards. b. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage c. curb and gutter d. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff e. 5 foot concrete sidewalk f. street striping g. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer h. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities) street signs (if applicable) j. driveway apron (if applicable) k. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall either upsize the system or provide on-site detention. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 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 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments PAGE 5 8. 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. APPROVED: ' '^°1'1 Greg Berry, Acting City Engineer is\eng\brianr\sdr96-07.bdr ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments PAGE 6 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: Kelley Jennings, Tigard Police Dept. Crime Prevention Officer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 ➢ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100. 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 - May 17. 1996. 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 Department, 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 .ro .•ed belo : • s D illf • (- A ki d bzs/4--)2 3w1fn (i_ei,vvveAd Pkase provide the fociowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: ),4 , Phone Number(s): n 1 SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Oregon May 14, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 1 City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard FILE CODE: Tigard, OR 97223 Att: Will D'Andrea PLA9-2A-TIG Re: Carriage House Apartments Thank you for providing ODOT the opportunity to participate in this development review. Our comments are as follows: • The subject property is located on SW Pfaffle Street, adjacent to three state facilities: OR 217, 99W and SW Hall Boulevard. • Due to the site's proximity to OR 217, it is recommended the City require the applicant to construct a soundwall (or other noise mitigation measure acceptable to ODOT) along its highway frontage. • In addition to reviewing plans for sound mitigation, we will need to review drainage plans for possible impacts to state facilities. If connection to the ODOT's storm drain system is planned, a permit will be required. Please contact: Bob Schmidt, Engineering Coordinator, ODOT District 2A at 229-5002 for further information. ) Sonya kazen, Assistant Planner Development Review cc: Bob Schmidt, ODOT District 2A Martin Jensvold, ODOT Region 1 Laurie Nicholson, ODOT Region 1 123 NW Flanders Portland,OR 97209-4037 (503) 731-8200 Form 734-1850(11/94) ✓ FAX(503)731-8259 05.17.96 13:26 $503 526 2538 TV FIRE MARSHAL Z007.008 • RECEIVED PLANNING v. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS MAY 2 0 1996 CITY OF TIGARD DATE: My 7. 1396 MAY 15 1996 TO: TualatiD Valley Fire & Rescue FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'andrea (315) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96.0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 > CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS < A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation. temporary use, and accessory structures APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18 100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, and18.164. 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, W EED • R • i u NT B. BY: Friday - May 17. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you ar_c_unable to_respond by the abovQdate, 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 Department, 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. XWritten comments provided below: PGJ ff it w; y(_s 114-0 4C,t--G SC )9,1,,r r?' �4 c�1 ...�cr 713 6 rr<n 4 (Tjase prrrvicie tfie foanamg iifory atioa) Name of Person(s) Commenting:/, Phone Number(s): _ Z • c) o b 170 .sfr✓ �D/i 0'1 —7(9,17 R w� - �� 1�� J �T c �✓!J CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS RECEIVED PLANNING �4111 MAY 151996 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: Tualatin Valley Water District Administrative Offices FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 ➢ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS < JA request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of A ' - d- -- , east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 1 = - -- 1 • = If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Frida - Ma 17 1996. •u may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you . - . a e 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 Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: XWe 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: . ri !�L G)t LL, L i i %b - •• C.,A C�J L !�✓ PF'i- FCC �a, 's e-/Z- lUA -� CNr 7 f ((ease provide the follounng information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: � �- T Phone Number(s): 6(2 /5-4/ CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS SDR 96-0007NAR 96-000: 1 `TS PFAFEI-,E ROAD' ---X00 — — 7+00 .. o - • - -�- _,-61‘.5T (.,'_� --- - - - -- ,__ -- -s -' � 'l1 -J . mmli_ri tivaiAmi /,`I��■E OITC1-I INLET { ... ►� •' 1�� / l!, ��. 4:1 SLOPE ���,�/t.�--.vc��' pv ----- - 14:1 SLOPE Ar/I — _ A m�\ ( POOL 1 -ii O 4 ' 25 , /, 0 1 \4�0 'Ui '..., is , I IA , t 0 t.7_3 spa C jill C:Ckz �D , r 90'd0'00" E 158.11' ..... D - ■ GARAGE ill '�\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \sip" \ 2+61.18 2+00 • �_ � `� a i 1 I i ,1 14 I ROAQ+�B ,+I J 1�� �1 I VI 1 GARAGE . +._ _��� _ICI- I 11 i i 1 i I 1 1 i 1 Jp- -=-1--_.—=-1--_. 1 i 1 i 1 I — ' D F' 230 I v, 1 Fr_ xi 1 IF i 0 li 1 I ' \i F.-2•2 I 1 G L 1 /6„ I I ) L_________ s6,. + _i (----------- c r__FL__. -- I% lNC, RECE110 � 44. .�l�1 AY 10 4119. b CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: Brian Moore, PGE FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 ➢ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 'A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 - May 17, 1996. 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 Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 4 '► (P ciseprm 1e the faCawing info„nacton) Name of Person(s) Commenting: _ Phone Number(s): SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ..iCEIVED PLANNING 1 A I' MAY 131996 A4- _.� CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: Elaine Self, GTE Engineering Dept. FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 ➢ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 - May 17, 1996. 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 Department, 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. }i Written comments provided below: Et i30 -re PLA-CE PRov i�EJC_N ic) 6 E 6F'e cc Fro477CAJ3 4 •. (Please provide thefof[owing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Sm w(e5 Phone Number(s): v2o-- ,3{2, SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS RL .JED PLANNING MAY 141996 1 lilI CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: Lee Walker, USA/SWM Program FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 - May 17, 1996. 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 Department, 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. \1 Please refer to the enclosed letter. � ` 1 Written comments provided below: ` ') 1996 U 1. , I By Qv�o Kilh �ho� p hied..t 2 • Call 4 a s p rizA to....1444 pAvt V SA s /9J/ dLLIsis% (2'lease provide the focirwing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: 4. , wAuc(L Phone Number(s): (i4( $ Ej7a' V SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 'IVED PLAN MAY 0 9 199 NING 41I • CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: David Scott, Building Official FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 ➢ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 - May 17, 1996. 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 Department, 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 thefoldowing infornation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 4,1 Al 11 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: May 7, 1996 TO: Per Attached FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea (x315) Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 ➢ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single- family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 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 - May 17, 1996. 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 Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 4 ►► (lease provide thefoiowinginformation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • - 4id )s I7//Yr L 1 ?UEST FOR COMMEN sPKglo.6 NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Za k�`— w--it ;;•. :. ,:.:: ;-.;::;>.>- . fa2 .l.N . ►OL.Y. .. .TTAM$.::.:.., . ...:; {circle one) - CIT Area: (W) LS) LE)IC) Ell Placed for review in Library CIT Book f j . CIS DEPiTS 1 ... �. i LDG.DEPT./David Scott,Wading Official !POLICE DEPT./Kelley Jennings,an,ePrevention onica, _ERATIONS/John Acker,Mon,,.Spou. _CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,City Re or „LNG.DEPT./Brian Roger,Deveiopmen1 R ,E,w: _COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'S ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, Pwnni,osop...s:a, WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,operations Mp-/ope,alions Mai Bo. �� $t•T:0At:Dli�i'J;LttB ='- FlRE MARSHALL _v UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY .70f i ATIN VALLEY WATER DIST. Gene Birchell SWM Program/Lee Walker PO Box 745 Wa.County Fire District 155 N.First Street Beaverton,OR 97075 (pick-up box) Hillsboro,OR 97124 I --AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE IL TRANSP. _METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION _METRO-GREENSPACES 150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#16,Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA's/ZOA's) Hillsboro,OR 97124 Portland,OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland,OR 97232-2736 O?=:5 g,. _Brent Curtis(CPA's) 'STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION AEG ..s-L(= _Jim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaidi "ODOT/REGION 1 \� _Mike Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Laurie Nicholson/Trans.Planning _Scott King(CPA's) Portland,OR 97225-0412 123 N.W.Flanders Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) Portland,OR 97209-4037 Lynn Bailey(Current Planning App's) _OREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's) 1175 Court Sheet,N.E. _,L-060T/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem,OR 97310-0590 Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord. Lorry Conrad.Senior Planner 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412 PO Box 4755 _CITY OF PORTLAND Portland,OR 97225 Beaverton,OR 97076 Planning Director l 120 SW 5th _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO CITY OF BEAVERTON Portland,OR 97204 City Manager Mike Matteucci,Neighborhood Coordinator PO Box 369 PO Box 4755 -_CITY OF DURHAM Lake Oswego,OR 97034 Beaverton,OR 97076 City Manager PO Box 23483 _CITY OF KING CITY CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard,OR 9 728 1-3483 City Manager PO Box 369 15300 SW 116th Tualatin,OR 97062 _OTHER King City,OR 97224 SPECIAL AGENCIES _.,GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC ._ GENERAL ELECTRIC _COLUMBIA CABLE CO. Elaine Self,Engineering Brian Moore Craig Eyestone PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 14200 SW Brigadoon Court -,, Tigard,OR 97281-3416 Beaverton,OR 97007 Beaverton,OR 97005 ' % NW NATURAL GAS CO. Phone:( s)1 .244r _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT Scott Palmer Fax:rswr 721-2502 Jason Hewitt Kim Knox,Project Planner 220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center 710 NE Holladay Street Portland,OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020 Portland,OR 97232 Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 • ICI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO. Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Duane M.Fomey,PLS-Project Eng. " 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 800 NW 6th Ave.,Room 324 Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97204 Union Station Portland,OR 97209 ISTATE AGENCIES fDS1tAt.A (CIES f• _AERONAUTICS DIVISION(ODOT) _DIVISION OF STATE LANDS _US POSTAL SERVICE _COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK _FISH&WILDLIFE Randy Hammock,Growth Cord. PUC _DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Portland,OR 97229-9998 _OTHER U.S.ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEERS +. h:\wo.,\pony\a asters\ncnohc.r , >41- City of Tigard,Oregon I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE 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, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: (Cluck oea above.a aoplicaa.) (check appropnate oox below) (Enter Pubtx:Hearing Date aoove) City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council 0 That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) DECISI0N FOR: �aa•a.•applicable) City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: (Crock box.bow,r appicabl.} (check appropnate box below} ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR: A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/N•TICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE(S) of which is atta, hed, marked Exhibit "A", wa ileed_to each - -d person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), arked Exhibit "B" • e �� da • ��., 199 , and deposited in the United ates M.• on the da • _a111W,N 199 ' , postage prepaid. i • •V e_ �� , ? Prepared Notice : Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of ffiA r , 1 �•'�.. OFFICIAL SEAL fia/Xf . = DIANE M JELDERKS �� NOTARY PUBUC•OREGON ���:� COMMISSION NO.046142 NOTARY PUBLI O OREGON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07.1999 My Commission Exp' es: r PILE INFO.: NAME(S): ad),l LC trpA de�y /4 • / 3flifl7t CASE NO(Sy 5bif g6r(6LJ7/Vi* 'l r %-OV/vim TYPE OF NOTICE&DATE: % IT . NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 • VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT/CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS SECTION I: SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASES: FILE NAME: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Site Development Review SDR 96-0007 Variance VAR 96-0005 Lot Line Adjustment MIS 96-0012 PROPOSAL: A request for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units; 3.) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. APPLICANT: Andrews Management Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2000). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, and 18.164. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carnage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 1 SECTION II: DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has APPROVED the above request subject to the following conditions. The findings and • conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: (Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be Brian Rager of the Engineering Department) 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaffle Street and all other work in the public rights-of-way. 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. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment, a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee, and a sign installation/streetlight fee are required. 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 or within the right-of-way. 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. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, 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. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 2 5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will 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. Any use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing pavement section will meet current City standards. B. Pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage. C. Curb and gutter. D. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff. E. Five-foot concrete sidewalk. F. Street striping. G. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. H. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). I. Street signs (if applicable). J. Driveway apron (if applicable). K. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall either upsize the system or provide on-site detention. 7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. 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. 8. 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. 9. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plans shall include the following: A. Calculation for shared outdoor recreation area. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 3 B. Swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard • Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4-feet with a self-latching door or gate. C. Buffering and screening along the west side of the western parking area. The proposed 5-6 wooden fence shall be continued along the west property line. A row of trees shall also be planted in accordance with 18.100.080. D. Provision of 11 bicycle parking spaces. E. Tree inventory, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than six-inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. F. Parking lot trees, spaced one tree for each seven parking spaces, to provide the required canopy effect. G. A plan that shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter 18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-off. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related to facility design and compatibility. 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. 11. A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. TVF&R concerns and comments are noted in the Agency comment section at the end of this report. 12. A kiosk and security fence plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171). THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 13. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 4 SECTION III: SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION Site History: Tax lot 200 was annexed into the City in 1969. Tax lot 300 was annexed to the City and zoned R-4.5 in 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Tax lot 2200 is within the original area of incorporation of the City. These parcels received a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) to High Density residential, R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) in 1995. No other development applications have been reviewed by the City relating to these properties. Vicinity Information: Properties to the north are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). Property to east is zoned C-P (Professional Commercial). Property to the west is zoned R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) and C-P (Professional Commercial). The area is predominantly developed with single- family residential to the north and west. The General Motors Training Center and vacant property is located to the east. Highway 217 is located to the south. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is zoned R-25, (Residential, 25 units per acre). The approximately 4.12 acre site is currently vacant and is covered with assorted vegetation and trees. The site slopes from an elevation of approximately 246 feet along the southeast corner of the property to an elevation of approximately 222 feet along the northwest corner. The applicant has made a request for the following development applications: 1) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres; 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 3) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84 dwelling units. A second access is proposed to be provided with proposed future phase of development. SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a 7 building, 84 unit apartment complex. This proposal is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Multiple- Family Residential Units. Code Section 18.56.030 allows Multiple-Family dwellings as a permitted use in the R-25 zoning district. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 5 Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.56.050 states that the minimum lot area for each multi- family unit in the R-25 zoning district is 1,480 square feet. There is no minimum lot width requirement in the R-25 zone. As discussed in the density section, adequate area is provided. Developments within the R-25 zone are required to provide a minimum of 20% landscaping. The plan indicates that approximately 87,565 square feet (50%) of the site has been provided as landscaping, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Setbacks: Section 18.56.050 states that for multi-family dwellings the setbacks are as follows: front yard - 20 feet; side yard - 10 feet; side yard which abuts a more restrictive zone - 30 feet; rear yard - 20 feet. As indicated on the site plan, the proposal meets the setback requirements. The maximum building height is 45 feet. As shown on the exterior elevation plans (A3 - A6, R1), the proposed buildings are approximately 15 - 31 feet in height, well under the maximum allowed. Section 18.120.180(A)(1) (Site Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Chapters. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of Code Chapters 18.94 (Manufactured/ Mobile Home Regulations), 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. Code 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. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees and that trees having a six- inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. Given the location of the buildings, parking areas, and accessway, as well as the grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of existing trees will be removed. The arborist has recommended preserving approximately six (6) trees into the site plan. The arborist has recommended the removal of some trees which may have potential for being retained due to the type of tree, their root structure and system, and potential for blowdown due to loss of group protection. In order to mitigate the removal of trees greater than 12 inch caliper, the applicant is being required to provide a tree mitigation plan in accordance with the tree removal ordinance. Exterior Elevations: Section 18.120.108.3 states that along the vertical face of multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: a) Recesses (decks, patios, etc.); b) Extensions (decks, patios, etc.); or c) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations. As indicated on the preliminary building elevations plans (sheets A3 - A6, R1) the design shows both recesses and roof elevation offsets, in accordance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 6 Buffering. Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section 18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses. This criteria shall be satisfied as addressed in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130) section below. 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. This criteria is satisfied as the landscape plan indicates screening within the required buffer area and around the perimeter of the property. Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.108.5 requires that structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units, that the buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise, and on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses. Only two residences directly adjoin the proposed development site. These are on the west property line. Building C1 is screened from an existing residence by an existing cedar hedge. The second residential structure, located on tax lot 400, is located near SW Pfaffle Street. Fencing and landscaping are provided to help buffer the development from the residence on this .82 acre parcel. Building C3 is oriented such that only a portion of the building is in proximity to the rear of tax lot 400. The landscape plan indicates that landscaping shall be provided to further buffer and screen the rear portion of the adjoining property. On-site private space has been satisfied as there is building separation between each ground floor patio. The building design also provides for an off- setting of the patios so that a direct line of site of other patios is not provided. Landscaping has also been provided to further screen the private outdoor areas. Private Outdoor Areas: Section 18.120.108.6. requires that private open space such as a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of 4 feet. Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center. This criteria is satisfied as the applicant is proposing both balconies (63 square feet per unit) and a recreation center. Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Section 18.120.108.7 states that in addition to subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the amount of 200 square feet per unit for studio up to and including two-bedroom units and 300 square feet per unit for three or more bedroom units. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: 1) all outdoor space; 2) part outdoor and part indoor space; 3) all public or common space; 4) part common and part private, for example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; 5) where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable for reasons of crime prevention and safety. This development requires 11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area (84 units @ 137 s.f.). A swimming pool and community building are provided on-site for shared recreation purposes, as well as open space area. The applicant has not provided information regarding the square footage of shared outdoor recreation area provided on-site. The applicant shall provide calculations of the shared outdoor recreation area which demonstrates compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 7 Demarcation of Spaces: Crime Prevention: Section 18.120.108.9 states that structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas, semipublic areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined in order to establish persons having a right to be in the space, in order to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility. The Tigard Police Department has requested, in similar developments, that appropriate signage be placed at entrances to apartment complexes and that adequate addressing be placed on unit entrances so that emergency service providers can locate units quickly. The developer should, therefore, be required to contact the Police Department prior to obtaining building permits for the complex for review and approval of the address signage of this development. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that windows be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that can be observed by others; mail boxes located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; exterior lighting levels selected and angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and light fixtures shall be provided in areas having pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed and approved the proposed lighting plan. Density Computation: Section 18.92 establishes the criteria for determining the number of dwelling units permitted. In determining the net acreage, the following are subtracted from the gross acreage: sensitive land area; park dedication; dedicated public right-of-way and private streets. To calculate the net units per acre, it is necessary to divide the net acreage by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning district. The subject site contains approximately 4.1 acres or approximately 178,950 square feet. Section 18.92.020(3)(b) requires the subtraction of 15% of the gross area for public facilities, or 26,842 square feet. The resulting net acreage is 152,108 square feet. Dividing the net acreage by 1,480 square feet per unit results in 102 net units. The applicant is proposing 84 units, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Additional Yard Setback Requirements: Section 18.96.020 requires that the building setback on SW Pfaffle Street (a collector street) shall be the setback distance required by the zoning district plus 30 feet measured from the centerline of the street. As indicated on the site plan, these setback standards are satisfied. Distance Between Multiple-Family Structures: Section 18.96.030 states that buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25 foot separation, buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15 foot separation, buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10 foot separation. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet. This section is applicable to buildings A6, B4, and C5. The proposed building lengths are approximately 145, 150, and 115 feet. The building elevation plans (sheets A3 - A6) show that the proposed buildings have windowed walls facing windowed walls. The required separations, therefore, are 25 feet. There is an additional separation ranging from Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 8 4-6 feet required because the building lengths are greater than 60-feet long. The total building separation required for building, therefore, ranges from 29-31 feet. The proposed plan is designed such that all buildings are in compliance with the required distances, thereby, satisfying this criteria. In addition, driveways, parking lots and walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: 1) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and 2) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least 7 feet. As indicated on the site plan, all buildings satisfy the parking lot and walkway separation requirements. 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 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 two October Glory maple and two Northern Red Oak trees along SW Pfaffle Road, in accordance with the provisions of this section. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) states that trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. The applicant has partially provided shade trees that would provide the required canopy effect. Trees in some cases are separated from parking stalls by a sidewalk providing less effective shading than envisioned by this section. Therefore, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides for the required canopy effect and spacing on the basis of one tree for each parking space. Screening of Swimming Pools: Section 18.100.110(C) states that all swimming pools shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4 feet with a self-latching door or gate. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides the specifications showing compliance with this section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 9 Screening of Refuse Containers: Section 18.100.110(D) states that any refuse container or disposal area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. The plans show the provision of a 5-foot high, solid wood fence to provide screening of the trash enclosures, thereby, satisfying this criteria. 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 multi-family development abuts a residential zone with 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 area. The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall 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. The west buffer area contains approximately 4,400 square feet. Therefore, this buffer shall contain 40, five-gallon or 80, one-gallon shrubs, in addition to the one row of trees. The landscape plan shows the provision of an existing, mature cedar hedge buffering building Cl from the existing residence. The plan also shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area, in addition to a row of trees. The plan shows that low lying screening has been provided in accordance with these standards. Neither a fence or row of trees has been provided along the west side of the western parking area. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. 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. The plan shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area. Screening has not been provided along the west side of the western parking area (adjacent to tax lot 400). A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and screening in accordance with these standards. It is recommended that the applicant continue the proposed 5-6 foot wood fence along this west side of the parking area. 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 feet in height. The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three and eight feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight feet Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 10 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 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated on the site plan, this section is satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030(A)(3) requires a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for units with more than 1 bedroom. In addition, section 18.106.020(G) states that multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide shared parking for the use of all of the guests of all of the residents of the complex. The shared parking shall consist of 15 percent of the total required parking spaces and be centrally located within the development. The applicant is proposing 36, one-bedroom units and 48, one-plus bedroom units; thereby, requiring 150 parking spaces. The required number of shared parking spaces is 22. The total number of required parking spaces is, therefore, 172. This requirement is satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of 173 parking spaces. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires 6 disabled parking spaces if 151 to 200 parking spaces are provided. The proposed site plan shows the provision of six disabled person parking spaces distributed throughout the site, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(0) requires one bicycle parking rack space for each 15 required vehicular parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Based on the requirement of 172 parking spaces, 11 bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The site plan does not show the provision of bicycle racks. A revised plan shall be submitted which shows the location of the required 11 bicycle parking spaces. Access: Section 18.108.070(F) requires that multiple-family residential uses provide a minimum of two driveways when 50 - 100 units are provided. The minimum access width shall be 30 feet, with 24 feet of pavement, curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk. The site plan indicates the provision of 84 units, therefore, two accesses are required for this development. A 24-foot paved driveway shall be provided within a 30-foot-wide access width. Curbs and a five-foot sidewalk are required. This section is partially satisfied as the site plan shows the provision of one access drive with a pavement width of 24 feet, and a sidewalk that leads into the development. The applicant is developing on a portion of tax lot 300. The applicant has provided the owner of this tax lot a lifetime lease to reside in the existing residence. When the applicant acquires title to the property, additional apartment units, parking and an access to SW Pfaffle will be constructed. This future phase is shown on the proposed plan. The applicant is requesting an access variance to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for a development with 84 units. An access variance will be granted for this development. The findings for this access variance are discussed in the following section. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 11 Access Variance: Section 18.108.150 states that a variance may be approved for an access variance based on findings that: 1. It is not possible to share access. Shared access is not possible as the adjoining property to the east is undeveloped and zoned for commercial use and property to the west is currently developed with a single-family residence with the owner granted a life estate allowing the owner to live on the property. 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street. The one proposed access is located to align with SW 83rd Avenue across SW Pfaffle Street. This alignment is made at the request of the City to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. The property does not have frontage on another street, nor does it adjoin an existing developed residential property that has access to another street. 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met. This section is not applicable as there are no access separation requirements applicable to this project. While no specified requirements are applicable, the City is requiring the alignment of the accessway to align with SW 83rd Avenue to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. Given the applicants frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed future access is at a more acceptable distance from the intersection and is preferred over a location closer to the proposed access and intersection. 