The URL can be used to link to this page

SDR1996-00005 SDR96 -00005 CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER r i 4 • CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER Site Development Review SDR 96-0005 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. OWNER: Pinnacle Investors APPLICANT: MCM Architect (Loy Rusch) 1022 SW Salmon, #450 1022 SW Salmon, #350 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97205 LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.62, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (General Commercial). The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. SECTION II - DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE 1 MCM PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 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, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Engineering Department to construct street improvements in SW Cascade Boulevard, as generally shown on Sheet C1 of the SDR plan submittal, dated January 19, 1996. The improvements adjacent to this site will include: . A. Pavement from curb to centerline equal to 22 feet along the north and south portions where a half-street improvement is required, and 44 feet along the center portion where a centerline radius of 275 feet will be installed. B. Curb and gutter. C. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface run-off. D. Six (6) foot concrete sidewalk. E. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. F. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in- lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). G. Street signs (if applicable). H. Driveway apron (if applicable). Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Cascade Boulevard in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. J. Reassignment of the lane striping at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Cascade Boulevard by reassigring the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from left/through and right to left and through/right. 2. 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 ten (10) 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. 3. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 2 • I 4. 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. 5. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: A. Centerline Monumentation 1. In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersection points. b. All cul-de-sac center points. c. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). B. Monument Boxes Required 1. Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac, center points, and curve points. 2. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for the installation of a water quality facility meeting the requirements of USA R&O 91-47. In addition, a maintenance plan for the facility shall be submitted for City review and approval. 7. 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. Street trees which are spaced 30 feet apart. B. An additional five (5) parking lot trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 3 C. Provision of a parking lot connection with the property to the south. An access easement shall also be provided for the benefit of the adjacent property. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the required street improvements in SW Cascade Boulevard, including the lane striping modifications at the intersection of Cascade and Scholls Ferry Road. 9. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Property History: The subject site and the majority of the Cascade Boulevard area was annexed into the City in June 1981. At that time, the zone was changed from Washington County M-1 (Industrial) to Tigard M-4 (Industrial Park). In November 1994, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 94-0003 / ZON 94-0003) from Industrial (I-P) to General Commercial (C-G). No other development applications were found to have been filed with the City of Tigard. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located on the west side of SW Cascade Boulevard between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Greenburg Road. The property to the north is zoned C-G (General Commercial) and is developed with a PGE substation and general retail buildings. Property to the east is zoned 1-P (Industrial Park) and is developed with a mix of commercial and industrial uses. The site abuts a Railroad right-of-way to the west and a light industrial building to the south. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 4 Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is approximately 7.76 acres and is currently developed with an office building. The property slopes from 185 feet in the northeast corner of the site to a low of about 170 feet along the southwest corner of the site. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structure and construct approximately 100,300 square feet of commercial retail buildings with access onto SW Cascade Avenue. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build retail sales stores. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as General Retail Sales. Code Section 18.62.030 General Retail Sales is a permitted use in the C-G zone. Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.62.050 states that the minimum lot width shall be 50 feet for parcels in the C-G zoning district. There is no minimum lot size requirement. The site has an average lot width of 620 feet, exceeding the minimum lot width standard. Developments within the C-G zone are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 19% landscaping, thereby, satisfying the minimum landscape criteria. Setbacks: Section 18.62.050 states that there is no front yard or side yard setback facing the street. No side and rear yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where a C-G abuts a residential zoning district. The site does not abut a residential zoning district. The maximum building height is 45 feet. The applicant is proposing a building of 45 feet, meeting the maximum height 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 the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 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 18.84 (Sensitive Lands), 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations) or 18.98 (Building Height Limitations: Exceptions), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These Chapters are, therefore, r_and to be inapplicable as approval standards. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 5 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. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain), 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces), and are therefore found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. The site is currently a commercially developed property. There are no natural areas in need of preservation. Topography and drainage changes are not substantial and shall comply with City standards. 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 proposal does not abut a use which requires a buffer as required in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130). 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. The plans show the provision of landscaping which is intended to provide screening in accordance with this section. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. This section is satisfied as the applicant has submitted exterior lighting plans to the City of Tigard Police Department, and has received approval of those plans. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement is satisfied as the applicant has submitted a landscape plan indicating the number, type and location of trees and shrubs. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The proposed plan shows the provision of sixteen (16) October Glory Red Maple trees. spaced 40 feet on center. The Western Garden book indicates that this type of tree can grow to 40 feet or more with a 20 foot spread. This type of tree would be classified as a medium-sized tree. therefore, the spacing shall not be more than NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 6 30 feet apart. A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides street trees which are spaced 30 feet apart, in accordance with this section. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all par ng areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet and the landscaping shat' be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The site plan partially complies with the parking lot tree requirements. The parking located within the interior of the parking lot does not comply with the one (1) tree per se' n (7) parking spaces requirement. In order to provide the required canopy effect, a revised plan shall be submitted which provides for an additional five (5) parking lot trees. Screening has been provided in accordance with this section. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the Intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3), and eight (8) feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-of- way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated on the site plan, this criteria is satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030(C)(20) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area for General Retail Sales. Section 18.106.0' T:(C)(26) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 1000 square feet of gross floor area for Retail Sales: bulky merchandise. The plan provides approximately 54,800 square feet of general retail sales area and approximately 45,500 square feet for a Wickes furniture store. The general retail uses require 137 parking spaces and the furniture store requires 46 parking spaces. The total number of required parking spaces is 183 spaces The proposed site plan shows the provision of 422 parking spaces, satisfying this section. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which became effective on January 26, 1992, requires nine (9) disabled parking spaces if 401 to 500 parking spaces are provided. This section is satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of nine (9) disabled person parking spaces. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PACE Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle parking rack space for every 15 required parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Thirteen (13) bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The proposal indicates the provision of eighteen (18) bicycle parking spaces, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Off-Street Loading spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. The proposal shows the provision of at least one (1) loading space for each building, thereby, satisfying this requirement. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require more than 100 parking spaces provide two (2) accesses with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. The preliminary site plan shows the provision of two (2) access drives with driveway widths of 24 feet, thereby, satisfying this requirement. Walkways: Section 18.108.050(A) requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street which provides the required ingress and egress. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three (3) foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The plan shows pedestrian connections to SW Cascade Avenue, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Parking Lot Connections: Section 18.108.110(B) states that in order to eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide parking area connections. Currently, there is an existing parking lot connection located in the southwestern portion of the site with the property to the south. This existing connection provides connectivity between three separate parcels. The applicant's narrative (page 6, item 4) states that the existing connection was removed due to the opposition expressed by the owner of the adjacent property to the south (who was fomerly the owner of the subject site prior to selling it to Pinnacle Investors). This owner stated in a letter dated January 2, 1996, that maintaining the connection is not appropriate as the properties will have different uses. The relevant code criteria for providing a parking lot connection is NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE I MCM PAGE 8 not opposition from an adjoining property owner. The criteria is the feasibility of such a connection, based on the intent of eliminating the need to use public streets. Since the connection is existing, it is difficult to make the finding that it is not feasible. Therefore, the connnection is required. A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for the provision of a parking lot connection. The applicant shall also provide an access easement for the benefit of the adjacent property. The standard itself implies that uses will not be the same on adjoining properties. It can be reasonably expected that different uses may attract trips from adjoining properties. This may be especially true in this case given that two of the proposed tenants, a computer store and office supply store, may be complementary to the offices on the adjoining property. Even if an arguement can be made that the current adjoining uses are different and argueable inappropriate in terms of requiring a connection, the City has an obligation to view the long term use of the site as it is designed. One of the arguements used by the applicants in the rezoning of the subject property to C-G (CPA 94-0003/ZON 94-0003) was that the uses allowed in the I-P (Industrial Park) zone and the C-G (General Commercial) are very similiar and that there was really not very much difference between the two zones. This arguement was relied upon in support of the zone change. In applying this very arguement to the current application, it is reasonable to believe that the adjoining property could change tenants in the near future. These tenants could, therefore, be more commercial in nature and, therefore, more compatible and more appropriate in terms of requiring a connection between the two properties. If a connection is not provided at this time, the possibility of a future connection is greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for a corn -tion. Signs: Section 18.114.130(C) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G 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 ent collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has submitted a letter from Miller's Sanitary Service stating that the proposed plan is acceptable, thereby, satisfying this requirement. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 P `IACLE/MCM PAGE 9 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 existing trees are provided as landcaping around the perimeter of the existing structure. The proposed plan will remove all existing site improvements and landscaping. The proposed landscape plan provides for street and parking lot trees, as well as general landcaping trees, in a manner which well exceeds and offsets the removal of existing trees. 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 Cascade Boulevard, which is classified as a major collector street to be built to the following standard [60'-80' ROW (right-of-way), two 16' travel lanes, one 12' center turn lane, two 6' sidewalks]. At present, there is 60' of ROW adjacent to this site. Because the street can be improved within the existing ROW, no additional dedications are required. The roadway is presently unfinished adjacent to this site. The applicant, in order to mitigate the impact from the development, is proposing to construct half and full width street improvements. The applicant has previously worked with City staff with regard to the impacts from the development and the level of street improvements that will be required. Two traffic impact studies have been submitted by Kittelson and Associates, one dated June 1994, and the most recent dated December 28, 1995 (the latter serves as an update of the 1994 report). The 1994 study indicates that all major intersections in the vicinity of this development, with the exception of the Scholls Ferry/Cascade Blvd. intersection, will either continue operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS), or will not become worse as a result of this development. The 1995 update indicates that expected trip generations will be less than what was estimated in the 1994 report; therefore, there will not be any requirements for major intersection improvements. The 1994 report suggests that the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Cascade Boulevard be mitigated by reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from "left/through" and "right", to "left" and "through/right". This recommendation does not require signal phasing changes or geometric improvements. - NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 10 ODOT provided comments relating to this project and they concur with the findings of the traffic study. See ODOT comments in Section VI of this report under "Agency Comments". The C ty also had a concern regarding the offset between the proposed southern driveway and the southern driveway into the Beaverton Honda property (located on the east side of Cascade Boulevard). The two driveways will only be approximately 110 feet apart, which could result in turning movement conflicts. To remedy this situation, City staff has worked with the design engineer to provide a raised traffic median in the center turn lane approximately half-way between the two driveways. This median will prevent vehicles turning left out of one driveway from colliding with vehicles turning left out of the other driveway. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 12-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Cascade Boulevard that can adequately serve this site. The applicant's plans indicate that two new sanitary sewer service laterals will be extended from the main line into the site to serve the new buildings. Storm Drainage: This site slopes to the southwest and currently drains into an existing drainage ditch adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad ROW. With the demolition and modifications to the existing on-site improvements, the discharge location into the ditch will not chance. The applicant submitted an analysis of the downstream system which indicates that the additional runoff resulting from the increase in hard surface on the site will not significantly impact the system. 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 phosp, -irus 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. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 11 According to the applicant's storm drainage analysis, approximately 1.6 acres of new impervious area will be added to this site. In order to treat the new hard surface, the applicant is proposing to construct a private water quality pond at the southwest corner of the site just prior to the out-fall into the ditch. Staff has reviewed preliminary sizing calculations for the pond which indicate the pond will be adequately sized. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit final plans, with details, and calculations relating to the pond for review and approval. USA provided comments regarding this application concerning the existing storm drainage system in Cascade Boulevard. USA states that the existing system does not adequately convey street run-off and should be modified as a part of this project. The applicant has submitted construction plans for the Cascade Boulevard improvements that show a modified storm system in the roadway. Although the plans have not been approved yet, the system appears to be designed to adequately drain the roadway. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS City of Tigard Police Department, The City of Tigard Maintenance Services Department, City of Tigard Building Division, Tualatin Valley Water District, Northwest Natural Gas, and Portland General Electric, have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. VI. AGENCY AND CIT COMMENTS Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: ODOT supports the recommendations from the applicant's traffic report regarding both lane approaches from Cascade Boulevard to Scholls Ferry Road. The report recommends that both Cascade Boulevard approaches to Scholls Ferry Road be changed from "left-thru" and "right-turn" lanes to "left-turn" and "right-thru" lanes. The applicant should also be required to do all the necessary striping, signing, and signal changes, as a condition of approval for the development. An ODOT permit will be required for all work performed in the state right-of-way. Please contact Sam Hunaidi (229-5002) at District 2A regarding a permit. Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: 1. The drainage system in Cascade Boulevard does not adequately convey surface water runoff, specifically along the west side of the road adjacent to the project site. The developer should: NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 12 A. Correct the deficiency be installing proper conveyance system along the right-of-way, and B. Evaluate downstream hydrology to insure that capacity issues are adequately resolved. 2. An on-site water quality facility is proposed for the development. According to USA standards, the developer is required to provide water quality for the net increase in impervious square footage only. The developer should: A. Construct the facility to R&O 91-47/91-75, and provide the City with water quality calculations; B. Evaluate the downstream hydrology to determine if detention is also required. Downstream hydrologic calculations should be submitted to the City for review; C. Construct the facility to treat, at a minimum, the net increase in impervious square footage. The Agency would favor a facility that treated as much of the total impervious square footage as possible and recommends same. Tualatin Valley Fire District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans are approved insofar as access, fire department connection and fire hydrant placement. General Telephone and Electronics has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer/owner to coordinate with GTE before the existing building is demolished to remove telephone facilities. Conduit/manholes for new buildings to be provided to GTE's specifications. No other comments have been received. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 13 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 APRIL 10, 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. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. on April 10, 1996. Questions: If you have question, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503)639-4171. /i(/•' ✓ +/✓ :/ ; �-�rY �. March 28. 1996 PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Assistant Planner ,72 and 14 A- / /CS e' March 28. 1996 / FPReVED B / Ricf�ard Bewers••-- DATE Senior Planner i ICURPLMWILLISDR96-05.DEC NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 14 1 � • , \ ,� , , \ 1a i ‘,\. , • IMMIM _..." .7. \\\ ii \. \\\\ CLI 4= ....,../.< ■ \\\\\\ 411111.....-\\ S.\\ ,----4;\\ ,‘ -- ti \,\\ \\ ..\ . CI-. — .2',__ it 7-L...7.* ANitteo ,e., \ stems • "A. v.- .0%°11\ 00' ,., • \ v • ten. \. -b = - J fr 10 LOSI- 177111 CI 1^ \.: Ov ,Y.YI II II SEUL .---1 FIt - z; j UMW l i l.i _ ---. 1 1 `p I 1- I UI I' CASE NO. PLOT PLAN ) . SDR 96-0005 IEXHIBIT MAP 51 I CASCADE COMM'L. CENTER 4? I j I S +J 9.4 F"� , f 0 co c,_ _ 1 _ a) ‘ 0' ___________ i C2I / IhHCM o � g CU SUBJECT PARCEL ---- - > jilik all CO Illi\ . IIMIA P- M IN F-- _ rillF& lilt SHADY LN -� 0 D 0 LI hi N ff ■ Vicinity Map A SDR 96-0005 4,,A Cascade Comm'l. Center N REQUEST FOR COMMENTS S0re_ Cf(p-ps RECEIVED PLANNING HOLCE INVESTMENTS 610 Esther Street FEB 121996 Vancouver, WA 98660 360-695-7000 January 2, 1996 Mr. Will D'Andrea, Planner CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 It has come to my attention that the proposed retail development on Cascade Blvd., known as the "Sentrol site" is planning to connect the southwest corner of their parking lot with my parking/driveway areas in the adjacent property, located at 10575 SW Cascade Blvd., known as the Cascade Business Center. Because I formerly owned the Sentrol site, it was convenient to connect these properties which had similar uses. However, I will strongly oppose any connection with my property to the new proposed retail property. The properties will have different uses, so a connection is not appropriate for this proposed new development. Sincerely, Thomas J. Holce TJH/srp CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5. 1996 TO: Greg Berry Temporary Development Review Engineer 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS ➢ CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15, 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: (Tease provide thefol:awing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: ;_)5 IPhone Number(s): SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5,1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 4 ■ ■ ii \ \ R \\ \ • \Si'\\\ .'.-.' \ 11 \\\`\\ \ W oA \ \ . ,. ,,, --=---1").. - #8.•\ \, . 0,-..1.1( lit.....0A „ ' \s \ ‘N -7 . (i, ‘ \ \ 7,.. 111aLli ', \ a .. - . --A.*. ...•••°"w-it\stea \,` , \ . _________, 00°. ,,, IS* 6 ',, \.. '`` ` ' iii \= 1`11 L-i S1\ 11111111111- . mmil CL i 9• " _�... Cr jli • 0 viii I rvk I I it ill ,1 V PLOT PLAN 1 CASE NO. EXHIBIT MAP i�1 SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L. CENTER 1 z .zc7 G ter- P� -a7474-, Ao<. %06 rh,g40//eL -e-d6 cx-%/vi /2-(7e;ZW ae.A.ekii4J .41,c-dot-eh. <416) 14u$4) 4L-(10-4 fal DIOAStwii) al-41, 091 igeL:-CAc/vel -/* PA,x,rzA=7 otioal-4a4d) , , L 1 0 r C 7_7/. k , ci. ‘ i‘g 0) \\1■. 41111.1 E.E „,,, ' c c� SUBJECT PARCEL ---- - > • 414 \ Mink • 73 Liam CO . CD 1` Ina Illf , 4 0 ��_ � r, SAY �, -�-� , ,- ..APOPI. -6- 0 1 N N.S.:�- 3 "P0 NJ Vicinity Map A SDR 96-0005 Cascade Comm'l. Center N • MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: March 21, 1996 TO: Will D'Andrea FROM: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer RE: SDR 96-0005, CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing building and pavement area to construct two 50,000 square foot (sf) one-story commercial retail buildings at 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard(Tax Map IS1 35BB, Tax Lot 500). The site is located west of and adjacent to SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road and north of SW Greenburg Road. The site is approximately 7.85 acres. Findings: 1. Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Cascade Boulevard, which is classified as a major collector street to be built to the following standard [60'-80' ROW(right-of-way), two 16' travel lanes, one 12' center turn lane, two 6' sidewalks]. At present, there is 60' of ROW adjacent to this site. Because the street can be improved within the existing ROW, no additional dedications are required. The roadway is presently unfinished adjacent to this site. The applicant, in order to mitigate the impact from the development, is proposing to construct half and full width street improvements. The applicant has previously worked with City staff with regard to the impacts from the development and the level of street improvements that will be required. Two traffic impact studies have been submitted by Kittelson and Associates, one dated June 1994, and the most recent dated December 28, 1995 (the latter serves as an update of the 1994 report). The 1994 study indicates that all major intersections in the vicinity of this development, with the exception of the Scholls Ferry/Cascade Blvd. intersection, will either continue operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS), or will not become worse as a result of this development. The 1995 update indicates that expected trip generations will be less than what was estimated in the 1994 report; therefore, there will not be any requirements for major intersection improvements. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-05 Cascade Commercial Center PAGE 1 1 • The 1994 report suggests that the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and Cascade Boulevard be mitigated by reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from"left/through"and"right", to "left" and "through/right". This recommendation does not require signal phasing changes or geometric improvements. ODOT provided comments relating to this project and they concur with the findings of the traffic study. See ODOT comments in Section II of this report under"Agency Comments". 2. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 12-inch public sanitary sewer line in Cascade Boulevard that can adequately serve this site. The applicant's plans indicate that two new sanitary sewer service laterals will be extended from the main line into the site to serve the new buildings. 