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access. This request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access as a second access will be provided in the future.. When the applicant acquires title to the remaining tax lot 300, a second access will be provided to SW Pfaffle Street. In the interim, requiring the applicant to provide a second access within the existing frontage would not add to the efficiency of the design of the project. It also is preferable to locate a second access further away from the intersection of SW Pfaffle Street and SW 83rd Avenue than to require a second access within the available 217 feet of frontage currently available. The applicant shall be required to construct the second access within 12 months of acquiring the property. This construction shall take place regardless of the applicant receiving site development approval for the proposed additional units. The applicant shall be required to provide buffering and screening along the west property line in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. Given the City Council's interpretation of driveways, with the Arbor Heights (Triad) apartment development, the applicant would technically meet code requirements with a wider driveway separated by an island. In this case, an island would serve no practical purpose. 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access. Delaying the provision of a second access will still result in a safe access. The access provided meets the access standards as related to width. The one access and site design will provide for safe access as related to emergency vehicle access as the applicant shall provide an approved plan from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. 6. The vision clearance requirements of chapter 18.102 will be met. As indicated on the site plan, vision clearance requirements shall be satisfied on the one access provided. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 12 Walkways: Section 18.108.050(B) requires that within multi-family developments each residential dwelling shall be connected to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities shall be connected by a walkway system having a minimum width of four feet and constructed of an all weather material. As indicated on the site plan, walkways are satisfactorily provided. Signs: Section 18.114.130 (B) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the R-25 zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process as administered by the Planning Division. 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 shall choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standard, Waste assessment, Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review and sign-off. The applicant will need to submit evidence or a plan that indicates compliance with this section. The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler, a written sign-off on the location of and the compatibility of facilities. 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. The proposed plan shows the location of some trees on the site. However, this plan does not identify the size of these trees, nor does it include all the trees on the site as discussed in the arborist report. A revised plan shall be submitted, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than 6 inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and 18.150.070.D. for these trees. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.060 contains the following standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request: 1. An additional parcel is not created by the Lot Line Adjustment, and the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by the zoning district; 2. By reducing the lot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and 3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the zoning district. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 13 The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. The proposed adjustment will reconfigure the lot lines, however, an additional parcel will not be created by the adjustment. Both lots will exceed the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of the R-25 zone. All site development improvements applicable to tax lot 300 will remain consistent with Code requirements. Development improvements on tax lot 200 shall be satisfied as addressed in this report and review process. Special Provisions for Lots Created Through Partition Process: Section 18.162.060 states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land Partition process: 1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot requirement of the applicable zoning district. 2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area calculation. 3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a public right-of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15 foot wide access easement. 4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. 5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side yard is less than 10 feet. Structures shall generally be located so as to maximize separation from existing structures. 6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090. Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development. 7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire fighting capabilities. 8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map. 9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 14 10. Floodplain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. Criteria 1 is satisfied as there is no minimum lot width required in the R-25 zone. Criteria 2 is satisfied as the lot areas are approximately .57 and 3.23 acres, exceeding the minimum 3,050 minimum lot size requirement. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the lots contain approximately 160 and 217 feet of frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, satisfying the minimum 15-foot, minimum width requirement. As indicated on the site plan, setbacks are satisfied on lot 300, thereby, satisfying Criteria 4. As discussed previously, setbacks are satisfied for the proposed apartment project on lot 200. Criteria 5 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Criteria 6 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby, satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 is satisfied as a shared driveway is not proposed with this adjustment. Criteria 9 is satisfied on lot 300 as the residence will continue to utilize the existing driveway. As discussed previously, access shall be satisfied for the proposed apartment project. Criteria 10 is not applicable as neither parcel is within the floodplain. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: 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 SW Pfaffle Street at the intersection with SW 83rd Avenue. SW Pfaffle Street is classified as a minor collector street to be built to the following standard: 60-foot right-of-way (ROW), two 14-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane and 5- foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. At present, there is 25 feet of ROW on the south side of the centerline. The applicant's plans indicate that they will dedicate additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline in order to meet current standards. A traffic analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 1995, to address the proposed zone change from commercial-professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to multi-family (R-25). The zone change was approved by the City and became effective on June 30, 1995. The analysis assumed a maximum of 137 multi-family units would be developed on the site. Based on that assumption, and considering existing traffic conditions, Kittelson determined that the proposed apartment development could be built without causing significant impacts to the existing street system and nearby intersections. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 15 There were two existing traffic conditions that were mentioned in the analysis: 1) the intersection of SW 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street currently operates with a forced flow condition during weekday PM peak periods, and 2) there is a sight distance problem at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaffle Street. The forced flow condition at 78th Avenue is an existing condition resulting from the signalized intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and Pacific Highway. Kittelson stated that the apartment complex will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the 78th Avenue/Pfaffle Street intersection. The sight distance problem at Hall Boulevard is due to the presence of the overpass crossing of Highway 217. Accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition, according to the analysis. The applicant's plans indicate that a half-street improvement will be constructed in SW Pfaffle Street along the site frontage. This improvement will help mitigate the traffic impact from this development. In addition, the proposed site access will align with the centerline of SW 83rd Avenue to avoid turning movement conflicts. The plan contains a street section detail that suggests the applicant will simply tie onto the edge of existing pavement and widen the street. However, this assumes the existing pavement section meets current City standards (4 inches of asphalt pavement over 15 inches of rock base). Staff does not know if the existing pavement section meets City standards. Therefore, the applicant is required to build the half-street to centerline, unless he can show that the existing pavement section is adequate. The City Engineer will make the determination as to whether or not the City standard is met. Based on the findings of the traffic study, and based on the applicant's intention to construct half-street improvements in Pfaffle Street to meet City standards, Staff finds the project will meet City transportation requirements. Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Pfaffle Street that is available to serve this site. The plans indicate that a service line will be extended to serve the development. Storm Drainage: There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW 83rd Avenue that presently terminates 300 feet north of Pfaffle Street. The applicant proposes to extend this line further south to reach Pfaffle Street to provide for street and site drainage. This concept will be approved if the applicant can show that the existing line will have enough cover and capacity to accommodate the extension. A downstream analysis will be required to determine if there will be any adverse impacts. If there will be adverse impacts related to the discharge of the storm water from this site, the applicant will be required to either upsize the downstream system or make provisions on the subject site for on-site detention. This analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 16 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 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 R&O 91-47. 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 plans indicate that a series of water quality swales is proposed. There were no calculations submitted with the application for Staff to review to determine if the swales will be adequately sized. USA provided comments related to the design and suggest that the applicant consider sizing the water quality facilities to account for the future development of Phase 2. Erosion Control: USA R&O 91-47 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 R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. SECTION VII: STAFF, AGENCY & CIT COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The applicant needs a kiosk sign at the entrance and a security fence along the Highway 217 property line. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans cannot be approved at this time. More than 20 dwelling units requires not less than two accesses or buildings need to be protected with automatic sprinklers. Fire flows shall not exceed 3000 gpm. Submit calculations for review and approval. Inadequate turning radius has been provided. Access distances around buildings are too great. Hydrant locations are not shown. Plans shall be submitted for review and approval. Contact: Gene Birchill (526-2502). Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Water will be served from a six-inch existing water line in SW Pfaffle Street. A master water meter and double check detector assembly (on fire line) will be required at the property line. Contact: Stewart Davis (642-1511). Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 17 The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: A water quality facility is necessary and should be large enough to include phase 2. A copy of the approved erosion control plan should be provided to USA's inspection division. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Due to its proximity to Highway 217, it is recommended that the City require the applicant to construct a soundwall (or other noise mitigation measure acceptable to ODOT) along its highway frontage. In addition to reviewing plans for sound mitigation, we will need to review drainage plans for possible impacts to state facilities. If connection to the ODOT's storm drain system is planned, a permit will be required. Please contact: Bob Schmidt, Engineering Coordinator, ODOT District 2A at 229-5002 for further information. GTE has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to place conduit/trench to GTE's specifications. The City of Tigard Building Division, City of Tigard Public Works Department, and PGE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. SECTION VIII: 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 JULY 1, 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which 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. Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 18 .' THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JULY 1, 1996. • Questions: If you have questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503)639-4171. 1--V. r C June 20, 1996 PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DATE Assistant Planner / / / C J L%�,�;� �, � ! I? / itai/a June 20, 1996 APPROV • :Y: Richa d Be ersdo ' DATE Senior Planner Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-Carriage House Apts/Andrews Management Page 19 • �• II flllf WA ten4 1143 VabrCr le in •C.YC V..?bar __ -_-_---• ��.^^•_ _ X 114) �.li� -- I. J • Wain:0— 1 r r ' "mil k . !' I I _ -�, 013 L 0 71rL "0 TliT - it 6,[11-1:14--[1]C — ,�� h—,i —= • I -fl _111.1 =r_ � __. ; 1 4 i. I_.l_l_I l kit . ■ ' 713 , Nom Z i� (.r i ; ;Il , r � �� i-i+r it. 1. I I ii•i i 9 f a,r,al J � mTI I I I r _1T1_, I s t:'I ,,.,..I V klv Jllr .. '1���j \ JIT 7 3 �, ,rr C•b•'• lfuav'1LC)Irl i?63bd �— O13 F // ,.7f [d 0 i •.4,1y-0 ly/V UO :1VJ l � �:; [vo., Fvdl^■)? wl • ,_ L) i_ l_1.1 LL1_�..1� -6 .i) v .J I rz-1 �I.aa3ti I -�1- _y1i► ay.) • • a1" 1 ,IIvl. IV •..awls•i!n 11011 1 411 1 11111010__ ] _ s- i dds •I I 141.''J.1 tiJ JV.i. 1.101 III �` -- 1 v 4.c .1W '. l 1 YNl6O.Qtx 0.6 IC a lit� -- i 1I PS ♦�t .Itv P, 1111'.v . ,0.41 x •-6 [S \ �� L--� /V /V Y•[ 5 11'vdvl.O,O[ +1 Una 41 _ e I m VNI)1207d Iambus ddQ �v 1.41••alone irs pi A • 7[ J13 1' • 0 O 1 C alG q y�j Pil ao ljILII �_� I 9I PS 0 C7-- Y1 p PEI o ado M- dev' d o ml at en CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. :'�!, * * -- -' I rucE ST II 1 I I I TH M • T �` , �p S r Q/, - I IIr I , 'Eliimmoom .1 ' -1- 1 iIi_ 1 E -t \ _________ o lam, �1 \� cz , a. ci '' [61 .. 4 i� - 4)) , . _ I , , II so Ulm . _ 0.) ii SP Lill : 4 0 PAU NI � } .:- .►,�- i .1IP ill (5207 0\1 -2C0 1 A:* CD i =i .* -.. • 1 >, 1=- i r � . r U • Vicinity Map A CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. SDR 96-07/VAR 96-05 NJ l=i r 17 i 0-C-1_ H t =, /i[ 7 SD R -6-7/n4R -05- 1S136CC-00300 1S136CC-00200 �r�� ANDREWS MANAGEMENT LTD ANDREWS MANAGEME 4000 KRUSE WAY PL 4000 KRUSE L LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 LAKE-OSWEGO,OR 97035 • 1S136CC-02200 1S136CC-00100 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT BARASCH. STEPHEN 4000 KRUSE WAY G 1 #270 BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE LA GO,OR 97035 GENERAL MOTORS CORP 485 W MILWAUKEE AVE .1)E s (6$ it(l 48202 1S136CB-00890 1S136CB-03000 BECKHAM, PAUL D AND DEBORAH R BOTTELIN, MICHEL 8485 SW PFAFFLE 11295 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S136CB-01000 1S136CB-03100 COWLEY,TRUMAN G DAVIDSON, ROBERT C MOLLIE 8395 SW PFAFFLE ST 11265 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S135DA-00500 1S136CB-00900 GRAHAM. DON G AND GROSHART,JAY ROBERT AND BROSSIA, PAUL F BETTY R 11260 SW HALL BLVD 8465 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1S1 36C B-06400 1S1 36CC-00400 HOILAND, STEPHAN A/JENNY C MCGUIRE, ROBERT J/WILLIAM A 11320 SW 83RD SARAH A/JAMES E AND TIGARD,OR 97223 THOMAS P 8470 SW PFAFFLE ST I'IGARD CR 97223 1 S 136C B-06300 1S1 36CB-01900 OLLISON, RANDY L AND PFAFFLE, HELEN N TR CINDY A 8225 SW PFAFFLE 11290 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 15136CB-02900 1S135DA-01200 ROBERTS, DAVID H/IDA MAE SCHAEFFER, DONALD M 8355 SW PFAFFLE MUNCH,MICHAEL T TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23697 TIGARD,OR 97281 1S135DA-01000 1S136CB-06500 SCHAEFFER, DONALD M WICK, MURRAY A MUNCH. MICHAEL T 4460 ALHAMBRA STREET PO BOX 82549 SAN DIEGO,CA 92107 PORTLAND,OR 97282 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice TT 8 5 4 6 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 RECEIVER Legal Notice Advertising iLIN 296 City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice IGARD :31 2 5 SW Hall Blvd . C.1-11 Of T Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit „ •1lccounts •Payable :Terry • SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR)96-0007/ VARIANCE(VAR)96-0005 >CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS < The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for the following development application: 1.) Site Development Review AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi- STATE OF OREGON, ) - family apartment complex.2.) Variance request to allow the provision of COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1 S 1 36CC,Tax Lots 200,300 and I, Kathy Snyder 2200).South side of S.W.Pfaffle Street,east of S.W. Hall Boulevard,and being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising west of S.W.Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential,25 Units Per Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Thal ati n Time Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single family a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, and 193.020; published at Tigard _ in the residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public aforesaid county and state; that the support services, family day care,home occupation,temporary use,and SDR 96-0007 Carriage House Apartments accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, 18.134, 18.150 and 18.164. entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and •i -- 1 TC- I - --IT k`''�`y�--- consecutive in the following issues: �`R �■� June 20 , 1996 � C ME --E -PI \ i I . Wel 'Mr all: - A .......,..___f _ -4tA_ C • ..... :-_ _-_- a . Subscribed and sworn to fore me this 2 1 th d. • . .e, 1 I� T�y •�� 6' . L c G Luc _ ,A' }E •r_»> 4 i Nota ublic for Oregon un My Commission Expires: • I-■ • AFFIDAVIT 111 ; 11111117: I i A .At * 41.0" 4f . \ - .\..>-.N. The adopted finding of facts,decision,and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department,Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard,Tigard,Oregon 97223.The decision shall be final on July 1. 1996. 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, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent.The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 P.M.,July 1, 1996. TT8546-Publish June 20, 1996. ____ A, ,,,,,,., . , City of Tigard,Oregon AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE 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, Oregon. R2/ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: //19�p (G,.ck bo+.00v..A appuc+c+i) (check appropriate box wow} (Enter 75-ii Heanng Date above) , O City of Tigard Planning Director t2` Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) DECISION FOR: (Desch boa.eovar applicable) City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: (Check boa abbe..r applicable) (check apPropnate box below} O City of Tigard Planning Director O Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council ❑ That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR: A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE(S) of which is ched, marked Exhibit "A", was m. ed to e•ch na erson(s) at the addres(s) shown on the attache ist(s , marked Exhibit "B", on the 1..5--- day •.' ,i, 4 199er ' , and deposited in the, nite tates M-i1 on th- 7 da of ` 199 . , postage prepaid. Iv 4, ' ./7,,,, A Pry Fed Notice Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of U , 1 G'� OFFICIAL SEAL ,a DIANE M JELDERKS 60/14br NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON '1�� . COMMISSION NOOa61a2 NOTARY PUB S.F GREG N MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07, 1999 �f My Commission pires: C' �] f/ r`�FILE INFO.: J NAME(S):t9 zp_/�nQl t7 z{SQ 49(25. CASE NO.(S): 7V 7/ r j. T�"' TYPE OF NOTICE&DATE: X Y Air4 CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY AUGUST 5, 1996 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO: APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 FILE TITLE: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS APPELLANT: James E. McGuire et. Al. APPLICANT: Andrews Management, Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way, Suite #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 REQUEST The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development. The appeal specifically concerns alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. LOCATION: South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. NOTICE OF 8/5/96 P C.PUBLIC HEARING BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPC REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 6? 71, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684- 2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICA. ,S DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO L .i THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SET-UP. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER JULY 15, 1996. ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND, PRECLUDES AN APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25 ) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER WILLIAM D'ANDREA AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. W.1 — mow im mum EN nee NI NNE A I " ■ , , u II.• r I i . CT---> '� - 1;;. � --->>> !% �-N LiiLLLE� G • po • •At • .r.., APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS NOTICE OF 8/5/96 P C PUBLIC HEARING rntiiv c`7JilC`.14,-10 7//I��AR_el&'{�J�� 1 S 136CC-00300 1 S 136CC-00200 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT LTD ANDREWS MANAGEME► ID 4000 KRUSE WAY PL 4000 KRUSE a • • LAI&E OSWEGO,OR 97035 • • EGO,OR 97035 1S136CC-02200 1 S136CC-00100 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT BARASCH,STEPHEN 4000 KRUSE WAY G 1 #270 BY WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE LA O,OR 97035 GENERAL MOTORS CORP 485 W MILWAUKEE AVE ..J E'frD r t 1 tLl f 11-62.02-- 1 S 136CB-00890 1 S 136C B-03000 BECKHAM, PAUL D AND DEBORAH R BOTTELIN,MICHEL 8485 SW PFAFFLE 11295 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136C B-01000 1 S 136C B-03100 COWLEY.TRUMAN G DAVIDSON, ROBERT C MOLLIE 8395 SW PFAFFLE ST 11265 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 135DA-00500 1 S 136C B-00900 GRAHAM, DON G AND GROSHART,JAY ROBERT AND BROSSIA, PAUL F BETTY R 11260 SW HALL BLVD 8465 SW PFAFFLE TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-06400 1 S 136CC-00400 HOILAND, STEPHAN A/JENNY C MCGUIRE,ROBERT J/WILLIAM A 11320 SW 83RD SARAH A/JAMES E AND TIGARD,OR 97223 THOMAS P 8470 SW PFAFFLE ST TICS CR 97223 i S 136C B-06300 1 S 136CB-01900 OLLISON, RANDY L AND PFAFFLE,HELEN N TR CINDY A 8225 SW PFAFFLE 11290 SW 83RD TIGARD,OR 97223 TIGARD,OR 97223 1 S 136CB-02900 1 S 135DA-01200 ROBERTS, DAVID H/IDA MAE SCHAEFFER, DONALD M 8355 SW PFAFFLE MUNCH, MICHAEL T TIGARD,OR 97223 PO BOX 23697 TIGARD,OR 97281 1 S 135 DA-01000 1 S 136CB-06500 SCHAEFFER. DONALD M WICK, MURRAY A MUNCH,MICHAEL T 4460 ALHAMBRA STREET PO BOX 82549 SAN DIEGO,CA 92107 PORTLAND.OR 97282 City of Tigard, Oregon AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, Jerree L. Gaynor, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: (Check box above,if applicable) (check appropriate box below) (Enter Public Hearing Date above) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ) DECISION FOR: (Check box above,if applicable) City of Tigard Planning Director That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ) FINAL ORDER FOR: (Check box above,if applicable) (Check appropriate box below) ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard City Council That I served OTHER NOTICE OF FOR: A copy of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE/NOTICE OF DECISION/NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER/OTHER NOTICE(S) of which is attached, marked Exhibit "A", was mailed to each named person(s) at the addres (s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit "B", on the /7 '6 day of Cur5uSt 199 , and deposited in the United States Mail on the 1) day of �Gclef pS 1- 199 ‘ , postage prepaid.• Prep ed Notice 1 Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the /�d y of ,_. ' -, 19G,‘ "11-1..'. OFFICIAL SEAL 6/44. / `� DIANE M JELDERKS a • NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON �.�;� COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 142 NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 My Commission Expires: 9 7 6 9 FILE INFO.:I NAME(S): d pp&it / — Ca r- 4 e. //DLLs e.. CASE NO.(S): SD n 14 - o b 7 / vilif f t - o b t,.`f TYPE OF NOTICE&DATE: ':XHIBIT f , CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 96-07PC a BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Number(s): APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDRL96-0007. VARIANCE (VAR) 96- 0005 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 Appellant: James E. McGuire et al. Case Name(s): CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Address of Property: South side of SW Pfaff le Street. east of SW Hall Blvd.. and west of SW Pacific Hwy. City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Tax Map & Lot No(s).: WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200. Request: > The appeal had specifically concerned alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. The appellant requested that a condition requiring a solid wood fence be changed to require a masonry wall. The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development; and 3.) A Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. Action: > ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions © Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: © Owners of record within the required distance © Affected governmental agencies E3 The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator © The applicant and owner(s) Final Decision:9 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON AUGUST 22, 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 22, 1996. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171. APPEAL CF SDR 96-0007NAR 96.0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER !COVER SHEET) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 96-07PC CITY OF TIGARD A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VARIANCE & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. I. APPEAL SUMMARY CASE: APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVAL FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007, VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012 REQUEST: The appeal had specifically concerned alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. The appellant requested that a condition requiring a solid wood fence be changed to require a masonry wall. The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development; and 3.) A Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres. APPELLANT: James E. McGuire et. Al. LOCATION: South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). II DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission has DENIED the appeal. A public hearing was held on August 5, 1996. Based upon the findings contained in the Notice of Decision and appeal memo, the Planning Commission finds that the condition under appeal is adequate and satisfies code standards. The original condition is hereby upheld. NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER PAGE 1 SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS./ANDREWS MANAGEMENT It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This c5 — day of August, 1996 by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon. (Signature box below) Nick)Nilson, President City'of Tigard Planning Commission NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER PAGE 2 SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96-0012-CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS./ANDREWS MANAGEMENT _ _ 4 17 , .14) r„ ' Q1,14 .@ t4'.1 c r jj M 13> 1 _-_ii,n it f ..,i ----._.. . -- - --- ••• _A .:=- rto. / i A'h. -T.:: ii'. j r_ .,,.! ii- - 1 i. f...,) m ..„, it N , kel-it,,,_ —is—1-, ffi .ii) E a (11.441) '2 IIII 111 '1�_ . ,, ��il - __II J-- 1 ` --_ n I-- S I P ii r_r 1 , • b I i■ ." /_ Ili+/ r.! "� , ' ,. 1 iti 13, . .,... i 1 0 °11. .I tvidi t ,,, ti - ! 0 ----. - —t% .. t I ''' -'''' // 6 t:";/ 1 oi::q.idiii-::- it. .h . (.._, i _rl______IIil . Jr ______ II ji zo - 04K - 1 .. - s hi. \ _.\ /, - 'r, .1. lic - 1 i lit ... i u V , 1547.1f1.. y ` ^ • )1 69 rail i ._ig p2 4 �, _t 1 (!, „ b 1-11.t3 1 �: ii is . 41 �s f —1 I i v, px LLII1 11 ',ill fir I. 1-2- .". N 4 (7% • : -IrI• _ci-)i- • 1 / • ?r I-4: ; ids' b�• 1i- 1 o 9 , , >n t .) • ( 1 -ti 1 m ^ ^V t fu— 71- r. T . ti ... 10 , -,:- '''4# `. . — 1-5.1.1 i !).- n.- . . . � � �, � U "! I i_ l' . - 1 i 41 i' ;2._I-1- -1 1 1. i ..... tei g 1 r �. t7t7 H 6 Z ` I �I � �, 4r 1 AJiJi1 II I i *a i - 0 . r ,t„ % Irtr 41 IIii - - /lib ilk G 4 % -n4 P-14 A " .: a A.,0% 4r ,.1 1,411 inallidoell sok, N ,mvi Roma, au It d9 n AttaWy Iliiiiiibellindll . IN 11, 11111111n !ImNII . I ' ci) AIM x) .... 1 In iliontira tii �I IIIIII II . MIN: _ _ 1 ; City of Tigard Planning Department Spencer Vail Helen Pfaffle E IT !• 4505 NE 24th 8225 SW Pfaffle Street Portland OR 97221 Tigard OR 97223 Paul Brossia Enola Coolman 11260 SW Hall Blvd. 11160 SW 82nd Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223 Anita Lipnos Ron Naff, Project Designer 112305 SW 79th 18641 Benfield Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 James E. McGuire Andrews Management, Ltd. 8470 SW Pfaffle 4000 SW Kruse Way, Suite#270 Tigard OR 97223 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (Notice of final order by the Planning Commission) Susan Rorman Appeal of Carriage House Apts. 11250 SW 82nd SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 Tigard OR 97223 PAGE 1 OF 1 Betty Morgan 10940 SW 79th Tigard OR 97223 Bryan Haddix 11220 SW 82nd Tigard OR 97223 Don & Debbra Goodwin 10850 SW 79th Avenue Tigard OR 97223 Kristin Miller 7960 SW Thone Street Tigard OR 97223 Mr. & Mrs. J.E. Morgan 10940 SW 79th Avenue Tigard OR 97223 -_10 6© .. 7f - -- 77tilite,L) 716 ©_ 742 4" 7-)ql- z-- 41c 71787,e,e - /4/1 Air . 0)1 fo4 " Ot 41/ - A4114 a / _ - Lo 103 -- a__ � - ' ! --(9 (zt6e; .-_ q ? 2, 23 TIGARD P I lNG COMMISSION CITY Of TIGARO OREGON i NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN THEIR NAME AND NOTE Tit ADDRESS ON THIS Sty h:H:1'«.(Please PRINT) AGENDA ITEM it S.,� Page / of CASE NUMBER(S): DATE OF HEARING: I S /y� Cb0 OW C . -Om 5-- OWNER/APPLICANT: C- Lt -2_. LOCATION: 06—ek ‘''//,‘)Pl. . '-ie ' /_:4, 4-- ‹lcirt-Z-4--_-_,.&'ee_)1 - PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT (For the proposal) OPPONENT (Against the proposal) Name: Name lAddnss)Zi�f�) / N /pa?:N / /Zip j :Nation) r�,�c 2,'� A . I -Arr-,^'7' Name: ( (I ( �l r`,r Address: •4 .0 6Z5 ,A �4 ! Address: 11305 '.-_ q`l , � r Citv/State/Zio: 'pi„17L4 i Gie el 7.1 II Citv/StateJ'Lip: ;G'�G"-t • ( . c� G • . _ Name: Pa U I L/'D S S / Name: -J A-w 5 E . M c u, „-, Address: I j i-6. 6, S •1,J . biA L L 13 L V 1b Address: gN-40 SW PPAT-FL& Citv/State/Zip: T! G A t? - ' Q 97�;-3 citv/StatelZip: 17 cam--',,Q-,,Q by Z-Z-- \ L) S S WOrrieta-r\--L Name: Name: Address: Address: I i .5;-D �.,) E-2.rd Citv/StatefZio: CitviState�Zin v O L '723 m Rfi .A I) :Name: Name: �" � Ali G Address: Address: /0 `9 4//4.' _c C J 7 7 U Citv/StatelZiv: City/State/Ziv: 4 7 2 ?/' Name: Name: r..?‘�/lal1 ).-4,4_,N1,-./ Address: Address: 1 )1 )27(7 c tI) 'i ,.?-1`11 Citv/Staterziv: City/StatefZiD: 776,-/4R1-IN ng 32? gym., a 4.Y ) i I V l I ...__. 220 --- -`PFAFFLE ROAD -c—'u' — — R M ,-----1—' 1 • ---`. - -. —7:–. -.- .. � =tea':' :,1�r� - J WATER=ALIT,'SwdL! --i ....... �,,,�—WATER pU.ALItY!WALE ii r bee-GE.PLANS WEE CE.PLdrU ,, `2 I WE II 'C:F" 474 de NX 4.: . ., i_______ '7? , 1.1 , . •.i dip \ In 1 1.*•.k•-.; ,;1.:)'i • toloar :., . .. .';;--,‘.... ' .. . 1 q,..,: pil ,,,:.„.s.,....„.„ ,...., _. 1 IIM , ... i-- s -•• NK. WOOD L r i�i� FENCE ALP•�i PARKRKa� M 9o'O��'n,��I r5,rl' �� 11rr/�=-f 1��J N' ,- 1 I.��J /r 11� I Iii •y - i LU /TYPICAL 24'WI. ALE - • •WX• 'Milt r . y...-✓ Q i. .. ...Ailotrourilli Viiiia: it ...,,�- ?k it.. i I��i t uN LI ti iL �� �' 1 ,f Z g sis.. 2.1_ 1 , tkillorg. granzi - \ F� 1 1 1 ni/'jy;%�F �J�) al`:••; �j.f:: W... .u.c..a,.Y N ..4./. 4, is -graposm- +'bJ• ` •" G i N •1� EXTERIOR LIGHTING j'''.\ e% ••� .. 51r+GLE wEdO IOW wP3 •KEENE S '� \ I"' AREA CO ILLUMINATION• 130'X100'• I 0 rA � •. H pOUE7LE wE4D IOCW wP9 •5T?V •AK100 0 ` �1 AREA ILLUMINATION• 130'x 200'•.1 rc 1 4 WALL MCWT IP5-KEENE 54411153N41-X-1 AREA OF ILLI.TiINATICN• 40'x 20'• 5 IC \��� AT GARAGES U5E PACLIGPT PNlriee FLO . CARPORT-KEENE 05240 C10L FLOR. , I EVERT CTwER$TALL O MOWT SINGLE AND DOUBLE 14EAD NP5 LAMPS ON a•X 4'X 20'STEEL PO$T5 \\ 1 WALL MOVk1T 1PS C•AeovE GRADE SYMBOLS 16 '°-"`1 k 3.501'08- W , M SANITLRT',�ROI•BOX AND ENCLOSURE ` 244 % Wtw RlGTCLNG 'Lb h b. NTERNATIONLAL 4A/CICAP 5TF1pOL / ——— DRAINAGE EXIST.DRAAGE PATTERN V • .•••■•••,POTp4TIAL NEW CORRbPC PLOT PLAN CASE NO. 1 CAIRIASE HOWSE APTS. EXHIBIT MAP SDR96-0601 • Yu 11-195 MIS 90-1112 I (A. ...i.,, AA, CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 96- PC C=> BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Case Number(s): APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007 VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 Case Name(s): CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Appellant: James E. McGuire et. al. Name of Owner: Andrews Management, Ltd. Name of Applicant: Same as Above Address of Applicant: 4000 SW Kruse Way, Suite #270 City: Lake Oswego State: Oregon Zip: 97035 Address of Property: South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Blvd., and west of SW Pacific Hwy. City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip: 97223 Tax Map & Lot No(s).: WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200. Request: v The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development. The appeal specifically concerns alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of property value. Zone: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. Action: y ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions ❑ Denial Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: © Owners of record within the required distance © Affected governmental agencies © The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator © The applicant and owner(s) Final Decision:% THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON , 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290 (B) and Section 18.32.370, which provides that a written appeal may be filed within ten (10) days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee(s) of$315.00 plus transcript costs, not in excess of$500.00. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON , 1996. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Dept. at (503) 639-4171. APPEAL OF SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. NOTICE OF 8/5/96 P C.PUBLIC HEARING I I Ill I__. — ) h . _____ co - . 1► a --., r ••1 S136CB-01030 CO — v 15135 D' 00500 1 SI 36CB-0 101 1 B-0 36C6`1I I _ 1S136CB-0 �00� 1 S1 • SO _ L 1 .CB-00900 1 S136CB-0.:yi0a. 05136C&0 90C - S136C13 06500 I AFFLE \_________--1 C ._ It DA-111000 C 15135 PI a 20Q 36CC- 00410 _C9 1 '.136CC-00 .10 1 S136CC-00201 P. illk 1S136CC-00100 0) IF 1S136 • 02200 i4.6 r-- w .i I_ I Vicinity Map Notification Map Note W.s rot to b N SDR 96-07/VAR 96-05 4:41' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD, 13125 SW Hall, PO Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 - (503) 639-4171 FOR STAFF USE ONLY CASE NO.S 7ko- c--)0o7 OTHER CASE NO'S: 11/./..f.„ (/) RECEIPT NO. APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: 2 DATE: (531 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION.:`,/,0&k� (f G �� (A) Application form (1) .=;!t (B) Owner' s signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. /0/v-,G1 /�j/ ?Gl't'� authorization ,,(/ / 3a� eze TAD ( ____(C) Title transfer instrument (1) SITE SIZE /7X, g5C/ r,6.rr ( /-//A) (D) Assessor' s map (1) PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* F f�%'1G�`��LC.1Gt(�� I`�'d (..) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) ADDRESS 61) e70 PHONY-X(„ 5 (F) Applicant' s statement CITY 7A / i ) c7 64. ZIP (pre-app checklist) APPLICANT* (v,2t?i Atimvefi (G) List of property owners and ADDRESS PHONE addresses within 250 feet (1) CITY ZIP (H) Filing fee ($ ) *When the owner and the applicant are different (I) Construction Cost Estimate people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a leasee in possession with written authorization DATE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE: from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on page two or FINAL DECISION DEADLINE: submit a written authorization with this application. COMP. PLAN/ZONE DESIGNATION: 2. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request site development reyiew approval to N.P.O. Number: allow g-}4 /)17/f iYI c/- /721P/l cieUsthrrile¢ Approval Date: Ci7 /i�Ji�Qo�l� �7/2(71/l y d41 l'F/h'6 ` Z/b / Jy Final Approval Date: Planning Engineering 0524P/13P Rev'd 5/87 3. List any variance, conditional use, sensitive lands, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: k:// :e= 4. Applicants : To have a complete application you will need to submit attachments described in the attached information sheet at the time you submit this application. 5. THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: A. The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. DATED this day of 19 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. - l evk (KSL:pm/0524P) v CITY OF TIGARD PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007/VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005 FILE TITLE: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS APPLICANT: Andrews Management, Ltd. OWNER: Same 4000 SW Kruse Way, Suite #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 639-8645 Afa4 REQUEST: A request for the following development application: 1) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 2) Variance request to allow the provision of one access whereas the code requires two access drives for this development. LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200). South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific Highway. ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached, single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units, residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services, family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, CRITERIA: 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, and 18.164. CIT: East CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request PHONE NUMBER: (503) DECISION MAKING BODY X STAFF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION X VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE X X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN X OTHER Grading Plan STAFF CONTACT: Will D'Andrea (503) 639-4171 x315 SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS April 4, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD Andrews Management Ltd. OREGON 4000 SW Kruse Way, #270 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Re: Notice of Incomplete Submittal To whom it may concern: The Planning Division has conducted a preliminary review of SDR 96-0007, an application for Site Development Review, and have found that certain application materials were not provided with the submittal. The Planning Division is unable to consider the application complete and continue processing the application pending submission of the following items and plan notes: 1.) Access variance application. Narrative addressing approval criteria as found in Section 18.108.150. Payment of application fee. 2.) Tree inventory and mitigation plan. Identification of trees shall include caliper size. 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; and protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. If you have any questions concerning this information please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, J} b1'j Will D'Andrea Assistant Planner i1curpin\willlsdr96-07.ttr c. Ron Naff SDR 96-0007 Land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ACCESS VARIANCE REQUEST APPLICANT: Andrews Management 4000 SW Kruse Way Drive Bldg #1 Suite 270 Lake Oswego 97235 REPRESENTATIVE: Spencer H. Vail, Planning Consultant 4505 N.E. 24th Portland, Oregon 97211 DEEDHOLDER: Same as Applicant SITE LOCATION: 8320 SW Pfaffle Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1 S1 36CC TL's 200, 300 and 2200 SITE SIZE: 4.5 acres ZONING: R-25 PROPOSAL: This is a request for an access Variance to allow for one access driveway. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is developing an 84 unit apartment complex on the subject property. City regulations require two access points for a development of this size. When the applicant acquired the properties involved, he gave the owner of TL 300 a Life Estate in the home and northerly half of the property. Access Variance Request Carriage House Apartments When the applicant acquires title to this parcel, additional apartment units, parking and access to SW Pfaffle will be constructed. This is shown on the site plan. ZONING CODE: The Zoning Code, in Section 18.108.150 sets forth the approval standards for Access Variances. This section states that such requests may be approved by the Director if certain findings can be made. Following is a listing of the approval standards and the applicants responses thereto: 1. "It is not possible to share access;" COMMENT: There is no adjacent access to share. 2. "There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from any other street;" COMMENT: Although the property technically along Highway 217, terrain differences and ODOT policies make access to this roadway impossible. A second access to SW Pfaffle will be provided in Phase II of the development. Timing is contingent upon the applicant obtaining title to the northerly half of TL 300 as discussed above. 3. "The access separation requirements cannot be met;" COMMENT: This phase of the applicant's proposed development has 217 feet of frontage on SW Pfaffle. In order to align the accessway as directly as possible with SW 83rd Ave as requested by the City it is not possible to provide both driveways in this 217 foot space. -page 2- Access Variance Request Carriage House Apartments Access separation requirements can be satisfied in the second phase of development by providing an additional driveway along the west line of TL 300.. 5 "The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access;" COMMENT: The variance to deduce the number of accessways from two to one is the minimum variance allowable. 5. "The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and" COMMENT: The current access point is deemed to be a safe access as it complies with the alignment criteria established by the City. 6 "The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 1 78. 102 will be met." COMMENT: The proposal will meet the clear vision requirements of the City. CONCLUSIONS: The Variance request should be approved conditioned upon a second access be provided along the west line of TL 300 upon acquisition of the property. SHV/me 4/3/96 -page 3- A CO L L I E R Professional Tree, Shrub, & Lawn Care Since 1937 ARBOR CARE 9032 S.E. Division, Portland, Oregon 97266-1449 RECEIVED April 23, 1996 ,PR 2 6 1991-, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Gretchen Vadnis Gretchen Vadnis Landscape Architect 2041 SW 58th Avenue Portland, OR 97221 Dear Ms. Vadnis, At your request, I examined the trees at the Carriage House apartment site with you on April 12th, 1996. I am to examine the larger existing trees on the site and make recommendations as to which trees are appropriate to retain in the new landscape. Additionally, I am to provide a tree preservation plan to help protect the trees to be retained through construction. I am basing my report on the preliminary grading and tree preservation plan dated 2/15/96 that was provided me. This map has the building and parking lot plan overlaid with the tree locations. OBSERVATIONS The site is relatively open land with a large number of small (2 to 8 inch diameter, 8 to 20 feet tall) volunteer trees mainly hawthorn (Crataegus) and some poplars (Populus). In the northeast corner of the project, there is a group of large lombardy poplars and several locust (Robinia) trees. On the west side, there is an existing fruit tree orchard of apple (Malus), pears (Pyrus), cherries (Prunus), and plums. Portland (503) 774-9642 • Vancouver (206) 693-6056 • FAX (503) 774-7932 Prue ted on rcu'cled paper DISCUSSION The apartment house buildings and parking lot areas take up large areas of the existing land. There are few existing trees that are growing in proposed landscaped areas that would be candidates to retain that would not be significantly impacted by construction. There are 3 lombardy poplars that are growing in proposed landscape areas. However, these trees are extremely poor candidates to retain in a landscape due to the aggressive nature of the root system. In addition, the poplars are growing as a group and the majority will need removing because they are growing where proposed buildings are to be. When companion trees are removed, the remaining trees are more subject to blowdown because they have lost their group protection. Several of the poplars have large branches dying. This is symptomatic of Cytospora canker that poplars are susceptible to. This disease causes branch dieback and death to trees. Also, in the northeast corner, there is a 12 inch locust (#175) that is a good candidate to retain. On the west side there is a group of five fruit trees that can be retained. Two of the trees, an apple, and a pear, are not located on the site plan. An apple (#272), plum (#274), and a cherry (#261), complete the group of five to be preserved. The remaining trees on the site are mainly small, volunteer ("scrub") trees that are not good candidates for preservation. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Most of the large existing trees on the site are not growing in a proposed landscape area where they can be retained. Some are not in a good condition or appropriate species to be preserved. I would recommend removing all of the lombardy poplar trees. Collier Arbor Care, Inc. Carriage House Tree Preservation Report 4-23-96 page 2 of 3 I would recommend to preserve the following trees: 1. 12 inch locust tree (#175) 2. 16 inch apple(#272) 3. 14 inch plum (#274) 4. 32 inch cherry (#261) 5. 18 inch apple on the west side 6. 14 inch pear on the west side See appendix#1 for the tree locations on the site plan. I have also included a tree preservation specifications (Appendix #2) to help protect the trees recommended to remain through construction. These recommendations include establishing a tree protection zone of chain link fencing around the trees, pruning and fertilization. Please call if you have further questions. Sincerely, iv-Li(.x.2..1_, 6..Le,„, Terrill Collier Certified Arborist enclosures Appendix#1 site plan Appendix#2 tree protection specifications Collier Arbor Care, Inc. Carriage House Tree Preservation Report 4-23-96 page 3 of 3 a ov-P' C0 L L I E R Professional Tree, Shrub, & Lawn Care Since 1937 ARBOR CARE 9032 S.F. Division, Portland, Oregon 97266-1449 TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. Establish a Tree Protection Zone as directed by the consulting arborist to protect and preserve the tree and it's root system. Install a temporary protective fencing such as chain link or snow fencing to establish a Tree Protection Zone. Place the protective fencing around the edge of the dripline (the area below the branches) of the tree. For trees with narrow growth habit, the Tree Protection Zone extends beyond the dripline and the fencing shall be placed under direction of the consulting arborist. Fencing shall be installed prior to construction and not removed until after building is completed. 2. Construction activities within the Tree Protection Zone is prohibited except by permission and supervision of the consulting arborist. 3. Protect the tree against cutting, skinning or breaking of branches,trunk and roots. 4. Stockpiling of materials, vehicle operation, and parking is prohibited in the Tree Protection Zone. 5. Maintain existing grade within the Tree Protection Zone. Raising or lowering grades are prohibited except as permitted by and under the supervision of the consulting arborist. 6. Removal of branches or root pruning of the tree is to be performed by a qualified arborist under the supervision of the consulting arborist. 7. Pruning - trees shall be pruned prior to the start of construction. Trees shall be crown cleaned to remove the deadwood 2 inches in diameter and over. Trees shall be crown thinned by 10-20%. Under the direction of the consulting arborist, crowns may be raised by removing bottom branches as necessary up to 14 feet high only if it is necessary to give for any construction activities, traffic, etc. All work to be done in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture pruning standards. 8. Removal of branches or root pruning of trees to remain to be performed by a qualified arborist under the supervision of the consulting arborist. Portland (503) 774-9642 • Vancouver (206) 693-6056 • FAX (503) 774-7932 t rin[cd on recycled paper 9. Cut branches and root with sharp pruning instruments that do not chop or tear. 10. Excavation and trenching around tree roots within the tree protection zone is prohibited except by permission and under the supervision of the consulting arborist. 11. When trenching is required within the dripline of the tree, tunnel under roots by hand digging. Do no cut roots larger than 4-inches in diameter. Cut smaller roots only if they interfere with new work and only with a sharp instrument. 12. Do not allow any exposed or cut roots to dry out before permanent backfill is placed. Provide a temporary earth cover or mulch to keep exposed roots moist until permanent backfill is placed. 13. Water trees which are to remain as necessary to maintain their health during the course of construction. 14. Fertilizing - the trees shall be subsurface fertilized with a complete slow release fertilizer to promote good health and vigor. Initial fertilization should be done prior to starting of the construction and continue annually for at least 3 years. 15. Contractor is responsible for any and all damage to the tree during the course of construction. The contractor shall pay to the tree owner the value of the damaged tree as established by the consulting arborist. Collier Arbor Care, Inc. Tree Protection Specifications page 2 of 2 ,� �; 6 / 14 4 LI as 4m — ,1 ' 7416,YY i / �---— I v + Q 1 r r co I I / NO _ -Jr-. / . I II 1 co w Ig / t Me)r C I� ti Q L,CC ` g s ' / so ,� I i00 / _____i ' II ROAD LI P f '■, 1 f----- -- !10' I GARAGE I „,,\ ���-T , , ri, , c.-.:) t I ..... ...„............ < 1.-- I .._..i Op . ft I = vti� t� In -----k P-ar �� La../ I , I , N 1 / 1r g- . %, ( ' O I ,—_i vta TN _ '' i r)41 -7 co 1 ` 1 I r\I 46 J , 6). sr Lrr ® cherr N l '01 '44” W 124.52' ,. • C41-)Pon464 I cariftA et r 1,1-1-1,t/10-- --Frit...A- e-witritract-Y1 p 1 4-1-1., kap-a- DJ MCH CON STR1 {. J.O.H. TPAD 8235 SW OLESON RD J.O.H. PORTLANI , OREGO c71ECKEO HARRIS-McMONAGLE AS'31 J.R.H. ENGINEERS-SURVEI DA 1 12555 S.W. HAL1. 9 2/15/96 /GARD, OR 97223- is- PHONE: (503) 539- A nt'aF r, G APQ QR EGO^May 2, 1996 A 4000 ndrews Management 2�Ss gs Way, p Lake Osw o p R 97035 Re: C arriage T 0 House whom it may concern: cone e m:This e letter to in f°fih that application is considered c° mplete and has beenaccepted by Planning Departnt if you have questions the information please fe e/ free to contact at(543) 639-4171.Sincere ly, CJ will p Assistant Plan /:log anner rAlniwasc#9s 0,10 C. SDR Naff 96-0007 Land use file 15125 SW Hall Blvd., T9ara OR 97X23 (503) 639-4171 n30 l505j 684-.2772 1 1 TE OF OREGON L..,Jnty of Washington SS • I, Jerry R. Hanson, Director of Assess- ment and -Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clerk for.said county,d'o e,re4Y Certify that the within instrurrteakotvttrit,ny was received and recorded.fn'bo6k O nacords(of said county. e Jerry R. Hanson, Director of Assessment and Taxation, Ex- Officio County Clerk Doc : 95039814 Rect: 145170 346. 00 06/09/1995 04 : 16: 26PM -3 Ow' .FNTO-0011 (R 2/94) Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon /tom STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Individual or Corporate) ARTHUR W. VERHAREN and MARGARET C. VERHAREN, husband and wife, and Axthu>; .AW.•. .Ye,Kbsren Trust u(a dated 4/2002 and Margaret C. Verharen Trust u./.a. dated .4/2.QL9z * , grantor, conveys and warrants to ANDREW.S. .MANAGE4 T. .TTP.:, an Oregon corporation grantee, the following described real property,free and clear of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein, situated in the county of ' AS$I NG'Q , State of Oregon, to wit: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION MADE A PART HERETO * as their interests were created by instruments recorded 6/24/92 in fee no. 92043545 and 92043546 Subject to and excepting: Rights of the public and governmental agencies in and to any portion of said land included within the boundaries of streets , roads and highways ; Limited access recorded 9/11/62 in Book 471 , Page 341 . THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS $ 307 4 500 . 00 (See ORS 93.030) O�f4 ,, SNINZTON COUNTY Dated this *1 '11 day of June I995 RE/.'L F&4';-L7TY TRANSFER TAX ��-'AP s 30Y. 00 10 -45 FM PAID DATE Arthur W. Verharen O %V\fin s4-- C Washington ^` `\ Margaret. Verharen FNTO.0011 (R 2/94) Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED 'U (Individual or Corporate) ARTHUR W. VERHAREN and MARGARET C. VERHAREN, husband and wife, and AAtbAK,AW. Yezharen Trust u/a dated 4f20/92 and Margaret C. Verharen Trust uJ.a.dated.4/2,Q/92 * , grantor, conveys and warrants to ANDREIAS..MANAG] MF`]T .�.�'P.•., an Oregon corporation .....grantee, the following describer! real property,free and clear of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein, situated in the county of WASHING''QN State of Oregon, to wit: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION MADE A PART HERETO * as their interests were created by instruments recorded 6/24/92 in fee no. 92043545 and 92043546 Subject to and excepting: Rights of the public and governmental agencies in and to any portion of said land included within the boundaries of streets , roads and highways ; Limited access recorded 9/11/62 in Book 471 , Page 341 . THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS $ 307 ,500 . 00 (See ORS 93.030) ti+AS!flN;,TON COUNTY Dated this � �� day of June 1995 z - �,s-�, A. c F'7"-;,::err TRANSFER Tax 4 a �, 3Q 00 � _q —95 '' �� > ti o ...(/1/tt s .4!4:2/ ..(� :'ZiIr,. !1.�.,i I� � F2.1 PAID DATE Arthur W. Verharen C Washington Margaret / . Verharen STATE OF,C))1, County of {�e�.0 ) § oThis instrument was acknowledged before me on June , 199 5 by Arthur W. Verharen and Margaret C. Verharen • This instrument was acknowledged before me on a"L-- `; :' i'199 S. by ;r, as _ of ] )1,\ i�ietry Pu lic in and forOregen- t- 36tst-Wclt- Sr•\- t My commission expires: l�4 GRANTOR'S NAME Verharen Space reserved for recorder's use GRANTEE'S NAME Andrews Management Ltd. Until further notice send future tax statements to: Andrews Management Ltd. 8'755 Citizens Drive #200 Wilsonville , OH y'!U7U AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Andrews Management Ltd. 8'x5b Citizens Drive ,#205 Wilsonville, UR 970717— Page No. 5 Order No. 611306-OOB-MAW EXHIBIT A A tract of land in Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows; Beginning at the re-entrant corner on the west line of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim No. 55, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; thence Northerly along the west line of said donation land claim 417. 78 feet; thence South 89° 48' East 317. 13 feet to an iron pipe marking the true point of beginning; thence South 00° 36' East 431.50 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 86° 17' East 317. 13 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 13° 20' West 463.80 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 89° 48' West 214.03 feet to the true point of beginning, Excepting Therefrom a strip along the northerly line to be used for a county road. ALSO EXCEPTING that portion conveyed to the State Highway Commission by deed recorded September 11, 1962 in Book 471, Page 341. GRANTEE'S NAME recoraer's use Andrews Management Ltd. Until further notice send future tax statements to: Andrews Management Ltd. 8755 Citizens Drive #2U5 Wilsonville , UR 37U''U AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Andrews Management Ltd. cp- 8755 Citizens Drive F2u5 Wilsonville , oh y7O7O-- r, o rieff 18641 SW. Benfield Ave. �� a 0 o Cr Lake Oswego, Oregon 91035 C Phone 639-8045, Fax 639-5311 TR4NS 1f TT,4L COYER SHEET 1-1.,/ ,,, -11/. 1 DATE: . '/':0 [, COMPANY NAME 1. 12 ItT 7 'HAU, STREET FAX NO. -n(7 , 012 61'72* CITY PROJECT NAME: osietzlit..61a 1-boos THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TRANSMITTED: ITEM NUMBER DATED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION PAGES 1 +• . t ..611 i " L r rreo at.J,_ ile-p. t qi2 . C I I 4 f'CTL.7; FROM: `�f�/VL, THE VILLAGE ON 7TH PAGE 04/30/1996 10:31 2062568055 it1 STATE OF OREGON } • County of Washington SS Jerzy meM and _ of Assess- Clerk fw�fddn ,Oa hem, that the within Of leffilng Nail received and reQOrded lb bao* of roomda of said county. 'HOM�op1�bllr cctor of • Clerk Taxation,Ex- Doc : 95039814 Rect: 145170 346. 00 06/09/1995 04: 16: 26PM t --3 • • B4/30/1996 le:31 2,95•,c , --68ess .. _ . r . r viLL4r_ ON 2-9 -4.'0 Alden( 3'Nation., ---"" ritle 0, •:4.1.17?kruit I, findiv,441 0,c4,0;•rat. 0 S ri4 -441411: tel Oregon ,.jAtthitt:ilik,"-••;;-.V.R.101ARRAT . 1494,Cia.Arr.. "44'44tegt:4.7.C441::.t...9..7%'. 440-MA ii-GA pt, -4AZOize 4Q.(9,z.*• , ;-"f•7'.c- VE ••••••. .. . •44•111GRAckitii,•••-•-• .„ . ,•'!gfil:9...-i--;? .'11/!4'N, a hie..1A,‘.;.''"-- t11 4„ .477) ,16'-••• .ft.""?1•14iai:e.i"i? i2c1 aild 0 oie co,ov,cm. . . ity. ;•,.•,..z.•. ... .. •rRI4ati.l'ef,12',110., co, .'''•C:••ir.;.r.iiier:e*'•4.-1•!.€*, and . '40IfiricAll'evip,00,,,„),—..-.... *.•••119-/:..R.cP,ghamktv.,11*,;;,'•..!',.1:,:9?,i----...... io. ....... •'free.2/44.yekz,* -•• ,, ',,• '" •••". .**'..... ..•• •34'E A rtt .•• . .. ....... – CHED L.E.G.4 04.4,Zeik;_ddinktike; '••,.... ............. ..'. * Qs thelr st9 kiv °ZEN aj.xpec:i:"•••... .....• fee no. 92•1‘..11,terests " L DRScR/Pri-ox. if.A,, vi°I,5- '1"-5 4 5 and-9t;o4c3t ea ted 6 B‘i4j 'wrest:, Jirootev 346 3' ion trut,en t3 tee ' ilERET0 °I-c4d 6/24/92 in 44!yerr Por til°0(144., e44300,.. li_, , Se blehivilb," et sii:i a`"gh ts 02. ,r. ; Zimi 24.nct i the C ted acct.40-inded Pub-lie anti F TVs -re° dwe"1112 °I ""I*11171nt 1,ACTUAL COMIN7..:::.°.;....4111.9:./..°..1.2:::.b..°0:177111.141.n.VEd..11/V.1 71 6.111'• r°11/414 r41°11:113' OP4N144"q161ftrtil III /3°°k°:7()f etrele"n °nes 41 1)1)°s0/Y Ac 4"14IND 144 NOTAL4) 1-414N1N Qproviits:GrEurrpb..;1:41141s4:PuRosEpT:7774:),Ns30- 89306:kPrver::::.,::: 7 sNoorrit ,01.ArioN i'..;'. PARAoryo°041)014/014 Pr°rrke 711414°IzEcur AP7/1EPRop ,,,,. -........ . Tits r,tuiz2zcss 4s goepPRovet,us:outz c—iiirstfuvcoit 1:falilsArsrittaf ... •••..............••••...... 'Y ni) Oarich•v• • 4611'1.114ors.`14re clry (114eNr nip ...•-•......'::.••-.•.. Po* rms c oty 1.4vvsuloit couivr- 5 , lkkri, 7'S 4CAMIS:: Z a it. „ kojeg IPASNA1014 ..••••.............■,i....,.... it .--. P4- Poo •:—cf". ' Dowd—.. •<vrti:4 • •••••''• (se;dis 93 030) TE ....411tP at..•-P.Nite t Isritra gPshill81-0 , "aty of lir-tili. or. ve.2..tit. .-..ir.,P." :'•'•"•• , Os a.-• 'Nlksc 1.04 1. • 40?-1..-f-f.i._ by 1 771.is instrument was Verhalcri:owledsed be -----..)i (..3* ii62.4...:R.A.A. a and itafr:Me ou reii.. • A".k.14x.. IA, Ns kstmuot -4/'e t j4he • 4; was acknowieoz • er aran of eIli before nas ou -"."-- ' i'LN .1144 ,• • . 19g$ 45.04, :.....7.1,. ...„... . 4111110,11711PAtie' 4 _::::.._ . c• •. GRAINTORs ti44,0 41',' dlig —1 . :‘:' '.' • ''' ' MTY co4:41.004:444dpi ro . .*:: .:4..,•:%....... r °R4V714.3 kWh, 24: il ■ % .I ill1/4fti ,.. dinar-et" liana SPaCe Ut i r 1 I fume r totico gelant Ltd teserved, recorders 'or nse Arittreipsr Ara selad future pi,st,itte4le : „nageinent 1141°: ,. ao.nt, XIS 2, Ltd . .. 4Prrsit RECoR0Aro jacirew 44_4 'RETURN ro: '' eon v4 AA. geD3eat Ltd. a ' 04/30/2996 18. 31 �+ 28��56a855 Page Order N No. Q. 5 TNT UIL 0 611306.00 _ `��'E err , P, GE 8 �� 63 nn t .� je rT 4 r Nedi ,°FaZad$ocZ7 36' Shtp 1 F a Br r o of the Willamette 8lnn � h ..1.% Oregon, deorrtbe�°A o11a 1 in t the re_Land Cld m 3 3 entrant cot 1 8r o n chear Ztne he� hi rn Cunt ' r°�$h1A Q 4tQ wt true o f nt ence Sa h t° an�t °f Ceor BR Pichdr n hence N ' 1 claim 427.78 t 4:7012y l n8the w voor jthe l�o to Narnit n Ppe hr 4 jSp iie n� I be$in7 1 eS B6o 17' 4" tiv4 sQUh gyp° 3�, E feet Iran dndo i Zand rI a Atrknh the en t o g i��� °nEkcoPtin e North 89aQe2 4 iO3 feet nce North 130 ?0 oa6?LPe thence 463.80, atrip o1Q to n$t ho northerly line ro bthr4e Po ito e wired nt to oad$in�ng,Q Sp GCB �pC that 4 c4 uny rfeaf of BiQtPd n SAteahar 1967 to 8tto» conveyed r 4 the stets �i$hv ey°ok 472, Page 31 Comm/sot On b y deed recorded 3 05/02/1996 15:50 5036998715 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT PAGE 01 RECEIVED PLANNING WE OF OREGON SS County of Was*npton- I M AY 0 91996 ti Jerry • a of Assess- ment and n , io County Clerk for .l.•V0411 4 fie, "WY that and reebni . bat*of of said county.=, ; fry R. Monson Director of Taxation,Ex- County Clerk Doc : 95042709 Rect: 145900 153. 00 06/22/1995 10:43: 11AM I - 3 05/02/1996 15:50 5036998715 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT PAGE 02 FORA.No 143-WANSANTY DUO-STATINOWIlk eiNlival Owes* stroverarals ow PURL 14041N0 CO POIPIANO,OP WSW .._ . . . , ,.. ... - . • " :; WARRANTS DIZD—STATUTORY WORK ely i: INDIVIDUAL GRANTOR .1 a PAUL A. HERBERHOLZ and ANNA RERBERROLZ, husband and wife, ,Grantor, conveys and warrants to ANDREWS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, an Oregon corporation - . Grantee,the following described real property free of encumbrances except es specifically set forth herein situated in. Washington County,Oregon,to-wit: i.' As described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this ii reference incorporated herein 1 Ay nipt. el ', WASHINGTON COUNTY *VAL PROPERTY TRANSfER TAX 11 • eis: :.! (I - PEE PAID DATE 1 ' HP P SPACE INSUFfiCIENT,CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE SID ) 11 The property is tree from ancumbrenco.except as set forth in Exhibit "A" a t t ached hereto. ! II !! .: . . 1:1 The true consideration for that conveyance is 115 .. (Hers comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030) I; ■ ! .. ii 7 :1 June ,19 95 .1 Dated this day of !, 4.frgaiij44(47 - !! THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIED IN THIS • INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION Of APPLICABLE LAND USE LAMS AND REGULATIONS. PAUL A. HERBERHOLZ li i BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,___THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE 0 1 T1TLE1D THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPMAff art OR COUNTY 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY .. 1 e: OMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OA FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN hiNtlit Welline"1414 !• R; ORS 30.930 STATE OF OREGON, County of Washington • -)U. This instrument was acknowledged before me on June ) -2,,, /9.9. ..., -'• .7. .1-• •.:', .-_- Il _-. erh91i and An Herberholz ROOM P.ANDIRSOM (. 7tS:-Cla *m. .-., g! ../ MOTARYPUBLIC-ORROON . 001411MINIONNO.02110/ .. Notary Public for Oregon „ MICOMMMRION ICOPMISIRPT V.1W ':". My commission expires GI.).4.../cil • : WARRANTY DEED - ii Paul A. Herberholz, at ux STATE OP OREGON, Andrews Management Limited emexie las. 1: awarnm County of i .....-..... I certify that the within thank. -- INIOINTEr a ADDRESP.ZIP .1 spent was received for record on the ' After•••salhig retina lei .—.dayof ,I9---, ,I Andrews Management Limited, an at o'clock M.,and recorded Oregon co poration . in book/reel/volume No on i. 0'.1w. atzlf -ii-.1-,s- FON IIIIC°POMP•• LIS( page_________............... or as fee/file/instru- • _: 412141.°."44.1t2-7V ment/microfilm/reception No......----, MAIM weowene.up Record of Deeds of said County. Witnsa, my hand and sea/ of '■ Until a change Is requ.steti,en tax shimmed* shell be pent le the htileaving ettelteus County affixed. •Andrews Management Limited, an .1 , ......9Fe5pWSWitrAtigp ... .__ Lilitmt emit MIX --4(41:141-41's * ...- 01143474111' Zo' By------ Deputy 1! okstiem , —....„......—..__.......__... _ __.... ...... . ___ 05/02/1996 15:50 5036998715 ANDREWS MANAGEMENT PAGE 03 • Page No. 6 Order No . 612741-OOB-MAW EXHIBIT A BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the George Richardson Donation Land Claim in Section 36, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon; thence South 89°03' East along the North line of said claim 317. 13 feet: thence South 00°11' West parallel to the West line of said claim 1,394.0 feet to the true point of beginning, said point being in the Southerly line of a county road; thence South 00°11' West parallel to the West line of said Richardson Claim 410.90 feet; thence North 85°30' West 158.56 feet; thence North 00°10'10" East 401.90 feet to the Southerly line of the County Road; thence South 88°45' East along the Southerly line of the County Road 158.24 feet to the true point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following parcel: A parcel of land lying in the West half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36. Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, and being a portion of that property described in deed to Paul A. and Anna Herberholt recorded in Book 371, Page 138, Washington County Deed Records , said parcel being that portion of said property included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of the centerline of the Beaverton-Tigard Highway as said highway has been relocated, which centerline is described as follows. BEGINNING at Engineer's Centerline Station 378+18.79, said station being 427.5 feet North and 906 .9 feet West of the Southeast corner of the David C. Graham Donation Land Claim No . 52 , Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian; thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 54°20' East) 100 feet; thence on an 11,459.16 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which bears South 49°06'10" East) 2 ,025. 56 feet; thence on a spiral curve right (the long chord of which bears South 42°22'20" East) 400 feet; thence on a 3,819. 72 foot radius curve right (the long chord of which bears South 39°01'10" East) 135.93 feet; thence on a curve right (the long chord of which bears South 350 East) 600 feet to Station 410+80.28. The Northeasterly line of said strip of land crosses the Westerly and Easterly lines of said property approximately opposite Stations 397+90 and 399+70, respectively. AND FURTHER EXCEPTING therefrom the North 158 feet which lies North of a line drawn 158 feet South of and parallel to the North boundary line of the above described property. SUBJECT TO the usual printed exceptions of title insurance policies issued by Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon, the statutory powers of the Unified Sewerage Agency, the rights of the public and governmental agencies in and to any portion lying within the boundaries of streets, roads or highways, the limited access as set forth in a deed ro the State of Oregon, by and through its State Highway Commission, recorded April 19, 1962, In Book 461, page 299, Records of Washington County, Oregon. 3 MAR-27-1996 09: 11 ''.G. NAFF P.0 f o n a ff 18341 SW_ Bonff*Qc0 AVw. La<ica Oawegio, Or •gort 97035 Phone •.n• 9 fez C5O3) 639-8046 TRANISM I TTAL COVER SHEET 414\ TO: \Viii 0f10- • DATE: x/77 NAME FAX NO C.US 1PANT /kW-1E PROJECT NAME: cJ -4+L1./7dr THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TRANSMITTED: ITEM NUMBER DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION PAGES REMARKS: FROM: ./ MQR`27-1995 en'11 ".G. NAFF � o►'!r . "� � n"°�r�y " ,, p.<,.? ot d 142 ,1i'= 411441 ODp T " ice� � '�'� P11e 74 Ifs �/08-20-t �bFE 0 r , PA)"Fp F OREGON. by end��u�b Diva aoUai o°^Staara i on or $3 8 500a 44r�T DR TRqy 8pO BAR Oh. G, for for d o described property: ir �^ � 14442 qK D 44.gyp EIyT �.s. O 19a�f°or Lori . bufln A Parcel of/CaiEnAdf W M Washington m ty, 0 wt`� R� 8r pq k?Stets or 1,e �tW tT A $pj� n9 rQa 33� N `tea/ Ntf�� o rg1 a 00.0 meSt� a'�eaey� en Rooms of �O e�f/, ga 3� 6"idg0 �► i' being that pion o f dBbl 6 ) jGente r or trio 141c "p�,� � Nam,t9 o a^d ?gpr -'r,l 8 N + $p r lroBta $�kb..,9444@44 3S On Sputrgas ra� t to a ' 07 t• l^+ i I �ot t gn said ho mo fl �rO tyro id center 11^o a o d or O�cn y "�/^e . �1,1 4°aD 0...v.,Tpanto/of �whlqy d 'En rh1 a c°nvgya^�is mode Ogle* � 9�/Apry Qt less. U do wya S�6 lecr a ei ae � a �ng�s ol,a ^s �a"'s a ms� O^a:and arm n� Many,3 here Is�a e � G property a^o �re/o��d seave ,�ranter Yed� Grantee sj, -•wr7 I igen/ rel gen/kt Y aar o^a % h� —wen the ai r a fed real adv rhis reservation shall run ��'�n d cSussr ac�Pe/ ^t h land and h subet �@slate ri 8ht, Ole, or Interest ° � aes d o pn o this co orally h� f air orero rsion the. thrato3. Th ca yi asp_t - ^ by dsQla d �a is said en eWy. � R7�y1 de �„ oa o meets, In NI *vent oft,- y�� a e,try a dal^o a/fi .^. diSP ay, or ce� 0Yey ro i ��n Grantor shall ,�,° � o 76e `° /saki Pate*/or Dlite,a�o^ 4t tOr m the ofa iiinit �llury�� + a p . da�% or Qb � � u� ��Ver yt or a� "zoVai or Tat�� �NTg G Like Or,rpo oR 4o44.27D PRops:Pikau._4Af 7b: Swart) OR 97370 ' MAR-27-1996 09: 12 2.G. NAFF P.0 • • ODOT File 32774 8B-20-6 4. That no junk scrap,junked motor vehicles, or parts thereof, debris, bush, welts, or other such materials shall be placed on said land for whatever purpose in any manner so as to be visible from is scats highway. provided that such Items as listed above can otherwise be placed on *midland without vbbrtbnp arty applicable law, ordinance, or regulation. In the event of violation of this condition,Grantor shaft have the right through tta authorized officers, agents, or employees, to enter upon said land and remove or destroy any unauthorized junk scrap, or other material mentioned above and recover the cost of soon removal or destruction from the owner of said land. 5. That this property shaU not be used for the operation of any garbage dump or sanitary land fill. If such use is made of the property, Grantor may, at its election, enter upon said land and restore it to the condition that existed prior to said use for garbage dump or sanitary land fill purposes and recover the cost thereof from the owner of said land. 6 That this conveyance is made upon the further condition, which shall constitute a covenant running with the land, that Grantor shall not al any time become liable to Grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns in interest. for damages to the land herein described ar any buildings, structures, imprevsrnents, or property of any kind or character now or hereafter located upon said tend or for any tnjuries to any owner, occupant, or any person in or upon said land or for any interference with the use and enjoyment of said tend or for damages which except for this covenant might constitute a nuisance caused directly or itvdirecttyf by noise or air pollutant emissions from transportation vehicles using the highway or transportation facility adjacent to said lend_ My reference In this covenant to the highway or transportation faciiiry adjacent to said land refers to the highway or transportation faculty es it now exists and also as it will exist with future improvements. Grantee and grantee's heirs, successors end assigns covenant not to sue Grantor for any said Injuries or damages_ It Is understood that the condl ons, rsaerv'a o+s, restrictions, and covenants herein set out have been considered in determining the amount of considere6on Of this conveyanca- The rights and remedisa herein reserved or provided shall riot be erdushre and shall not be In derogation of any other right or remedy which Grantor may have. The conditions and re vs herein contained shall run with said land and shall forever bind Grantee and grantee's Mire, suaCessors and assigns. Where any action Is taken to enforce the above mentioned conditions and restrictions, Grantor shah not be liable for any trespass or conversion as to any real or personal property. WTtere legal proceedings we commenced by Grantor to enforce the foregoing conditions end restrictions or for the recovery of the aforementaartsd removal or destruction costs, the successful party shalt be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and court cosh. In construing this deed, where the =tart so requires, the singular tndudes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this deed shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals- 11-8-95 Page 2- Deed P. t4 MAR-27-1996 09: 12 - R.G. NAFF ODOT File 32774 8B-2C1-8 THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USC OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE ZTTLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 Dated this 946 day of /TF ,L1 Ft tI , 199% STATE OF • -EGON.by and through Its DEP /I � r OF TRANSPORT N X •!! •a G.Jon's,AcIng t of Way Manager STATE OF OREGON, County of Marion A.6 1 9, 19 (Personafy appeared Deolinda O. Jonas, who being sworn stated that she Is tf;e Acting Right of Way Manager for the State of Oregon, Department of Transport$ton, and that this document was voluntarily signed on behalf of the State of Oregon by authority delegated to her. Wore rr OFFICIAL tf;AL / �L tiirZe: °Ale CNI r Pubic for Orego ; COMM, 9IONlNp 031111 f Mo 1 =VIM OPIRFS= ai My Corrirnkslon expires / 0 11-8-95 Page 3 - Deed aeu Ti"iT i i?� Name of applicant 4 ki:e./i.e. R. S AA Nei Sul:iec Property: Tax Map and Lot # f 3 C cc Tom- s ?z e - , Address or General Location 3 srJ Pf 4 OF POSTING NOTICE • t. _vi-c �J /V, V,4 r I do affirm that I am (rep re party g merest In a proposed v ,4 fir glic-uotopi,a.✓.', affecting the land located at E.3oZd S-eJ p 1 and did on the. 14 day of �n--L,4r/.. 19_IC personalty post notice indicating tha. the site may be proposed for a 5i+P� .! :=tt laQhtM( ' [nea)applica ion, and the time, date and place of neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. (J The sign was posted at. kAR I R/311 p,,,-.71--- .* .4hr1— (.:7' 1P-- cI`,,O ,,,,„(___ (state location on property) This 1 Q day of a 19?‘' App,4' ii/AAO S �. Su scbed and sworn to, affirmed, before me this / day of -->_,A............:,. 19 r� au.:0721- p: f/ / /11. OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS Notary Public for th- ' 'e of Orego � r NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Commission 'Expires: 9?7/f7 �' ® COMMISSION N0.046142 `x� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. OR 97223 c+Vo pc ct • • NOTICE OF MEETING Andrews Management is proposing to develop a 84 unit apartment complex on this site. Before applying to the City of Tigard for Site Development Review and other necessary permits, the applicants would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, February 29, 1996 TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. Tigard, Oregon 97223 7:00-8:30 P.M. Please note that this is an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal to the City. For additional information, call Spencer Vail at 281 -8245 w I ` AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) SS CITY OF TIGARD ) I, S.-re/4c,°R [I. ( . I , being duly sworn, depose and say that on ' �A 0 rJ ' f 19 (1/ , I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attacheddise• notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at W-J' ) sc.) Pf-d/f f ee- , a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. 1 further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office at -r 7 J. 4 04-1&-\. , with postage prepaid thereon. AM6r/ 49,4111, O Sig .. Subscribed and sworn to before me this (-":( day of O�r�Fv , 19 . /C / I•�~'. OFFICIAL SEAL • Notary Public ^rrf s DIANE M JELDERKS NV `� " NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: 9/7/97 �, ,o COMMISSION NO.046142 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 h:\icgin\jo\ai{maii.at Nor SPENCER VAIL ° PLANNING CONSULTANT February 13 1996 Re: Andrews Management Proposed 84 unit apartment development Dear Interested Party I represent the developers of property on the south side of SW Pfaffle south of and adjacent to 8400 SW Pfaffle. Specifically, the properties involved are Tax Lot 200, 300 and 2200 on Map 1 S136CC. We are proposing to construct an 84 unit apartment development on the site. As you may recall, this property was rezoned for such development last year. A reduced site plan is shown on the reverse side of this letter. Before to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to a meeting on: Thursday, February 29, 1996 Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard, Oregon 97223 7:00- 8:30 PM Please note that this will be an informational meeting on the Preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to submittal to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you at the meeting. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the proposal. Very t' ly yours •encer H. Vail 4505 N.E. 24TH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97211 • 503/281-8245 • FAX 503/284-5508 s.,..;,. IL17- (-- ---\ 22. E. RaAD r-- ap y - -) • . _ \N CARRIAGE ...q I I} 31 -: la II= OS,\t, HOUS ROAQ ALE • i i')'.\\ 11111 I!7 9Parrar r 138.f 7' 6 226 ...1 7" T� ■ rar-�16 UNIT SUMI`?ARY } 'y• M 'A•'NT6 • Y� as FT. 7 G le0O.1 7 6An4 hl 1 w -e'164IT6 • b)a as FT I GCDrACC.•r 10.1 i.1 L 1 ,� P.�. ; 1= CUFF STREET PARKING = 43 kJ Al. • ` ���I a.1.1.1 w �3 �ro x 7o,m�A7eAGEa r Q - / al am x Iarm 6rAt1 DSTAU6 w1♦ �� ' ; I� I/�- Ib am x Ir.nocc trACr WALLS e• VZ{ �L� j� � � rn TOTAL SPACED.7'/adrCRD 7mb>• �[ ♦y -. i.1■ 1 t L�6m�Cr+ r16r�ALL9 E I* IY ie,x �i ����� � ���I�T I CD lY ` F� LOT CWOe.AfiE '.eiCm 7A n L!PAZW 1 ��PAr dcRG/.`O D•nvk3 l7.V6 7'A 06 AREA ARc JF AV:,OGA1•Tf^ E'T]b• 9o�a _C;•,..,�J V ' ' \: 67fE AREA r111.•58> ICS -1.7 \ c7''''„. _e. .I NiFilriir .3 i \-.... 97 • • f -.v,n ,S +mss. r y 4 A '4Y.4„ ..., iti ,. yokto) it; )1.- N. :-c 14-C is +i! N. • J 0° l4 "r'��. -�� SYMBOL.S Lai La �,? , 1 6. TAICr D�aP ecx.w7 p.ci:.SLA2 s ■ )ktr.,„.,: �%� �wn.r�-caw Q.'.r'-1 i % 6. r.TEFNAT C.NA.-uNblc�'am6.:1. t 1 r/ 7 I .IS 1 1 y I' I, i~ 71.DP 7 `t H rena'a' w Ii ' ~ ry',.. P yc rf ■ • _ 1S136CB 06400 1S136CB 06500 1S136CB 06500 Stephan and Jenny Hoiland Murry A. Wick OCCUPANT 11320 SW 83rd 4460 Alhambra At. 8275 SW PFAFFLE Tigard, Or 97223 San Diego, CA. 92107 TIGARD, OR 07223 1S136CC 00100 1S136CC 02200 STEPHEN BARASCH Ore.Dept.of Trans. 11765 SW Pacific Hwy 5320 SW Macadam Tigard, Or 97223 Portland, Ore 97201 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8565 SW Pfaffle #1 8565 SW PFAFFLE #2 8565 SW PFAFFLE #3 Tigard, Or 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8565 SW PFAFFLE #4 8565 SW PFAFFLE #5 8565 SW PFAFFLE #6 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8565 SW PFAFFLE #7 8565 SW PFAFFLE #8 8565 SW PFAFFLE #9 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8565 SW PFAFFLE #10 8565 SW PFAFFLE #11 8565 SW PFAFFLE #12 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 1S136CC 00200 ,00300 1S136CC 00400 Andrews Management Occupant Robt. J Mcguire et al 4000 Kruse Way Pl . 8400 SW Pfaffle 8470 SW Pfaffle Lake Oswego, Or 97035 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 1S136CB 00900 1S136CB 01000 1S136CB 01900 Jay Robert Groshart Truman G. Cowley Helen N. Pfaffle, Tr 8465 SW Pfaffle 8395 SW Pfaffle 8225 SW Pfaffle Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 1S136CB 02900 1S136BC 03000 1S136BC 03100 David and Ida Roberts Michel Bottelin Robert Davidson 8355 SW Pfaffle 11295 SW 83rd 11265 SW 83rd Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 1S136CB 06300 1S136DA 01000 ,01100 , 01200 1S136CB 00890 Randy 011ison Donald Schaeffer Paul and Deborah Beckman 11290 SW 83rd PO Box 82549 8485 SW Pfaffle Tigard, 97223 Portland, Or 97282 Tigard, Or 97223 • w 13136DA 00500 1S136DA 00700 Don Graham OCCUPANT Paul F. Brossia 11260 SW Hall Blvd. 11220 SW Hall Blvd. 11260 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 Ron Naff Occupant Sharon Davidson 18641 SW Benfield 8530 SW Pfaffle 11200 SW 83 Lake Oswego, Or 97035 Tigard,Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 east cit east cit Phil McHugh 8235 SW Oleson Rd, Mary Swintek Craig Hopkins Suite C 9915 SW Frewing #23 7430 SW Varns Portland, Or 97221 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 east cit east cit Bradley Tolliver Mark F. Mahon Joel Stevens 11207 SW 81st 11310 SW 91st Ct 9660 Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Oregon 97223 SW Ventura Ct. Tigard, Or 97223 esat cit Pat Wyden 8122 SW Spruce Street Tigard, Or 97223 l l � _ - ArflDg . F N, c��,� ✓�S el-t1-0 5 LA) PrA . A-''412- Dy6 YO-,J 631.144—Asa,- 1/ _ _O _.5.1 A . /414 _ _ . 046"'j041 .6 / SiG2c7s- ' — V6°1° i'a4( f • . .11-A/47 o 41- /..s • //.2 s e.,./ 8 .3 _ ___Z2c.."-x:a 7 7..za,r UA en-k_ Mh-c.f • • MINUTES OF MEETING The meeting began shortly after 7:00 pm on February 29, 1996 in the city hall council chambers. In addition to the applicant's representatives, there were 7 people in attendance. See the attached sign up sheet. Spencer Vail, Planning Consultant for the applicant, Andrews Management, began by giving an overview of the project. A preliminary site plan and tax map for the vicinity were put of as reference materials. Vail then asked for questions from the audience. The questions covered the following areas of concern: 1. Several of those in attendance felt that existing traffic conditions on Pfaffle are so severe that any additional housing should not be allowed as it would further aggravate an already bad situation. They felt the City has been remiss in traffic planning for this area. Vail indicated that traffic had been addressed in the zoning change hearings last year. A professional traffic consultant had been retained by the applicant to assist in the site design and to work with the city on this development. Vail also stated that the applicant would probably agree to cooperate with area residents in any requests made to the City for rectifying the situation and that he would discuss these concerns with him. 2. The orientation of building C-1 was question by Mr. Herberhols, property owner to the west. He felt that his privacy would be jeopardized by having windows so close to his dwelling. He also advised the applicant of the problems he had with trees during the recent wind storms. Vail stated situation would be reviewed but that driveway location , which had to be approved by the City, would limited the buildable areas. 3. A request for a concrete block sound barrier wall between applicant's property and TL 400 was requested by the McGuires. Vail stated applicant will explore alternatives and advise of type selected and keep them advised. 4. Information on timing of project, ie construction period, when to be developed was also asked. Questions were also asked about property ownership and rental cost. • Vail responded to these questions with specific answers or with a commitment to respond directly with the questioner with the information requested. Attendees were then asked to come forward to get a closer look at the site plan and ask more site specific questions and to have informal conversations with Mr. Vail and /or the developer and project designer, Mr. Naff. Mr. Vail distributed his business card and urged anyone who may have additional questions to call him. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. SHV/me 3/1/96 r i r -.• , ., .. „.... , ......_ --221--.------- 111 (11) ill 1 'n , • ___ . , ._ . _ r- , ' R QUALT Oi _,...m.a... --.-.-._i. ... -4-,7A, R..-- " 9 .i,. .SE.- VIER .b —_ ' E C_ _. . ATE IY SWALE t rum J 4-— AJAL1rT KE / e TA N , •50*-0' U CARRI.A. } H CD B AT G a PFAFIFLIE Ft C)A ID FEW-.E ALONG ra.4/3KING, , 90.67,0,,r ,5, UNIT SUMMARY , 71P1111111141111 IIM11111 • hi_m_ t . • 40 'A'1.611T5 • 013 SO FT. 2 BEOROCPI 2 eacrw (0 I- , 'I i _---:-=-- i 36 '15'UNITS • 626 SO.FT. I eEneocrl I EATW 2 in-micas_24'tui- 454 TOTAL DuELLING LKTS la ;NI N1,2711F.r4gatlika _----,----=._ _____is; 47 ACCESS'ELE GROUND FLOOR WITS () E imps...-learli.::,#, Fgeli : 9 M.111 II_Ai. I , , ,.......-. ____1 r I Hi - ...._ 4 OFF STREET PARKING 0 = milikini, .4411 .1 w Nib ..---- / Ili 4 ilailli- MI ' . --. -- I- MI gell1Prret: l'''''' -,.-_,,-- 73 11/7/0 X 2010 GARAGES Or 8/0 x WO STANDARD VALLS 2-% 16.‘• I ....er _ 13 SAD x:6,0 CO"...ACT sTALLs S• 0 ; 2 .10 Wirt so Aa TILTPA-I_Iwo," M3 TOTAL SPACES PROv,DED INCLLCING 6..ANDCAP STALLS 206% 4 4 AhO 60 CARPORT STALLS E "---; iter1611°1si 7-IWAInalillelliirMil \ \ CV w (o •■•,,,, r ilk (i.- 4 ui . awl 1111111111VOIN AREA SUr-IMAR'r -----_-‘,.-% , iorW ,,vairarairiii, i 4. ,,,, ....1/4.,„› ;MAIL • VI'W Jr/A ...,.• illi .• TAT. . „, %. imilr.e. ''.) 1....„.... _ ii■ II 44:30/,/,„:,;,1:,i,,,,,,,;14' 7-,• 4N41 ' 4 - IrlitelisL• __. __ j"' i ' / , iP ---,-. ---...--- li "a. v- ilk - 1.41111LINIS AMY LOT COvERAGE PARKING AND DRIVES 36600 72165 AREA OF LANDSCAPING tr363 3TE AREA rI13930 V% 2316 Set 100% 0 IY 0 Z i 'V- 4 c---F FA.',TORO i, I 0 pe: v C 14■C 4 0 , \ _ „5,,,, ■ t3s::,,, i 1 4-um ...N ‘ •c (di li „. A-0 0 ,.. - o ti 4' \ ) N.4,,v4tAL _ - S'ITIBOLS c L ke C'0 11 EXTERIOR LIGI-iTING -- ., .41 SINGLE HEAD 150U1 HP5 -KEENE , '' . ,-..f . .. m SatTREART,..yDRZ 150x AND ENCLOSURE 0 IS AREA OP ILLum,NATIoN•13m.x I09'• I re • 410 KR ,' • 6.6 DCUELE HEAD 100W HPS -SYLvANIA AK00 O': NNC ■S. INTERNATIONAL«IANDICAP ST1•160L AREA ILLtPlINATION•IUD'X 200•I re \...\A . .I.J •WALL ria.krr 14PS-KEENE SA1J 153NLx-I •-•——4 EXIST DRAINAGE PATTERN ....2 AREA OF ILLUMINATION•40'X 20'•3 rc wvie...■:POTENTIAL VIEW C.ORRIDORS AT GARAGES USE PACLIG•0 PNA1111515 PLOP& CARPORT-KEENE C6240 CLOL FLOR / • 16.18' N S80508- W • t g 01-4'. 14\-'-se- o-;- .e" 1:1.'b ...4 EVERY OTHER STALL MCLNT SNGLE AND DalelE 14EAD MPS LAMPS ON 4'x 4* STEEL POSTS UlALL MOUNT HPS I7'A00-ve GRADE (Ze ;7)4!“., •A 1.41 \44.......SPX2NIAO yl's .... I 1 I_ , 27 I �.—.—'p� --PPAPPLE ROAD 777- T'____ . W 1 J WATER aIAlIT7 SWALE r wAtEre RAND WI "° . f—41ATER a7Aln S W LE d� I I r of - _ SEE CE.PLANS L . I „I � , q ' v r S 0-U"[ P �. NN / \ ` "�--- ' ' CARRIAGE 4I‘ \%....k 1! _ �N HOUSE AT PFAFFLIE �*NEA, e .k I o 16...7.5 ROAD s .vUra c F.. \ FENC•ALONG.P"0 I I-%r r w iN I � I "" ■ _• N 9,,,r 0 177 r r' .r1.=.4 2 2: 4 ■ r 5� E� I �!�� UNIT SUMMARY (U Lir vl 1 �11� I 11 E F. y 'A'WITS M. D53 5p.FT. J CFDROOI'1 2 6ATU I- n �nPICµ7a'W i # y :I 76 'D'WITS • 626 SO FT. I EEDROO'1 I BATU v-tt� -G -I ..,. ;. , I "j�a' Iku*�■�� !k: - b• H TOTAL^I ELLUG WITS J �• �I _ 47 ACCE55ABLE[RGV/D 3LOO•!WITS NN 'yl. l _ -I % - = =g OFF STREET PARKING 0 >I I �� It. = 77 10,0 x 7010 GARAGES 7Tt �( 1ST D,D X Ie. STANDARD STALLS 1 9% 2•\ ��� ' ' ' 'I"3 17ti 17 Df0 X!.0 CCT'-dCT STALLS Dt 0 '� Min ���� Il]TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 7061 4 4 ♦4`O. I ' ���� ' �m 6A '�TdL STALLS E AND``� =lit{� �� is 1� AREA SUMMARY U at lX Iii ♦ ,41111411611111P.'� LOT COVERAGE 7D 600 JA PdRKING AND DRIVES 57 ity7 75t Q / �;ril� � i MAIL ♦ AREA O.{,A'IDSGdPRYa D'SI.S IOI� , f 1✓�,o•.,7 i� J,t ail. I SITE AAA n 9 s.YSO loon i �i l,,.'�7/is \ J• 4 �� I� .' y P•RC•tl YOWL ` I • \`.,l ics sae "ft : — EXTERIOR LIGI-iTING rys~ ` •„ `It- L2U' Cv • ;. . SINGLE UEAD 150W ATI -KEENE S ' �- /� ,�� - SANITARY CROP COX AND ENCLOSURE AREA OF ILLIPTINATICN.170'X WV'• I fc ♦ ' 07 , WTU RECrCLMG SQ w DCJELE uEAD ICON MPS .STL/ANIA Al 00 �T • 7 AREA ILLLT,NATICH•170'X 700'•.1 re '- \ //^l' r`�INTE IrC+ATICNAy NdNDICAP SrTTC�JI j+� • WALL AREA UPS-ATIoo4 S40 15 :117 • ` ') 11 — Ex15T.CRAINArE PATTERN �' ,J ARFe 6 ILL%-KEENE.40'x '• fc AT GARAGES USE PACLKN+T PN1f:C6 FLCR CARPORT-KEENE CS740 C1OL FLO ♦ �.��POTENTIAL nEw CC••R!DORS EVERY OTUER STALL MOAT SNC.LE AND DOUCLF UEAD UPS LAr8S co. ♦ 4'L a'X JO.STEEL POSTS 1:1"3.f13WALL MOV.T UP'S 7'AECvE GRACE r6.rd -__ cc N Jd'OS'Cd' w 0!,,• 8 f ,��:.� 1 \1(4'I / Transportation tion /rripact Analysis Ocrrja ge HOL- Se ?bard, Oregon Prepared Andrews Man 9e nent L par: wi5 Citizens Dr., St./4e nk l td. Oregon 205 (503 2 070 8 Prepared by:KielSon &AS dc u inc. S.W Aierite 200 pa rtand Grego (503)228-5230 Project No.:1492.00 JenyBry 1995 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1 Executive Summary 1 Section 2 Introduction 3 Section 3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis 13 Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Section 6 References 25 Appendix A Tax Lot Map of the Site Area Appendix B Traffic Counts and Data Appendix C Level-of-Service Methods and Criteria Appendix D Weekday A.M. and P.M. LOS Worksheets Appendix E Influence Area Map Kittelson &Associates, Inc. January 1995 Carriage House Apartments List of Figures List of Figures Figure 1 Site Vicinity 5 Figure 2 Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Devices . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3 1995 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours . . . . . . 11 Figure 4 1996 Background Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 6 Estimated Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 7 Site-Generated Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 8 1996 Total Trafic Volumes 21 List of Tables Table 1 Zoning Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2 Existing Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 3 1995 Existing Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 4 1996 Background Level of Service Without Development . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 5 Trip Generation 18 Table 6 1996 Total Traffic Levels of Service 22 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. ii r Y. i 4 ds _ ^3 .4;',„ ';TC REIM III ll II ali 111 III 111 III I Section 1 Il<Executive Summary January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Executive Summary Executive Summary Andrews Management Ltd. is proposing to develop a 76-unit apartment complex on the south side of SW Pfaffle Street, adjacent to the General Motors Training Center, in Tigard, Oregon. A full-access driveway is proposed to serve the site on SW Pfaff le Street. The number of units could expand from 76 to 137 units if Andrews Management or some other developer chooses to make use of the increased density resulting from the requested zone changes from commer- cial-professional (C-P) and residential (R-4.5) to apartments (R-25). The maximum develop- ment of 137 units was assumed for this report. The results of the traffic impact analysis described in this report indicate that the proposed Carriage House Apartments can be developed while acceptable levels of service and safety are maintained at the site driveway and on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis resulted in the following findings and recommendations: • The proposed apartment complex (137 units) will generate approximately 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the typical weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • All the intersections within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of service, with the exception of the weekday p.m. peak hour forced flow conditions that occur at the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street intersection. • The proposed apartment zoning for the site will result in 480 fewer trips on the transportation system than if the site were developed under the current commercial-pro- fessional and single-family residential zoning. • There is a sight distance problem at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street intersec- tion; however, accident data from this location does not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition. • The study area intersection and proposed site driveway will operate at acceptable levels of service under 1996 full-buildout conditions, with the exception of SW 78th Ave- nue/SW Pfaffle Street. This intersection will operate at forced flow conditions; how- ever, the proposed development will have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street intersection. • The proposed apartment development, with its sidewalk network connecting the build- ings, should not have any internal circulation problems. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 2 era , ,.: of f kft�"1"aGaw.'tet e � ,aaa la= EMIR Section 2 Ir<Introduction January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Introduction Introduction PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site plan calls for the construction of a 76-unit apartment complex. This report was written assuming full-buildout of a 137-unit apartment complex, which will require associated zone changes on adjacent parcels. The current site plan is designed to have a full-access driveway located on SW Pfaff le Street approximately 100 feet west of SW 83rd Avenue. Initial site construction of the 76-unit apartment complex is expected to begin in Spring 1995 with the completion and opening of the apartments in Fall 1995. SCOPE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this analysis is to determine the traffic-related impacts of a 137-unit apartment complex, which reflects full buildout of the site. The development is to be located adjacent to the General Motors Training Center, which has its main entrance on Highway 99W and a rear entrance on SW Pfaff le Street. Figure 1 is the site vicinity map for the proposed development. Specific issues discussed in this report include: • Existing and future traffic conditions in the site vicinity under the proposed access scheme during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. • Traffic operations for background 1996 traffic conditions without the development of the proposed apartments. • Trip characteristic estimates for a 137-unit apartment complex. • Operational issues at the intersections of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street and SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street. • Comparative analysis of trip generation for the site under both the existing zoning (C-P/commercial-professional and R-4.5/residential) and proposed zoning (R-25/apart- ments) conditions. PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE The land required for construction of the 76-unit apartment complex, as well as the land that will be required to expand to a 137-unit apartment complex, will need to be changed from the existing zoning to multi-family residential (R-25) zoning. To build the proposed 76-unit apartment complex, the Andrews Management needs approval of two tax lot zoning changes: Andrews Management has the option to purchase a 2.55-acre lot (Tax lot 200) that is zoned commercial-professional(C-P), and seeks permission to use the southerly 0.68 acre of the adjacent 1.25-acre tax lot(Tax lot 300)to the west,which is currently zoned residential(R-4.5). Eventually, if it is possible, Andrews Management plans to expand to a 137-unit apartment complex that will encompass an additional 0.89 acre (tax lot 2200) that is currently zoned C-P to the south, 0.82 acre (tax lot 400) that is zoned R-4.5 on the other side of the 1.25-acre tax lot to the west, and the remaining 0.57 acres from the neighboring 1.25-acre lot (tax lot 300). Table 1 presents a breakdown of the three zoning scenarios: the existing zoning, proposed Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 4 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) x U) SW SPRUCE ST a s a a / Z N I- = .411/ rn (NJ O) co co co co n n ® U) V) Cl) Cl) U3V) NSW PFAFFLE ST 1 Q > z N N SW DARTMOUTH ® o ST J J gJ 1 3 N SITE VICINITY PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS I FIGURE �a TIGARD, OREGON 1 JANUARY 1995 1 1492F001 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Introduction Table 1 Zoning Scenarios Proposed Zoning Proposed Zoning Tax Lot Acreage Existing Zoning 70-unit 137-unit 200 2.55 C-P R-25 R-25 300 1.25 R-4.5 R-25* R-25 400 .82 R-4.5 No changes R-25 2200 .89 C-P No changes R-25 C-P Commercial-Professional R-4.5 Residential(Single-Family Detached Housing) R-25 Apartments(25 Apartments per Acre) * Approximately 0.68 acres out of 1.25 acres will be developed as apartments and the remainder will include the existing residence. 76-unit apartment complex zoning, and full-buildout 137-unit complex zoning. A tax lot map of the site area is included as Appendix A. This report uses the 137-unit apartment scenario for the traffic impact analyses. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 6 r 'o OSUMI MEM. MEE. Section 3 Existing n st ng Conditio s January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Existing Conditions Existing Conditions SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES The site that would be required for full-buildout of the 137-unit apartment complex is mostly vacant except for two single-family residences. Four tax lots make up the site: two commer- cial-professional (C-P) lots with a total area of 3.44 acres, and two single-family detached housing (R-4.5) lots with a total area of 2.07 acres. The sites are bordered by SW Pfaffle Street to the north, General Motors to the east, residences to the west, and woods to the south, with Highway 217 beyond the woods. Residential neighborhoods lie to the north of SW Pfaff le Street. The eastern end of SW Pfaff le Street is zoned commercial to the south; however, the primary accesses for the businesses along that segment of SW Pfaff le Street are located on Highway 99W. The proposed site is located primarily in a residential area at the western end of SW Pfaffle Street where it intersects with SW Hall Boulevard. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Primary access to the proposed site is via SW Pfaff le Street,a minor collector running east-west. In the site vicinity, SW 83rd Avenue, a local street, intersects SW Pfaff le Street approximately 100 feet east of the proposed site driveway. Local streets in the area that run north-south are two-way stop-controlled at their intersections with SW Pfaffle Street. SW Hall Boulevard is a nearby north-south arterial. Table 2 is a summary of the transportation facilities in the site vicinity. Figure 2 shows the existing transportation system,traffic control, and lane configurations. Table 2 Existing Transportation Facilities Name Classification Cross Speed Side Bicycle On-Street Section (mph) Walks Lanes Parking SW Pfaffle Street Minor Collector 28 feet 35 N side NO NO SW Hall Boulevard Arterial 34 feet 30 NO YES NO SW 83rd Avenue Local Street 32 feet 25 YES NO YES SW 82nd Avenue Local Street 22 feet 25 NO NO YES SW 81st Avenue Local Street 32 feet 25 YES NO YES SW 79th Avenue Local Street 32 feet 25 NO NO YES SW 78th Avenue Local Street 22 feet 25 NO NO NO PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES AND ACTIVITY SW Pfaff le Street currently has sidewalks on the north side of the roadway in the site vicinity. Field observations in the vicinity of the proposed project site revealed a relatively small amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity near the proposed site. It is expected that this development will have a minimal impact on these travel modes. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 8 0 NORTH (- --WASk .----- (NOT TO SCALE) El ‘.• al 41>i INtir_._ tor a i 0 M z N_ a) o3 a0 co n � N N N N , r.,A.® SW PFAFFLE ST 0 m /#5:44.40v i QPG\F� tk G ( EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE t 'a TIGARD, OREGON 2 JANUARY 1995 1492F002 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Existing Conditions TRANSIT FACILITIES Tri-Met does not provide service along SW Pfaffle Street. Routes 12 and 95X operate along Highway 99W with stops near the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersection. Route 12 "Barbur Boulevard" operates between downtown Portland and Sherwood during the week and on weekends. Route 95X"Tigard I-5 Express"operates only during the a.m. and p.m. weekday peak hours. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS The analysis focused on the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour manual traffic counts were conducted in January 1995. These manual traffic counts were conducted between 7 and 9 a.m. and 4 and 6 p.m. on a mid-week day. The traffic counts indicated that the a.m. and p.m. peak hours occur from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3. Traffic counts and data used in this report are included as Appendix B. Current Levels of Service All level-of-service(LOS) analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1). A description of LOS and the criteria by which they are determined are presented in Appendix C. The appendix also includes a discussion of how LOS is measured and what is generally considered to be an acceptable range. To ensure that this analysis was based on a reasonable worst-case scenario, the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours was used for all of the intersection LOS analyses. For this reason, the analyses reflect conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic conditions during all other weekday time periods will likely operate under better conditions than those described in this report. The average delay, volume/capacity ratio, and level of service for all-way stop-controlled intersections, and levels of service and reserve capacity for existing two-way stop-controlled intersections are listed in Table 3 for both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 3 1995 Existing Level of Service All Way Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 2.8 0.43 A WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 85 E SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 4.9 0.54 A Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 10 In al 0 m r0Ol • ‘` (NOT TOSCALE) 135 10-, 5 <5 4— 105 or 20 150. or 20 f / 8 lo�n O7� M y N 1 0 2 N r m a0 m ® SW PFAFFLE ST ‘,9 ID i 40 3i i'f- A.M. PEAK HOUR 00 0 0 J 1'N l \ 175 25., IL 25 15—No ♦- 115 r 20 225 R 70 101 Qt 003 OV'M In 0 C z z et ;-3 n N. V�1 N A A ® SW PFAFFLE ST /SITE ID NO P.M. PEAK HOUR 4 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS I FIGURE ija TIGARD, OREGON 3 JANUARY 1995 1492F003 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Existing Conditions As shown in Table 3, both intersections studied operate at acceptable levels during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street intersection currently operates at LOS "E" during the weekday p.m. peak period. Appendix D contains the weekday a.m. and p.m. LOS worksheets. Accident History All intersections within the study area operate within acceptable safety levels. The intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street has limited sight distance resulting from the vertical curve of SW Hall Boulevard as it crosses the Highway 217 overpass. The bridge abut- ment/guardrail along the eastern side of SW Hall Boulevard as it crosses the bridge also creates a sight distance problem for vehicles turning left from SW Pfaff le Street onto SW Hall Boulevard. An examination of the City of Tigard 1991-1994 reported traffic accident histories of the intersection revealed six accidents, of which five were non-injury. This amounts to 1.5 accidents per year, which is a tolerable level for intersections of this type. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 12 n . imam sum Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis P Y January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis The effects of traffic generated by the proposed apartment development during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods were analyzed as follows: • On the basis of the proposed size of the apartments, the total number of future weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips were estimated for complete build-out of the site. • Background peak hour traffic estimates for 1996 were chosen as the basis for compar- ison. A growth factor of 3 percent per year was used to account for future traffic growth within the study area. • A comparative analysis was performed to determine the amount of added trips on the transportation system resulting from both existing and proposed zoning conditions. • Predicted site-generated traffic was added to the 1996 background volumes to determine the traffic operation levels at key intersections in the site vicinity and at the site driveway. • The access point location was evaluated for potential safety or operational deficiencies. • The internal circulation of the proposed apartment complex was studied. The methodology summarized above and the results of the analysis are presented in detail in the remainder of this section PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS There are no known transportation improvements within the study area that are expected to influence future traffic patterns. 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC The 1996 background volumes were projected to account for continued growth in the area. After consulting with the City of Tigard,it was concluded that an annual 3 percent global growth rate would appropriately account for additional traffic volumes in the site vicinity. The growth rate was applied to the existing traffic shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the projected 1996 background volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the existing zoning and proposed zoning. Level-of-Service Analyses Table 4 shows the 1996 background LOS for both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Appendix D contains the 1996 Background weekday a.m. and p.m. LOS worksheets. As shown in Table 4, the unsignalized intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street will operate at an acceptable level of service during both the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In isolation the all-way stop-controlled intersection of SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street operates at LOS A, but during peak hour periods forced-flow conditions are created by traffic backed up from the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W signalized intersection. The proposed project will add less volume to this intersection than would development of the property as Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 14 0 V O 00 U7 lA) l (NOT NO SCALE, 140 115---► 150 1 5 5 110 of-20 155.. c20 t 1 t I 0. onn O. M M < < 0 0 h z N I 2 CO m CV N. CO 3 N N N N ® SW PFAFFLE ST 4, 110. 9 M 1 40 A.M. PEAK HOUR 'n'n O1— O O dN N7,n � Al ly 180 25.1 IL 25 295-* 200 15-Ow 120 20 230-N c 70 0 't) Iv 0 n O N00 OaM U C 0 O cc co z aND On r:, n N.co N N N i is SW PFAFFLE ST 4, VIP' S m vl 9r- P.M. PEAK HOUR 4 1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE K TIGARD, OREGON 4 JANUARY 1995 14920004 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Table 4 1996 Background Level of Service Without Development All Way Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 215 C SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 2.8 0.44 A WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 50 E SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 4.9 0.55 A currently zoned. Future improvement of the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersection would alleviate this already existing condition. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS Construction of the proposed 76-unit apartment development is planned for spring 1995, with the complex opening in fall 1995. The proposed 76-unit, two-story apartment development is designed to have one full-access in/out driveway on SW Pfaff le Street. The site plan for the 76-unit apartment complex shows 131 spaces available for off-street parking, of which 5 are designated handicapped. There will be 18 garages and 52 covered stalls. Figure 5 is an illustration of the current site plan for the proposed development. The Influence Area Map (Appendix E) shows the transportation network and land uses in the site vicinity. TRIP GENERATION Estimates of weekday a.m. and p.m.peak hour vehicle trips for the proposed apartment complex were developed from empirical observations at other, similar apartment developments. These observations are summarized in a standard reference manual called Trip Generation (Refer- ence 2). Table 5 shows the estimated weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation characteristics for the property under both current and proposed zoning conditions. Additionally, Table 5 includes a comparison of the daily trips and peak hour trips under full development with existing zoning: 1,415 total daily trips, 110 total a.m. peak hour trips, and 170 total p.m. peak hour trips. As shown in Table 5, the proposed 137-unit apartment complex will generate approximately 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Under the current zoning, development of the site would result in 1,415 total daily trips and would contribute 560 more daily trips to the transportation system than the proposed zoning, which would result in 885 daily trips. This analysis indicates that the change in zoning for the proposed apartment development will result in fewer trips on the transporta- tion system than if the site were developed with the current zoning. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 16 I E 1 0 V PIAN T CO 1 CARRIAGE AT HOUSE ROAD AFFLE PFAFFLE R OAD 4111111 :,.. _ _ _ _ _ f . JC_ ---._\ i l I i •.nL•Fell ill -- L e•lc i 1 0. STREET PARKING Ill r-I 1 F d) I -- N�� M 10/O x 30r0 GAPhif 3.:4 53 9N X br0 CCwEFtC`•I ALLY 1.4 _3 9u ' , 1 21 9,0 X WO 31ANC,ARf a TALL` »+> I 4� f 34 •10 X Ib22 CCYFA(.I MAL LS 49• `� III ■ MI1 >I IQIAL!PACE?r R.-'I Vi Ef IM• }- 1 111C1t1b44C 5 Nd4u AT 9lALl• I la Ili _ i Ill I L —•-OFT 0 4 J C G�D "F 1 111111-. �����I III --Fri. 7', 7II rl� - �� i AREA SUMMARY ,1 1 1 II I I I 1 1 1 n F LO1 C0.fFrLiF 4'947 ::► VV O l - 1 .. PAFK 4101 AHD L'Fi AL, 41.667 -- 1,,,% 0l- /� •!/D • _ARE•OF LIF1L?9CAF'l/li tb 7.7 _ e!4 Orn l 9C r A. 41,E AREA IwN4 1,X IL cl) r / �1A �L 3 to °0� g' l3k IOSTD / 111 • VI 1. _ _>1 A<_8 t-I L t..n.P.v.I..L.,L,;0.,.I#i. l8'-lI lN r I. •-:s 1T_� 11 4 . 4 I,.... i i ITI 1l-1l 1 1 4 ir11''1 m-"--°'6.0I 1. .i,A r j_,.-_ M0 I I I EI m__-__ 1610 •1 1•10 Z ':. F 1 1 / 1 ' 1 (\\.0........ y-.X11 ____ di, 018 00'DUFFER IN...� 1 L Q 1 C V N. i. 9..-....3\ >np Fr - refIZ.l.n0.0.11 Tl1M.41 CN�w A, m \-__ } P . tD Q N O January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Table 5 Trip Generation Land Use Size ITE Daily Peak Hour Trips Code Trips Total Inbound Outbound WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR EXISTING ZONING Medical-Dental Office Building 37,462 sf 720 1280 100 75 25 (C-P) Single-Family Detached Housing 9 units- 210 85 5 <5 <5 (R-4.5) Total 1365 105 80 30 PROPOSED ZONING Apartment (R-25) 137 units* 220 885 70 10 60 Net Difference -480 -35 -70 30 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING ZONING Medical-Dental Office Building 37,462 sf 720 1280 155 45 110 (C-P) Single-Family Detached Housing 9 units* 210 85 10 5 <5 (R-4.5) Total 1365 165 50 115 PROPOSED ZONING Apartment(R-25) 137 units* 220 885 85 60 25 Net Difference -480 -80 10 -90 * Total acres multiplied by number of units allowed per acre. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS The distribution of site-generated trips on to the roadway system within the study impact area was estimated through examination of current traffic conditions. Figure 6 shows the distribu- tion pattern during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Figure 7 shows the site-generated traffic assignments for the proposed apartments. TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES/OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS The 1996 background traffic volumes for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours shown in Figure 4 were added to the site-generated traffic shown in Figure 7 to arrive at the 1996 total traffic volumes shown in Figure 8. Table 6 lists the 1996 total traffic levels of service with the proposed apartment complex. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 18 0 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) a 0 a oc z U) ~ in CO CO CO N N N U)N N N cn 135% 50% 50% 55 ® SW PFAFFLE ST a SITE co-' 0 a 15% G �� cn QP N, /r25% 1 (K\ ( ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS FIGURE 6 �a TIGARD. OREGON c IN JANUARY 1995 1492F006 0 ,.. (---- 0 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) -20 4— <5 �/ � 10 5�1 C5 30�R 0 n < o i vi — 4 m CO 00 cc r \ N N VI N N 7® SW PFAFFLE ST SITE J CD ID e A.M. PEAK HOUR 0 ‘4, (-------- 10 15 C5 30 m �30 15...4 if IN l 1\ 0 < d' 2 N .-- ,•1 cc cc r- Vn N N V;1 V3e 1 ® SW PFAFFLE ST SITE J CD J y P.M. PEAK HOUR 4 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS I FIGURE TIGARD, OREGON K JANUARY 1995 1492F007 I Cii oIl \ NORTH 115 150 10 k.S (NOT TO SCALE) 5--■ F 110 30 N �5 785c20 M M lu,.- p p CZ C/7 r1 (N — 01 40 a0 CO ao n n N vv, A ® 5W PFAFFLE ST SITE J m ID Q 4 A.M. PEAK HOUR QO 0 N V LA 25-)11 295-, - 135 -c 30 245 c 70 °N'*M z z v1 I i- m N 01 a0 0D 07 n n N VV) VV) N V1 ® SW PFAFFLE ST Q SITE J CD Q P.M. PEAK HOUR 4 1996 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES I PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS TIGARD, OREGON 8 Ii JANUARY 1995 U 1492F008 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Table 6 1996 Total Traffic Levels of Service All Way Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersection Delay V/C LOS Reserve LOS Capacity WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 200 C Site Driveway/SW Pfaffle Street 715 A SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 3.1 0.46 A WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaffle Street 35 E Site Driveway/SW Pfaffle Street 530 A SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street 5.5 0.58 B All intersections studied, including the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street, will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during all time periods, as shown in Table 6. The site access driveway will operate at an acceptable level of service during both peak hour periods. Although forced-flow conditions occur during the peak hour periods at SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street, the proposed apartment development would have minimal impacts on this already-existing condition. Improvement of the SW Dartmouth Street/Highway 99W intersec- tion would alleviate this condition. Appendix D contains the 1996 total traffic weekday a.m. and p.m. LOS worksheets. INTERNAL CIRCULATION An analysis of the proposed site plan indicated that the proposed apartment development should not have any internal circulation problems. A network of sidewalks links the buildings, allowing pedestrians to move within the site without having to compete with automobiles. As part of this analysis, the proposed site-access driveway on SW Pfaff le Street was examined for potential operational or safety deficiencies. It should be noted that the project team worked with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. to provide the most effective access scheme which would promote safe and efficient operation both on and off-site. The proposed site-access driveway is aligned approximately 100 feet west of the SW 83rd Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street intersection. The proposed site-access driveway was examined for adequate intersection and stopping sight distance, and was found to provide sufficient sight distances. Landscaping along the site frontage should be limited to low-growing ground cover or non-obstructing trees to continue to ensure adequate sight distance in both directions. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 22 r i t a ; € ��. � ii 10-_I. 4,,IIIIIIIIII IIII Section 5 D Conclusions and Recommendations di January 1995 Carriage House Apartments Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions and Recommendations The traffic impact analysis described in this report indicates that the proposed Carriage House Apartments can be developed while an acceptable level of service and safety are maintained at the site driveway and on the surrounding transportation system. The analysis revealed the following findings and recommendations: • The proposed apartment complex with one driveway will generate approximately 885 daily trips, of which 70 trips will be during the typical weekday a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • All the intersections within the study area currently operate at acceptable levels of service, with the exception of the peak hour forced flow conditions that occur at the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaffle Street intersection as a result of the SW Dartmouth Street/High- way 99W signalized access. • The proposed apartment zoning for the site will result in 480 fewer trips on the transportation system than if the site were developed under the current commercial-pro- fessional and single-family residential zoning. • There is a sight distance problem at the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Pfaff le Street intersec- tion. However, accident data from this location do not reflect an unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to worsen the already existing condition. • The study area intersection and proposed site driveway will operate at acceptable levels of service under 1996 full-buildout conditions, with the exception of SW 78th Ave- nue/SW Pfaff le Street. This intersection will operate at forced flow conditions; how- ever, the proposed development will have minimal impact on the operation and safety of the SW 78th Avenue/SW Pfaff le Street intersection. • The proposed apartment development, with its sidewalk network connecting the build- ings, should not experience any internal circulation problems. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 24 I • 'n...41'''' ''''''''''..' ' I • 111 I 111 a II II IN • Section 6 Vt References N % S Iv0 AA fk S�' T i.l � � i�� S+ M tuy`ypS 5h imam mown Imo Appendix A D Tax Lot Map of the Site Area N Appendix A Tax Lot Map of Site Area SW I/4 SW I/4 SECTION 36 T IS R I W W.M. N WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON E SCALE I"=100' ___1 I 1 SEE MAP Vhf IS I 36 CO 3l Ito I 3 + SW F. PFAFFLE ,lc 2 C.R975 STREET I tiA"Tans S M d t 4•1 SS 400 1,(,, i 1 N 300 $ 200 I00 .4?Ac 1c- 1.7 LZSAc E_9 -� ZSSAc k e 51 AerA'I a` Re ``1� 9 J L1iAc. w e.-CAeehT1A1I C • 0/57/A� it d ovAVv\erc:14431.041C7Siona II1` C—p ..i• v, w 11 rr J▪' -l� 5 i COVvomerc1A1- rrpjeSSioro..- • s rj N 0•GSAC. o •... e N. b b Propo3ec 7(o-u,; - N. r. W-thl CO•M4 CJI a _.•1 i I CNa110SON °LC SS N . • 6•114" 1 ISS W w° n S •iri ° /' 317 is 6je% 45••9L 2200 \\ .89Ac. Mo r ors i to +\� \ ` 23 .8 �yf I1 3W ks a - ?5 • E OEM Appendix B D Traffic Counts and Data N TIA INVENTOR Y SHEET Project Name: _ _Vfttr, '- ' e 11� �var , _o► , KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Project Number: 1,-192 J {g2 r1 •,'•;{! c ;/ �, 310 SW Alder, Suite 700 Analyst: F WM, ' '.r Portland,Oregon 97205 Date: :':,` f (503)228-5230 Filename: 0.'CPW`TIA94RON.WB1 1 Fax: (503)273-8169 SITE VICINITY MAP INTERSECTIONS: Lana L,se Street Network Bus Routes/Stops Lane Configurations Control Type Progression Signal Phasing Storage for RT and LT lanes N1),c--,,-�1 e , 2) . / 'a—1-$44 ..;....„ if .' 1 kl ei ''': Is. • A_ ---",-> VI v. 6'‘ )()_„„( I 1 w 3) 'dr, '4 .4)\....) I c?, I 4) .ed _)t. /g..-- A NOTES: r 5) / 6) ''''-<} 1 r ._l-' ,,' ``t--'' \,/,. .r,,r v ��t 1, I •T[-r if dr P `r, IL — iti,c4/ 75 A ,,--t-: (5 ,) /k 4-t7 ..---. ._-- Ni--- l � . `� — 1:'1,' ,A; CT — Ipp' -No fr,ae16a aow !4 STREETS: ' - 4 44,4 Street Name 'C!ossification Cross Posted Y Sided i I �B� On-Street Numbep of Lanes Section Soeed walks Lanes I Parkina and Lane Width Nk).4 f c(I e 6-o+' 2c6 `7 N,1` I i 12) i c" d ,.,,.k 2 \■\ t,,L i V)o 1 -) . : '2 I rc a 25- `Nn ‘1 !() �)ec2 11 / \ \ ', I tr{4,L. 32 2s Ye9 l's, 7 f � c t , f I Z ?S N o 1.)c' Q. ;f, 1 I ' .T ec.-, 221 -2-S I N \\3" Mb i I1 (11 -tmCt10.` 1 1 3 I ' is INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT PFAFFLE AT SW 78TH STREET • T= 2.8% P=.847 N 61 • DATE OF COUNT: 01/05/96 O �20 DAY OF WEEK: Thu R O(O 50 2'A TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H 4-144 i 4 4-128 • • 10 -I L5 T= 2.1% T= 2.8% 11-KT-4. 4-1.64 L0S P=.651 P=.864 14 1 r 749 20 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME T=°%TRUCKS BY APPROACH • P=PHF BY APPROACH 159 -► N 5 -* arm) 5 2•0-'=,' Peak Hour 1217 A 07:30-08:30 Traffic Smithy • T= 1.5% P=.730 �38 TEV=386 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO 1 -► J 4] 1 L► 4-1 I r► r 4- L ALL 07:00-07:05 5 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 9 0 23 07:05-07:10 12 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 2 6 0 25 07:15-07:20 20 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 32 " 07:20-07:25 7 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 9 0 22 ' 07:25-07:30 9 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 10 0 07:30-07:35 14 1 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 5 8 0 3 07:35-07:40 11 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 5 0 23 07:40-07:45 20 0 0 0 8 1 3 0 0 2 2 0 381 07:45-07:50 17 0 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 1 8 1 361 07:50-07:55 19 0 4 0 3 0 6 0 0 1 8 0 41 07:55-08:00 17 0 1 0 6 0 1 1 0 2 12 1 4 08:00-08 :05 14 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 1 0 8 2 33 08:05-08:10 10 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 12 0 28 08:10-08:15 7 0 2 3 2 0 4 0 0 1 11 0 30 08:15-08 :20 6 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 1 10 0 24 08:20-08:25 5 0 0 1 5 1 5 0 0 0 12 0 29 08:25-08:30 8 0 1 1 5 0 2 0 0 4 8 1 30 08:30-08 :35 12 0 3 1 3 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 08:35-08 :40 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 14 08:40-08:45 10 1 0 1 3 0 2 2 0 3 6 0 28 08:45-08:50 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 23 08:50-08 :55 10 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 8 0 26 08:55-09:00 5 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 18 lbi Total Survey 259 3 20 13 93 2 46 16 5 41 172 5 675 PHF .66 .25 .42 .56 .83 .5 .7 .63 .5 .53 .79 .42 .817 It Trucks 1.5 0 10 7.7 2.2 0 2.2 0 0 0 3 .5 0 2.4 Stopped Buses 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 Hourly Totals 07:00-08:00 162 2 8 6 46 1 22 7 3 23 85 2 367 07:15-08:15 165 1 11 9 45 1 27 4 4 19 95 4 385 07:30-08 :30 148 1 10 9 50 2 31 5 2 , 19 104 5 386 07:45-08 :45 129 1 15 8 44 1 31 8 2 16 99 5 359 08 :00-09:00 97 1 12 7 47 1 24 9 2 18 87 3 308 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT HALL BOULEVARD AND PFAFFLE • T= 3 .5% P=.769 N 508 DATE OF COUNT: 01/04/94 • O 415 q 5 1424 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 4-4 94 TIME STARTED: 07:00 T TIME ENDED: 09:00 H —0 i L. 4-155 • • 0 j L133\35 T= 0% T= 4 .2% 0 —► 4-0 P=0. P=.717 0 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • -► � ;2-2' 20 T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 41-1 I P=PHF BY APPROACH 0 —. 109 —► 0 2-912% 15 Peak Hour 1436 • 07:30-08:30 Traffic Smithy + T= 5.8% P=. 85 1306 TEV=969 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME PERIOD • • • FROM - TO ; —► 3 .J I L. 41 I r► ; ' L ALL 07:00-07:05 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 11 1 2 0 5 39 07:05-07:10 0 0 0 0 21 6 0 7 2 3 0 7 46 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 0 29 4 0 20 2 2 0 5 62 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 0 33 7 0 23 1 2 0 4 70 07:20-07:25 0 0 0 0 25 9 0 18 1 2 0 14 69 .`"J� - 07:25-07:30 0 0 0 0 27 8 0 11 4 4 0 6 60 07:30-07:35 0 0 0 0 38 11 0 21 3 3 0 10 8T—' 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 0 35 7 0 22 0 0 0 5 69 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 0 28 14 0 26 3 2 0 6 7a, 07:45-07:50 0 0 0 0 49 10 0 28 0 3 0 5 95 07:50-07:55 0 0 0 0 49 8 0 33 0 4 0 20 114 07 :55-08 :00 0 0 0 0 42 7 0 21 3 2 0 16 91 08 :00-08:05 0 0 0 0 27 11 0 29 1 1 0 11 8Q.,, 08 :05-08 :10 0 0 0 0 24 9 0 19 2 2 0 11 677 08 :10-08 :15 0 0 0 0 30 4 0 33 1 1 0 12 81 08 :15-08 :20 0 0 0 0 27 6 0 20 1 1 0 12 67 08 :20-08:25 0 0 0 0 33 3 0 21 0 1 0 16 74 08 :25-08:30 0 0 0 0 32 4 0 18 1 2 0 9 66 08 :30-08 :35 0 0 0 0 25 8 0 24 1 3 0 6 08 :35-08 :40 0 0 0 0 27 5 0 14 1 3 0 4 54 08 :40-08 :45 0 0 0 0 22 5 0 24 5 2 0 5 63 08 :45-08:50 0 0 0 0 27 10 0 23 1 1 0 7 69 08 :50-08:55 0 0 0 0 28 4 0 27 4 3 0 5 71 08 :55-09:00 0 0 0 0 23 5 0 20 2 2 0 7 59 `(y(a Total Survey 0 0 0 0 721 165 0 513 40 51 0 208 1698 PHF 0 0 0 0 .74 .73 0 .84 .63 .61 0 .71 . 807 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 3 .9 1.8 0 5.5 10 11.8 0 2 .4 4 .4 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Hourly Totals 07 :00-08:00 0 0 0 0 396 91 0 241 20 29 0 103 880 07:15-08:15 0 0 0 0 407 105 0 284 19 26 0 120 961 07:30-08:30 0 0 0 0 414 94 0 291 15 22 0 133 969 07:45-08 :45 0 0 0 0 387 80 0 284 16 25 0 127 919 08 :00-09:00 0 0 0 0 325 74 0 272 20 22 0 105 818 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT HALL BOULAVALD AND PFAFFLE • T= 1.2% P=.844 DATE OF COUNT: 01/04/94 O 686 490 Z■c ( 680 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 0 446 2.00 TIME STARTED: 16 :00 T I TIME ENDED: 18 :00 H —1 AJ i L. 4-197• A 0 -1 L175 T= 0% T= .6% 0 —► *-443- ► P=0. P=.834 0 ; ;22-2C TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME • T=°%TRUCKS BY APPROACH 0 —ii. �� I N 290 —► P=PHF BY APPROACH 5001 D 505 8-2S0 Peak Hour i 16 :30-17:30 Traffic Smithy T= .9% P=.907 7588 TEV=1471 Traffic Survey Service TIME PERIOD EAST BOUND • SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND • FROM - TO r —► J 4J I L . i-i If r• 1— L i r ALL 16:00-16:05 0 0 0 0 22 4 0 31 6 3 0 10 76 16 :05-16 :10 0 0 0 0 46 15 0 35 3 4 0 6 109 16:10-16:15 0 0 0 0 39 8 0 25 5 3 0 15 95 16:15-16 :20 0 0 0 0 46 14 0 41 4 1 0 9 115 ,199 16:20-16 :25 0 0 0 0 39 6 0 44 5 1 0 20 115 16:25-16:30 0 0 0 0 35 13 0 45 3 3 0 18 117 16 :30-16 :35 0 0 0 0 39 20 0 40 8 2 0 12 12 1 16 :35-16 :40 0 0 0 0 32 16 0 43 10 3 0 12 116 16:40-16:45 0 0 0 0 40 9 0 38 5 1 0 19 112 16 :45-16:50 0 0 0 0 32 14 0 51 6 1 0 16 120 16:50-16 :55 0 0 0 0 43 15 0 35 10 4 0 15 122 16:55-17:00 0 0 0 0 35 13 0 37 5 2 0 11 10 17:00-17:05 0 0 0 0 47 24 0 51 9 2 0 16 149j 17:05-17:10 0 0 0 0 31 23 0 42 7 1 0 10 114 17:10-17:15 0 0 0 0 40 24 1 48 4 2 0 9 128 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 0 59 20 0 40 9 2 0 15 145„ 17:20-17:25 0 0 0 0 43 17 0 39 4 1 0 17 121 17:25-17:30 0 0 0 0 37 13 0 41 5 1 0 23 120 17:30-17:35 0 0 0 0 40 20 0 39 7 5 0 5 116 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 0 32 10 0 36 3 3 0 18 102 17:40-17:45 0 0 0 0 41 14 0 40 5 1 0 8 109 17:45-17:50 0 0 0 0 33 13 0 41 2 1 0 11 101 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 0 36 14 0 40 3 3 0 7 103 17:55-18 :00 0 0 0 0 36 9 0 30 7 0 0 8 90 9 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 923 348 1 952 135 50 0 310 2719 PHF 0 0 0 0 .84 .73 .25 .9 .85 .69 0 .8 . 933 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 1.5 .3 0 .8 1.5 0 0 .6 1 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Hourly Totals 16 :00-17:00 0 0 0 0 448 147 0 465 70 28 0 163 1321 16:15-17:15 0 0 0 0 459 191 1 515 76 23 0 167 1432 16:30-17:30 0 0 0 0 478 208 1 505 82 22 0 175 1471 16:45-17:45 0 0 0 0 480 207 1 499 74 25 0 163 1449 17:00-18:00 0 0 0 0 475 201 1 487 65 22 0 147 1398 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY REPORT PFAFFLE AT SW 78TH STREET • T= 2.3% P=.825 N 166 • DATE OF COUNT: 01/04/96 O + 40 5 �91 DAY OF WEEK: Wed R 20 19 l' TIME STARTED: 16:00 T TIME ENDED: 18:00 H *-232 43 i 4 4-208• •2-32.5 3 4325 T= .4% 0% X 15 �}-* *-} t t5 P=.849 P=.825 225 1 x-70 TEV=TOTAL ENTRY VOLUME t r T=%TRUCKS BY APPROACH P=PHF BY APPROACH 265 I336t00 45 230 52 -* Peak:Hour Traffic Smithy . - + T= 1% P=.877 172 TEV=711 Traffic Survey Service EAST BOUND SOUTH BOUND NORTH BOUND WEST BOUND TIME FROM TO PERIOD -► 3 43 1 1-• 11 t r r r L ALL 16:00-16:05 8 2 2 1 0 0 1 4 2 8 10 1 39 16:05-16:10 12 0 3 2 3 0 3 6 6 2 10 3 50 C 16:10-16:15 11 0 2 1 7 0 6 2 5 8 12 0 54 �,4 16:15-16:20 20 0 1 0 2 0 6 3 4 7 9 0 52 • , 16:20-16:25 14 0 2 1 2 1 8 2 2 11 13 2 16:25-16:30 11 2 4 1 4 0 10 5 4 5 8 3 57 16:30-16:35 22 2 4 3 2 1 10 2 1 8 11 2 682v 16:35-16:40 21 2 5 1 2 0 6 5 3 8 11 2 66 16:40-16:45 10 3 0 2 5 1 13 2 2 11 9 1 59 16:45-16:50 17 2 2 3 4 1 5 3 3 6 12 3 61 16:50-16:55 17 1 1 1 3 0 1 5 6 4 10 3 52 16:55-17:00 15 1 1 3 2 1 7 4 1 4 10 2 51 17:00-17:05 29 0 0 0 4 1 10 4 1 8 9 4 70 17:05-17:10 20 1 2 0 4 0 8 6 3 3 3 0 50 17:10-17:15 24 0 2 1 6 1 12 3 2 3 9 1 64 17:15-17:20 25 3 0 4 1 0 9 4 0 1 8 0 55 , 17:20-17:25 12 0 6 0 6 0 13 0 1 2 17 1 58 17:25-17:30 19 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 7 9 0 50 17:30-17:35 24 1 2 3 2 0 9 2 1 8 11 1 64 17:35-17:40 16 0 1 4 6 0 4 3 2 2 8 2 48 17:40-17:45 15 0 1 0 6 0 2 3 2 8 7 2 46 17:45-17:50 16 0 2 1 5 0 11 5 0 3 5 0 48 17:50-17:55 15 2 2 3 1 0 4 3 1 5 4 2 42 17:55-18:00 11 0 3 2 5 1 7 0 5 5 11 0 50 ZyQ 27Z Total Survey 404 23 51 39 83 11 167 77 59 137 226 35 1312 PHF .77 .61 .44 .71 .7 .88 83 .8 .64 .67 .88 .64 .920 Trucks .2 0 2 0 3 .6 0 1.2 1.3 0 0 0 0 .6 Stopped Buses 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peds 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 Hourly Totals 16:00-17:00 178 15 27 19 36 5 76 43 39 82 125 22 667 16:15-17:15 220 14 24 16 40 7 96 44 32 78 114 23 708 16:30-17:30 231 16 26 20 40 9 96 39 25 65 118 19 704 16:45-17:45 233 10 21 21 45 7 82 38 24 56 113 19 669 17:00-18:00 226 8 24 20 47 6 91 34 20 55 101 13 645 9 MM . ' 1111 MEN IN a II III ill Appendix C vd Level-of-Service Methods and N Criteria ii. Ill January 1995 Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C Appendix C Level of Service Concept Level of service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Six grades are used to denote the various LOS from A to F.1 Table C-1 Level of Service Definitions (Signalized Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A Very low average stopped delay, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for a LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such high delay levels. I Most of the material in this appendix is adapted from the Transportation Research Board,Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209(1985). Kittelson &Associates, Inc. A-1 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C Signalized Intersections The six LOS grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table A l. Additionally,Table A2 identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Table C-2 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Stopped Delay per Vehicle(Seconds) A <_5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. A-2 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C Unsignalized Intersections The calculation of LOS at an unsignalized intersection requires a different approach. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology for calculating the LOS at two-way, stop-controlled intersections. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is defined using the concept of "reserve capacity" (i.e., that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used). A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersec- tion is presented in Table A3. A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table A4. Table C-3 General Level-of-Service Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. B • Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience. • Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue. C • Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue. • Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so. D • Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue. • Drivers feel quite restricted. E • Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accomodated by the movement. • There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue. • Drivers find the delays approaching intolerable levels. F • Forced flow. • Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection. • Kittelson &Associates, Inc. A-3 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C Table C-4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Capacity Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic (pcph) Level of Service <_400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0-99 E Very long traffic delays *When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane,extreme delays will be encountered,with queueing that may cause severe congestion and affect other traffic movements in the intersection.This condition usually warrants intersection improvement. The reserve capacity concept applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the LOS, capacity, and expected delay of all the individual movements have been calculated, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgment. An "E" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. Experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates this methodology is conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems. This is especially true for minor-street, left-turn movements. For example, the Highway Capacity Manual methodol- ogy does not take into account the effects of vehicle flow platoons that result from upstream signalization. Vehicles traveling in platoons tend to create greater gaps in the traffic flow,which sometimes provide additional capacity for the side closest to the signal. Therefore, the results of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. Generally, LOS E for the minor-street, left-turn movement is considered to be acceptable for an unsignalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should be investigated. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. A-4 January 1995 Carriage House Apartments-DRAFT Appendix C All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections2 There is no accepted procedure for a level-of-service analysis of an all-way, stop-controlled intersection. The procedure used for determining LOS for a four-way or three-way stop-con- trolled intersection differs from that described for unsignalized intersections. This methodol- ogy,which is being reviewed by the Unsignalized Intersection Committee of the Transportation Research Board, uses a capacity estimation method based on headways observed at all-way, stop-controlled intersections in the western United States. The procedure incorporates several important variables, including volume distribution, number of lanes on each approach, and the percentage of right and left turns at the intersection. Intersection performance is measured in parameters similar to signalized intersections: delay, volume-to-capacity ratio, and Level of Service using a scale of"A" through "F". Approach delay on any given leg of the intersection is calculated using the following equation: D =exp (3.8 x C WhereD=vehicle delay on a given approach (sec/veh) SV=subject approach volume (vehicles per hour [vph]) C=calculated approach capacity (vph) exp=base of natural logarithms In this equation,the quantity SV/C is simply the volume-to-capacity ratio on the approach under consideration. Table A5 presents the LOS criteria for all-way, stop-controlled intersections. Table C-5 Level-of-Service Definitions (All-way, Stop-Controlled Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A < 5 Seconds B 5 to 10 Seconds C 10 to 20 Seconds D 20 to 30 Seconds E 30 to 45 Seconds F >45 Seconds 2 Kyte,Michael,Estimating Capacity and Delay at an All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection. University of Idaho, Depart- ment of Civil Engineering Research Report September 1989. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. A-5 | | ) d / R �\d 7 \ \ \, «\ 2 \ //. \ a 4 d : , • «' < w \ ; ` way ; MEM . MEM . NEM. Il �Appendix D Weekday A. M . and P.M. LOS Ai Worksheets 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 1-1 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 970 Base 305 435 740 510 425 935 0 0 0 155 110 265 1940 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 970 Total 305 435 740 510 425 935 0 0 0 155 110 265 1940 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 145 0 255 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 145 255 145 110 255 510 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 145 0 255 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 145 255 145 110 255 510 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 400 Base 40 220 260 65 20 85 165 145 310 130 15 145 800 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 400 Total 40 220 260 65 20 85 165 145 310 130 15 145 800 #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 3-1 1492EXAM.IN - Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING AM PEAR HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Base Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection *1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 8 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St C xxxxx 0.000 C xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: C 8 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 2.8 0.431 A 2.8 0.431 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II 11 II 1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Arterial Base Future Change Rights: Include Include Include Include Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed 1 11 II 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 348 18 114 498 0 0 0 0 24 0 162 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 348 18 114 498 0 0 0 0 24 0 162 1 11 II II I Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: Ot 0% 0t 0% t Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1 .10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 348 18 120 498 0 0 0 0 26 0 178 I 11 11 11 Critical Gap Module: > Population: 0 « » Run Speed(N/S) : 30 MPH < RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 dey Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I II II 11 1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 498 xxxx xxxxx 366 xxxx xxxxx 1140 978 498 969 969 357 Potent Cap.: 707 xxxx xxxxx 830 xxxx xxxxx 184 279 631 282 282 654 t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 14.4 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 27.2 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.80 Actual Cap.: 707 xxxx xxxxx 830 xxxx xxxxx 133 252 631 255 255 654 I 11 II 11 I Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 707 xxxx xxxxx 711 xxxx xxxxx 133 252 631 229 255 476 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * C * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • * * * * * * * * * * • Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 1492EXAM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 14:59:51 Page 5-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Level Of Service Computation Report 4-Way Stop Method Base Volume Alternative Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Cycle (sec) : 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.431 Loss Time (sec) : 0 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 2.8 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II 1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 32 5 5 5 53 11 11 5 160 21 112 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 32 5 5 5 53 11 11 5 160 21 112 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 32 5 5 5 53 11 11 5 160 21 112 5 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 324 324 324 160 160 160 644 644 644 820 820 820 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.77 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.91 0.15 0.81 0.04 Final Sat.: 324 162 162 12 123 26 40 18 585 125 666 30 I II 11 II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: •••• .... ••'. .... I 11 II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 1-1 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EH Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 1470 Base 585 500 1085 690 680 1370 0 0 0 195 290 485 2940 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 1470 Total 585 500 1085 690 680 1370 0 0 0 195 290 485 2940 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 485 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 195 485 195 290 485 970 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 485 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 195 485 195 290 485 970 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 715 Base 175 335 510 65 95 160 265 235 500 210 50 260 1430 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 715 Total 175 335 510 65 95 160 265 235 500 210 50 260 1430 #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 3-1 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Base Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection *1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 8 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St E xxxxx 0.000 E xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: E # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 4.9 0.542 A 4.9 0.542 r 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Arterial Base Future Change Rights: Include Include Include Include Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed I II 1I II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 0 562 89 234 534 0 0 0 0 22 0 195 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 562 89 234 534 0 0 0 0 22 0 195 Adjusted Volume Module: II II II I Grade: Ot 0% Ot 0% % Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xXXX 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 562 89 245 534 0 0 0 0 24 0 214 I II II II I Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 cc » Run Speed(N/S) : 30 MPH cc RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I 11 11 II I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 534 xxxx xxxxx 651 xxxx xxxxx 1613 1418 534 1374 1374 606 Potent Cap.: 678 xxxx xxxxx 595 xxxx xxxxx 95 156 599 164 164 471 t Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 41.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 45 4 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.67 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0 of Actual Cap.: 678 xxxx xxxxx 595 xxxx xxxxx 40 104 599 109 109 4/1 1 11 I . 11 I Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 678 xxxx xxxxx 350 xxxx xxxxx 40 104 599 85 109 2S/ LOS by Move: * * * B • * • * • E C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ' Shared LOS: * * * • • * • * Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assuc.: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 1492EXPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:42:12 Page 5-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Level Of Service Computation Report 4-Way Stop Method Base Volume Alternative Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Cycle (sec) : 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.542 Lose Time (sec) : 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 II II 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 109 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 245 76 125 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 109 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 245 76 125 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 109 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 245 76 125 27 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 372 372 372 223 223 223 531 531 531 726 726 726 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.07 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.06 0.85 0.33 0.55 0.12 Final Sat.: 372 222 150 16 138 69 50 29 452 242 398 86 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.29 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.31 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** I II II II 1 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 3.0 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 3.0 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 7.9 7.9 7.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 1-1 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 999 Base 314 448 762 525 438 963 0 0 0 160 113 273 1998 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 999 Total 314 448 762 525 438 963 0 0 0 160 113 273 1998 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 263 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 149 263 149 113 263 525 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 263 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 149 263 149 113 263 525 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 412 Base 41 227 268 67 21 88 170 149 319 134 15 149 824 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 412 Total 41 227 268 67 21 88 170 149 319 134 15 149 824 96 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 3-1 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St C xxxxx 0.000 C xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: C # 2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound ' Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 2.8 0.444 A 2.8 0-444 + 0.000 V/C 1 11 ----11 11 - --1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Arterial Base Future Change 1 II 11 II 1 Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bee: 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 359 19 117 513 0 0 0 0 25 0 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 359 19 117 513 0 0 0 0 25 0 167 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% % Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 359 19 123 513 0 0 0 0 27 0 184 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 « » Run Speed(N/S) : 30 MPH « RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I II II II 1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 513 xxxx xxxxx 377 xxxx xxxxx 1175 1008 513 998 998 368 Potent Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 821 xxxx xxxxx 175 268 618 271 271 646 % Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 15.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 28.4 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.79 Actual Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 821 xxxx xxxxx 125 241 618 244 244 646 I ii ii li - Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 697 xxxx xxxxx 125 241 618 216 244 462 LOS by Move: • • • A • • * • * C • A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT 1.TR RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • • • * • • • • or • • * Traffix System Version 6.6 (C) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson a As:-.: r Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 r • • i 1492BKAM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 5-1 1492BKAM.CMD ttt Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:56:55 Page 6-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 CITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1 1996 BACKGROUND AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative Intersection #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec) : 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.444 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 2.8 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II II II I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Rights: Include Include Include Include I II II 11 • I Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 1 II II II 1 Rights: Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 145 0 1 11 II 11 1 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial Bee: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 Base Vol: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 5 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 Initial Bee: 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Fut: 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 159 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 159 0 PHF Volume: 33 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 165 22 115 5 Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: Ot Ot 0% 0% Reduced Vol: 33 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 165 22 115 5 t Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 33 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 165 22 115 5 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1 11 11 11 --1 Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 159 0 Sat/Lane: 324 324 324 160 160 160 644 644 644 820 820 820 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 cc >> Run Speed(E/W) : 30 MPH cc Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.78 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.91 0.15 0.81 0.04 Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 324 162 162 11 124 25 39 18 587 127 664 29 I II 11 11 1 1 11 11 11----- 1 Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 280 280 121 280 280 159 159 xxxx xxxxx 121 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.17 Potent Cap.: 723 723 875 649 723 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: **•* ***• *••* •** t Used Cap.