3. Storm Drainage: This site slopes to the southwest and currently drains into an existing drainage ditch adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad ROW. With the demolition and modifications to the existing on-site improvements,the discharge location into the ditch will not change. The applicant submitted an analysis of the downstream system which indicates that the additional runoff resulting from the increase in hard surface on the site will not significantly impact the system. 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. According to the applicant's storm drainage analysis approximately 1.6 acres of new impervious area will be added to this site. In order to treat the new hard surface,the applicant is proposing to construct a private water quality pond at the southwest corner of the site just prior to the outfall into the ditch. Staff has reviewed preliminary sizing calculations for the pond which indicate the pond will ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-05 Cascade Commercial Center PAGE 2 • be adequately sized. Prior to issuance of the building permit,the applicant shall submit final plans, with details, and calculations relating to the pond for review and approval. USA provided comments regarding this application concerning the existing storm drainage system in Cascade Boulevard. USA states that the existing system does not adequately convey street runoff and should be modified as a part of this project. The applicant has submitted construction plans for the Cascade Boulevard improvements that show a modified storm system in the roadway. Although the plans have not been approved yet,the system appears to be designed to adequately drain the roadway. 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,the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Engineering Department to construct street improvements in SW Cascade Boulevard, as generally shown on Sheet Cl of the SDR plan submittal, dated January 19, 1996. The improvements adjacent to this site will include: a. Pavement from curb to centerline equal to 22 feet along the north and south portions where a half-street improvement is required, and 44 feet along the center portion where a centerline radius of 275 feet will be installed. b. curb and gutter c. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface runoff d. 6 foot concrete sidewalk e. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer f. underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in- lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities) g. street signs(if applicable) h. driveway apron(if applicable) i. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Cascade Boulevard in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. j. Reassignment of the lane striping at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Cascade Boulevard by reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from left/through and right to left and through/right. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-05 Cascade Commercial Center PAGE 3 2. 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 ten(10) 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. 3. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards,which are available at City Hall. 4. 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. 5. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: A) Centerline Monumentation 1) In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2) The following centerline monuments shall be set: a) All centerline-centerline intersection points. b) All cul-de-sac center points. c) Curve points,beginning and ending points(PC's and PT's). B) Monument Boxes Required 1) Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac,center points, and curve points. 2) The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for the installation of a water quality facility meeting the requirements of USA R&O 91-47. In addition, a maintenance plan for the facility shall be submitted for City review and approval. ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-05 Cascade Commercial Center PAGE 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 5. Prior to issuance of a CO, the applicant shall complete the required street improvements in SW Cascade Boulevard, including the lane striping modifications at the intersection of Cascade and Scholls Ferry Road. APPROVED: A~ Gary Alfson, Actin City Engineer i:\eng\brianr\sdr96-05.bdr ENGINEERING COMMENTS SDR 96-05 Cascade Commercial Center PAGE 5 RECEIVED PLANNING urn (0 MAR G 8 1996 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1996 To: Wil D'Andrea, P1. -r,City of Tigard From: Lee Walker, Design Supervisor, USA Subject: Cascade Commercial Plaza (SDR 96-0005) Agency staff have reviewed the proposed development. Please consider the following comments for inclusion in your review process: I. The drainage system in Cascade Boulevard does not adequately convey surface water runoff, specifically along the west side of the road adjacent to the project site. The developer should: a. correct the deficiency by installing proper conveyance system along right-of-way, and b. elevate downstream hydrology to insure that capacity issues are adequately resolved. II. An on-site water quality facility is proposed for the development. According to USA standards, the developer is required to provide water quality for the net increase in impervious square footage only. The developer should: a. construct the facility to R&O 91-47/91-75, and provide the City with water quality calculations; b. evaluate the downstream hydrology to determine if detention is also required. Downstream hydrologic calculations should be submitted to City for review; c. construct the facility to treat, at a minimum, the net increase in impervious square footage. The Agency would favor a facility that treated as much of the total impervious square footage as possible and recommends same. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions,please contact me at 648-8621. :is 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 Phone:503/648-8621 Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 FAX:503/640-3525 RECEIVED PLANNING IIregofl March 14, 1996 MAR 18 1996 DEPARTMENT OF Tigard Planning Department TRANSPORTATION 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Region 1 Attention: Will D'Andrea PLA-gJFA E: Subject: SDR 96-0005, Cascade Commercial Center Our comments are: • We support the recommendations from the applicant's traffic report regarding both lane approaches from Cascade Boulevard to Scholls Ferry Road. • The report recommends that both Cascade Boulevard approaches to Scholls Ferry Road be changed from "left-thru" and "right-turn" lanes to "left-turn" and "right-thru" lanes. • The applicant should also be required to do all the necessary striping, signing, and signal changes, as a condition of approval for the development. • An ODOT permit will be required for all work performed in the state right-of-way. Please contact Sam Hunaidi at District 2A regarding a permit. His phone number is 229-5002. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions, please call me at 731-8232. Axi■J6JCA:A141 Laurie Nicholson, Senior Planner ODOT Development Review cc: Marty Jensvold, Region 1 Senior Transportation Analyst f1 I Sam Hunaidi, District 2A Permit Specialist 123 NW Flanders Portland,OR 97209-4037 (503) 731-8200 734-1850(11-94) FAX (503) 731-8259 RECEIVED PLANNING l, FEB 14 1996 ! CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5. 1996 St r' W(ESU4 t''1 P TO: Claim Cclf, GTE Engineering Department 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS ➢ CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER < A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500).West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15. 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: DELI Et_oPEA / WnlEA. -Co aix)(kO(nl4TE ■n.l(114 C TE t3EFo2E TE4E ExtsT�NlCs. t3o(L6/ bEmOL tab To RE-MOVE Et— Nir- LAT ILIT(ES. CONOL(T / f'tAFV - of ES Fog (JEuJ C3ut TO (3E Rov (DEO To t= s SPEC.A R( CAT(Ori5, v (Please provide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: sl i M (E rip Phone Number(s): C 503) 62,0--5943 SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5 1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS f � 02/14/1996 13: 16 503649273 TVWD PAGE 01/01 J .1ii'I; CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February B, 16 TO: Tualatin ,alley ^ater Dig rict AdMi istratiye Officeg PROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: WADiam D'Aadrea (x3151 Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503) 684-7297 RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS ➢ CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER F A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1 S 1 35B8, tax lot 500).West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholis Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18,62, 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 p r o.. ' +Kc' R� re if you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YQSJR COMMF,NTSBACK BY: • •: • : • I :•=• You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. • . ,: �r,r:,.,t.�,.�..i.,_,_,,,. • I : ; . . . :. 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. PI,PL�&SE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: SE 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: • e Pfrase prmide the foQirwing information) Name of Person(s)Commenting: dor Phone Number(s): t9y2 „ `7/ SDR ea-00o. CASCADE COMMM'L.CENTER February!.time PRQ OfAL(UCQUESr FOR COMMENTS RECEIVED PLANNING toNer. VA< <F FEB 2 6 1996 TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE '") AND C BEAVERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT Ej 49F J 4755 S.W. Griffith Drive• P.O. Box 4755 • Beaverton, OR 97076• (503) 526-2469• FAX 526-2538 &RESG February 19, 1996 Will D'Andrea City of Tigard Planning Dept. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re; Cascade Commercial Center 10385 S.W. Cascade Blvd. SDR 96-0005 File Number: 600-96 Dear Will: This is a Fire and Life Safety Plan Review and is based on the 1991 editions of the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) and those sections of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) specifically referencing the fire department, and other local ordinances and regulations. This plan review shall become a part of the approved plans and attached thereto. Plans are approved insofar as access, fire department connection and fire hydrant placement. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at 526-2469 referring to the above noted file number. Sincerely, 4(,) Jerry L. Renfro, DFM Plans Examiner JLR:kw "Working"Smoke Detectors Save Lives 03/14/96 15:37 125037318259 ODOT - REGION 1 002/002 R • Omgon March 14, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF Tigard Planning Department TRANSPORTATION 13125 SW HaII Blvd. - Tigard, OR 97223 Region 1 Attention: Will D'Andrea PLA-3 .E: Subject: SDR 96-0005, Cascade Commercial Center Our comments are: • We support the recommendations from the applicant's traffic report regarding both lane approaches from Cascade Boulevard to Scholls Ferry Road. • The report recommends that both Cascade Boulevard approaches to Scholls Ferry Road be changed from "left-thru" and "right-turn" lanes to "left-turn" and "right-thru" lanes_ • The applicant should also be required to do all the necessary striping, signing, and signal changes, as a condition of approval for the development. • An ODOT permit will be required for all work performed in the state right-of-way. Please contact Sam Hunaidi at District 2A regarding a permit. His phone number is 229-5002. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions, please call me at 731-8232. Axt,./.31.;ThNiti4,404 Laurie Nicholson, Senior Planner ODOT Development Review cc: Marty Jensvold, Region 1 Senior Transportation Analyst �4;,, Sam Hunaidi, District 2A Permit Specialist 123 NW Flanders Portland,OR 97209-4031 (503) 731-8200 734-1850(11-94) FAX (503)731-8259 PLEASE. NOTE: RETURN OF THE PLANS & SPECS.i YOUR REVIEW IS REQUESTED WE TO A SHORTAGE. THANKS! RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 0 8 1996Ll1 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5, 1996 TO: Michael Miller, Operations Water Department Manager 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS r CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER ' . A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500).West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15, 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: F)4.4, lr 7Z._,Qz-4r' 44 (!'lease provide thefollawing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: Phone Number(s): I • SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5.1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS PLEASE NOTE: RETURN OF THE PLANS & SPECS. ,FOLLC7WING YOUR REVIEW IS REQUESTED DUE TO A SHORTAGE_ THANKS' RECEIVED PLANNING FEB 0 8 1996 L =•111 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5, 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15, 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: V� We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 7 (Tease provide tkefo[dawing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: l Phone Number(s): I SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5,1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 1,,CEIVED PLANNING FE E3 (' 7 1996 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5. 1996 TO: Scott Palmer, Northwest Natural Gas Co. 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15, 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 thefoffowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: scoT' PALMER ,N;er,v1,ii/erP)' I Phone Number(s): 721-2449 SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5.1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS RECEIVED PLANNING =E:B +! 6 1996 _All. Alf CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5, 1996 TO: Kelley Jennings, Tigard Police Department 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS ➢ CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER ' A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15, 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. LEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: .. / a ' - (Please provide thefolhatuing information) Name of Person(s) Commen 'rig: AMIPMW I Phone Number(s): )i- n �m 1 Jr SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5.1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: February 5, 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)96-0005 - PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, 'one-story commercial retail buildings. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.62, 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: Thursday - February 15, 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: (Pleaseprovidethefo nginfonnat ion) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM'L.CENTER February 5.1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS .4 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS NOTIFICATION UST FOR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS I 1 I. CITIZEN 1P1VOL4>Es14fE1N?TEAMS {circle one} —CIT Area: (W) (S) {E) (C) ® Placed for review in Library CIT Book ICITY DEPARTMENTS fellaG.DEPT./David Scott, wuathworicia �_POLICE DEPT./Kelley Jennings,or..n. �o�., OPERATIONS/John Acker,..e. sow. _CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,apIt...d. �/�HG.DEPT./Brian Roger, c„Pe., _COM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.S ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith. w s,P ,,a ?"-WATER DEPT./Michael �.rop.,O ., Mai It. SPECIAL DISTRICTS I FIRE MARSFIAU. ^UNIRET)SEWERAGE AGENCY UALAI N VALLEY WATER DIST. Gene Bichel SWM Program/Lee Walker PO Box 745 Wa.County Fire District 155 N.First Street �9'� Beaverton,OR 97075 (pick-up box) Hillsboro.OR 97124 , - - ,� . '.ti''�'w AFFECTED ONS . 7. WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE&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 1' Portland,OR 97232-2736 t' Brent Curtis(CPA's) Y STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION— Ism Tice(IGA S) Sam Hunoidi DOT/REGION 1 —Male Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Laurie richolson/Trans.Planning —Scott King(CPA's) Portland,OR 97225-0412 123 N.W.Flanders f —Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) Portland.OR 97209-4037 I —Lynn Batley(Current Planning App's) OREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's) 1175 Court Street,N.E. _ODOT/REGION 1,DISTRICT 2-A _CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem.OR 97310-0590 Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord. Larry Conrad.Senior Planner 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412 PO Box 4755 —CITY OF PORTLAND iiI Beaverton,OR 97076 Planning Director Portland,OR 97225 1120 SW 5th _OTHER i -CITY OF KING CITY Portland.OR 97204 ki City Manager _CITY OF LAKE oSWEGO . 15300 SW 116th —CITY OF DURHAM City Manager King City,OR 97224 City Manager PO Box 369 PO Box 23483 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 —CITY OF 1UALATIN Tigard,OR 9 728 1-3483 PO Box 369 Tualalk OR 97062 SPECIAL A6INCIE5 GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC —PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC _COLUMBIA CABLE CO. 1J Elaine Self,Engineering Brian Moore Crag Eyestone PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 14200 SW Brigodoon Court Tigard.OR 97281-3416 Beaverton,OR 97007 Beaverton,OR 97005 .L NW NATURAL GAS CO. Mow Pen rn-a«r —METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT 1 Scott Palmer r,..pal m-me 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 —TO CABLEVISION OF OREGON —US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO. Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Duane M.Forney,PLS-Project Eng. i 3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 800 NW 6th Ave..Room 324 Portland,OR 97201 Portland.OR 97204 Union Station Portland,OR 972{)9 I RTATRAGENCIES FEDERALS 1 _ AERONAUTICS DIVISION(ODOT) _DIVISION OF STATE LANDS _US POSTAL SERVICE _COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK _FISH L 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 k\Uoin ba„N IenVicnot.c.m I .1*- 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. That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) PUBLIC HEARING FOR: (Check box above,if applicable) (check appropriate box below) (Enter Public Heanng Date above) City of Tigard Planning Director E Tigard Planning Commission P Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑ DECISION FOR: {Check box'bow,if appYcabis} City of Tigard Planning Director H That I served NOTICE OF (AMENDED ❑) FINAL ORDER FOR: (Check box above,if applicable) (check appropriate box below) Li City 9 of Tigard Planning Director 9 ❑ 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 w -- )• attached, marked Exhibit "A", was maI-d to each name. .-rson(s at the address(s) shown on the attached ILit(s), marked Exhibit ":", on t i j WI: 1 / 199 % , and deposited in the Uni--d States ■-' .n th9. ��:1/ ' day of d ,i 199 (', postage prepaid. ' , :,- tWAlled.t.. w P %!mod Notice A Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the / day of _ 9 h V , 19`7 0•aa►� OFFICIAL SEAL 2 r�`s�r�-r a DIANE M JELDERKS f (..'"1 NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON I l� IIA f I `,,...>® COMMISSION NO.046142 ��/y�� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 07,1999 NOT RY PUBLIC OF,b EG N - My Commission Expire : (�! c� '��'FILE INFO.:t� 1 NAME(S): PItY LE//(�tA l CASE NO.(S): 5 r..,„14,...19 61 5 TYPE OF NOTICE&`//DATE: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NAME: CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER Site Development Review SDR 96-0005 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. OWNER: Pinnacle Investors APPLICANT: MCM Architect (Loy Rusch) 1022 SW Salmon, #450 1022 SW Salmon, #350 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97205 LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Sections 18.62, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164. ZONING DESIGNATION: C-G (General Commercial). The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. SECTION II - DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above request subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY SECURED • PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 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, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Engineering Department to construct street improvements in SW Cascade Boulevard, as generally shown on Sheet C1 of the SDR plan submittal, dated January 19, 1996. The improvements adjacent to this site will include: A. Pavement from curb to centerline equal to 22 feet along the north and south portions where a half-street improvement is required, and 44 feet along the center portion where a centerline radius of 275 feet will be installed. B. Curb and gutter. C. Storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey subsurface run-off. D. Six (6) foot concrete sidewalk. E. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer. F. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in- lieu of undergrounding existing overhead utilities). G. Street signs (if applicable). H. Driveway apron (if applicable). Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Cascade Boulevard in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. J. Reassignment of the lane striping at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Cascade Boulevard by reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from left/through and right to left and through/right. 2. 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 ten (10) 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. 3. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 2 4. 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. 5. Street centerline monumentation shall be provided as follows: A. Centerline Monumentation 1. In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. 2. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersection points. b. All cul-de-sac center points. c. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). B. Monument Boxes Required 1. Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac, center points, and curve points. 2. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for the installation of a water quality facility meeting the requirements of USA R&O 91-47. In addition, a maintenance plan for the facility shall be submitted for City review and approval. 7. 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. Street trees which are spaced 30 feet apart. B. An additional five (5) parking lot trees. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 3 C. Provision of a parking lot connection with the property to the south. An access easement shall also be provided for the benefit of the adjacent property. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the required street improvements in SW Cascade Boulevard, including the lane striping modifications at the intersection of Cascade and Scholls Ferry Road. 9. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Property History: The subject site and the majority of the Cascade Boulevard area was annexed into the City in June 1981. At that time, the zone was changed from Washington County M-1 (Industrial) to Tigard M-4 (Industrial Park). In November 1994, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 94-0003 / ZON 94-0003) from Industrial (I-P) to General Commercial (C-G). No other development applications were found to have been filed with the City of Tigard. Vicinity Information: The subject site is located on the west side of SW Cascade Boulevard between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Greenburg Road. The property to the north is zoned C-G (General Commercial) and is developed with a PGE substation and general retail buildings. Property to the east is zoned I-P (Industrial Park) and is developed with a mix of commercial and industrial uses. The site abuts a Railroad right-of-way to the west and a light industrial building to the south. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 4 Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is approximately 7.76 acres and is currently developed with an office building. The property slopes from 185 feet in the northeast corner of the site to a low of about 170 feet along the southwest corner of the site. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structure and construct approximately 100,300 square feet of commercial retail buildings with access onto SW Cascade Avenue. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build retail sales stores. This use is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as General Retail Sales. Code Section 18.62.030 General Retail Sales is a permitted use in the C-G zone. Minimum Lot Area: Section 18.62.050 states that the minimum lot width shall be 50 feet for parcels in the C-G zoning district. There is no minimum lot size requirement. The site has an average lot width of 620 feet, exceeding the minimum lot width standard. Developments within the C-G zone are required to provide a minimum of 15% landscaping. The applicant is proposing to provide approximately 19% landscaping, thereby, satisfying the minimum landscape criteria. Setbacks: Section 18.62.050 states that there is no front yard or side yard setback facing the street. No side and rear yard setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where a C-G abuts a residential zoning district. The site does not abut a residential zoning district. The maximum building height is 45 feet. The applicant is proposing a building of 45 feet, meeting the maximum height 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 the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 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 18.84 (Sensitive Lands), 18.92 (Density Computations), 18.94 (Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations) or 18.98 (Building Height Limitations: Exceptions), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) which are also listed under Section 18.120.180.A.1. These Chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 5 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. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of 18.120.180.3 (Exterior Elevations), 18.120.180.5 (Privacy and Noise), 18.120.180.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Residential Use), 18.120.180.8 (100-year floodplain), 18.120.180.9 (Demarcation of Spaces), and are therefore found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees, topography, and natural drainage and that trees having a six (6) inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal character. The site is currently a commercially developed property. There are no natural areas in need of preservation. Topography and drainage changes are not substantial and shall comply with City standards. 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 proposal does not abut a use which requires a buffer as required in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130). 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. The plans show the provision of landscaping which is intended to provide screening in accordance with this section. Crime Prevention and Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that exterior lighting levels be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime and shall be placed in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic. This section is satisfied as the applicant has submitted exterior lighting plans to the City of Tigard Police Department, and has received approval of those plans. Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that the applicant submit a landscaping plan. This requirement is satisfied as the applicant has submitted a landscape plan indicating the number, type and location of trees and shrubs. Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with section 18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The proposed plan shows the provision of sixteen (16) October Glory Red Maple trees, spaced 40 feet on center. The Western Garden book indicates that this type of tree can grow to 40 feet or more with a 20 foot spread. This type of tree would be classified as a medium-sized tree, therefore, the spacing shall not be more than NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 6 30 feet apart. A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides street trees which are spaced 30 feet apart, in accordance with this section. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The site plan partially complies with the parking lot tree requirements. The parking located within the interior of the parking lot does not comply with the one (1) tree per seven (7) parking spaces requirement. In order to provide the required canopy effect, a revised plan shall be submitted which provides for an additional five (5) parking lot trees. Screening has been provided in accordance with this section. Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3), and eight (8) feet in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30 foot distance along the street right-of- way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated on the site plan, this criteria is satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.106.030(C)(20) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 400 square feet of gross floor area for General Retail Sales. Section 18.106.030(C)(26) requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per 1000 square feet of gross floor area for Retail Sales: bulky merchandise. The plan provides approximately 54,800 square feet of general retail sales area and approximately 45,500 square feet for a Wickes furniture store. The general retail uses require 137 parking spaces and the furniture store requires 46 parking spaces. The total number of required parking spaces is 183 spaces The proposed site plan shows the provision of 422 parking spaces, satisfying this section. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which became effective on January 26, 1992, requires nine (9) disabled parking spaces if 401 to 500 parking spaces are provided. This section is satisfied as the proposed site plan shows the provision of nine (9) disabled person parking spaces. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 7 Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(P) requires one (1) bicycle parking rack space for every 15 required parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. Thirteen (13) bicycle parking spaces will be required for this development. The proposal indicates the provision of eighteen (18) bicycle parking spaces, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Off-Street Loading spaces: Section 18.106.080 requires that every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one (1) off-street loading space on site. The proposal shows the provision of at least one (1) loading space for each building, thereby, satisfying this requirement. Access: Section 18.108.080 requires that commercial and industrial uses which require more than 100 parking spaces provide two (2) accesses with a minimum width of 30 feet and a minimum pavement width of 24 feet. The preliminary site plan shows the provision of two (2) access drives with driveway widths of 24 feet, thereby, satisfying this requirement. Walkways: Section 18.108.050(A) requires that a walkway be extended from the ground floor entrance of the structure to the street which provides the required ingress and egress. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum six (6) inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum three (3) foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards. The plan shows pedestrian connections to SW Cascade Avenue, thereby, satisfying this criteria. Parking Lot Connections: Section 18.108.110(B) states that in order to eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide parking area connections. Currently, there is an existing parking lot connection located in the southwestern portion of the site with the property to the south. This existing connection provides connectivity between three separate parcels. The applicant's narrative (page 6, item 4) states that the existing connection was removed due to the opposition expressed by the owner of the adjacent property to the south (who was fomerly the owner of the subject site prior to selling it to Pinnacle Investors). This owner stated in a letter dated January 2, 1996, that maintaining the connection is not appropriate as the properties will have different uses. The relevant code criteria for providing a parking lot connection is NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 8 not opposition from an adjoining property owner. The criteria is the feasibility of such a connection, based on the intent of eliminating the need to use public streets. Since the connection is existing, it is difficult to make the finding that it is not feasible. Therefore, the connnection is required. A revised site plan shall be submitted which provides for the provision of a parking lot connection. The applicant shall also provide an access easement for the benefit of the adjacent property. The standard itself implies that uses will not be the same on adjoining properties. It can be reasonably expected that different uses may attract trips from adjoining properties. This may be especially true in this case given that two of the proposed tenants, a computer store and office supply store, may be complementary to the offices on the adjoining property. Even if an arguement can be made that the current adjoining uses are different and argueable inappropriate in terms of requiring a connection, the City has an obligation to view the long term use of the site as it is designed. One of the arguements used by the applicants in the rezoning of the subject property to C-G (CPA 94-0003/ZON 94-0003) was that the uses allowed in the I-P (Industrial Park) zone and the C-G (General Commercial) are very similiar and that there was really not very much difference between the two zones. This arguement was relied upon in support of the zone change. In applying this very arguement to the current application, it is reasonable to believe that the adjoining property could change tenants in the near future. These tenants could, therefore, be more commercial in nature and, therefore, more compatible and more appropriate in terms of requiring a connection between the two properties. If a connection is not provided at this time, the possibility of a future connection is greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for a connection. Signs: Section 18.114.130(C) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the C-G 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 must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has submitted a letter from Miller's Sanitary Service stating that the proposed plan is acceptable, thereby, satisfying this requirement. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 9 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 existing trees are provided as landcaping around the perimeter of the existing structure. The proposed plan will remove all existing site improvements and landscaping. The proposed landscape plan provides for street and parking lot trees, as well as general landcaping trees, in a manner which well exceeds and offsets the removal of existing trees. 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 Cascade Boulevard, which is classified as a major collector street to be built to the following standard [60'-80' ROW (right-of-way), two 16' travel lanes, one 12' center turn lane, two 6' sidewalks]. At present, there is 60' of ROW adjacent to this site. Because the street can be improved within the existing ROW, no additional dedications are required. The roadway is presently unfinished adjacent to this site. The applicant, in order to mitigate the impact from the development, is proposing to construct half and full width street improvements. The applicant has previously worked with City staff with regard to the impacts from the development and the level of street improvements that will be required. Two traffic impact studies have been submitted by Kittelson and Associates, one dated June 1994, and the most recent dated December 28, 1995 (the latter serves as an update of the 1994 report). The 1994 study indicates that all major intersections in the vicinity of this development, with the exception of the Scholls Ferry/Cascade Blvd. intersection, will either continue operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS), or will not become worse as a result of this development. The 1995 update indicates that expected trip generations will be less than what was estimated in the 1994 report; therefore, there will not be any requirements for major intersection improvements. The 1994 report suggests that the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Cascade Boulevard be mitigated by reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from "left/through" and "right", to "left" and "through/right". This recommendation does not require signal phasing changes or geometric improvements. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 10 ODOT provided comments relating to this project and they concur with the findings of the traffic study. See ODOT comments in Section VI of this report under "Agency Comments". The City also had a concern regarding the offset between the proposed southern driveway and the southern driveway into the Beaverton Honda property (located on the east side of Cascade Boulevard). The two driveways will only be approximately 110 feet apart, which could result in turning movement conflicts. To remedy this situation, City staff has worked with the design engineer to provide a raised traffic median in the center turn lane approximately half-way between the two driveways. This median will prevent vehicles turning left out of one driveway from colliding with vehicles turning left out of the other driveway. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 12-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Cascade Boulevard that can adequately serve this site. The applicant's plans indicate that two new sanitary sewer service laterals will be extended from the main line into the site to serve the new buildings. Storm Drainage: This site slopes to the southwest and currently drains into an existing drainage ditch adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad ROW. With the demolition and modifications to the existing on-site improvements, the discharge location into the ditch will not change. The applicant submitted an analysis of the downstream system which indicates that the additional runoff resulting from the increase in hard surface on the site will not significantly impact the system. 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. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 11 According to the applicant's storm drainage analysis, approximately 1.6 acres of new impervious area will be added to this site. In order to treat the new hard surface, the applicant is proposing to construct a private water quality pond at the southwest corner of the site just prior to the out-fall into the ditch. Staff has reviewed preliminary sizing calculations for the pond which indicate the pond will be adequately sized. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit final plans, with details, and calculations relating to the pond for review and approval. USA provided comments regarding this application concerning the existing storm drainage system in Cascade Boulevard. USA states that the existing system does not adequately convey street run-off and should be modified as a part of this project. The applicant has submitted construction plans for the Cascade Boulevard improvements that show a modified storm system in the roadway. Although the plans have not been approved yet, the system appears to be designed to adequately drain the roadway. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS City of Tigard Police Department, The City of Tigard Maintenance Services Department, City of Tigard Building Division, Tualatin Valley Water District, Northwest Natural Gas, and Portland General Electric, have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections. VI. AGENCY AND CIT COMMENTS Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: ODOT supports the recommendations from the applicant's traffic report regarding both lane approaches from Cascade Boulevard to Scholls Ferry Road. The report recommends that both Cascade Boulevard approaches to Scholls Ferry Road be changed from "left-thru" and "right-turn" lanes to "left-turn" and "right-thru" lanes. The applicant should also be required to do all the necessary striping, signing, and signal changes, as a condition of approval for the development. An ODOT permit will be required for all work performed in the state right-of-way. Please contact Sam Hunaidi (229-5002) at District 2A regarding a permit. Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: 1. The drainage system in Cascade Boulevard does not adequately convey surface water runoff, specifically along the west side of the road adjacent to the project site. The developer should: NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 12 A. Correct the deficiency be installing proper conveyance system along the right-of-way, and B. Evaluate downstream hydrology to insure that capacity issues are adequately resolved. 2. An on-site water quality facility is proposed for the development. According to USA standards, the developer is required to provide water quality for the net increase in impervious square footage only. The developer should: A. Construct the facility to R&O 91-47/91-75, and provide the City with water quality calculations; B. Evaluate the downstream hydrology to determine if detention is also required. Downstream hydrologic calculations should be submitted to the City for review; C. Construct the facility to treat, at a minimum, the net increase in impervious square footage. The Agency would favor a facility that treated as much of the total impervious square footage as possible and recommends same. Tualatin Valley Fire District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Plans are approved insofar as access, fire department connection and fire hydrant placement. General Telephone and Electronics has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer/owner to coordinate with GTE before the existing building is demolished to remove telephone facilities. Conduit/manholes for new buildings to be provided to GTE's specifications. No other comments have been received. NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 13 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 APRIL 10, 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. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. on April 10, 1996. Questions: If you have question, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503)639-4171. / /) March 28, 1996 PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea DATE Assistant Planner �! 4—c March 28, 1996 PPROVED B / Ric and Bewers. • -- DATE Senior Planner I\CURPLN\WILL\SDR96-05.DEC NOTICE OF DECISION SDR 96-0005 PINNACLE/MCM PAGE 14 • , lib 1 \• \ 4:1 \ \\ \\\ ET Ill _....a4s$ 40*,,, \ CI -- 1111 `\\%.\\. W ■ ,„„„ t . • ..,\ \\\\ -----, 0 • . C.01111111---. 11111* . 61\ .:111411!1.1$ ■ '."k., • % . ' .1.10 100110111A -* v Z . \\x''', ___.------ ‘ .011.11 \ ' . 1.