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 1 11 11 11 1 Impedance: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Actual Cap.: 723 723 875 649 723 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 I II 11 II I Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 Unused Cap.: 723 723 875 649 723 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * • * • * * * * * * • Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * • • * • * * Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:58:13 Page 1-1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:58:13 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 1514 Base 603 515 1118 711 700 1411 0 0 0 201 299 500 3028 Added 0 0 0 f0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 1514 Total 603 515 1118 711 700 1411 0 0 0 201 299 500 3028 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 500 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 201 500 201 299 500 999 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 500 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 201 500 201 299 500 999 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 736 Base 180 345 525 67 98 165 273 242 515 216 52 268 1473 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 736 Total 180 345 525 67 98 165 273 242 515 216 52 268 1473 #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson E. Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assu■ I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 1 :58:13 Page 3-1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:58:14 Page 4 1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St 8 xxxxx 0.000 E xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: E # 2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 4.9 0.546 A 4.9 0.546 + 0.000 V/C I II II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Arterial Base Future Change 1 II II II I Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bee: 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 624 99 260 594 0 0 0 0 25 0 216 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 624 99 260 594 0 0 0 0 25 0 216 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% t Cycle/Care: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx t Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 624 99 273 594 0 0 0 0 27 0 238 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 c< » Run Speed(N/S) : 30 MPH < RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 dey Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 1 II II 11 I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 594 xxxx xxxxx 723 xxxx xxxxx 1793 1577 594 1527 1527 674 Potent Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 546 xxxx xxxxx 82 125 555 135 135 431 % Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 49.9 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 55.3 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.58 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.53 Actual Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 546 xxxx xxxxx 25 72 555 78 78 431 I I•I II II I Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 273 xxxx xxxxx 25 72 555 51 78 193 LOS by Move: * * * C • * • • • E * D Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * • * * * * Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:58:14 Page 5-1 1492BKPM.CMD Tue Jan 17, 1995 13:58:14 Page 6-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1996 BACKGROUND PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative Intersection #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec) : 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.546 Loss Time (sec) : 0 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 4.9 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II II II 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - k Rights: Include Include Include Include I 11 11 II' 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 1 II II II 1 Rights: Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 I II 11 II--- - - I Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial Bee: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 Base Vol: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1 03 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 Initial Bse: 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Fut: 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 214 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 214 0 PHF Volume: 110 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 247 77 126 27 Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% Reduced Vol: 110 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 247 77 126 27 % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 110 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 247 77 126 27 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1 11 11 II 1 Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: Adj Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 318 0 0 214 0 Sat/Lane: 372 372 372 223 223 223 531 531 531 726 726 726 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 cc » Run Speed(E/W) : 30 MPH cc Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.07 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.06 0.85 0.33 0.55 0.12 Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 372 222 150 16 138 69 49 29 452 243 398 85 1 II II 11 1 1 11 ii II 1 Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 532 532 318 532 532 214 214 xxxx xxxxx 318 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.32 Potent Cap.: 524 524 689 468 524 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: •*•* •••• •••• •• % Used Cap.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx I 11 ii 11 Impedance: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Actual Cap.: 524 524 689 468 524 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 3.1 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 8.0 6.0 8.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 I 11 11 II 1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 3.1 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 Unused Cap.: 524 524 689 468 524 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 874 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * • * • • * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • • • * * • • * * * * * Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson S Asc;.,. I Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:38 Page 1-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:38 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Trip Generation Report Trip Distribution Report Forecast for Percent Of Trips Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of To Gates 8 Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total 1 2 3 4 Zone 1 25.0 25.0 35.0 15.0 1 Pfaffle Apar 70.00 New trips 0.17 0.83 12 58 70 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal 12 58 70 100.0 TOTAL 12 58 70 100.0 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:38 Page 3-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:39 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 999 Base 314 448 762 525 438 963 0 0 0 160 113 273 1998 Added 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 20 35 Added 2 9 11 4 20 25 0 0 0 29 6 35 70 Total 0 299 17 102 427 0 0 0 0 29 0 159 1034 Total 316 457 773 530 458 988 0 0 0 189 119 308 2U68 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 263 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 149 263 149 113 263 525 Added 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 70 Added 58 12 70 0 0 0 6 29 35 6 29 35 140 Total 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 113 6 6 149 0 333 Total 58 12 70 0 0 0 119 178 298 155 142 298 665 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 412 Base 41 227 268 67 21 88 170 149 319 134 15 149 824 Added 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 3 0 35 Added 3 29 32 0 0 0 29 6 35 3 0 3 70 Total 34 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 184 21 111 5 447 Total 44 256 300 67 21 88 199 155 354 137 15 152 894 #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 Added 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 29 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 29 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc( Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:39 Page 5-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:39 Page 6-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St C xxxxx 0.000 C xxxxx 0.000 + O.000 V/C Level Of Service: C # 2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R # 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 2.8 0.444 A 3.1 0.464 + 0.020 V/C I II II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Arterial Base Future Change I II II II I Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 290 15 95 415 0 0 0 0 20 0 135 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bee: 0 299 15 98 427 0 0 0 0 21 0 139 Added Vol: 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 20 Initial Fut: 0 299 17 102 427 0 0 0 0 29 0 159 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 359 21 123 513 0 0 0 0 35 0 191 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 359 21 123 513 0 0 0 0 35 0 191 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% V Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1u Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 359 21 129 513 0 0 0 0 39 0 210 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 c< • Run Speed(N/S) : 30 MPH RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 I II II II I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 513 xxxx xxxxx 379 xxxx xxxxx 1206 1015 513 1005 1005 369 Potent Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 819 xxxx xxxxx 168 266 618 269 269 645 % Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 15.7 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 32.6 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.90 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.75 Actual Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 819 xxxx xxxxx 114 239 618 242 242 645 I II II II Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 694 xxxx xxxxx 690 xxxx xxxxx 114 239 618 203 242 434 LOS by Move: * * * A • * * * • C * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * • * * • * • * • * • • • Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (C) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:39 Page 7-1 1492WSAM.CMD Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:34:39 Page 8-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS - PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative Intersection #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Intersection #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Level Of Service: A Cycle (sec) : 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.464 Loss Time (sec) : 0 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 3.1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II II 11 I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - k Rights: Include Include Include Include I 11 II II 1 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 1 II 11 11 1 Rights: Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 145 0 1 1I 11 11 1 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 149 0 Base Vol: 30 5 5 5 50 10 10 5 150 20 105 S Added Vol: 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Fut: 29 0 29 0 0 0 0 113 6 6 149 0 Initial Bee: 31 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 155 21 108 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 3 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Fut: 34 5 5 5 52 10 10 5 184 21 111 5 PHF Volume: 31 0 31 0 0 0 0 121 6 6 159 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Final Vol.: 31 0 31 0 0 0 0 121 6 6 159 0 PHF Volume: 36 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 195 22 118 5 Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0t Reduced Vol: 36 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 195 22 118 5 % Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 % Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 36 5 5 5 55 11 11 5 195 22 118 5 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1 11 11 11 1 Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: Adj Vol.: 34 0 34 0 0 0 0 121 6 7 159 0 Sat/Lane: 326 326 326 153 153 153 659 659 659 823 823 823 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 cc » Run Speed(E/W) : 30 MPH <c Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.78 0.15 0.05 0.02 0.93 0.15 0.82 0.03 Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 326 163 163 11 119 24 34 16 609 125 670 28 1 11 11 11 I 1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 289 289 124 323 292 159 159 xxxx xxxxx 127 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.18 Potent Cap.: 715 715 871 614 712 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: •••• ***• .•.* ...• % Used Cap.: 4.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.7 xxxx xxxxx 1 11 11 11 1 Impedance: xxxx 1.00 0.98 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Actual Cap.: 715 715 671 600 712 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.8 5.8 5.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 II 11 11 1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 1.5 1.1 1.1 5.8 5.8 5.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unused Cap.: 681 715 837 600 712 931 996 xxxx xxxxx 993 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * • • • * • • • • A • • Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 785 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx 717 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • A • • * * * * * • * * Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 1-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 2-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Trip Generation Report Trip Distribution Report Forecast for Percent Of Trips Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total t Of To Gates $ Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total 1 2 3 4 Zone 1 25.0 25.0 35.0 15.0 1 Pfaffle Apar 85.00 New trips 0.68 0.32 58 27 85 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal 58 27 85 100.0 TOTAL 58 27 85 100.0 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 3-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 4-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Turning Movement Report Link Volume Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Volume NB Link SB Link EB Link WB Link Total Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Volume Type In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Volume #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St Base 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 1514 Base 603 515 1118 711 700 1411 0 0 0 201 299 500 3028 Added 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 43 Added 9 4 13 20 9 30 0 0 0 14 29 43 85 Total 0 520 91 237 494 0 0 0 0 25 0 190 1557 Total 611 519 1130 731 710 1441 0 0 0 214 328 542 3113 #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St #2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 500 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 201 500 201 299 500 999 Added 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 0 0 85 Added 27 58 85 0 0 0 29 14 43 29 14 43 170 Total 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 299 29 29 201 0 585 Total 27 58 85 0 0 0 328 214 542 230 312 542 1169 #3 78th St/Pfaffle St #3 78th St/Pfaffle St Base 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 736 Base 180 345 525 67 98 165 273 242 515 216 52 268 1473 Added 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 15 0 43 Added 15 14 28 0 0 0 14 29 43 15 0 15 85 Total 118 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 245 72 133 26 779 Total 195 359 553 67 98 165 286 271 558 231 52 282 1558 #6 #6 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Added 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 14 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 14 Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assuci Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 5-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 6-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method Future Volume Alternative Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in Intersection #1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St LOS Veh C LOS Veh C •(-- N 1 Hall Blvd/Pfaffle St E xxxxx 0.000 E xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Level Of Service: E fir•.*. * 2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St A xxxxx 0.000 A xxxxx 0.000 + 0.000 V/C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R k 3 78th St/Pfaffle St A 4.9 0.546 B 5.5 0.582 + 0.036 V/C 1 II II 11 1 Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Arterial Base Future Change I II II 11 I Trvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Volume Module: Dir LOS Time Speed LOS Time Speed Speed Base Vol: 0 505 80 210 480 0 0 0 0 20 0 175 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Bse: 0 520 82 216 494 0 0 0 0 21 0 180 Added Vol: 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 Initial Fut: 0 520 91 237 494 0 0 0 0 25 0 190 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 0 624 109 284 594 0 0 0 0 30 0 228 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 624 109 284 594 0 0 0 0 30 0 228 Adjusted Volume Module: Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% % Cycle/Cars: 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx % Truck/Comb: 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Cycl/Car PCE: 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Cmb PCE: 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj Vol.: 0 624 109 298 594 0 0 0 0 33 0 251 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 « *> Run Speed(N/S) : 30 MPH < RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Critical Gp: 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 1 II II II I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 594 xxxx xxxxx 734 xxxx xxxxx 1839 1611 594 1557 1557 679 Potent Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 540 xxxx xxxxx 82 118 555 129 129 428 % Used Cap.: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 55.3 xxxx xxxxx 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 58.6 Impedance: 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.53 xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 xxxx 1.00 0.49 Actual Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 540 xxxx xxxxx 21 62 555 68 68 428 1 11 11 11 I Level Of Service Module: Unused Cap.: 635 xxxx xxxxx 241 xxxx xxxxx 21 62 555 . 68 177 LOS by Move: * • • C • • • • • * D Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • • • * • • • * • * * • Traffix System Version 6.6 (C) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc.) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 7-1 1492WSPM.IN Thu Jan 12, 1995 15:52:56 Page 8-1 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. - PROJECT 1492 PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS PFAFFLE STREET APARTMENTS 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE 1996 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH SITE Level Of Service Computation Report Level Of Service Computation Report 1985 HCM Unsignalized Method 4-Way Stop Method Future Volume Alternative Future Volume Alternative Intersection *2 Site Driveway/Pfaffle St •-•\'�* t Intersection *3 78th St/Pfaffle St Level Of Service: 1 A • •• Cycle (sec) : 1 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.582 $*•••* Loss Time (sec) : 0 Average Delay (sec/veh) : 5.5 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Rights: Include Include Include Include I H II II I Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign I II II II I Rights: Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 0 195 0 I II II II I Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Volume Module: Initial Bee: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 201 0 Base Vol: 100 45 30 5 40 20 25 15 225 70 115 25 Added Vol: 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Initial Fut: 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 299 29 29 201 0 Initial Bee: 103 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 232 72 118 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Added Vol: 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 15 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Initial Fut: 118 46 31 5 41 21 26 15 245 72 133 26 PHF Volume: 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 318 31 31 214 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Final Vol.: 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 318 31 31 214 0 PHF Volume: 125 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 261 77 142 27 Adjusted Volume Module: Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grade: 0% 0% 0% 0% Reduced Vol: 125 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 261 77 142 27 t Cycle/Care: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t Truck/Comb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 125 49 33 5 44 22 27 16 261 77 142 27 Cycl/Car PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I II II II I Trck/Cmb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Saturation Flow Module: Adj Vol.: 16 0 16 0 0 0 0 318 31 34 214 0 Sat/Lane: 375 375 375 212 212 212 522 522 522 716 716 716 Critical Gap Module: » Population: 0 •< » Run Speed(E/W): 30 MPH << Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RT Rad/Ang: 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg 20.0 ft/90.0 deg Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.07 0.62 0.31 0.09 0.05 0.86 0.31 0.58 0.11 Critical Gp: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx Final Sat.: 375 224 151 15 131 66 46 27 448 224 413 79 I II II II I I II II II I Capacity Module: Capacity Analysis Module: Cnflict Vol: 578 578 334 608 594 214 214 xxxx xxxxx 349 xxxx xxxxx Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.34 Potent Cap.: 490 490 675 419 479 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 846 xxxx xxxxx Crit Moves: ••** ••• •••• •••• % Used Cap.: 3.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 4.0 xxxx xxxxx I II II II--_---- Impedance: xxxx 1.00 0.99 xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 0.98 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Actual Cap.: 478 478 675 403 468 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 846 xxxx xxxxx Delay/Veh: 3.5 2.3 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 9.1 9.1 9.1 3.7 3.7 3 / I II II 11 I Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 o Level Of Service Module: AdjDel/Veh: 3.5 2.3 2.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 9.1 9.1 9.1 3.7 3.7 3 7 Unused Cap.: 463 478 659. 403 468 876 969 xxxx xxxxx 812 xxxx xxxxx Queue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: • • * * • • * • ` A • • Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Unused Cap.: xxxx 8 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: • A. • * • * • • • • • * Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Associ Traffix System Version 6.6 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Kittelson & Assoc' Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 4 1 .. it ltr ., ;,rye fie, .,,,t,-741. -...-0- ••, ..,, #14, ki"..4,, -,'.MMUS IIIM 111111 III y Appendix E Vt Influence Area Map III . , . . , •1 . ,,„e____.• , -... • ..„ . .. . ' ..t4.: ..1. ,_ Ar7,-...,r,to . , ..- . . 11.,...,1 tii,„,„,,„„. ,...-..• ..• . ,._, „•.,,,,,,,, , , . .Ai-,,,,.,-- -- . lor.,„.„ ,?.. ....:-.-_,. 746, ,....,,... . iiilf,.. •• _..:.- 4,_.---. •, L.e. .:* ...* A It' . ., . ; . k'k, 4- ......''. ,,,,,,■ • - A• . i...lopp... ..9,..., ...*0' • '. ' , • -t • 1 12, , ,- • . - . _ .,... • • ... ,. c,r . . , ...... ,., . ...„ „, . ' ' _ •-1. --ritr#4, - .41i; - - - • * - - .. . • ' -4446S,t p 1 ..4•44, • i .;;:I.I1 .' \ • , .,.„.,, , ,.:,.:i.,- Z,o''.''' . , 4 ' ;1"1:`••111. . • " ' I $ 1'•- •• • , 1 ; ...1 , ,. , . , 1-,.. . - . • .., ,, - ,- %., ti . „ . .... A : .- . . rl- :, .s.,;.. .,,. . . . _ *-, .; „, ii . , ,. , .741,, ono.4% ,'4 .4- ...::::::....- - ...:',..,::,.1,•e,44 •e. 44.,.. • .4 4 ,. - .. - •%.•?•. `-, 4, I. . -- • ,.. .„ '• , .: •. 4 Iiiii4-'. .t - c:14,,. . . - . .,. Ai k• ,i•t..-, 41:: i' . -1 .,-., 4.-fo'.',- • • 9 - •••, ,._..-5 •.-r".•,., I -JP' -■,._ ....4.111111 - v. s # , 5_ ,„.. , . 1 s. • e ...,lrft - .t '42,10.,rftt;i4„, I .;" ..",t.- ': ' ■ !:. ,...' ,..c,.' T.•--:.. ' .. ' ..gr :61 it, „'.' „) -,..i 1' ' . ' • * ':,'"i'''''‘`. .'.•:..' `''", i .,,,•:::•4, ' .,. i...'-,-,*1...,,, ' , -• •,.. ,, ,_•.:,- .-0:-,, ';.'srt, 4-•••••,:: .4,..t. , ,1,. . • .,,,, - •.:.i..,-----..* •i • ..! ,. ., ,1 -, . ,..•.: .•,,,,,.. . . .4,;",. '''-,,, . i; ...imi ......• . ..,•,.. . . , 01 " s . . • ' '4' -k• • 44. Ilk' i 4rekvw 1 le ' . ,_ 0, .'1',.• ,I , t., . le' • • 'Y . - ;40.0• ,AI •'. . .„I...0 ,. . . , - . ., , ..-. . ''''' -.., - , :10, - 1 !., • • - • . .. ;• 1 • - ' ,• -.• .. . ,., .... --.. • . i 'i -.-. "S.,-'4"". t . . . • , „ 1 ,... - ,.-„,-12.... :., , . ...• .... ...kr 1 -%., , i, ••- ... •• IN - . - Tir" 1 1-`' . . . * -• p • . • .4- ,,r, r tr• • . :,, ..,!..44‘,1/4,,4".r•. -r-,',"2•: .. .,,, 1 • t ' 1 t* . " ' ! ' - III 0 • ' . ''' '"I ' ' '''' ' •': 4 , .. . • -.. , 1 . . .., , iri - ... , -,- -1 , , ' 7,-. .ti , c ..., - -r • -. . -1 .• , "1 .- .,A ',7, ....D,!4e..-4 . ._• 114 it • •• " ••''f IA.- , ., . .$ ',. • • , ' •. ' :••••• • ' ' i.,,,ViivaNt , i. • '-',. ;. ...i r, . , ' ,•!, -7 • .. -,, . ,_ b.• , , - 4V ' '1 ,-;,•14,.. '•li ',• IVIi$'-... .4' ii .•- 4 , ,... . '.. . . • . ' , ,-.!.-..v.; i. ,., v.,„ , .11 , ,„ 7t,i1.• " ' 1 - -- ••••• ,, 1 ....,. • '''' '"-44-X4 • , ". ■,- • 'A, - % •• • -. • - .4-•-• - ..- --i,.,4"• -=, ' -. g :. .4: 40,04"tr.44 .. - '. ,,,z.„,-, • , sy,L-,*, lik ! ''i 44 ' 1. lit4t1 , • i t•-..,:,t, , , ,. , , I 1,,1/4•-..1-• .p■ 1 'I. ^ ' 1 'i•.;.'.*: .1'',.1. '-;,''ii f.. '• •i 121' ''„; ••• V...."'.••e• .. .... .,,, -. . • ,..„, Jr 4....,' ., 1 .ii;'i! 1 iqt., 4., " • • ) I .•:%to' '... , s1.., • •' `t''.9. ' ,''- ' . A ... . • . g i'' ' gal . .■. - . IkAtIM '.. ...41.010 r.'. '. L ' -t ' , p . lir' 1 ' 1 ' .• 4•:;.4., . ....., . ...fr.1 .- . .., , r ...- 14: ,,. ,.. ,,,,., „. •.• . , . . . - fct ii r-? o ; . ' ' • r .1 . ., . • 0 , ' ••. „I v„0........ .....p.„44-tri.•t-;.;-171/4,4C: c.„.; ' .'1/4.,el..:. ,[2. 00 ..,.-".. ,1/,,,..6.4.',-* ....- ' f`..,'!'.; ''''''e...4f1„.•."' '''''':•t•.....„,!..,,W,...' . ‘, 1.. ,, ,,,,,r• „.. it," , - 1 i ' „... ,,i,,,,,.. ,,.....A...7-,yi.,11„..ert,,;1•4.77....,,er..:.: ...„... ........,..:,....„.......,..,,,.... ..4..(4:1, „,,,,244,. ..-.,•..• .......1 ...7.• ' :•••• •'''i• f ' ''''' '' ' ' ''''''' .4 . •---"- • .., ! - •$ - .41.-- ' err ' . , - •- - .-...-.,-v3r- •.TIVVr,i,'4 7'.:'.• • ,--r . ! , . ,. , ,.,. ,..„._. .. •..„ , . . i , , . . e ma ..-4. ,,:41.7 ,,,r,-...,,,7m..';•42 4:4• *-' '' •'''' . .. ' w•I'Alt ,, V.,. l'' ,..,„ .. • 'fki 0••••••. NO'. ' • ' ' c .'I ■ ?7 .;' • , , ,• ., ,.,,rr, , . .r.. . A 1 tailf.4.1*;Tr .7- erk.. t.., . ,, !_44,.. $.:!,!t•:,,,...,„ .. , . , ' K . ... . ., . .144q,4.,,. e$ • 1 -.:„ . ..; . • -' *.."' A 4r. '$ ! .:,, .4••■••'•r:„;.' -• -4"-.) ••-; 'Sk.'.:f A"4,..-.f.; *t••0 . .,,.t.411,(.1..,. .,i, .. . ,.li .`' Ili' 4 Air ..:. ..3v,.4.4..,- .4,r . . , A1/4 ,, -t ,'' .:4,II?-('• .7' • ".."- 4, •,, , ...,•„,..•,1 •:..,.i,',.; ; fi, .,. . .- I ... 4ta. , A . :. kr 44# ', 4; • ' - ' • " '1• ' . . ' 4 'I..''... -, N' :7;1, • ' -41'"4 ‘.1.-, ,-","." 1- ' • 'I r-- ,-- . .. , .. .. • 4•-•' No ;,.. itr4. ..,,.. ' ' . _ 4 4 . i • ., 14 ... ,- - .„, b., I .... , , .T. Ir z ,al . - .'!- ,, 94 •1 lik J.t.,.....,...k, ,. • tf... , pArl.t . * ....,.. ‘,.,,,. .„ , ...,,..„.4 i.11,... ,.7.4 r,. . .( - ,.. • -i - ‘::'-' ---“. .f ' -• V e 14‘.. . , . , , . - :::-‘1*' e:1'• •. - •. i • . 1. .„ • 121'.' ; ' ........4 ;Its" , ''... . lb, '',.,• -. • • :, ;.,•..4 'i : • • 1!ii '-" '.'''' : ';', .4-14"-'''' " !rl. .. ".. . .,'•?„;-:'.' ' '.“-',-...'' '' . 1V. .•.,„ r., . . iii. . T•40,4 • „..'kr., ,7 ,i:. .: -, ;..;.:......:.,,1:;4:sre,:,..;1:4,...-.;41"...1.., --,, '' . ,, ,51.1),■44; •. t c. ' if* i"; ' : , • t. ... ,. re ilt,,, , ,0,11,16 - , . ' . . ..... ;A • ., .? 41IF ...._ , , ..,... ..• ...,_ •.„..•....,, ...: . ,....., ,,,... ...,..:•.•,•, .•. ..„..,_, ..%..• ..„ _ • . ..,. .. 4 I .. .....I N. '..,,,,,N t ., .... ..,„.:,,,,. 4,•i , .2.i r . ' •I .r■ ..,Pro 11.1 ,,r1,.. : ...' ' ".i„,t;;,-.4- ,- ..:: ."P-•••:4, „'", . .-.F*,, -:, Wr'`...4 • ,. • I.:- ‘:vA.1-4,- ., , .,_ •• , . . , ./.•• 1,..•, ,••• • f7„,,,„ 1/41.+‘ 4. ! -,. '..,,. • , ., r;_. . - •• .4 . .,. ' ' -, 4, . • . ‘ IP ."tr , • ' • •- ••• .'.' $ • .• .0r. . ...• • •.• ,,,,,,,„4-.,..,,,,,,, .,•„.,• .,.. : ',,,..--... ..•- ,. ,k ....ik 10 ,. SO NN. , ' 4 . r I • AO'•A• . ' 4 '''' • -.• t. •- -;. 1r''-).,t' ‘4.'.., ' " •., :r,•-•.-.‘...t.":'Irli", • •r"„ . ' I' ' :' ;",. • "','• .‘v.,''= ?..-. .., ,- . . .. .. . .. . _ii.,-,L: 41'1'•„. y 1 . , , ' -., ' ...-- -,'..,e,•,-•,--1;,„, • ..,:,-:. ,... ., . , . . , ,,,,...•..., , ',.:-.. :-,--4-:„,„ ,,- ,.,- - • ..1.. - ....;...,, , t,,.., - *7 '...., .1 * -•‘, ,, 1' . .N. 41*TON.4'..";:. . , .. ..'' ,. 24INd Of •' • ..'" ri‘' . ' t ' A . . . ''').1' • :: 1 - 5 't '.' .'-74.;..."4r4,1. , .A*.5.'' .;.:'1::.-''''°'' rik.' " N''. . '* .* 4 41,4,. SI 3 I mgititiit,„.... . #.. E. . . . . a i '1/4. '.• • . ,, • ' • • - - • ,.' . ;.• . -- . - ',.... •' V• . .i..!;,.?+.'. .... "', I 4. ,4'4.-'' ..' :•7 0,‘, . , ....i'.‘,"'.'.•,i-V.::'',' ' '',,- :.:,•,,. .t1 *' ''Z'',.',• • - v,4-`k.-.4 -;•,. ,- . ., , t• .sr .. i' , •. - -;,......- - .,.., „•„,,,, a.•., .,„,i. . , .., - ...,,.., , •:, - , %...,-;',./. . .,;,.. -4-‘,) • --',-.1 I' J, .',.. -t,...•:,..' , •-, , .,,,,•. . N A 1.• o'... .1 .; :.... , . '... '•1.s ';.,"'• 'I r AAt•og: '- ‘ ', -it,' .,!'..'" .‘'.'.. '‘, ' # .` ''''1'. •. ''' ,:f.;.: ' ' ,Aktif.,..,..4,17.. 0.• '''''''...-'-'.':-I _' '.`.?' ,., . '''" ' ••rkt.i..).;0,r ; .. '.,, ,l'it.''....•. i A ,, 4.. , .. ,,, 4, „..,, , , , , .1,1 . 43., . ., . ,,,,. op. , ..." ,''•'":,' . ":', : t r''!.l';' ' .x ";'.r:, ' .' ' - ''''1‘.44.-.,- . , .1 . "•• '...'*.''*14 -'fi • .. ' , .. . :4, ....'N...'1. '. tL • HtiVTlite.. ' ' S, ; . ' 't*I'A''' -' '' ' ' -,'y , ,,4*J:,..*!..,..'''•-•';:.'..4: '''l...**. ' :t. .1.„111111,: ' . .. .. '.'......i,4..; ,,:.I:.'.. :-.2 *..''.... '' ''.-','''. • ': *V;...-.414$''.'''IS16*.'-'''. 1'' I;'s 4''',411144..,,. ck,Figiga . 1 i ‘ ' ' '* , .I .iv•,,,,....„,-, ,, •, '.', ..Li. 1.. • iiif411 1/i/ikf,. ,44'''',,' 't '.'•'":''''• i';'r•:,:'^ rt.7., ••• , ''' '' ,? .'.','; . 1-.211),.:4'4". .' '''. 1 1.'1`::-: ' 4 - - .... =,. •r. /,- ,101if t. -••- ' Vs ti,..,,,r-•,% -•"K; 1. ., •', la'...,1 • ,.. . . .. - '1" ' ‘ ,,%• , • - ' . • .1, • •c •-"`•i•?,".v. !' ...., II. ....., . ilckg , 'r„ -.4,... . ,,- . •I a i -i• - •••!. . ,1.0, • ,,,•••• 'al. . ' ...;.'i•• ...,,,. ' si\ls\\\\\. ' :.4 ' ' ' ' -4:4 . ' 17..1.1...4-. tt;k•E .. ' ''Ir‘ '‘.. '-...7%'-'-' .. ;:w:'.:' - -..[....a... p. z,t'-: ...''...':,-t.*%.",ii;t: -,•:1..4,'''':.::",.':‘,:' ,.•-.:4,,'1;4: '_. k.--; . . . ‘444-:..41fi ,,, , ?", 4,' r, • -• -.' .44$t• .N,.1"1, I ,, 1/41, , • V. • ,. c. JA k t 4, •• 4. A- •--44-•... .. ....• ,•.•,... -,,- : „ • -1.• T.-- '`‘ . - ""' .. .•• - . l''' ,• i,te,,6/p ,5,, „ .../.1.r.--. - i ." lel/et-?'"-;:•'-244 - Itkl'-• ..,. *•. ;-.. -.,44 ., ., .•,10,,, . Isiv:..., •-- - • • •-•.i-4v.'- - ...,,,,,o,.t1.•S r;:-..itv.,.. -• ,.,.., . . , . P!,A...., -...,-? , , . • '-•,,' ,e*-. . . 4, I: :. •‘', ,. ... 1/4. - # .,, . • le i - i ', . I , \tx '..•- • • ••', . , .r .. ,. *'...„ 'I, I ..ko.,,:;:.• . ,1.-, . , . ''.-.. -4, • ,., 741}-.:,, .."4-4•.44 ,, • 4.it•;•,, ' .... '.,' , „,,,,. .i...i At Ai.... • .' ' °I'4...0 7 ''. 14 '',..';*--14.11-14,14;.4! - ..- .. . • , , • , ..,,,,,,, ,,,....0,4,..,.. :, . ,...,i,kit -. r-.1/4.rer 14r.11, ,... .. • ,, t.:-•4., .1 *, ••-'''' ',J.. A, v,...,', r.•t;'42,`1_,e.}7 ,,,••,,,'4. :•f-.•:•;Ir - ' 1 • „,„ „v... ...-;.li,..!. , , .., ....,' ) .: . . . -1 1 1,14c, 4 .... .t: ,.. • .„....... .:1, el '.4'fr,;. --•-IP*• It- - . t•..r: '' % . - .• . -.'., t . .' • : ...... -• . •.--;:•., 14)-,..:.,......,. . •17 '';' .,,L--it,".• .. :. . -{ -7 10!•..iti V '' ' I • • . ' : ?.• i .74..'`.' .... .' • v.. • . it 4 . • 'A ' ... A I. •III, , - N.11400. il.,,•, ''''.,,. "'•..... „,, : ... '''". ',''..,„. .,g ip. •%I:.••'• 7 . ..-0 A f••r, 1.■.,,, tii, ,..1.,„--. -.,.y.„.,•vit \ i-;,!. -.% 4' i - -• 4 :•.:7*- ''', - ; . -. '1/4,-4,,' '. -,, ...-%;:.: ..f.., - -•• ' 4 . .4411, " ‘,., 'L liFf.i.- • ' P' - .14 ‘1‘441•I'Aillp 4 4 ‘'''' --*e'5'•1.4.•.:;;,,I IX ..'* • •.k. .104 ••,-. . ''. fcc d• , -.'• ,ir, . ..., . ‘ ,,,r4•, ...■4,-,,ritt lg._ ,4. .,i•-.;-- ,,4 ', ..„ -, . ^ ..,-;,,, ,.4- $ %A. • •.- ....4',k- \ 1 '-ir "... 'It%• ; ; ..r-k,.•,, , -,- ., . * • , 1 Ir. .. : * v*'.''' ,-.A.,:. ' '• ..,T-.7.*A„ -,f+.,,..1., .: ”...1;:,Str'' ilits ., .?... •.',;17 "'-..,, '" ,,,s-1,,:,'.-: 4-.:',..-a'4-7*. ,' . . ., . .. A.. li . '. 'v.' ; ,.• .. , 4 ..." , •,.:„',1 •I' I°S.,r, $ ' • . -. , . 'sr.'. ,S i" -.,71 , ) • ''er ,,.cf•le". 1,)± ! 4,4 '- .44,46,,,,L -. - ..',t. .•-i4Pt ,. .%r it-,-',:,.. . i-ii•‘. ,...L,•'11•., , ,F3-011 - .,..t,t.',E,4.9' - "pi t, 1 c• fleL tt ..,.. .1 . :s. 4', . , . .,, _„ .,.. • . -;;T.f.,:111'?:,e .:2:./ .... _ :4 A., * • t..-.- ,- ., . . ,..1..,11., -AN,'11 .': 1,- ' "'', ..1) • t!...t.,.--* • ,. ,, at. ,. , ..., ,,,.,t:,.,,,,,t1•.-7,,,,,4.4.,.....,,,';..,,,, 1/4,44. ..,.,....44 '4,4,o.,. .. ilk:. -4.-.24-..,,.,'-- .., . ',. • t•'" 4-4C.:•• -... . '' • .•;"., . ',. "p•-"-.444 ,... ,,r• ,„:,,t4 ,I., , ) ' • '2,11:',...*44 4.8.... 1r • .; , ,41 )1-..'1 :)1 i,: , .,.. ■,',,',4..!.: - 4•4$, . V • . .... 4 ,. '• ' rre !./,...-Z";1:1;"!:,:o'-;:etzlew..14,4? ... ,,, . I-.-...1 I.,.--'',,- ..:-,.'.q..„,!, .. 1,7_,_ _ , ,,_;.k.,,„_;,, .:....., "; !If' ' y . • ',.‘,•• ,., .s,.. ik.,.. Al . .. '44-11,.);11i1.34:i.'..i.,..2.4.slik',51:-.•;•.4...;,f-1,k,..!:-.A,.,:).14:71:;41.4r4,-4.„:.1141.0614::::,.1',i.).A...:'-‘11:04.i.;-"':;7'4:':k sa• t.,,,,-, .,,,,,..e.,,,,,. .,,,, )11:: L....., „•',4,..' 414° ;1 '-- •4.7 ' " :' - - ' ' ' ' • '4• ' ...,.. -.1* ' 1/4-i'i 7.• -i• ..„4 , , it .C. ,.,.'„,, ,I,: , - , -,1/4., . '. i 1...4- Tr-i 1/4''..1k**•.',. ''. ,,,, .:•••0 4 s' . • - --1.1„ .,. •- .4„.-hy,„ .,- .,.,A. :Ai.. T'IO• h.:.,„....... ,.-- -•••1•.;:-.1.4.,--...,r,, --',.. . ' .. •'_ ,,--1 _1• .. , ‘. ,,,. I, -,.;., ,,...;_,I. - - .-' ,,.. ..- .14!.41.„ ,-•;,„. ....tel. ,, - N_. \Nt -X, •*:•....-...„. -,..,,..,....,- . • ". •'.,• •'• •••' ••• IA -1. 4 lof..,. -tt - - ,v • .11( -, -44-i, - .. - - - .. ,- ., "Ii,,,,., t...,,•,,, -:-.-,N,.,..., -,.„ ..., "N s-, ,e...4. A.:3F,..;■ . .0 •, .;.......;, , : • 11 .'• i''. v.. .1..'" ' ',..',..,'. . *111 • ...•::..„ -•.,..*'.,44.'1,g1.'...T.7. .., .s'e4., ' • '‘. ill •?*-P.', ..it.4i. • .•*••■ ' ' 4 ' . "1;2 V- ' .. ' ''''''•• 't ''.4404'. 4,'4". 4.5',7t;1.. ,'1. '-'Z'.1".'....,t;';I. .."%i--i,..-4 •,,ik'14.,,1 " •'1 if It':1": i*isk.' --,. -. 0e. ..:., - •...i..:., . .. ";-.444r,,`:..-t,,s..ZA'* .., ht,;:-.' ..„,. '4 ti., .1,,, ...5.,.., • •',• •11: .#. 7.,..,..4_....,,-;.:.. ,,,....; .,„--5, - .4.4,4:•1 • •ti..• 'w 1.‘ ......r.'-.titi;)' ''. - 1....- -,- .1", ...4.,.•.: . -'tri• 2.•••. •"...• .. ..r.- t, •4,t 4•■.•:4,1•,.• 4•114.t '01/4. •`}•,*, ,i■C 4,''' •••• - -4.4"'. - +.7r,•.4, 1.1.40, .1L;i1.-, ' •‘-ti; . - c‘ovt,--- i 00 .... - . 1,f-4.•. ,.. -i i ■ ''. •17;0`..-1.'14..t1. t,,,' .' .''''' A *1/41/41"4- ' • . •91.•1..,titit..,_.-•4.1., . ......t. ... -,....• ..,-. ,it,,,,,:1,,• .,- .,,ve lk. ..••- 4....,.* , .•• • -4' • , . .,. . • 1, 4,, ,. -•-' . '.10k "....- ' ' 41.01.-4qhm, ',..y ,4,,,,t, 0,, ,r. ',..s,•-.., 1:4_ .',. . ' 150-:". ' "4 '12' ..4.41. A - ' i,ti-.A. • •*-.4- ;...- • -• ti4:4 0' _ lir-- --,.-•:-. , .: A i•. . - , •. -„,..,.:4 .",:4,•',L, .4,-,-, * ".,. ' "• 1:4 -_,.".4, ,.,t ir„., ..,,.1_,,,,,, .r.:.41Zirkl: • ...•'.t iFi Ilk • . ... -,.. ... ..;-'44 6.-t*-- 4AI 't:'ir:5'': . ,f -4,4 ( •'• ..$ ...-•1 . r-4, - „, 4,,,, . \ c, . c , . .. , . 1,,:yr . • .1,!,,•.:. - ... N, .- -•.--. I.e ,'- --..-'•`',..- - - '.-;,,,,-*..',,' '• .'..• . , -.1 ', ..•- - ,'.i.;.,,:.,..!'' .,.. .. •t-,.„ *„',--. :.,,...." - '', -t2. -.... • • ' • 4` ''' t.•. •vota;.„.. N.. *4-7,,t ,',. , .,_ ,ii,,. - N. , ,..._ . . ' • ‘44,i.,0":, „,,,.•• ,- .•-••l'At-•:.:4, ' . - ' . :.',••• N - ,,;.,, ...Z1r. -,31.• -.'• '''.•;,..." .--. '4.... .-...'-•., - -.1,".' ,_ - ..TI4 44 ,-V.4!1 4140"4‘••••• +1','-ii, l'.' •-, •-411.• tr! 'r,. , • -..„.. - . . 1:.'i. 'k.. . l'$!."3, '. . (•'. - • • -.4 il•i.••r •.'• 1- -1‘`,.. Iliir?..'," :',•?..‘ 4. - 1. '• ■ • • .:>,...0' .•.• •-• •,.. . . ')-.1'• ....5 --„.„.;..",..v.-'• • .. -,•4 .. • ..- - . t..0!-', , . ,•.',..„ --... . \ : -, . ,-„Iti. ' ...s• , ., . , %•-• 4-')0..."',40.,..,.,..„ -•- 0 • .-. - . --..., , .,.....,.. ,r,‘ , . 'Ilety, •• 41' '''''• ' i. ' ..: •f. • . 1 ,,,' a, .V. '' ..t., j;' • ,t .,•;',..-,..'. • :••,y-,.I.,..., ,...4(.• ,.::N...t. .• .A f, ',,, •, :,.1i%4. • _, •4t'' ': le ip•-i ,• i, ,,..„ •• ,..,,,,„ ,, , ,: ...,,.,,, Iv , • . .. t „ :fr.' '-'...,i...,-, .....,-: _ . it -,, 7,^.......• ......, ,,: . - i•.,f ' . 'ir. - ! ._ .. , 10,•••• • , . ••-• •„fi" . 4."