■ 1 '` Q^_. ; 1 , '� 1 , :' Q \ \ '. \- . ..., -'-".' . , \ 1 1; ..._ ., ilar‘o �- 10_...4.0 i ,,,1\ X %lir ra 11111111111111MI! r. 11 111111111111.. III CC ‘' • - I I f ,1010. '414014,' _ i Iii 11 • i i f' U PLOT PLAN 1 CASE NO. SDR 96-0005 EXHIBIT MAP 11 CASCADE COMM'L. CENTER • 411 H I j 1 \ ?,. D (------ c l: 9 C? ‘ i ti ‘ ■ t l i '''''\ LC .g 1 IA iiii 416 C CU SUBJECT � PARCEL ---- - > a- , \ ..... • p CO CM 11111 Pill Z4 \ Ina ‘149 I= 4 15 4, •.4, t�:1�- : t� r. SHADY LN. swo t Ds.:�- ■11111,1D0 ■ I) 4 Vicinity Map A 1 SDR 96-0005 Cascade Commit. Center N SDR 96-0005 CASCADE • C MM'L. CENTER (P 1/1) L+X T r I P T T 3 RR - 1S135BC-00600 HOLCE,THOMAS J BY HOLCE INVESTMENTS 610 ESTHER STREET SUITE 10000 VANCOUVER,WA 98660 1S135BB-00501 1S135BA-02800 HOLCE,THOMAS J LANPHERE ENTERPRISES INC 610 ESTHER STREET SUITE 1000 12520 SW CANYON RD VANCOUVER,WA 98660 BEAVERTON, OR 97005 1S135BA-03303 1S135BA-03302 MARX, ERNEST L&BARBA MARX,ERNEST L&BARBARA R TRUST TRUST 13627 SUN LVD 13627 SUNSET BLVD P PALISADES, CA 902 PACIFIC PALISAD,CA 90272 1S135BB-00400 1S135BB-00200 PARGAS OF PORTLAND INC PARGAS OF PORT INC PO BOX 206 PO BOX�A WHIPPANY, NJ 07981 PANY, NJ 07981 1S135BB-00100 1S135BB-00500 PARGAS OF PORTLAA18NC PINNACLE INVESTORS LLC PO B02 "y-- 1022 SW SALMON ST, STE 450 A 11HIVPANY NJ 07981 PORTLAND, OR 97205 1S135BB-00300 1S134AA-01800 PORTLAND GEN ELECTIC CO ROBINSON,CHESTER TRUST$ 121 SW SALMON ST ROBINSON,WILLIAM NSTANC PORTLAND, OR 97204 BY FORUM P RTIES 8705 S MBUS SUITE 230 B ERTON, OR 97008 1 S 134AD-06201 1S1 34AD-06200 ROBINSON, CHESTER TRUST AND ROBINSON, CHESTER TRUS ND ROBINSON,WILLIAM R&CONSTANC ROBINSON,WILLIA ' CONSTANC BY FORUM PROPERTITES BY FORUM P=:'ERTITES 8705 SW NIMBUS#230 8705 IMBUS#230 BEAVERTON,OR 97008 . •VERTON, OR 97008 1S134AD-06202 1S126C0-01108 ROBINSON, CHESTER TRUST ND SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO ROBINSON,WILLIAM R STANC • BY TAX DEPT 970W BY FORUM P TITES D/768 TAX B2-122-A 8705 MBUS#230 3333 BEVERLY ROAD VERTON, OR 97008 HOFFMAN ESTATES, IL 60179 1S135BA-03300 1S126C0-01107 UNIVERSUS WASHINGTON SQUARE INC BY STEVE ECOFF PO BOX 21485 442 GLENWOOD DR SEATTLE,WA 98111 OXNARD, CA 93030 LOY RUSCH MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SW SALMON, #350 PORTLAND OR 97205 ' E al I---- --40,04■ Air .... p 1P111•*4 \ . 1114': .* ut . r��-r► iris* N DR • 00 ‘, AVE 'cF �',, CRY oil 3'r°pS n40,�i r RD 1 PdMµOM URIIJLL Mal :' i 1 ZD D -MN ij F 1,, o :.„, __. ,,, , i , on qJ1Ip > 1 6 , o _,, RD / 0 z tilpim _ , MEW 0 -n a:lanara NIA - - GfNBUR City of Ti g ar d Planning Department 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.' ) C(p_ OTHER CASE NO'S: RECEIPT NO. el tp -2:7s11�5 APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: LIYA DATE: ( ' 22-- It, 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Application elements submitted: PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION 07#:70, Cj}✓Cf� j jLy� ,/(A) Application form (1) jf Owner' s signature/written TAX MAP AND TAX LOT NO. ✓ 45.7 -"• 1;i9 authorization I1 (C) Title transfer instrument (1) SITE SIZE % �� i ��j7�� s (D) A ' PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER* 0. lNY L,c, ,/ (E) Plot plan (pre-app checklist) ADDRESS /D�%Z PW PHONE 2/24-- h ✓ (F) Applicant's statement CITY 7j,17'2 ZIP f 7 I (pre-app checklist) APPLICANT* X VV 1 Pk/4 ificetineeire= (G) List of property-owners and ADDRESS fir/X Q 1#V4 PHONE 2214,--0 7. addresses within-2-50-feet--(1) CITY orr(�'y� 4L ZIP 1720. (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 review approval to N.P.O. Number: allow Gt7A1No&Foy.i rro ,f IL �//4 71 N �7� Approval Date: v'`7'Y 1121i tai � . i-)7- Final Approval Date: /MtAriVt4a . Planning Engineering 0524P/13P Rev'd 5/87 3. List any variance, conditional use, sensitive laInds, or other land use actions to be considered as part of this application: ` rnO1: • 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 '�G � day of l'V1/�1 SIGNATURES of each owner (eg. husband and wife) of the subject property. (KSL:pm/0524P) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: SDR 96-0005 FILE TITLE: PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS - CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER OWNER: Pinnacle Investors APPLICANT: MCM Architect (Loy Rusch) 1022 SW Salmon, #450 1022 SW Salmon, #350 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97205 REQUEST: A request for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of two 50,000 square foot, one-story commercial retail buildings. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.62, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120, and 18.164. LOCATION: 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard (WCTM 1S1 35BB, tax lot 500). West side of SW Cascade Boulevard, south of SW Scholls Ferry Road, and north of SW Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial), PD (Planned Development) The General Commercial zone allows Public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, among other uses. CIT: East CHECK ALL WHICH APPLY: X STAFF DECISION COMMENTS DUE BACK TO STAFF ON 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30 HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:00 CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: TIME:7:30 ATTACHMENTS X VICINITY MAP X LANDSCAPING PLAN X NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN X SITE PLAN X OTHER: GRADING PLAN STAFF CONTACT: William D'Andrea - 639-4171 SDR 96-0005 CASCADE COMM..CENTER February 5,1996 PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REMBOLD C O M P A N I E S January 19, 1996 City of Tigard Office of Community Development 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Or 97223 To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that MCM Architects pc is authorized to act as the agent for Pinnacle Investors L.L.C. in regard to the Cascade Boulevard Center development. Sincer ly, ne C. Re old ember 1022 SW Salmon Ph on e Suite 450 503•222•7258 Portland OR 97205 • F a c s i m i l e U S A 503•222•4053 R. STATE OF OREGON . } SS - County of Washington I, Jerry R. Hanson, Director of Assess- ment and Taxation and Ex-Officio County Clerk for said county, do hereby certify that the within instrument of writing was received and recorded in book of records of said county. &NE�p.�► Jerry R. Hanson, Director of Assessment and Taxation, Ex- Officio County Clerk Doc : 95038883 Rect.: 144937 3643 . 00 06/07/1995 12 : 58: 50PM 2,0 After Recordine Return to: Until a change is requested, 3�QD LOIS J.PORTNOY send all tax notices to: SUITE 600 PINNACLE INVESTORS L.L.C. 1130 S.W.MORRISON STREET SUITE 450 PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 1022 S.W.SALMON STREET PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 WARRANTY DEED THOMAS J.HOLCE,"Grantor," conveys and warrants to PINNACLE INVESTORS L.L.C.,AN OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,"Grantee,"the real property,with the tenements,hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining,situated in Washington County,and State of Oregon,and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A," incorporated by this reference,free of encumbrances,except as specifically set forth on attached Exhibit "B," which is incorporated by this reference. Grantor shall indemnify, defend, and hold Grantee, its heirs, successors,insurers,lenders and assigns harmless from any and all claims,liabilities,expenses,costs,fees or damages of any kind or nature whatsoever ("Claims"), arising from, out of,or related to,directly or indirectly,the presence of environmental contaminants existing on,under or about the real property as of the date of this deed.In the event that such existing contamination is discovered after the date of this deed,or should governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereafter require further environmental remediation action based on such existing contamination,Grantor,without cost to Grantee,shall effect such remediation or further remediation.Grantor shall not have any obligation in connection with this obligation to indemnify Grantee if such Claims arise from,out of,or are related to,directly or indirectly,the disposal, discharge or release of environmental contaminants at,on,under or from the real property which contaminants are not Nfrom operations conducted by owners or occupants of,or neighboring to,the real property up to the date of this Deed. Grantee, by separate Agreement dated October 6, 1994,has agreed that Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold \ Grantor,its heirs,successors,insurers,lenders and assigns harmless from any and all Claims arising from,out of or related ,,... to,directly or indirectly,the disposal,discharge or release of environmental contaminants at,on,under or from the real N property at any time after the date of this Deed("Future Contamination"),unless the contaminants disposed,discharged or released were at,on or under the real property as of the date of said Agreement or this Deed. In the event that such Future Contamination is discovered, or should governmental agencies having jurisdiction thereafter require ) environmental remediation action based on such Future Contamination,Grantee,without cost to Grantor shall effect such remediation. (v The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is THREE MILLION,SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS($3,600,000.00). v 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 ANY INTEREST IN OR 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_6day of j-?A- ----, 1995. ,* -- . ;\ WSHINGTON COUNTY tiara. REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ig Grant �1 c 'a i_ $3,�0�� .00 ' �' 95 rTh THOMAS J.j CE STATE OF OREGON ) ss: County ofilkie On thistoday ofJu1 1995,personally appeared before me THOMAS J.HOLCE, who being duly sworn, ackjw w lged said instrument to be his vcaiuntary act and deed. A./ 1 e+ . OFFICIAL SEAL JUDITH YORESEN STARY PUBLIC' O OREGO �f NOTARYPInLIC-ORECON My Commission Expires:44 a CC:JfJ!l3..tON NO.023282 I 3 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 224,t39y r 1. EXHIBIT "A" Order No: 126102 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being a tract of land in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap marked "W.B. Wells & Assoc. , Inc." at the most Northwesterly corner of that tract of land described j,n Deed Document No. 86-3215, Washington County Deed Records, also being the Southwesterly corner of Parcel 1 of a minor partition recorded as Survey No. 20,351 in Washington County Surveyor's Office, and said point bearing North 15°42'46" West, 2, 030.30 feet from an aluminum cap in monument box at the Southwest corner of D.C. Graham D.L.C. No. 52; Thence South 71°17' 00" West, 13.60 feet to a point 75.00 feet by perpendicular measure from the centerline of the Southern Pacific Railroad; Thence parallel with said railroad centerline North 18°43' 18" West, 602.21 feet to the Southerly-most corner of that tract of land described in Easement Deed to Multnomah Propane Inc. , recorded at Book 661, Page 374, Washington County Records; Thence North 71°17' 00" East, 459.85 feet along the Southeasterly line of said easement and along the Southerly line of that tract of land described in Deed to Multnomah Propane Inc. , recorded at Book 661, Page 371, Washington County Records to a 5/8 inch iron rod with yellow cap marked "W.B. Wells & Assoc. , Inc. " in the West line of SW Cascade Boulevard, being of variable width, said iron rod also being at the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 1,286.00 feet and a chord which bears South 36°57'35" East 272.98 feet; Thence 273 .49 feet along said curve through a central angle of 12°11' 06" to a point of non-tangent reverse curvature (to the right) having a radius of 161.23 feet and a chord which bears South 22°04'46" East 114 .81 feet; Thence 117.39 feet along said curve through a central angle of 41°42' 54" to a point of tangency in the West line of said SW Cascade Boulevard; Thence along said West line South 01°13' 19" East 380.05 feet to a point in the North line of that tract of land described in Deed Document No. 86-3215, Washington County Deed Records; Thence South 88°49' 58" West 444 .85 feet to the point of beginning. 2 w M • • EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 OF 1 EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE 1. The Real Property is within and subject to the statutory powers including the power of assessment of the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County. No assessments have been made. 2 . Restrictive Covenants regarding street improvements, including the terms and provisions thereof and including among other things a waiver of right of remonstrance. Recorded: August 1 , 1983 Recorder's Fee No: 83027511 Affects Parcel I 3- P / rra.,t✓e MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 • PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 • USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE January 19,1996 DISTRIBUTION: VIA DATE: J Y Rembold delivered TO: Will D'Andrea file 2.40 City of Tigard NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: 6 Office of Community Development PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 PROJECT: Cascade Blvd. Center FILE NAME: Tig./01-19-96/SDR narrative FROM: Loy Rusch PROJECT NARRATIVE SUMMARY The site for the Cascade Blvd. Center is located at 10385 Cascade Blvd. and is identified as Tax Lot/Tax Map 1S1 3S BB-500. The site is zoned C-G and is currently occupied by the vacant Sentrol Building. The property to the north and south is also zoned C-C,while that to the west,currently a railroad right-of-way,is zoned I-P. A Pre-Application Conference for the proposed development was held on 11-21-95. Subsequent to that conference, a notice of neighborhood meeting was mailed on 12-12-95 to all property owners within 250' of the site, and the site was posted the same day. The meeting was held on 12-27-95 at 7:00 P.M. in Tigard City Hall. Copies of the city's Pre-Application Conference Notes (with the Application Checklist from a previous pre-application conference for this site), the notarized Affidavit of Mailing (with mailing list) and Affidavit of Posting, and the City of Tigard Room Use Application form are included in this submittal, as well as a copy of the MCM Architects pc notes from that meeting and the attendance sheet. The Project involves the demolition of the existing building and its related site improvements, followed by the construction of two new one-story retail buildings. Building One is located along the south property line, is approximately 50,200 gross square feet, and will contain two tenants; Wickes Furniture will occupy the majority of the building, and the remainder will be occupied by N.W. Rug Gallery. Building Two,which is roughly 50,100 gross square feet and is located along the western property line, will also have two tenants; CompUSA, which is a computer-related business, and Staples, which is an office supply store. The total new building area for the ± 7.8 acre site is ± 100,300 g.s.f., and the total on-site parking to be provided is 422 stalls. As part of the development's construction activities, Cascade Blvd. will receive both half-street and full-street improvements. COMMUNIQUE PAGE 2 DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter 18.62: C-G General Commercial District 18.62.030 Permitted Uses The proposed retail uses are permitted outright per 18.62.030.A.2, Use Type '1'. 18.62.050 Dimensional Requirements - The parcel exceeds the minimum lot width of 50'. - Building One, located at the southeast corner of the site, is set back 21'-0" from the east property line and 51'-0" from the centerline of Cascade Blvd., measured to the southeast corner of the property. Building One is also set back 21'-0" from the south property line. - Building Two is set back from the west property line 21'-0" and 15'-0" from the north property line at the building's northwest corner. Building Two, at its closest point, is roughly 285'from the right-of-way line. - The total building area and impervious surface area is ± 81% of the site and the landscape area is ± 19%, which complies with the specified maximum's and minimum's,respectfully. - Neither of the buildings exceed the 45'-0"height limit of the C-G zone, though Section 18.98.020 would allow buildings up to 75'-0"in height. - See sheet A-2 for area and parking tabulations. Chapters 18.100 Landscaping and Screening,and 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas The Project exceeds the minimum 15% landscape area requirement for the C-G zone. The development is landscaped in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.100, as is shown on the Landscape sheets L-1 and L-2. New street trees will be provided as part of the Cascade Blvd. improvements. The quantity of trees provided in the parking area is based on the 1 tree/7 stalls requirement. The parking area is screened through the use of hedges as shown on the Landscape Plans. The location and selection of landscape material proposed for this development reflects the visual clearance area requirements of Section 18.102. All landscape areas will be irrigated by a fully automatic underground sprinkler system, as noted on sheet L-1. Soil conditions are addressed in the Landscape Notes on sheet L-1. The Trash and/or Recycling enclosures have been reviewed by Miller's Sanitary Service, which is the serving franchise, for both size requirements and vehicle accessibility,and has received the company's approval. A copy of the company's letter so stating is included with this submittal. The locations are shown on sheets A-2 and C-1. An enlarged plan of Trash and Recycling enclosures, as well as elevations of these enclosures, is on sheet A-2. r COMMUNIQUE PAGE 3 CompUSA will utilize a trash compactor, which is noted on sheets A-2 and C-1, but a separate Recycling Enclosure for that company will be provided. Chapters 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading,and 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation - The layout of parking,loading,access and egress,and circulation is shown on sheets A-2 and C-1. - The parking count provided exceeds the minimum number of stalls required for the type of uses. See the Site Data tabulation on sheet A-2. - The number of compact stalls provided does not exceed the maximum 40% of the required stalls which is allowed. - The standard stalls provided are 9'-0"w x 19'-0"1. - The compact stalls which are provided are 8'-0"w x 15'-0"1, and will be identified as "Compact" stalls. - Stalls which are in compliance with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act, for type, size, and location,are shown on sheets A-2 and C-1. - Precast concrete wheelstops will be provided for all parking stalls, in conformance with 18.106.050.L.1. These wheelstops are shown on sheet C-1. - Drive aisles are at least 24'-0"w,and the two access points to Cascade Blvd. are 30'-0"w at the right-of-way line. Locations of the two access points have been reviewed with the city's traffic engineer with regard to existing drives across the street, and the right-of- way improvements will include a median as requested by that department. - Three bike racks have been provided,each within 50 lineal feet of the main entry of the four tenants. Each rack can accommodate 5 bicycles, with the resulting total of 15 exceeding that required by code. A copy of the proposed style of rack has been included in the SDR submittal package. - The parking lot is illuminated through the use of pole-mounted H.I.D. fixtures on top of 30"h concrete pedestals, with a total of 10 light poles provided. In addition, wall- mounted light fixtures will be provided for security lighting on those sides of the buildings which are not clearly visible from the street. All emergency exit doors will have wall-mounted fixtures above them. See sheet E-1. In addition, wall-mounted fixtures with decorative metal "shrouds" will be provided on the street elevations for accent lighting. See the exterior building elevations on sheets A-4 and A-6 - Loading dock facilities have been provided for the three tenants whose gross floor area exceeds 10,000 s.f. Circulation to and from these areas, as well as the necessary truck turning radii,have been taken into account in developing the site layout shown on sheets A-2 and C-1. - Concrete sidewalks link both buildings and will connect to the new sidewalk to be provided along Cascade Blvd. as part of the public improvements. Those walkways which cross the 24'w drive aisles of the parking lot will be concrete,not asphalt,and will COMMUNIQUE PAGE 4 comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The sidewalks in front of the two buildings have been designed such that their depth is sufficient (14'-0") to accommodate ramps from the accessible stalls and still provide ample walking space between the top of the ramp and the face of the building. The walkway which crosses the parking lot in an east-west direction is raised 6"above the adjacent driving/parking surface, except where it crosses the drive aisles,and is 8'-0"w. Chapter 18.114: Signs All building-mounted 'signs, as well as the project's freeway-oriented pylon sign, will be submitted for review and approval according to the provisions of Section 18.114. The locations of both types of signs are shown on the exterior building elevations and site plan, respectively. See sheets A-2, A-4, A-6, and C-1. Chapter 18.116: Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage The trash and/or recycling enclosures are located on sheets A-2 and C-1. Enlarged plans and elevations of these areas are on sheet A-2. The franchise hauler which serves this area has reviewed both the site plan and the enlarged plans and approved them (Mark Hillison at Miller's Sanitary Service; 644-6161 ext. 107). The enclosures will have a 12"w concrete curb at the base to protect the cmu walls from damage by the dumpsters,and the gates will have drop-bolts which will secure them in both open and closed positions, both of which were concerns expressed by Mr.Hillison. Chapter 18.150: Tree Removal All existing trees and shrubs of any significant size on the site are shown on the Boundary/Topographic Plan and are identified as to type (deciduous or coniferous) and diameter. See sheet C-4. The landscaping in and around the existing building, which is to be demolished,will also be removed. The existing street trees along the southeast portion of the site bordering Cascade Blvd. will be removed as part of the street improvement work and replaced with new species to match those new trees which are required as part of the half and full street improvements (see sheet L-2). The Site Analysis Plan (sheet A-1) identifies all trees on the site which are 6" in diameter or greater. The existing trees near the northeast corner of the site are to be removed. This is necessary in order to locate the northern access point as far from the curve of Cascade Blvd. as possible, thereby providing the maximum sight line possible for traffic turning north onto the street. The proposed Landscape Plan, as depicted on sheets L-1 and L-2, will provide a significant and attractive canopy across the entire site, which is something that does not exist now. The street trees,which are required as part of the right-of-way improvements for Cascade Blvd., will dramatically enhance this highly visible site. COMMUNIQUE PAGE 5 Chapter 18.164: Street and Utility Improvement Standards As a result of this proposed development, Cascade Blvd. will receive both half and full- street improvements along its entire frontage with the development. The centerline will be realigned according to the Engineering Department's specified radius. The project's Civil Engineer(Harper-Righellis)has met with Engineering Department personnel,and all right-of- way improvements will conform to the specified City of Tigard standards. Please refer to the enclosed memo regarding site utility services/site investigation from Harper-Righellis, dated 1-20-96, for discussion of improvements, and sheet C-1 for extent of improvements. Also, as part of the public improvements, the existing overhead lines along Cascade Blvd. will be placed underground. RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS NOTED IN CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES, PAGE 5 OF 6. Items 1. and 3.: Kittleson and Associates, who prepared the traffic report necessary for the 1994 zone change and comprehensive plan change, have reviewed the traffic assumptions from that report in light of the specific tenant uses now available for this development. A copy of Kittleson's 12-28-95 update, as well as a copy of the original traffic report, are included as part of this submittal. Kittleson's update concludes that the trip generation of this development as proposed will be less than what was assumed in their 1994 study. Therefore, the findings of that report remain valid. In addition, the City of Tigard Engineering Department asked that the left-turn queuing for the south access drive to the proposed development and that for the existing south drive to Beaverton Honda-Yamaha be evaluated regarding the potential for stacking conflict. Kittleson's update has determined that no such conflict should arise. The city's Traffic Engineer also expressed concern about a conflict between traffic turning south from Beaverton Honda-Yamaha's northern drive and vehicles turning north from the proposed development's southern access point. MCM Architects and Harper-Righellis reviewed this matter with the Engineering Department, with the result that a median, built to Engineering Department standards, will be provided between the existing north driveway to Beaverton Honda-Yamaha and the proposed south drive to the new development. See sheet C-1. COMMUNIQUE PAGE 6 Item 2: Exterior lighting is shown on the Site Lighting Plan, sheet E-1, and the exterior Building Elevations sheets A-4 and A-6. Fixture cuts have been provided as part of this SDR submittal package. Exterior lighting has been discussed in detail under 18.106 above. Item 4: At the 11-21-95 Pre-Application Conference, Staff requested that the existing traffic connection between the subject property's existing parking lot,which is to be demolished, and that of the adjacent parcel to the south be maintained in the new design.'The owner of the adjacent parcel, Holce Investments, was also the owner of the subject property prior to selling it to Pinnacle Investors,L.L.C.. Mr. Holce was contacted and informed of the city's request to maintain a connection. His response, which is contained in a 1-2-96 letter to the Community Development Department,is that he strongly opposes any connection now that he no longer owns both parcels of land. As a result of his opposition, our Site Plan does not reflect a connection to Mr. Hoice's lot. A copy of his referenced letter is included with our submittal. Item 5: To the best of our knowledge,only one tax lot is involved; no lot consolidation is required. • MCM A R C H I T E C T S 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 • PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 • USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE DISTRIBUTION: VIA DATE: January 20, 1996 file 2.40 TO City of Tigard NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: 1 Dept.of Community Development PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 PROJECT: Cascade Blvd. Center FILENAME: Tig./01-22-96/constr. $ FROM Loy Rusch The amount of the enclosed check for Site Development Review has been determined using the following preliminary construction costs provided by the Owner's selected general contractor,Grady, Harper&Carlson,Inc. On-Site/Off-Site Improvements: $1,288,218.00 Staples/CompUSA Bldg. Shell: 1,862,354.00 Staples/CompUSA Tenant Impr.: 464,000.00 Wickes Bldg.Shell: 1,033,522.00 Wickes Tenant Impr.: 624,000.00 Total Est. Constr. Cost: $5,272,094.00 Therefore,the Site Development Review Fee is calculated as follows: Base Fee: $520.00 (for first $1,000,000.00) Additional Fee 527.21 [($5,272,094.00 4-$10,000.00) x $1.00] Total SDR Fee: $1,047.21 SANITARY SERVICE, INC. MCM Architects JAN 221996 Date : January 19 , 1996 Dear Sirs, We have reviewed your plan and/or attachments for the proposed development at Cascade Blvd. Center, Tigard OR and find them to be in compliance with our compatibility requirements with the following exceptions : NONE Thank you for your consideration and timely submittal of these materials for our review. Sincerely, ,�/ L/AOL te.4.i MILLER' S SANITARY SERVICE, INC. P.O. BOX 217 • BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075-0217 • (503) 644-6161 MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 • PORTLAND.OREGON 97205 • USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 TRANSMITTAL DISTRIBUTION: VIA: DATE: December 12, 1995 Rembold Delivered file 2.20 TO City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: three Tigard, Oregon 97723 PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 VIA: delivered FILE NAME: Tig./12-12-95/affidavits PROJECT: Cascade Blvd. Center SW Cascade Blvd. Tigard,Oregon FROM: Loy Rusch COPIES DATED PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 12-12-95 "Affidavit of Posting Notice",with original signatures and notarization. 