„...A rA,r• ,* 2•. . ..*. • ‘ ', * '''• •••'• ,4 ..., ** e r*,,-• lA *'' ,. k ,,-. f , . - . t•-t .... ....«V!`x '..•',7.1e Cott '•,•, A.,: ,.••••••••••e''').4 ,x,i.i-., . , ''. '`' "• .' " ' '• •.i 'A' \•.- I.:. ' ' 0'-,r, " .C 4.' .."..!" .,. 11•,••• ", ‘" ‘si, ''.*rr• '*.S" .T.4.,.,..1 4 i, '---.•.'r' -, ' .. Is , s''',' _ 1,',1'- . • " ..416..v. 4, i, . . . ., ,;,.,. . .. .:,..,. . ,..,: . ,...,1..,..,, t4.s‘ ....,,, ,., •,. , .,.......„: ;,•,.. ,:.;;":',-. „ . . , _„... ;.ke, . .. . .4‘,,i-,..,.4„,c,44"".; .-'''1111:ti' ':'•*.: •:.:7"7"..::44, 1:1;;:-.:* . ''' I.:.'. '. :' .. ...:"A • '- .N 14. '' t '••• • • 'wr:•,.. ,. • ,,,. ...trAr,.-',....,,r -,.■- 4.4.... ...t. • .f .... ,4. .). - . ,40 . . .,, ,.. ',, .'-,-,7-• •-:?" 7f.; .V.I ".44.114r. .-1 't,''.--l', .ti-;"., • g. 0,, , lit., ,i• . '''' :(1'•, 'Pr,.,-':'' - .tx:x.i.c- ili..t: 1-.7 . 4., . . .. - •., .. :,..t..N. ...; . ,‘,...4,,,,,. -..i.: . . •. . .. -2,..?0,,,„..1 •, .• „..,... ••4 '..•-•,,r. ,4` 4..-■ ••' . .4 . i ..6 I 1:01.4 . .1 ' ' t ' * ,* Vg 0 i 4 , a, 1 7,. • ;.,FAI., '•.. Or .. ' ...*:• ,•• ',.. ..e!,,,- ,..• A . i.• , ' . .... ••■ , : . . . ,-.1, •.-....,..,,:„-:!,.. , -6,.• -', .• ,':•...,•1-. , ,.,7, •;,?..7...• . .. k ■....4. - -i,-. . 4..,,,. . , ,..,. .,- .t,„ ..., . .,.. ot.,, .. ..k•,1 4,...,4?* . . , ,,, ,-.. . :-,w.''t 1• .t1:.4.■ -... . • 'r '' '' • '' ' ''3'' i,••' . '': . ''• '.- ''.*„. ..i•C!'' :•••, * #c*•, • •", S.'„.• .:.,4'Pt • • ' 1 ' IA 7 ..,61„..,,," ,,.:: , . ., •v..".,;',;•1•:.', , ,,••. , , ,.... •4 .. ; ,,,, . , .„. .• ,,, .• t# ..." ..-'. ‘.1-' ■ .., - 'Lk ' , "I• .4 ...-, , , v, . ..r. si. , .... ' 14 • •,f.“' • c '„ • q• ' 1 4 • • , ' ••',g`■ .. 1 . . 11,4Qmit• • .•••.•••.,..1.2,•, • y ' „,,,••••. ' ' • ' • •••••• ',IN, •'• 'V.-4 ' . .1*.I ' ••• 1•4'., ' - • "/ '., ..- • ' / - le 4,4 `.•! .•.„,•' .*,* t° kgetitt,„÷ ,\ '' '' cs• •.---3' *.‘ . q-t- •-, . ..' • ..,-.., •• - - . Al , •,..,...•.,.. ,, ,.... . .,k•,... ...•644. . k . • .1. %• • ., .r., ,. - ... ,. . . .., 4,-... .•,,,-. s. •,.. ... -,,t., `. . .{,--.:•/•:. . , • . .4.-, - 4 •• .1 k . • 2 . ....,.. :1--, c.r..', ...,...-''''.' .', -4.14,, ...,-...„...-4,.• ... "-',•?•',,,,,-.„ . • 4.: .-,.:. ' . • • ••::••40-..,.40.' .,... -dr - • '•• ,,'''..-,•- ' * V. • ..,t,4 ' " ..i N,-' 3314,,..11.*••i?••••••'• ,,t„,'''''•`•, , "P't ,A0C',, Y., -.4 '' ' • .•‘ ! . e• •• : i. ... '...••ii.•• •.•-••••••'`...:',f. '.-,*• '"e 7.-s, - . • . ••-, . . • .,•, • - '.1_%,„ ,.,v..,4 7. • ,,7•.-: ‘,.., ', 4:,.:(1' ..li.-;. .4,4 ,14;.' .,.,',. ,-.34',4,„?.I.V. , . .r.*C•10.. ..i, ,. .. _ . .. • - ., - 1 . . oti*" 14 p .- i t ,,lz ,,. .. ;0,';.....t.'•-4!, . , •,,7,'''.•••' ,',415:,.11-•••; -.;i. .., Ix ' .4 _.. 4: ,• •. 'ilk r . . . . . ....4. v. -,. ......_...„, . .... ,, 1.,,,,F.,.-„,.., ,... :, . • .„. -, ... .....„...,,:.,,.-k 4,,,,,„ . ilk'. -- - • si; - •= -,...- s .. .. ,. .. 4 . ...,„ ., ,.. . . ,... •••, k ; ' 41,,, • '..` 41,...,7, ,... jes 4.4 ,4*„:.. ,,,,,„ti, . ' '',' ...,*;r,..,-no,' -4-- •...,. , - , .. -Ii -. h .....01/4' ' 41/4. • PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ,-;l;,III� ' RESIDENTIAL CITY OF TIGARD OREGON DATE: 1C 10- C&`5 STAFF: LO-,\t \R\;, -- ,4 APPLICANT: AGENT: Phone: ( ) Phone: 1 ) PFOPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: •TAX MAPITAX LOT: )1 '.6 C-C- - aOC . •30ci a,9-?3,c, NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): 'S1 EUFC_OPI•AF■ r tEu3 Lori GhuE 4-z rUS-r i G.A.17 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Ckl-{ V AR-ZMtSr■r1. erA.N1e COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: 1•IhE1� --1-116:-4_ ZONING DESIGNATION: a 5 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACILITATOR: TEAM AREA: PHONE: (503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size: 7_)LtSci sq. ft. Average lot width: 1■,1A ft. Maximum building height: L 5 ft. Setbacks: front o?O ft. side )C0 ft.* rear 00 ft!. garage .70 ft. corner .:::70 ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: l2% Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: c % SO w r teRE ,l} i-C MCi9, Res—tR�C tl\) exio c ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created t rough the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a inimum 15 foot wide access easement. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2'/: times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1'/z times the minimum lot size o the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Secti n 18.164.060 Lots) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 7 Residential applicationiPlanning Department Section Post-it'routing request pad 7664 ROUTING - REQUEST Please II/II I I ■\✓ READ To R ❑ HANDLE M B ✓ q-d1 ❑ APPROVE N C and I FORWARD d ❑ RETURN ❑ KEEP OR DISCARD (� ❑ REVIEW WITH ME BO Date IC' From Uv; t -rc- . W./r 3,3.96 SPECIAL.SETBACKS • Streets: 3C, . from the centerline of ; ; ,.!' z • Established areas: feet from . • Lower intensity zones: feet, along the site's boundary. • Flag lot: 10 foot side yard setback. • Zero lot line lots: minimum 10 foot separation between buildings. _:;• Multi-family residential building separation: (Refer to Code Section 18.96.030) • Accessory structures up to 528 square feet in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size - 5 foot minimum setbac. from side and rear lot lines. Accessory structure up to 1000 square feet on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size (See applicable zoning district setbacks for primary structures.) BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS • Maximum height of 30 feet in R-1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5 zones. • Maximum height of 35 feet in R-7 and R-12 zones. • Maximum height of 45 feet in the R-25 zone. • Maximum height of 60 feet in the R-40 zone. FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Maximum height of 11/2 stories or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 21,4 stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zone: provided that the standards of Cade Section 18.98.030(B) are met. -R€4DENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION_ ' The Net Residential Units allowed on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by thl minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development are: is calculated by subtracting the following land weals) from the gross site area: 1. All sensitive lands areas including: a. Land within the 100 year floodplain. b. Slopes exceeding 25%. c. Drainageways. 2. Land dedicated for park purposes. 3. Public right-of-way dedication. 4. All land to be provided for private streets (includes accessways through parking areas). (Refer to Code Section 18.92) BLOCKS When block lengths greater than 600 feat are permitted, pedestrianlbikeways shall be provided through the block. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.040) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSFER The City of Tigard allows a Residential Density Trans of up to 25% of the units that could otherwise have been developed or sensitive lands areas listed in (1.) above which ma,(be applied to the developable portion of the site. (Refer to Code Section 18.92.030). It is the responsibility of the aooiicant f a residential development application to provide a detailed calculation for both the permittec residential density and the requested,density transfer. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 7 Residential .n ncationiPIanning Department Secnan RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TRANSITION Regardless of the allowed housii., Density in a zoning district, any property wits.. 100 feet of a designated established area sh, not be developed at a density greater than 125 percent of the maximum Comprehensive Plan designation (not zoning) of the adjacer parcel. Transition area applies to any property which is a designated established area. The subject property is designated as at area. The subject property is adjoined by establishedldevelooingiareas to the north, south, east and we:: FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTENSION OF STREETS 1. A future street plan shall: a. Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show ft pattern of existyng and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall incluc boundaries oHhe proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacer to the prop ed land division. b. Identify a sting or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilitie an or w. hin 500 feet of the site. i 2. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to th boundary lin's of the tract to be developed. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.030) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS All subdivisions and minor partit ons are subject to solar access requirements. These requirements state that a minimum of 80% all lots created must be oriente for solar accessibility. The basic standard, which determines solar accessibility, requires that 80% of total number of propos lots: 1. Demonstrate a north-so th dimension of at least 90 feet. 2. Demonstrate a front lotiline orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. The total or partial exemption ofI site from the solar access requirement may be approved for the following reasons: 1. East, west or north slope steeper than 20%. 2. Off-site shade sources (st ctures, vegetation, topography). 3. On-site shade sources (veg tation). Adjustments allowing a reduction of the 80% solar lot design requirement may be made for the following reasons: 1. Reduced density or an incre ed cost of at least five percent due to either: a. East, west or north lope greater than 10%. b. Significant natural fe ture. c. Existing road or lottin pattern. d. Public easement or rig t-of-way. 2. Reduction in important developm nt amenities. 3. Pre-existing shade (vegetation). PLEASE NOTE: Maos and text are required which 'are sufficient to show that the develooment complies with the solar design standards or that specific lots should be exempted or adjusted out. The following items shall be included in the analysis: CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Votes Page 3 of 7 Residential AopiicationrP!anning Jeoartment Senan 1. The north-south lot dir on and front lot line orientation of each pr d lot. • 2. Protected solar building es and relevant building site restrictions, if .able. 3. For the purpose of identifying trees related to exemption requests, a map showing existing trees which are at least 30 fee tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade shall be submitted. This map shall include the following: a. Height. b. Diameter. c. Species. d. A statement declari that they are to be retained. 4. Copies of all private restriction relating to solar access. The design characteristics of a developed solar-oriented lot are high levels of wintertime sun striking the south walls and roofs a the house, house orientation maximizing south window area, and a south-sloping roof area. To achieve this, one may utilize th following: 1. Protected Solar Building Line - The solar building line must: a. Be oriented to within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. b. Provide a minimum distance of 70 feet from the middle of the lot to the south property line. c. Provide a minimum distance of 45 feet from the northernmost buildable boundary of the subject lot to the nortr property line. 2. Performance Options - There are t'o performance options which may be utilized as follows: a. The house to be oriented withib 30 degrees of an east-west axis and have at least 80% of the ground floor's soutl wall protected from shade. b. At least 32% of the glass and 500 square feet of the roof area face south and be protected from shade. Please contact the Building Division for further information regarding the Protected Solar Building Line and Performance Options relating to building height and construction. PARKING AND ACCESS All parking areas and driveways must be paved. • Single family: Requires 2- off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. ▪ Multiple family: Requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit for 1 bedroom. Requires 2 parking spaces per unit for 1 + bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than 10 required spaces shall provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15',0 of the total required parking. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.030) --, r No mare than 40% of required spaces may be designated andlor dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensionea as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. • 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 (AOA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbc. shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Nlotes Page 4 of 7 Residential Application/Planning Department Section $cycle racks are required for rr amity, commercial and industrial developmer `iicycle racks shall be located in areas protectec from automobile traffic and in 1. ,enient locations. Bicycle parking spaces sit,. .e provided on the basis of one space for ever' 15 required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: 730 Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: akZ-wat.,� `REQUIRED WALKWAY LOCATION Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connectec by walkway to the vehicular parking area, common open space and recreation facilities. - CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at roadldriveway, roadlrailroad, anc roadlroad 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 ana 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 Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 13.100) The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: CAN SC%) P\ 'J ---- ft. along north boundary. � ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. IC ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along TO 51-1 + C e..60o STREET TREES 1 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 feet of the right-of-way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two inches when measured four 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 tree for every seven 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 7 Residential AopicationtPlammng Department Section SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations fo, _rids which are potentially unsuitable for devel6r .ant due to areas within the 100-year floodplain natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminarik identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.84) Chapter 18.94 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development prohibited within floodplains. In most cases, dedication of 100-year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas required as a condition of the approval of a development application. ARRATIVE The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings for all applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative a: adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. Applicant shoulc review code for applicable criteria. .NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING • The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator of their proposal. A minimum a 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerninc site posting and the meeting notice. RECYCLING 18.116 tEa 160--bF ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: i14A6 'r-c 9 • 7T EL't t t ��3 �� CAP-i`��N•�N . co kc, s5 JRRnt C E 105 1.: 0/i(c) PROCEDURE 'Administrative staff review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 7 Residential.lopiicanonjP!ammng Department Secuon APPLICA.TIDN SUBMITTAL PROCESS All applications must be acceptea .., a Planning Division staff member of the Comm,,.. ity Development Department at Tigard City Ha offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without PlanninQDivision acceptanc: may be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week applications. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 an other days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application wit unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether a: application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additions: 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 bein complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions ma. take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearinc A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard Lc M,nn_. 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 primer Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City star 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) islare required if an applicationls) islare to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conferencels) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: W.j1 fl '(► 1,�'FF4 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 7 Residential AppucauoniP!annmg Department Sectwn A ^;•lll PUBLIC FACILITIES CITY OF TIGARD The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: OREGON (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: (1.) rd i4-APL& to - feet from centerline. (2.) to feet from centerline. (3.) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: (1.) - street improvements will be necessary along PP te. (2.) street improvements will be necessary along (3.) Street improvements 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, streetlights, and a two year streetlighting fee. aV r ,JO 0X7: OO ezileoJ c'7" I71 ‘,2 P ?" -40L/ ) ) moo' 7.tilisbi, p P I 16P i 492 r ma cJc-P AonJPO124444-P✓ 9r_G2MJ M7? RWi g _ CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference ;Votes Page 1 of 3 Residential.loplicationiEngmeenng Jeoartment Sec:on .In some cases, where street rovements or other necessary public imF vents are not currently practical, the stree improvements may be deferred. „1 such cases, a condition of development app. .el may be specified which requires the propert owners) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formatio. of a local improvement district formed to improve: (1.1 (2.) . Pedestrianwayslbikeways: Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in rc-APF246" . The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's • 'Hater Supply: The i Water District - Phone:(503) provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposec development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 525.2502) provides fire protectior services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequac'. of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. ✓wry ass �l M r Other Agency Permits: Storm sewer improvements: ilyazow6y / J4'127- OFF-5'7 57121144 O/imJ nay Re kre-6-5-7.46.7 STORMWATER QUALITY FEES The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce, Resolution No. 90-43 Surface Water Management Regulations which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be offered an opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of the construction of such a facility. The resolution requires the construction of a water quality facility andlor the payment of a fee. The fee shall be based upon the amount of impervious surface; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $285.00. The City of Tigard shall determine if a fee may be paid or a facility shall be constructed. U/J-5IT I(4i 'L- /✓it]7y CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 3 Residential rppiication,Engmeenng Department SecLon TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIE) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collect: fees from new development based an the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The appiican 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 an the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fer category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF ma'. 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. _54• x. ‘,4 21,e 962 /50 STREET OPENING PERMIT (GOtv/u . No work shall be preformed within a public right-of-way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street openinc 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 floe. plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. r PREPARED BY: _, ` ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 n:ll ognpattylpreaop.rru 'eng.section preanp.enc: January 11. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference (Votes Page 3 of 3 Residential AoplicanoniEngineenng Oeaartment Section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A, 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: \11\ bRoNc4 Date: ICs-(o-q,5 APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ✓ MARKED ITEMS A) Application form (1 copy) e� B) Owner's signature/written authorization I1 C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies 1� E) Filing Fee $ VeL\t SC'WAN)le SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ✓ MARKED ITEMS A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies I S 1 . Vicinity map e' 2. Site size & dimensions ®" 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds D� 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: ❑ (a) Floodplain areas ❑ (b) Slopes in excess of 25% ❑ (c) Unstable ground ❑ (d) Areas with high seasonal water table ❑ (e) Areas with severe soil erosion potential ❑ (f) Areas having severely weak foundation soils ❑ 6. Location of resource areas as shown on the Comprehensive Map Inventory including: ❑ (a) Wildlife habitats ❑ (b) Wetlands ❑ 7. Other site features: (a) Rock outcroppings ❑ (b) Trees with 6" + caliper measured 4 feet from ground level 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources rr� 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways LAND USE APPLICATION./LIST PAGE 1 OF 5 B) Site Development PL.. indicating: o. of Copies 1 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties e' 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 aK' (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site or. (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 (f) Above ground utilities (g) Trash and recyclable materials areas tip 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 FY 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 GY 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 report ❑ (b) The validity of sanitary sewer and storm drainage service proposals (c) That all problems will be mitigated and how they will be mitigated 0 LAND USE APPLICATION,LIST PAGE 2 OF 5 I1 • • •D) Architectural Drawi Indicating: No. of Copies 1 The site developmen, .an 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 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings oy' 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces 0- 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials FY 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 Study: ❑ i H) Prelimina Partite•n/Lot Line Ad ustment M. . In d catin•:_ No. of Copies 1 . The owner of the subject parcel ❑ 2. The owner's authorized agent ❑ 3. The map scale (20, 50, 100 or 200 feet=1 inch) north arrow and date ❑ 4. Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ 5. 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 7. Location and width of all water courses ❑ 8. Location of any trees within 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level 9. All slopes greater than 25% ❑ 10. Location of existing utilities and utility easements 11 . For major land partition which creates a public street: (a) The proposed right-of-way location and width ❑ (b) A scaled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip ❑ 12. Any applicable deed restrictions e' 13. Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PAGE 3 OF 5 . I) Subdivision Pre min... Plat Ma. and Data Indicatin:: o. of Copies 1. Scale equals g (30, 50, 100 or 200 feet— .1 inch) and limited to o - phase per sheet ❑ 2. The propose. name of the subdivision ❑ 3. Vicinity map s owing property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, address:s and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, survey:r and designer (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of applicati. ❑ 6. Boundary lines of ract to be subdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent .ubdivision(s) or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivided land ❑ 8. Contour lines relate. to a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10% ❑ 9. The purpose, location type and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision): (a) Public and privat: right-of-ways and easements ❑ (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water m.ins including fire hydrants ❑ (d) Major power teleph.ne transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses ❑ (f) Deed reservations fo parks, open spaces, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profi es of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes i ldicated on the plans ❑ 11. Plan of the proposed water .•stribution system showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fir hydrants ❑ 12. Approximate centerline profile showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for : reasonable 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 subject to inundation or storm water overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & direction of flew of all water courses & drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to b used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated u..n such lots. ❑ 17. The location of all trees with a dia eter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level and the location of proposed tree plantings ❑ 18. The existing uses of the property in uding the location of all structures and the present uses of the structure and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting ❑ 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if an ❑ (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION./LIST PAGE 4 OF 5 . 20. Existing natura' tures including rock outcroppings, .tlands and marsh areas ❑ 21. If any of the forego g information cannot practicably be shown on the • preliminary plat, it all be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application ❑ )) Solar Access Calcul Lions: ❑ K) Other Information No. of Copies ❑ h:Vogin\pattylmasters\l-ckl ist.mst May 23,1995 LAND USE APPLICATION d LIST PAGE 5 OF 5 I CARR Z AC E HOUSE. SITE LOCATION The project site is located on Pfaffle Rd. between SW. Hall Blvd. and Hwy 99 West. SITE DESCRIPTION Generally the site slopes from the high point of 244 ft. at the southeast corner to a low point of 221 ft. along the north property line with an average gradient of 5%. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of natural grasses with variety of deciduous- and coniferous trees scattered over the site, (4 survey is being prepared that will locate and identify existing trees.) OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS None anticipated at this time. ZONING The current zoning for the project site is for multi-family units at the rate of 25 units per acre. The proposed density for this site is 84 dwelling units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is for a 84 unit multi-family development. The units will consist of 1, 2 bedroom units ranging in size from 626 sq. ft. to 893 sq. ft. . Parking is provided at the rate of 2.13 spaces per dwelling unit including visitor parking. OPERATIONS The project will be professionally managed with an on site manager in residence. .J1./-4LL 1 - IIJV gc SEE MAP W¢ m � IS I 36CS 3Q I� .,. .�,1 vi PFAFFLE ,�- n O n F STREET It 0111•05.E , C.R.975 ISE S6 P I9°4E.W f n I5$24 5 88"45.E 21 .03 Ni 1 S 89° !! E 431.98 400 300 I 200 100 NNNNNNN .82 Ac. /.25Ac 2.55Ac 7584c. 4c. '" o • m p O N f ° h O f O n `^ Y ♦ a n 0 m J O f o e a ° .= N . N V_ 1- o j n 2 t 0 V W N W G ; W -t9 r.1f �O — /l 6 W c ° e 4 = V C O O X ; r, er RE-ENT. "o a o o CORNER ...-^ N RICHAR DSON M D L.C. 55 158.84' / ` L 158 5E' 0 M L 5 86°17'E o .317.13 `' v. AA ■ Vjt` �O W No.- �� 2200 x I. .89 Ac. In OA, SEE MAP 10 fr- I S 1 35 D D ,A/�/w�' / X�" rO N 2 81 x r ., ... NSF :I/4.SW 1L4._ SECTION 3 6 _ .LS r j i�4('.N W 4i-�‘, 4 i - a :NG '. 0K1t4r t{ EGCi-a .l l..� t _-.ice 'X s*�r.•w•. } '-_i'•w-�-. .` ',�x,�"'`. SW IA SW I/41 SECTION N ti36=T I S - R IW .. W M. y-& � 6- - -- ___�__. . _- -�'- .ra.... L'___- WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON - � .__ :..--ys (..f....J a — i 1 ._ ~ ' ALE-._-- I' = I00' ;— 51 G. -- ei i SEE MAP N 3 m } V) IS I 36C93�,Q r .._.. n on =��•ce. SW F, PFAFFLE �- 2 -_-- C.R.975 STREET N 19.411'W 158. n • 15a.ss 15$24 S Ba•45'E 214.03 } n S a9a Id E 431.28 400 300 200 100 .824c. 1254c 2.554c 7564c. L. 0 en Li O 0 n J N r 6 v. C n 2 ' f f 00 O . II i f ` N S ✓ Ai Z 4. u 1,.+ W 0 ; W 0 - _ i0 O -' X 0 W o 0 O O O - on n 01 r.l 'p a • O les Z — 158.84' , 0 .L 158.5E to L S 86'17'5 0_,317. 13 '� A A 2200 - � , ,ii, .894c.F'Q.). in\ OA / X�"O - 23 8 I ` r •L� .0.4 5' 1.`6 K Q..-. t:' . . p5' 1 4 Y 0.'1' V O 8 0 DIX / 0 et � 1 .);e-r-, \Pp. e0. � ?, X . p O k y),,,oil) Jh' K 1044 ,0 o i �\' •�k °o. 4 QA F M ,, , O t:° X tp`(,-OFtS FE 25 g -p0 `�� ...,, .. r 1 7 + 4° tl / - Sao,,e • c� a E Uzi`tea° y / •�, ' - �zs•�1,611:1016)sp by,Vii/ -- -:z - r 1.41i av 11` y60 /y•9 .� 426140,9 ke ,.. ..`N f ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS 09/19/96 10: 47 $503 625 6179 PRIDE DISPOSAL Z 001/002 p *R *I *D * E DISPOSAL COMPANY P.O. Box 820 Sherwood, OR 97140 (503)625-6177 TELEPHONE: (503) 625-6177 FAX # (503) 625-6179 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: g'^ T 9 — '1 ' TO: C O T / p TELEPHONE: FAX NUMBER: (�T —? 2S 7 ATTENTION: 60: a FROM: WE ARE SENDING -2_ PAGES (INCLUDING This PAGE) . IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THESE PAGES. PLEASE CALL US AS SOON A POSSIBLE. THANK YOU! `� Printed on 10D% rrervrled n,r r I ,` . + . �� \ �` • // /•j •ci o 51 ‘ ' ..s. (e) , / / XI . . . .,,,,/„,,/ <J\,!'-4'.,,, a i•-0 *,, zJ ,�►, coos v•-e—S., ofsk, .).° \,,a. /7 ‘.. / * 44\ / /• \APP /`.`, \ \ 0 \ �, y oitvib c./) ■ %0 ',t, '/ , \\, '4Z-7''' '‘ / a., ' A . ,. / w UT. ) . �`' �� J ' ) ”' j* it.� Cz ... . ( ov) (.....) ...........%. %,0144 0 \.. 1-414,1ir. . . f 1 ••/ ■ .... // Sit ii) ia r „•;;;)Ts .... � o • i . ^ .. \ ,'" \\ ' jai" -f,;. %14, ........ 1 , .0.„ ,.,•... ,\*Air41) , .. 0 . i IIII 6 nr i 1 Ca 00 . Or / ', 0 m co_ CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS B2B6-841U PFAFFI F ST R. G. NAFF, Designer 18641 SW.Benfield Ave. Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035:639-8045 Fax 639-5377 1996 September p 6 Officer Kelly Jennings City of Tigard Police Department 13125 SW. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97224 RE: Resubmittal of plans for conformance to conditions of approval for the Carriage House Apartments. Dear Officer Jennings, Please find the enclosed revised site plan and revised detail sheet now showing the project directory sign to located near the entry to the project as indicated on the site plan. Please advise or forward an approved site plan to will D'Andrea at the City of Tigard Planning Department if you find that the site now meets your requirements. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, es‘Wei R. G. , OCT-03-1996 15 31 R.G. NAFF P.01 r:Q- 18641 au. !Bonfield 4ve. d (ma o j rat r Lake Oswego,Oregon 91035 PI 1e 639-8045, Fax 639-5311 TRANSMITTAL COYER SHEET 44m\TO: 1<<( ,. 0 ,A NAME cone Zeif_t_s7/ 1.1.-AW r�a•s>~ DATE: 1 O f el (70 STREET FAX NO. CITY PROJECT NAME: /ill/.�(X 1•% THE FOLLOWING ITEMS An TRANSMITTED: NUMBER ITEM PAGES DATED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 14- ! '` Gre. REMARKS: -, \kkium■m. FROM: OCT-03-1996 15 32 R.G. NAFF F.02 y- (6 R. G. NAFF, Designer 18641 SW 9ef'be14 Ave. Lake Oswego.Oregon 97Q36-639x045 F2Oc 639-S377 September 14, 1996 Jerry Renfro, Deputy Fire Marshal Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue P O. Box 4755 Beaverton, Oregon 97076 RE: Fire flow calculations for Carriage House Apartments. Dear Jerry, Please find and review the enclosed fire flow work sheets for the above captioned project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, R. G. N 1�,lALAT,.te �.h =I � ' er APPROVED . - ar►AvproVAL a� OVAL OF.pPi� 'on • E"44:515,...11. , U • Doe Tf1T1211 P Pl Friday,May 3 , 1996 15 : 58 Page 1 NU-METRICS Traffic Analyzer Study Computer Generated Summary Report Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave Location: Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave STUDY A survey of vehicle traffic was conducted with HISTAR unit number 5440 . The survey was done in the Westbound lane on Pfaffle St-E Of 81st Ave in Tigard, OR in Washington county. The survey lasted for 72 hours and began on Tuesday,April 30, 1996 at 3 : 00pm and ended on Friday,May 3 , 1996 at 3 : 00pm. Data were recorded in 15 minute time periods . The total recorded volume of traffic showed 7425 vehicles passed through the location with a peak volume of 74 on Thursday,May 2, 1996 at 5 : 15pm and a minimum volume of 0 on Wednesday,May 1, 1996 at 1 : 15am. SPEED Chart 1 lists the values of the speed bins and the total volume for each bin. Chart 1 Speed Bins (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 9 44 360 3051 443 27 9 6 29 155 1348 1830 98 13 2 Half of the vehicles were traveling at 33 .4 mph or lower speed. The average speed for all classified vehicles was 35 . 26 mph with 32 . 70 percent exceeding the posted speed of 35 mph. The HI-STAR found 0 .40 percent of the vehicles were traveling in excess of 55 mph. The mode speed for this traffic study was 35 mph and the 85th percentile was 39 . 1 mph. CLASS Chart 2 lists the values of the 8 class bins and the total volume for each bin. Chart 2 Class Bins (feet) <19 30 40 50 60 70 0 0> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- 6293 932 167 26 4 2 0 0 Most of the vehicles were passenger cars with a total count of 6293 . This represents 97 . 32 percent of the classified vehicles . The truck percentage is 2 . 68 percent of the classified vehicles . HEADWAY During the peak time period, on Thursday,May 2 , 1996 at 5 : 15pm the average headway between the vehicles was 12 . 16 seconds . The slow period occurred on Wednesday,May 1, 1996 at 1 : 15am and the headway Between the vehicles 0 seconds (No vehicles recorded) . WEATHER The roadway surface temperature over the period of the study varied between 47 degrees Fahrenheit and 107 degrees Fahrenheit . The HI-STAR analyzer determined that the roadway surface was DRY Friday,May 3 , 1996 15 : 58 Page 2 NU-METRICS Traffic Analyzer Study Computer Generated Summary Report Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave Location: Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave 100 . 00 percent of the time . • NU-METRICS HI-STAR FRAME STUDY -- HDM Version 5 . 0b 05/03/96 [ Report #2 Weekly VOLUME Report ] Hi-Star ID: 5440 Begin: 04/30/96 15 : 00 End: 05/03/96 15 : 00 Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Lane : Westbound Hours : 72 hrs Loc/Sta Pfaffle St-E of 81st Oper : MCM Period: 15 min City: Tigard, OR Posted: 35 mph Raw Count : 7425 County: Washington AADT Factor: 1 . 00 AADT Count : 2475 4-4/30r Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Wkday Week 5/ 6 5/ 7 5/ 1 5/ 2 5/ 3 5/ 4 5/ 5 Avg. Avg. O : 00 -0- -0- 3 3 1 -0- -0- 2 2 0 : 15 -0- -0- 2 3 4 -0- -0- 3 3 O : 30 -0- -0- 5 5 1 -0- -0- 4 4 O :45 -0- -0- 9 3 5 -0- -0- 6 6 1 : 00 -0- -0- 3 2 7 -0- -0- 4 4 1 : 15 -0- -0- 0 2 2 -0- -0- 1 1 1 :30 -0- -0- 2 0 1 -0- -0- 1 1 1 :45 -0- -0- 0 2 1 -0- -0- 1 1 2 : 00 -0- -0- 0 5 2 -0- -0- 2 2 2 : 15 -0- -0- 2 1 4 -0- -0- 2 2 2 : 30 -0- -0- 1 2 0 -0- -0- 1 1 2 :45 -0- -0- 2 1 1 -0- -0- 1 1 3 : 00 -0- -0- 1 2 2 -0- -0- 2 2 3 : 15 -0- -0- 2 2 0 -0- -0- 1 1 3 : 30 -0- -0- 0 1 2 -0- -0- 1 1 3 :45 -0- -0- 3 1 0 -0- -0- 1 1 4 : 00 -0- -0- 1 0 0 -0- -0- 0 0 4 : 15 -0- -0- 0 3 2 -0- -0- 2 2 4 : 30 -0- -0- 1 1 0 -0- -0- 1 1 4 :45 -0- -0- 2 1 1 -0- -0- 1 1 5 : 00 -0- -0- 1 0 1 -0- -0- 1 1 5 : 15 -0- -0- 3 4 4 -0- -0- 4 4 5 :30 -0- -0- 4 3 4 -0- -0- 4 4 5 :45 -0- -0- 7 3 6 -0- -0- 5 5 6 : 00 -0- -0- 4 6 8 -0- -0- 6 6 6 : 15 -0- -0- 10 7 5 -0- -0- 7 7 6 : 30 -0- -0- 17 18 18 -0- -0- 18 18 6 :45 -0- -0- 24 25 21 -0- -0- 23 23 7 : 00 -0- -0- 32 31 35 -0- -0- 33 33 7 : 15 -0- -0- 23 37 25 -0- -0- 28 28 7 : 30 -0- -0- 45 52 52 -0- -0- 50 50 7 :45 -0- -0- 56 58 45 -0- -0- 53 53 8 : 00 -0- -0- 57 51 59 -0- -0- 56 56 8 : 15 -0- -0- 33 40 44 -0- -0- 39 39 8 :30 -0- -0- 28 26 28 -0- -0- 27 27 8 :45 -0- -0- 32 20 17 -0- -0- 23 23 9 : 00 -0- -0- 23 14 31 -0- -0- 23 23 9 : 15 -0- -0- 14 20 15 -0- -0- 16 16 9 : 30 -0- -0- 20 13 28 -0- -0- 20 20 9 :45 -0- -0- 27 29 19 -0- -0- 25 25 10 : 00 -0- -0- 11 23 31 -0- -0- 22 22 10 : 15 -0- -0- 32 27 30 -0- -0- 30 30 10 : 30 -0- -0- 27 23 24 -0- -0- 25 25 10 :45 -0- -0- 37 36 28 -0- -0- 34 34 11 : 00 -0- -0- 32 36 34 -0- -0- 34 34 ** Page 1 ** NU-METRICS HI-STAR FRAME STUDY - - HDM Version 5 . 0b 05/03/96 [ Report #2 Weekly VOLUME Report ] Hi-Star ID: 5440 Begin: 04/30/96 15 : 00 End : 05/03/96 15 : 00 Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Lane : Westbound Hours : 72 hrs Loc/Sta Pfaffle St-E of 81st Oper : MCM Period: 15 min City: Tigard, OR Posted: 35 mph Raw Count : 7425 County: Washington AADT Factor: 1 . 00 AADT Count : 2475 4 030 Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Wkday Week 5/ 6 5/ 7 5/ 1 5/ 2 5/ 3 5/ 4 5/ 5 Avg. Avg. 11 : 15 -0- -0- 34 34 36 -0- -0- 35 35 11 : 30 -0- -0- 38 21 29 -0- -0- 29 29 11 :45 -0- -0- 37 35 42 -0- -0- 38 38 12 : 00 -0- -0- 45 51 44 -0- -0- 47 47 12 : 15 -0- -0- 53 56 47 -0- -0- 52 52 12 : 30 -0- -0- 49 57 63 -0- -0- 56 56 12 :45 -0- -0- 60 43 65 -0- -0- 56 56 13 : 00 -0- -0- 47 43 42 -0- -0- 44 44 13 : 15 -0- -0- 32 48 59 -0- -0- 46 46 13 :30 -0- -0- 45 47 46 -0- -0- 46 46 13 :45 -0- -0- 56 53 54 -0- -0- 54 54 14 : 00 -0- -0- 49 40 48 -0- -0- 46 46 14 : 15 -0- -0- 40 45 50 -0- -0- 45 45 14 :30 -0- -0- 42 45 63 -0- -0- 50 50 14 :45 -0- -0- 45 53 64 -0- -0- 54 54 15 : 00 -0- [ 37] 38 33 -0- -0- -0- 36 36 15 : 15 -0- [ 44] 40 37 -0- -0- -0- 40 40 15 : 30 -0- [ 40] 47 45 -0- -0- -0- 44 44 15 :45 -0- [ 48] 50 46 -0- -0- -0- 48 48 16 : 00 -0- [ 47] 44 41 -0- -0- -0- 44 44 16 : 15 -0- [ 56] 60 56 -0- -0- -0- 57 57 16 :30 -0- [ 47] 62 52 -0- -0- -0- 54 54 16 :45 -0- [ 56] 51 53 -0- -0- -0- 53 53 17 : 00 -0- [ 55] 48 54 -0- -0- -0- 52 52 17 : 15 -0- [ 58] 56 74 -0- -0- -0- 63 63 17 :30 -0- [ 42] 55 57 -0- -0- -0- 51 51 17 :45 -0- [ 51] 54 52 -0- -0- -0- 52 52 18 : 00 -0- [ 39] 49 54 -0- -0- -0- 47 47 18 : 15 -0- [ 41] 41 53 -0- -0- -0- 45 45 18 : 30 -0- [ 40] 42 48 -0- -0- -0- 43 43 18 :45 -0- [ 34] 44 28 -0- -0- -0- 35 35 19 : 00 -0- [ 39] 35 43 -0- -0- -0- 39 39 19 : 15 -0- [ 36] 40 38 -0- -0- -0- 38 38 19 : 30 -0- [ 39] 33 26 -0- -0- -0- 33 33 19 :45 -0- [ 22] 37 30 -0- -0- -0- 30 30 20 : 00 -0- [ 19] 24 20 -0- -0- -0- 21 21 20 : 15 -0- [ 30] 29 22 -0- -0- -0- 27 27 20 : 30 -0- [ 27] 23 30 -0- -0- -0- 27 27 20 :45 -0- [ 22] 23 14 -0- -0- -0- 20 20 21 : 00 -0- [ 15] 20 10 -0- -0- -0- 15 15 21 : 15 -0- [ 24] 25 17 -0- -0- -0- 22 22 21 : 30 -0- [ 21) 24 10 -0- -0-* 0 -0- 18 18 21 :45 -0- [ 14] 12 17 -0- -0- -0- 14 14 22 : 00 -0- [ 10] 9 18 -0- -0- -0- 12 12 22 : 15 -0- [ 6] 10 15 -0- -0- -0- 10 10 ** Page 2 ** NU-METRICS HI-STAR FRAME STUDY -- HDM Version 5 . 0b 05/03/96 ( Report #2 Weekly VOLUME Report ] Hi-Star ID: 5440 Begin : 04/30/96 15 : 00 End: 05/03/96 15 : 00 Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Lane : Westbound Hours : 72 hrs Loc/Sta Pfaffle St-E of 81st Oper : MCM Period: 15 min City: Tigard, OR Posted: 35 mph Raw Count : 7425 County: Washington AADT Factor: 1 . 00 AADT Count : 2475 i-4/30i Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Wkday Week 5/ 6 5/ 7 5/ 1 5/ 2 5/ 3 5/ 4 5/ 5 Avg . Avg. 22 :30 -0- [ 3] 6 8 -0- -0- -0- 6 6 22 :45 -0- [ 12] 10 11 -0- -0- -0- 11 11 23 :00 -0- [ 6] 7 8 -0- -0- -0- 7 7 23 :15 -0- [ 6] 10 9 -0- -0- -0- 8 8 23 :30 -0- [ 6] 4 7 -0- -0- -0- 6 6 23 :45 -0- [ 4] 2 6 -0- -0- -0- 4 4 12, 16, 18 & 24 Hour Totals 7-19 : 00 -0- 849 1990 1977 1185 -0- -0- 1500 1500 6-22 : 00 -0- 1062 2356 2333 1318 -0- -0- 1767 1767 6-24 : 00 -0- 1096 2389 2374 1318 -0- -0- 1794 1794 0-24 : 00 -0- 1096 2474 2455 1400 -0- -0- 1856 1856 AM PEAK Volume -0- -0- 57 58 63 -0- -0- 59 59 Time ---- ---- 8 : 00 7 :45 12 : 30 ---- ---- PM PEAK Volume -0- 58 62 74 65 -0- -0- 65 65 Time ---- 17 :15 16 : 30 17 : 15 12 :45 ---- ---- ** Page 3 ** Friday,May 3 , 1996 15 : 51 Page 1 NU-METRICS Traffic Analyzer Study Computer Generated Summary Report Route: Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave Location: Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave STUDY A survey of vehicle traffic was conducted with HISTAR unit number 5439 . The survey was done in the Eastbound lane on Pfaffle St-E Of 81st Ave in Tigard, OR in Washington county. The survey lasted for 72 hours and began on Tuesday,April 30, 1996 at 3 : 00pm and ended on Friday,May 3 , 1996 at 3 : 00pm. Data were recorded in 15 minute time periods . The total recorded volume of traffic showed 7441 vehicles passed through the location with a peak volume of 100 on Thursday,May 2, 1996 at 5 : 00pm and a minimum volume of 0 on Wednesday,May 1, 1996 at 12 : 30am. SPEED Chart 1 lists the values of the speed bins and the total volume for each bin. Chart 1 Speed Bins (mph) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 --- 1 - -- I --- I --- -- - 1 --- 1 --- I --- I --- I --- I --- I --- I --- -- - --- 1 --- 1 45 279 3067 544 22 3 2 18 193 1064 2072 106 7 1 Half of the vehicles were traveling at 33 . 9 mph or lower speed. The average speed for all classified vehicles was 35 . 78 mph with 37 . 14 percent exceeding the posted speed of 35 mph. The HI-STAR found 0 . 18 percent of the vehicles were traveling in excess of 55 mph. The mode speed for this traffic study was 35 mph and the 85th percentile was 39 . 5 mph. CLASS Chart 2 lists the values of the 8 class bins and the total volume for each bin. Chart 2 Class Bins (feet) <19 30 40 50 60 70 0 0> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- 5684 1385 311 36 5 3 0 0 Most of the vehicles were passenger cars with a total count of 5684 . This represents 95 . 22 percent of the classified vehicles . The truck percentage is 4 . 78 percent of the classified vehicles. HEADWAY During the peak time period, on Thursday,May 2, 1996 at 5 : 00pm the average headway between the vehicles was 9 . 00 seconds . The slow period occurred on Wednesday,May 1, 1996 at 12 : 30am and the headway between the vehicles 0 seconds (No vehicles recorded) . WEATHER The roadway surface temperature over the period of the study varied between 47 degrees Fahrenheit and 105 degrees Fahrenheit . The HI-STAR analyzer determined that the roadway surface was DRY Friday,May 3 , 1996 15 : 51 Page 2 NU-METRICS Traffic Analyzer Study Computer Generated Summary Report Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave Location: Pfaffle St-E of 81st Ave 100 . 00 percent of the time . NU-METRICS HI-STAR FRAME STUDY -- HDM Version 5 . 0b 05/03/96 [ Report #2 Weekly VOLUME Report ] Hi-Star ID: 5439 Begin: 04/30/96 15 : 00 End: 05/03/96 15 : 00 Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Lane : Eastbound Hours : 72 hrs Loc/Sta Pfaffle St-E of 81st Oper: MCM Period: 15 min City: Tigard, OR Posted: 35 mph Raw Count : 7441 County: Washington AADT Factor: 1 . 00 AADT Count : 2480 4-030i Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Wkday Week 5/ 6 5/ 7 5/ 1 5/ 2 5/ 3 5/ 4 5/ 5 Avg. Avg. 0 : 00 -0- -0- 4 4 1 -0- -0- 3 3 0 : 15 -0- -0- 1 1 2 -0- -0- 1 1 0 : 30 -0- -0- 0 3 1 -0- -0- 1 1 0 :45 -0- -0- 2 0 1 -0- -0- 1 1 1 : 00 -0- -0- 0 0 1 -0- -0- 0 0 1 : 15 -0- -0- 1 0 1 -0- -0- 1 1 1 : 30 -0- -0- 0 1 0 -0- -0- 0 0 1 :45 -0- -0- 2 1 4 -0- -0- 2 2 2 : 00 -0- -0- 1 2 0 -0- -0- 1 1 2 : 15 -0- -0- 1 0 1 -0- -0- 1 1 2 :30 -0- -0- 0 0 0 -0- -0- 0 0 2 :45 -0- -0- 1 1 0 -0- -0- 1 1 3 : 00 -0- -0- 1 1 0 -0- -0- 1 1 3 : 15 -0- -0- 0 1 1 -0- -0- 1 1 3 :30 -0- -0- 0 1 0 -0- -0- 0 0 3 :45 -0- -0- 2 0 0 -0- -0- 1 1 4 : 00 -0- -0- 1 0 0 -0- -0- 0 0 4 : 15 -0- -0- 0 1 1 -0- -0- 1 1 4 : 30 -0- -0- 4 2 3 -0- -0- 3 3 4 :45 -0- -0- 0 4 3 -0- -0- 2 2 5 : 00 -0- -0- 2 3 6 -0- -0- 4 4 5 : 15 -0- -0- 9 6 3 -0- -0- 6 6 5 :30 -0- -0- 15 14 15 -0- -0- 15 15 5 :45 -0- -0- 10 6 6 -0- -0- 7 7 6 : 00 -0- -0- 12 5 9 -0- -0- 9 9 6 : 15 -0- -0- 14 19 13 -0- -0- 15 15 6 : 30 -0- -0- 26 20 19 -0- -0- 22 22 6 :45 -0- -0- 22 32 25 -0- -0- 26 26 7 : 00 -0- -0- 25 26 21 -0- -0- 24 24 7 : 15 -0- -0- 25 27 30 -0- -0- 27 27 7 : 30 -0- -0- 39 37 37 -0- -0- 38 38 7 :45 -0- -0- 50 51 35 -0- -0- 45 45 8 : 00 -0- -0- 30 24 43 -0- -0- 32 32 8 : 15 -0- -0- 33 32 32 -0- -0- 32 32 8 :30 -0- -0- 30 24 22 -0- -0- 25 25 8 :45 -0- -0- 17 20 31 -0- -0- 23 23 9 : 00 -0- -0- 18 29 17 -0- -0- 21 21 9 : 15 -0- -0- 22 19 20 -0- -0- 20 20 9 :30 -0- -0- 23 21 16 -0- -0- 20 20 9 :45 -0- -0- 19 19 23 -0- -0- 20 20 10 : 00 -0- -0- 19 27 17 -0- -0- 21 21 10 : 15 -0- -0- 22 34 32 -0- -0- 29 29 10 : 30 -0- -0- 30 31 29 -0- -0- 30 30 10 :45 -0- -0- 19 25 32 -0- -0- 25 25 11 : 00 -0- -0- 35 34 20 -0- -0- 30 30 ** Page 1 ** NU-METRICS HI-STAR FRAME STUDY -- HDM Version 5 . 0b 05/03/96 [ Report #2 Weekly VOLUME Report ] Hi-Star ID: 5439 Begin: 04/30/96 15 : 00 End: 05/03/96 15 : 00 Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Lane : Eastbound Hours : 72 hrs Loc/Sta Pfaffle St-E of 81st Oper : MCM Period : 15 min City: Tigard, OR Posted: 35 mph Raw Count : 7441 County: Washington AADT Factor: 1 . 00 AADT Count : 2480 4 03E4 Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Wkday Week 5/ 6 5/ 7 5/ 1 5/ 2 5/ 3 5/ 4 5/ 5 Avg. Avg. 11 : 15 -0- -0- 31 32 37 -0- -0- 33 33 11 :30 -0- -0- 36 45 44 -0- -0- 42 42 11 :45 -0- -0- 39 38 52 -0- -0- 43 43 12 : 00 -0- -0- 38 46 54 -0- -0- 46 46 12 : 15 -0- -0- 54 36 51 -0- -0- 47 47 12 :30 -0- -0- 40 52 48 -0- -0- 47 47 12 :45 -0- -0- 48 53 48 -0- -0- 50 50 13 : 00 -0- -0- 42 45 46 -0- -0- 44 44 13 : 15 -0- -0- 45 38 44 -0- -0- 42 42 13 : 30 -0- -0- 30 43 52 -0- -0- 42 42 13 :45 -0- -0- 50 41 46 -0- -0- 46 46 14 : 00 -0- -0- 36 43 55 -0- -0- 45 45 14 : 15 -0- -0- 35 36 42 -0- -0- 38 38 14 :30 -0- -0- 52 35 41 -0- -0- 43 43 14 :45 -0- -0- 33 32 42 -0- -0- 36 36 15 : 00 -0- [ 45] 45 45 -0- -0- -0- 45 45 15 : 15 -0- [ 39] 34 55 -0- -0- -0- 43 43 15 : 30 -0- [ 46] 46 40 -0- -0- -0- 44 44 15 :45 -0- [ 69] 56 59 -0- -0- -0- 61 61 16 : 00 -0- [ 64] 60 71 -0- -0- -0- 65 65 16 : 15 -0- [ 73] 60 69 -0- -0- -0- 67 67 16 :30 -0- [ 56] 73 84 -0- -0- -0- 71 71 16 :45 -0- [ 66] 68 57 -0- -0- -0- 64 64 17 :00 -0- [ 78] 91 100 -0- -0- -0- 90 90 17 :15 -0- [ 78] 75 85 -0- -0- -0- 79 79 17 :30 -0- [ 60] 77 83 -0- -0- -0- 73 73 17 :45 -0- [ 61] 50 46 -0- -0- -0- 52 52 18 : 00 -0- [ 75] 49 64 -0- -0- -0- 63 63 18 : 15 -0- [ 45] 51 45 -0- -0- -0- 47 47 18 :30 -0- [ 41] 37 50 -0- -0- -0- 43 43 18 :45 -0- [ 27] 36 36 -0- -0- -0- 33 33 19 : 00 -0- [ 38] 46 33 -0- -0- -0- 39 39 19 : 15 -0- [ 41] 32 31 -0- -0- -0- 35 35 19 : 30 -0- [ 37] 22 24 -0- -0- -0- 28 28 19 :45 -0- [ 16] 33 20 -0- -0- -0- 23 23 20 : 00 -0- [ 17] 22 20 -0- -0- -0- 20 20 20 : 15 -0- [ 15] 17 18 -0- -0- -0- 17 17 20 : 30 -0- [ 20] 22 13 -0- -0- -0- 18 18 20 :45 -0- [ 18] 21 41 -0- -0- -0- 27 27 21 : 00 -0- [ 14] 21 21 -0- -0- -0- 19 19 21 : 15 -0- [ 16] 13 19 -0- -0- -0- 16 16 21 :30 -0- [ 14] 14 14 -0- -0- -0- 14 14 21 :45 -0- [ 17] 11 11 -0- -0- -0- 13 13 22 : 00 -0- [ 7] 6 8 -0- -0- -0- 7 7 22 : 15 -0- [ 4] 6 7 -0- -0- -0- 6 6 ** Page 2 ** NU-METRICS HI-STAR FRAME STUDY -- HDM Version 5 . 0b 05/03/96 [ Report #2 Weekly VOLUME Report ] Hi-Star ID: 5439 Begin: 04/30/96 15 : 00 End: 05/03/96 15 : 00 Route : Pfaffle St-E of 81st Lane : Eastbound Hours : 72 hrs Loc/Sta Pfaffle St-E of 81st Oper : MCM Period: 15 min 'City: Tigard, OR Posted: 35 mph Raw Count : 7441 County: Washington AADT Factor: 1 . 00 AADT Count : 2480 4-4#30i Time Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Wkday Week 5/ 6 5/ 7 5/ 1 5/ 2 5/ 3 5/ 4 5/ 5 Avg. Avg. 22 : 30 -0- [ 10] 8 6 -0- -0- -0- 8 8 22 :45 -0- [ 11] 6 9 -0- -0- -0- 9 9 23 : 00 -0- [ 3] 4 1 -0- -0- -0- 3 3 23 : 15 -0- [ 2] 3 8 -0- -0- -0- 4 4 23 : 30 -0- [ 3] 3 3 -0- -0- -0- 3 3 23 :45 -0- [ 1] 1 5 -0- -0- -0- 2 2 • 12, 16, 18 & 24 Hour Totals 7-19 : 00 -0- 1039 1984 2082 1071 -0- -0- 1544 1544 6-22 : 00 -0- 1207 2289 2402 1184 -0- -0- 1771 1771 6-24 : 00 -0- 1227 2306 2428 1184 -0- -0- 1786 1786 0-24 : 00 -0- 1227 2415 2524 1275 -0- -0- 1860 1860 AM PEAK Volume -0- -0- 54 52 54 -0- -0- 53 53 Time ---- ---- 12 : 15 12 : 30 12 : 00 - - - - ---- PM PEAK Volume -0- 78 91 100 55 -0- -0- 81 81 Time ---- 17 : 00 17 : 00 17 : 00 14 : 00 ---- ---- ** Page 3 ** October 15, 1996 CITY OF T1GARD OREGON Ron Naff 18641 Benfield Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Mr. Naff: This letter is to inform you of the remaining conditions of approval related to SDR 96-0007 (Carriage House) which pertain to the Planning Department. The following conditions remain outstanding: Condition #10: A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the application. Condition #11: A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. Condition #12: Security fencing along Highway 217. The City is unable to issue building permits until these conditions are satisfied. These are Planning Division conditions only, other Department conditions may also need to be satisfied. For a complete list of outstanding conditions, please contact a Development Services Technician at the City of Tigard at 639-4171, x304. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Z{,44., William D'Andrea Associate Planner i:Uogin\curpin\willlsdr96-07.con c: SDR 96-0007 land use file Development Services Technicians 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 OCT-17-96 THU 01 :02 PM CEI-MCH'TOUCHSTONENSTR. 2 244 1308 P. 01 CONA-AUCTION cDNIPANY e235 SW OLESON ROAD, SUITE C PORTLANIO,OPECON 07223 FAX COVEIt LCWFM Please deliver the following pages to : Name: j'1L1 �k1Q .A f'i r In - Location : Total number of pages ( including cover letter) : If all pages are not received , please call as soon as possible . Transmit Ling from WQA Utf ice/Dept . : Operator: Phone Number cY `*r05 � Date : � f�._. Time: �;1a Confirmation requested upon receipt . Please call : Name: Phone Number: GENERAL CONTRACTOR (503) 244-0523 OCT-17-96 THU 01 :03 PM CEI-MCH-TOUCHSTONENSTR. 2 244 1308 P. 02 -IMCH � CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 8235 SW OLESON ROAD,SUITE C PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 TO: Will DeAndrea Planning Department City of Tigard FROM: Phil McHugh RE : Carriage House Permits DATE : October 17 , 1996 Will , we would like to submit this letter from Collier along with an agreement to modify the landscape plan for the Carriage House Apartments when a final determination of how many of the trees scheduled to be saved can reasonably be saved. In any event , the requirements of the City's tree ordinance will be met . I would like to check with you later today and see if the above proposal is satisfactory and this condition for permit issuance can be satisfied. Thanks GENERAL CONTRACTOR r�rri'al add-f lri�� OCT-17-96 THU 01 :03 PM CEI-MCH/TOUCHSTONENSTR. 2 244 1308 P. 03 y, ''� JOT IC riCil.p;„cilibn • C O L L I E R Pr∎ ossiungI Tree, SSIi,ui' & I:{, ARBOR. CARE 9032 S,r.. Portlind. Oregnti 97266-1.449 October 17, 1996 Mr. Phil McI-Iugh MCH Construction 8235 SW Oleson Road Suite C Portland, OR 97223 re: Trce preservation at Carriage House site Pfaffle Road Tigard, OR Dear Mr. McHugh: At your request, I examined the site plan and grading plan that you provided me for the Carriage House site. At issue is a grade conflict at Building D2 with a Locust tree (# 175), which is to remain. The grading plan shows there will be approximately 3 feet of soil till placed around the tree's root system, It appears this fill must occur to comply with building ordinances. Three feet of fill will smother to Coot system,and eventually kill the tree. i recommend removal of the Locust tree(# 175) Building C3 - 5 fruit trees #261, 272, 274,274, 278 It was requested by you to install temporary silt fencing around building pad C3, to include the tree protective zone of the 5 fruit trees, This area would also be signed, This would be done prior to site work,and until a survey would establish building corners and grade. Then the tree protection zone would be established by snow fencing. This procedure is acceptable to me, as the arborist consulting on the site. Please call me if you have any additional questions. Submitted by: 6-4-7\ t":0 Ten-ill Collier Certified Arborist GRETCHEN VADNAIS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2041 SW 58TH AVENUE PORTLAND , OREGON 97221 • 503 292-8713 RECEIVED 2 2 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 22, 1996 Mark Roberts Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Carriage House Pfaffle Road Tigard, Oregon Dear Mr. Roberts: Attached please find a report on the existing trees at the above-mentioned site. The report is written by Terrill Collier, Certified Arborist. According to this report there are 25 significant trees on the site. It will be necessary to remove 19 of these trees in order to construct this project. The trees to be removed total 430 inches in diameter. The trees proposed to be planted in the project total 434 inches. A chart detailing this information is attached to this letter. The total inches of the trees proposed to be planted is greater than the total inches of the trees to be removed. This exceeds the City's mitigation requirements. Sincerely, Gretchen Vadnais • Fa • TREES TO BE REMOVED: No Type Size Total Dia. Inches 1 Deciduous tree(#161) 16" 16" 1 Deciduous tree(#162) 24" 24" 1 Deciduous tree(#166) 12-14" 14" 1 Deciduous tree(#167) 36" 36" 1 Fir tree(#168) 36" 36" 1 Deciduous tree (#176) 32" 32" 1 Deciduous tree (#178) 48" 48" 1 Lombardy Poplar(#179) 32" 32" 1 Deciduous tree (#180) 48" 48" 1 Deciduous tree (#184) 12" 12" 1 Deciduous tree(#185) 14" 14" 1 Deciduous tree(#186) 12" 12" 1 Lombardy Poplar(#187) 12" 12" 1 Lombardy Poplar(#188) 12" 12" 1 Lombardy Poplar(#189) 12-14" 14" 1 Deciduous fruit tree(#271) 20" 20" 1 Deciduous fruit tree(#273) 24-16" 24" 1 Deciduous fruit tree(#275) 12" 12" 1 Deciduous fruit tree(#276) 12" 12" Total Diameter Inches Removed 430" PROPOSED TREES: No Type Size Total Dia. Inches 10 Vine Maple(5-6') 1" 10" 14 Flame Maple 1.5" 21" 22 October Glory Maple 3" 66" 15 Leyland Cypress 1" 15" 18 Autumn Applause Ash 3" 54" 13 Ponderosa Pine(5-6') 1" 13" 40 Columnar Sargent Cherry 2" 80" 19 Douglas-fir(6-8') 1.5" 28.5" 55 Flowering Pear 2.5" 137.5" 3 Northern Red Oak 3" 9" Total Diameter Inches Proposed: 434" RECEIVEr- COMMUNITY DEVELOFr... C 0 L L I E R Professional Tree, Shrub, & Lawn Care Since 1937 ARBOR CARE 9032 SE Division, Portland, Oregon 97266-1449 April 23, 1996 Gretchen Vadnis Gretchen Vadnis Landscape Architect 2041 SW 58th Avenue Portland, OR 97221 Dear Ms. Vadnis, At your request, I examined the trees at the Carriage House apartment site with you on April 12th, 1996. I am to examine the larger existing trees on the site and make recommendations as to which trees are appropriate to retain in the new landscape. Additionally, I am to provide a tree preservation plan to help protect the trees to be retained through construction. I am basing my report on the preliminary grading and tree preservation plan dated 2/15/96 that was provided me. This map has the building and parking lot plan overlaid with the tree locations. OBSERVATIONS The site is relatively open land with a large number of small (2 to 8 inch diameter, 8 to 20 feet tall) volunteer trees mainly hawthorn (Crataegus) and some poplars (Populus). In the northeast corner of the project, there is a group of large lombardy poplars and several locust (Robinia) trees. On the west side, there is an existing fruit tree orchard of apple (Malus), pears (Pyrus), cherries(Prunus), and plums. Portland(503)774-9642 • Vancouver(360)693-6056 • FAX(503)774-7932 Printed on recycled paper The apartment anent hour DISCUSSION Would�candidates are few buildings and O There dilates to retain that an Ong lot areas are 3 nature Wo tr; : o:' s s not be l u g i fro P large ma.1a ty soor chat �'e growl significantly impacted proposed landscaped �existing be. Will need system. In andidates to growing in proposed by construction. that large When because companion t em. because dition, the retain in landscape age own Panio trees the Poplar landscape areas these brans the are y are s are Pe due s a to susceptible to.e man n This lost their therremaining where t proposed a group e aggressive growing heir e siv reAlso� in then is disease cans symptomatic p protection. Fees Peed build s and the tarn, northeast corner, there arch dieback and deos oraece� of the more jublectetoo an a the Vest side a is a 12 inch locust ath to trees canker that poplars have a cherry(*261 a peareae a group off ust(#1�5� that is a are The remaining 1)' complete i a group located on the trees that good candidate to good candidates trees on t group of five t5'tePlan. a be retained for preservation.the site are mar preserved. apple( 2�2�,plum Two of the trees site my small, volunteer ( are n, and Most o ft CpNC, er ( scrub, sees that where he 1� LUSIDN�ND t ale not preserved.ey can b existing trees RECO 1 would resound trees t the site are p sd l t end refotivago o good condition y in a poplar s the lomb�dyPopl appropriate species scaPe area trees. to be Collier Arbor Care Inc Cage House Tree Preservation Report 4-23-96 Page 2 of I would recommend to preserve the following trees: 1. 12 inch locust tree (#175) 2. 16 inch apple (#272) 3. 14 inch plum (#274) 4. 32 inch cherry (#261) 5. 18 inch apple on the west side 6. 14 inch pear on the west side See appendix#1 for the tree locations on the site plan. I have also included a tree preservation specifications (Appendix #2) to help protect the trees recommended to remain through construction. These recommendations include establishing a tree protection zone of chain link fencing around the trees, pruning and fertilization. Please call if you have further questions. Sincerely, Ct-c.E c.c.s Ten-ill Collier Certified Arborist enclosures Appendix#1 site plan Appendix#2 tree protection specifications Collier Arbor Care, Inc. Carriage House Tree Preservation Report 4-23-96 page 3 of 3 OCT-22-96 TUE 03 :52 PM CEI-MCH-TOUCHSTONENSTR. 2 244 1308 P. 01 -=-1MCH � CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6225 SW OLEBON ROAD, SUITE C PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 TO: Will D'Andrea City of Tigard FROM: Phil McHugh RE: Carriage House Apartments DATE : October 22, 1996 Enclosed is letter from Arborist , Terrill Collier regarding the tree protection on site. Per our previous conversation, the owner recognizes the inch for inch requirement for tree removal . What we would like to propose is that once the final determination of what trees may be saved or removed , we will resubmit a revised plan showing the trees to be added to the Pfaffle site and the possibility of adding trees to the Bull Mountain site to satisfy the condition for the issuance of permits . I have also met with Gene Birchel , Tualatin Valley Fire District and he has agreed to sign off on the "Site Work Permit " . We will be working with Gene to satisfy the requirements of the fire protection system. Please let me know if this will satisfy your conditions for approval . 1`D 11-3t qc VIAL) M �' 'O ‘,0 g4 q(r) GENERAL CONTRACTOR 15m, OCT-22-96 TUE 03 :53 PM CEI-MCH-TOUCHSTONENSTR. 2 244 1308 P. 1247: A,74,q ;rl „L-� C OLLIER Prnfc.csional'Ii-ee, Shrub. & Lawn Curc Sin CC 1937 ARBOR CARE 9032 S.E. Division,1'orrland, Orcgon 97266-1449 T R . C. October 22. 1996 Phil McHugh MCH Construction 8235 SW Oleson Suite C Portland, OR 97223 re: Carriage House site Pfaftle Road Tigard,OR Dear Mr. McHugh: At your request, I inspected the protective fencing around the trees on 10/21/96. The fencing is,up and to my specifications. Sincerely, Terrill Collier Certified Arborist n,,,rI,ra r;n.\ 774.41:47 • Vit,cniiver (2flM 693-6o56 • FAX (503) 774-7932 --=1MCH � CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 8235 SW OLESON ROAD, SUITE C PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 TO: Will D'Andrea City of Tigard FROM: Phil McHugh MCH Construction RE: Carriage House Apartments Landscape Requirements DATE: June 2, 1997 Will, we wish to submit the following information regarding the removal and replacement of trees from the site. We removed five trees from the site (a total of 74 inches) and have replaced those trees by additional trees adjacent to the Bull Mountain Heights Apartments. These trees were not required plantings at Bull Mountain. Enclosed are the following: #1 - Original Tree Survey at Pfafile. #2 -Letter from arborist regarding trees to be removed. #3 -Copy of State approval to landscape abandoned frontage road adjacent to Bull Mountain Heights Apartments. #4 - Actual planting per landscape contractor-was 27 - 2-112 + - Sunset Maples. Total 67.5" on frontage road. #5 - Added 4 - 2" Flowering Dogwoods behind building 7-A. Total 8". #6 - Copy of Bull Mountain site plan showing location of frontage road and Building 7. Will, please call at 244-0523 if any clarification is needed. Phil McHugh GENERAL CONTRACTOR (503) 244-0523 MGH � CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 8235 SW OLESON ROAD, SUITE C PORTLAND, OREGON 97223 r - . 'I TO: Will D ' Andrea � City of Tigard FROM: Phil McHugh RE : Carriage House Apartments DATE : October 22 , 1996 Enclosed is letter from Arborist , Terrill Collier regarding the tree protection on site . Per our previous conversation , the owner recognizes the inch for inch requirement for tree removal . What we would like to propose is that once the final determination of what trees may be saved or removed , we will resubmit a revised plan showing the trees to be added to the Pfaffle site and the possibility of adding trees to the Bull Mountain site to satisfy the condition for the issuance of permits . I have also met with Gene Birchel , Tualatin Valley Fire District and he has agreed to sign off on the "Site Work Permit " . We will be working with Gene to satisfy the requirements of the fire protection system. Please let me know if this will satisfy your conditions for approval . GENERAL CONTRACTOR (503) 244-0523 • • a erv."1 f COLLIERProfessional Tree. Shrub, & lawn (dare Since 1937 ARBOR CARE 9032 S.E. Division, Portland, Ore on 97266-1449 October 17, 1996 Mr. Phil McHugh MCH Construction 8235 SW Oleson Road Suite C Portland,OR 97223 re: Tree preservation at Carriage House site Pfaff le Road Tigard, OR Dear Mr. McHugh: At your request, I examined the site plan and grading plan that you provided me for the Carriage House site. At issue is a grade conflict at Building D2 with a Locust tree (# 175), which is to remain. The grading plan shows there will be approximately 3 feet of soil fill placed around the tree's root system. It appears this fill must occur to comply with building ordinances. Three feet of fill will smother the root system,and eventually kill the tree. I recommend removal of the Locust tree (# 175) Building C3 - 5 fruit trees #261, 272, 274, 274, 278 It was requested by you to install temporary silt fencing around building pad C3, to include the tree protective zone of the 5 fruit trees. This area would also be signed. This would be done prior to site work, and until a survey would establish building corners and grade. Then the tree protection zone would be established by snow fencing. This procedure is acceptable to me, as the arborist consulting on the site. Please call me if you have any additional questions. Submitted by: 1 Terrill Collier Certified Arborist Portland (503) 774-9642 • Vancouver (206) 693-6056 • FAX (503) 774-7932 L priuic<1 rm lcll<1<■1 paper 1 CO L L I E R Professional Tree, Shrub, & Lawn Care Since 1937 ARBOR CARE 9032 SE Division, Portland, Oregon 97266-1.49 Dctmber 11. 1996 Mr. Phil McHugh ICI Construction 8235 S.W.Oleson Road, Suite C Portland, OR 97223 Re; Tree survival evaluation at Carriage House Construction site, Pfaffle Road, Tigard,Oregon Dear Mr. McHugh: At your request. I reinspected four Fruit trees near building C3 on December 4, 1996. I am to determine the survivability of the trees now that grading is set and building locations are staked. I met with the site superintendent. who showed me the building and grading stakes. Observations I tees(#277, 272. 274) Three fruit trees: two apples and one plum are located(north) in front of the building. The grading stake shows there will be approximately 18 inches of soil fill over the root zones of the tree. The building will he within 6 feet of the free trunks and approximately 1/3 of the tree canopy will need to be removed for building clearance. The fourth fruit tree,or pear(#278), is located on the back side of the building. The corner of the building coincides with the tree trunk. Discussion The three fruit trees north of the building will have 18 inches of fill over the root zone. This will suffocate the root system and the trees will die within two years. The fourth tree is located within the corner of the building pad. Conclusion and Recommendations The four fruit trees will not survive the construction process due to root suffocation and being within a building location. I recommend removal of the four fruit trees. Please call if you have further questions. Sincerely, \J r�ct Cs a Terrill Collier Certified Artlorist TC:KL 1t3ft1�1la(w}l //4-9642 • Vanwuver(46W(,J4-r)llar, . PAY ( Aft 7i.4_?op .' ` . ' _ ` \ S 0 . N.cift. &41,6,, 1001 H I , A, s.-.4i.. -:,, ______\ \ Tel 7 „..wir.wii, --...wiiiii, „. ,.,ee, ,,N .,:,,,:,..,:::::.,-,. ..:. ______ \iit 1.,.. .,,,,.. y :.•,, .7%, ;:::, ,,.,s:':- \ et' ,.....„.L.,.. .411/.0)r- ..T. . , ‘.,,,,,‘ .,..,,,,,,:, , ,,,,,,:. --.___ ,s.,,-.,., 'sk;, '::-\.: .::.', MI DEDdr:ATI• 10 , .. ,:N..--,:,,,::: :',.,: . ______t r po• il Ar," * 1•11.1'111.11. - VtiV iri\ ,,,f1;, , - ,.'.. ,:::%. .:,;"; .,.;•\",‘,,,„'-',,;:. . ...,,,. -.•.,...„. .:‘,..,...•,.., . ,_.,,... , / 1, .,..-e,,,,,, - 4., iiiii 2, 'CI UN '. ell 1 ' i 4; .4•01.1./0,4„. 2 'A , .0 . h__.,..,.4... i IN EXIST. ! I lc // ) 1' ! 93031 r-r:TA,.., / ce. ,, .''''-'2 131/vi' 2T . tt,AsA\ !BLDG. ) t 114/l'oe.ti INDICA Ica BuFFER > iipp \* . 4/ ,.-- ___.-,,,-...,it, -,?..,w,%4 ,. / f ,,,,.,,,,,,. ,... - /./T / .....--- .0:-......30;.45,0101 OFF 1 , / * ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SEE ClvIL PLANS FOR 36 10 41,111* FINAL DESIGN 21 10 S/38_. 1,‘„rolloir (3T / ... •■/ / •s,.. - ,,,, j'AecieRCIEL... 45 St, ■T■re:r. _go. ■4;3.R. ' 14c/v , ., r_.,. / ftili . GROS- .1/4 AO, ■%, 2,4. - ' /. 4 / tiAL/k . A it ' , ' 180 TOT • , ,/Or t wr te-ir A. , ,' „.- iti‘-. ___.--- .,, 3 ,-C _A.. ,__ _ .________ 4 ,// trott , SDE •2 . --- i&%.*S 4 ti.t..2:1 r a . .4 „. ._ , v .._ 4, „..., _ . , . Atv, / 104,../. qmp .. .- -. 25 -. -, A. lap , , _) ,. „ . ii_ t?0, - t, tiktlik A'.14.,E14 -t-r .•_,.... _--vP to. ,k •,', ipor- fr. to, itt , 01X lop OA_ :055:0*.li W sralli■Orr 0 El, „_ , .---._M 110 lit‘, •••40, r,, tvkAillik A°. ‘411.1. \,. ._ 40,...=... t _. ox , -- \ / 1 .,..7..... ,.,,v „ ___ ______- ..e. _ I.-- , • ,-1 y __---- _____ v 3 'ID 4,et ----=-7 - - ..., ,.IIOIIO„, ,„, - -- sari A .. -- It __----- 2 131- -2241- V - °lite .0.3.p.A1\„ 00 "6-1111110 s ,, AV' II ::e4g, 11T _„....wtetcoraie 4Pi' 'C\ • p 48 PRIVACY SCREEN / _„-- -------lift\. M 4\ / 46( , .-v ____------ :41 4,2 --. ,_,,_,,, - MAIL 5 OBSCURING FENCE .7 I \ IA, . :7.4";••;://•":,,,•=,/./4,';:;.i,,,,i4/7„-'•, "V p A NE•- 111111.•.-... Ili ill illhilik -711111._ikujimmairdk \ „_____. , NV _PI -.... IP.---dommu011"1"11' ..::'>;::;;:4'::7,-7,7 , soonTirwmilimil _. . \ ( /:::%.%.;:,'r/y/;;;. z / ...,' --, litall if .0,,,,,,....x,''..4, - a BD .13 a '. JO ii■ , -- ,, W. , ,;17)(Z) \,.. i ) , \ 1 I • .- --.:"_°"O"""""dTM'°D°`""°" LIGATION AND PERMIT TO OCCUPY 7r PERMIT NUMBER PERFORM OPERATIONS UPON A STATE HIG. .AY See Oregon Adminiatrative Rule, Chapter 734, Division 55 ----------------- GENERAL LOCATION PURPOSE OF APPLICATION (TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE/MAINTAIN) HIGHWAY NAME AND ROUTE NUMBER POLE TYPE MIN. VERT. CLEARANCE Pacific Highway West Route 99W I I LINE HIGHWAY NUMBER COUNTY --BURIED TYPE 1W 34 = WASHINGTON I 'CABLE BETWEEN OR NEAR LANDMARKS PIPE TYPE Beef Bend Rd. end Bull Mountain Rd. II LINE HWY. REFERENCE MAP DESIGNATED FREEWAY IN U.S. FOREST Straight Line I I YES RI I NO I I YES [11 NO n NON-COMMERCIAL SIGN APPLICANT NAME AND ADDRESS MISCELLANEOUS OPERATIONS AND/OR ANDREW MANAGEMENT LTD 14 I FACILITIES AS DESCRIBED BELOW 4000 SW KRUSE WAY SUITE 270 BOND REQUIRED REFERENCE: AMOUNT OF BOND BUILDING 1 n YES Rill NO OAR 734-55 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 INSURANCE REFERENCE: SPECIFIED COMP. Atten: Phil Cohn 1v 1 YES I I NO 036{734-65 DETAIL LOCATION OF FACILITY(For more space use back of application or attach additional sheets) MILE MILE ENGINEERS ENGINEERS SIDE OF HWY OR DISTANCE FROM BURIED CABLE OR PIPE SPAN POINT TO POINT STATION TO STATION ANGLE OFCROSSING CENTER OF PVMT R/W LINE DEPTH/VERT. SIZE AND KIND LENGTH 10.71 10.96 R/W SPECIAL PROVISIONS IFOR MORE SPACE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS) TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUIRED -OPEN CUTTING OF PAVED OR SURFACED AREAS ALLOWED? 1 L n YES (OAR 734-55-025(8)1 1 4 1 NO 2 I I YES IOAR 734-55-100121 [J] NO IOAR 734-55-100(1) 3 WITHIN 45 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK AND AFTER COMPLETING THE PERMIT WORK, THE APPLICANT OR HIS CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE AT TELEPHONE NUMBER: 4 A COPY OF THIS PERMIT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT THE WORK AREA. 5 ORS 757.64 TO 767.571 REQUIRES EXCAVATORS TO LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. YOU MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. 8 A COPY OF THIS PERMIT MAY BE FAXED TO THE DISTRICT OFFICE IF AXI AS NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO BEGIN WORK SPECIFY DATE AND TIME DATE J sh ucenwok snstaleaiOnopetuU "Cky s g at y oy earthe nCbp rantll z q andcapng anseedng consist of This Permit is in addition to original Permit No. 2AM35989 for development of Hillview Terrace II. Attached General Provisions apply. COMMENTS IF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION WILL AFFECT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL ACQUIRE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE BEFORE ACQUIRING THE DISTRICT MANAGER'S SIGNATURE. LOCAL G. ERNME 00,SIGNATURE TITLE DAT _X - .` y . -kE41 P ..- 8 22 hp APP NT (� 1 APPLICATION DATE TITLE TELEPHONE NO. X -A-J a -- e(11, II(, 4r;t.0 pi c s; �1., I- c in__ %S When this application by the Department,the applicant la.tblect to,accept•and.pvtov.•OISTRICT MANAGER OR REPRESENTATIVE APPROVAL DATE the terms end provisions contained and attached'and the term.of Oregon Administrative Rule'. Chapter 734,Division 55,which is by this reference made•pert of this permit. �/ /� -__, 734-3457(7-95) GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT APPLICANT MCH Construction Co HIGHWAY 1W M.P. 10. 71 (Andrew Management Ltd. ) X l) The work area during any construction or maintenance performed under the permit provisions shall be protected in accordance with the current Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,US Department of Transportation,and the Oregon Department of Transportation Supplements thereto. Contractor shall maintain all existing traffic control devices during construction, then re-install permanently per MUTCD standards and District Office specifications. Flaggers must have a card or certificate indicating their completion of an approved work zone traffic control course. X 2) All construction operations will be performed off limits of the highway travel way and shoulders. 3) The access control fence must be maintained during construction and restored to its original or better condition after construction is complete. 4) No work will be permitted on the roadway during the hours of darkness, nor between 6:00 am and 9:00 am, or 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. 5) On site storm drainage shall be controlled within the applicants property. No blind connections to existing state facilities. X 6) Permittee to verify all utility locations for relocation prior to construction, should any be in conflict with proposed construction. 7) Permit inspection fees are estimated to be (Order to Render Service). X 8) The spread of mud or debris upon any State highway is strictly prohibited and violation shall be cause for immediate cancellation of the permit. Clean-up shall be at the applicant's expense. X 9) Applicant will install and maintain landscaped area as shown on the attached drawings. Planting shall be limited to low growing shrubs, grass or flowers that do not attain sufficient height to obstruct clear vision in any direction. The Commission or Engineer shall have the right to remove said landscaping at any time such removal may appear to the Commission to be in the public interest, without liability of loss, injury, or damage of any nature whatsoever. X 10) The permittee shall not use the right-of-way to display advertising signs or merchandise of any kind. X 11) Only earth or rock shall be used as fill material and shall slope so as not to change or adversely affect existing drainage. Fine grade and seed the finished fill to prevent erosion. X 12) The stopping and parking of vehicles upon the State highway right-of-way for the maintenance of adjoining property or in furtherance of any business transaction or commercial establishment is strictly prohibited. X 13) A copy of this permit and all attachments shall be available at the work area. Applicant's Initials ��� - /i11 V^ SRO,'411 i pj4/v >y,.saa) 090 .og go—giddy saaVy 'Va G fr., QJlny-ad as 0.3. -!'1 Erin ! 9 7 0 I .1 via arnoid O'f!(YJ T 5strZi J 1N V19'eau lN9nava N--A o9QYaag Oy0At1 yA o1 odors t X44, ,1.,17 a7 aVb., 001111X3 44 • - --. ■ 0 6 �---f ` , \ / l y - CI 1:-------- d!) '9 ill . y-4� ,. a o c 'i 04 0 (Y O/3 p S S pal d v(77 Codoad 7!y//1 Vdi ON5.3 IXa 3 s ,s z ' 3(b a tt (4. xowdd V wo11 .19G N r` t ray f� 3 1 d VA d/_a °,L 4.N O� 17n/ 4CIQ n1 Lev 3a 1(I7 add $- ' S, V 3s - ' ,GI 1,,r-rldd d of 9(V 4 11 , O1 w0, j 9(Y/Arct y0 9'pa p °1 d u/oal.d ip-P61 1Yl4 . . • _ _ Oregon August 6, 1996 Department of Transportation District 2A PHIL, COHN File Code ANDREW MANAGEMENT LTD 4000 SW KRUSE WAY SUITE 270 BUILDING 1 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 Dear Mr Cohn Attached is/are your application (s) for a Miscellaneous permit . The application (s) must be signed by the owner or contract purchaser Please obtain the appropriate signatures and return the application along with the items checked below for further processing by August 16, 1996. NA Admininis. Fee (Each) Seperate Amount NA Inspection Fees (Total) Amount X Certificate of Insurance (of the contractor who will be performing the work) . NA Permit Performance Bond(Total) Amount Advance Deposit to review detention design & calculation (received) .Amount Please keep in mind that this does not constitute an approved permit . An approved permit will only be issued after receipt of the signed application(s) and complete forms. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss any provisions of the permit, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, 1 James Doherty IZE1 %