1 12-12-95 "Affidavit of Mailing",with original signatures and notarization. 1 12-12-95 Notification letter 1 Mailing list REMARKS: Please call me if there is any question about the information provided. If it is necessary to provide copies of all of the letters to property owners which were sent, please let me know. Thank you. Name of applicant ' i1�N �i It , G LG Sub ec Property Tax Map and Lat # ,1-�1 /✓ ' �Dl� Address or General Location 1� 2 , TII IP evo-, AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE I. L Y f }v � do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed (eJ1.erdwT' WfPhl affecting the land located at � C VO. and did on the /a -1-L--4,1 day of , 19 !7 personally post notice indicating that the-site may be proposed for a %YE 1'?E1 - fl Y W application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discsss the proposal The sign was posted at /° 2 J Y / VL blW 17t6 MAAl 12W - (stare location on property) This day of I t4rr--1 , 19� Sig, a Sued and sworn to, affirmed, before me this day of , 19 9� Notary Public for the State of 9regon My Commission Expires: /'42.9/9 C (?) OFFICIAL SEAL Ak"v1;0 BETTE JEAN OWEN jf i ,- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ` o COMMISSION NO.020237 f MY COMMISS,Y• EXPIRES NOV.29 1996 ti^cam •• ,- WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hail Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) SS CITY OF TIGARD ) 1, I` • f V'G14- , being duly sworn, depose and say that on C 4 I .---' . 19 __ . I caused to have mailed to each of the persona on the attached list a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at 10 � �/\1. el-21V a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office at I1461/W ,Z2lIC , with postage prepaid thereon. :/ cki6C4/ mci-et lettz6tillPc-T, P .- � s • . . - Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of A i,) , 19 9- Notary Public _..-z.--ti,_-�-�`1-.-... -`-mow..:-` -' My Commission Expires: //�o /9( r s:':!.. OFFICIAL SEAL f f ,��: BETTE Br3TE JEAN OWEN ',r `'��' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON ' ,i 4 ^efr'fMISSION N0.020237 i 0 MY COMM: -; : EXPIRES NOV.29,1996 h:\Icgin\jo\aifmaiLc t A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PRINCIPALS: ROBERT S.MORELAND MOMGRIGSBY S.CHRISTOPHER MICJ-IAELJ.MYLES rl L YY K.RUSCH tt Ph December 12,1995 Lanphere Enterprises,Inc. 12520 SW Canyon Road Beaverton OR 97005 RE: Cascade Blvd.Commercial Center Dear Sir or Madam: MCM Architects p.c. represents the Owner of the property located at 10385 SW Cascade Blvd. in Tigard, tax map (1S135BB tax lot 500). The Owner is proposing to construct two new retail facilities of approximately 50,000 gross square feet each at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Wednesday,December 27, 1995 Town Hall Room Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard.OR 97223 7:00 P.M. Please note that this will be informational meeting utilizing preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 222-5757 if you have any questions. Si cerely Loy K. Rusch,Vice President MCM Architects p.c. 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON STREET.SUITE 350 • PORTLAND.OREGON. 97205-2447 USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RECEIVED NOTICE OF DECEMBER 27, 1995 MEETING name address city/state Portland General Electric 121 SW Salmon ST Portland OR 97204 Pargas of Portland,Inc. PO Box 206 Whippany NJ 07981 Toys "R"US,Inc. 3801 150th Ave.SE#200 Belleview WA 98006 William R Robinson& 811 NW 19th Ave#102 Portland OR 97209 Chester Robinson Trust Thomas J. Holce 610 Esther Street Vancouver,Wa Talk-N-Toss 98660 Ernest L. & 13627 W Sunset Blvd Pacific Palisades CA Barbara R. Marx Trust 90272 Lanphere Enterprises, Inc. 12520 SW Canyon Road Beaverton OR 97005 Mary Swintek 9915 SW Frewing#23 Tigard OR 97223 Craig Hopkins 7430 SW Barns ST Tigard OR 97773 Mark F.Mahon 11310 SW 91st Court Tigard OR 97223 Joel Stevens 9660 SW Ventura Court Tigard OR 97723 Pat Wyden 8122 SW Spruce ST Tigard OR 97223 Mr. George Per Fourier 109 N Lotus Beach Drive Portland OR 97217 Ms.Jan Jacob Fourier 109 N Lotus Beach Drive Portland OR 97217 Mr. George Fourier 349 W 71st ST,#1 New York,NY Ms.Jan Fourier 10023 Alan W. Larson,Trustee / Obie Outdoor Advertising,Inc. PO Box 1356 Eugene OR 97440 Ackerly Communications of 3601 Sixth AV S Seattle WA 98134 the Northwest,Inc. Universus 442 Glenwood Drive Oxnard CA 93030 Howard-Kim,Inc. 10900 NE 8th ST, #900 Belleview WA 98004 Fringe Land Ore Ltd. PO Box 21545 Seattle WA 98111 • OP City of Tigard :,1 f„ . Room Use Application !l -, Reservation Date Event date: 1 . 2-7 ( � Hours of event: From –7:Z7.0 a To U'a7 am C) Organization/individuua�ll requesting use: MC-P M6tf T r/y/ f21 , [Ana liYCs s -1), Mailing address: IO " �( j l r 1I1 M2' City: 72ii4i P Zip Code: 17e: Contact person: Vv l iCk)50111— Day phone:X22-9-7 7 Evening phone: Person who will pick up��room key from the Police Department: 1U i Type of event: 1 '1 Ii /mk� f 1 1 f Classification (see policies): /2.'' Size of group: i 0 (Note: If group exceeds size stated, the fundion may be terminated). FACILITIES REQUESTED Town Hall Room ❑ Red Rock Creek Conference Room ❑ Richard M. (Dick) Brown Auditorium ❑ Water Building Conference Room Room Rental Fees: Room Capacity Class 1 and 2 Class 3 Class 4 Town Hall Room 90 No fee $20.00/hr $25.00/hr Red Rock Creek , Conference Room 20 No fee $10.00/hr $15.00/hr Richard M. (Dick) Brown Auditorium 150 No fee $30.00/hr $35.00/hr Water Building Conference Room 12 No fee $10.00p/hr $15.00/hr Please see the Policies and Procedures for Reserving City of Tioard Meeting Rooms to determine what class your event/meeting falls into. Building Rental Fee $ /V•ft: Cleaning/Security Deposit: A cleaning/security deposit is required for parties, receptions and potlucks. The cleaning/security deposit must be paid seven (7) days in advance of your event. The deposit is as follows: Groups of 80 or less $150.00 Groups of more than 80 $250.00 Deposit Amount $ � — Please forward the application, rental fee, and/or deposit to: City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. Please read the Policies and Procedures for Reserving City of Tigard Meeting Rooms and the following information prior to signing the Room Use Application. I agree to protect, indemnify, and defend the City, its authorized agents, elected and appointed officials, and all employees against any and all claims as a result of persons attending any function at the facility. This provision includes any expenses incurred by the City defending such claim. I further understand the City, its elected and ,ppointed officials, and all emp, 'kill not be held responsible for any or stolen articles, clothing, etc., as a result of persons attending any function in the building. I have read the Policies and Procedures for Reserving City of Tigard Meeting Rooms and the information on the reverse side of this form. I further agree to abide by the Policies and Procedures as well as the ordinances of the , City of Tigard and I accept responsibility for any violations as they may pertain to the application. � GOTK .�vs�;— «� 7-Signature m6 X- • Date Rental Periods The City of Tigard Meeting Rooms are available for reservation Monday through Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. November through April the Richard M. (Dick) Brown Auditorium and Water Building Conference room are not available after 5:00 p.m. Reservations To allow many different groups an opportunity to use the facilities, repetitive room requests will be reviewed on a monthly basis through the application process. Priority room use is given in ascending order beginning with Class 1. Please see the Policies and Procedures for Reserving City of Tigard Meeting Rooms to determine what class your function fits into. All efforts will be made to keep the room schedule intact once reservations are made; however, the City retains the right to cancel or relocate a meeting upon 24 hours notice. Rental Fee and Cleaning/Security Deposit If a rental fee is required, it must be posted not less than seven (7) days in advance of the meeting date. The amount of the rental fee is based on the group classification. If a refundable cleaning/security deposit is required, it must be posted no less than seven (7) days in advance of the reservation date. The amount of the cleaning/security deposit is based on whether food and/or beverage will be served, and the size of the group. Cleaning supplies and equipment must be provided by the user. Please see the Policies regarding room use for details on the return of the deposit. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Room Use: Approved ❑ Disapproved ❑ Date Administrative Services Manager Date logged Date Applicant notified Date P.D. notified Date rental fee paid Amt $ Rec# Date deposit paid Amt $ Rec# Checklist received Yes ❑ No ❑ Any unusual cleaning or damage? Yes ❑ No ❑ If yes, please document'and attach document to application. Date of refund Amt $ ` F MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 • USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE DATE December 27, 1995 DISTRIBUTION: VIA Rembold delivered TO File 2.40 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: 2 VIA: PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 PROJECT Cascade Blvd. Center FILENAME: file/12-27-95/neighborhood mtg FROM Loy Rusch 1. The neighborhood meeting was held this date, from 7:00-8:00 P.M., in the Town Hall Room at Tigard City Hall. 2. Two people attended the meeting (see attached Attendance List). 3. The following brief presentation of the project was made,using two 30" x 42" presentation boards; one depicted the Site Plan and the other contained Views of both the overall project and of the two buildings involved. A print of the Boundary/Topographic Survey was also on hand for reference. 'The subject property was part of a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change in late-1994, rezoning the property from Industrial (I-P) to Commercial (C-G) to bring it into conformance with the current land uses which surround it. As part of the zone change request, a traffic report was prepared,based on developing the property into ±110,000 gsf of retail in two one-story "big box" buildings. No significant impacts to the surrounding roads were identified as a result of this report and the zone change was approved without conditions. The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing Sentrol building and the construction of ±100,000 gsf of retail space in two buildings. Two tenants have been signed for the project, and negotiations are underway with a third tenant. A Pre-Application Conference was held for this scenario in November 1995, and as a result of that meeting, an up-date of the initial traffic study is underway to verify that the proposed development is consistent with the assumptions and findings of the study done for the re-zone." 4. John Fitzmaurice, representing Obie Outdoor Advertising, was concerned about the location of his company's billboard relative to the proposed buildings. I showed him the location of the billboard on the Boundary/Topo survey (located outside of the subject property, near the northeast corner) and that the buildings would be along the west and south property lines, so there is no apparent affect on the billboard. He had no further questions and said that his company had no problem with the proposed development. 5. Jack Reardon, who said he lives in the neighborhood west of the Koll Business Center (which lies west of the subject property), asked about the proposed development's COMMUNIQUE PAGE 2 parking ratio, as he was concerned about traffic on Greenburg Road. He also asked if the developer was required to make any off-site improvements. I told him that the parking ratio was approximately 4:1, and revisited the city's required up-date of the traffic report as a result of the Pre-Application Conference. I told him that the city is requiring both half and full-street improvements along the property's frontage on Cascade Blvd. and that those improvements would tie into the systems installed as a result of previous right-of- way improvements to Cascade Blvd. south of the property. No specific off-site improvements were identified by the city at the Pre-App., nor have any been discussed with the project's Civil Engineer to date. Mr. Reardon had no other questions, and then left. 6. I waited until 8:00 P.M. for others to attend and then left. J MCM A R C H I T E C T S 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 / COMMUNIQUE DISTRIBUTION: VIA DATE: December 27, 1995 SUBJECT Neighborhood Meeting NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: PROJECT: Cascade Blvd. Center PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 FROM: Loy Rusch FILE NAME: ATTENDANCE LIST NAME MAILING ADDRESS SIGNATURE (please print) 1. -Sohn s:�.' 2._c)13 ono pc.,v-t ri-►CST .5j- / F ZMPt.A_RILC- Q t-PrZit`, ic-U w∎ , 014-- ckZ3O3 <I? /e9/ 0 � � 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. tio 1 \\\ �R tn \ 4 �. - a UJ ..------.' 10 ' ' -\\" \\\N.,\`\ 0 9..--c,=-C* ' 11:0\-' \ `.:\\,‘" \\:"."' ‘ \ , , ottl kiy•\\ \, 0 ,,\\ \ steno -_ a • A/1TO .\,' Z / \\ a', ___...--, 11% \\ V‘ 1 ‘,‘ • \ ilk ' ii •wirno, , , < IL. t \ CL 1 Aot CI ii• \ . als011i,... • as Lem. all - � ' ' I I ' I ! ii„ �\A el i , �` `IY I I , i t i �•i•� ME �_ CC � LI� ` .. �! .�.. III ; 1 ~, \',..`. • III I 1 I � l INEL ` U U .. O. IIC 7 :o 0 PLOT PLAN 1 CASE NO. SDR 96-0005 EXHIBIT MAP I CASCADECOMM'L. CENTER Si• I j 1 � 4 Z _ 0 r I, , g / 71, , , c,,,, ‘ .............................. , 1 ,8 . 110 '/ 11 r 11 J C3 : C llIllk.,...A Ali -El C13 SUBJECT 11411 :111411 kl\%toiliolik4, P 14441114%is 411. CL ARCEL ----- > ‘ MILK • S. ■ CO 41 0 0%. wilt SHADY „ 1 v , A D-3 ' t ili umiii J Vicinity Map A SDR 96-0005 Cascade Comm'l. Center N 21 'W Picnic Table with Seats 2162-6 5'10" 4'8" 2'4" 1'4" Embed 4"x6" 2162-8 7'10" 4'8" 2'4" 1'4" Embed 4"x6" EIMNII•EN•11 Tr II 17 Picnic Table with Seats 2164-6 5'10" 4'8" 2'4" 1'4" Surface 4"x6" 2164-8 7'10" 48" 2'4" 1'4" Surface 4"x6" --M 1 I � Bike Rack (CycLoops'") 2170-5 3'2" 2.375" 2'11" Embed 2.375"dia.(••■• 2170-7 5'2" 2.375" 2'11" Embed 2.375"dia. 2170-9 7'2" 2.375" 2'11" Embed 2.375"dia. 2170-11 9'2" 2.375" 2'11" Embed 2.375"dia. 2170-13 11'2" 2.375" 2'11" Embed 2.375"dia. -P Add this designation for pedestal mount rather than embedment. . • afififin:„:0.„ TYPE: .:ATALOGa: TYPE G, GF McGRAW-EDISON«- DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATION FEATURES McGraw-Edison's Galleria A -Housing 0 Reflector combines beauty and versatility Formed aluminum housing Spun and stamped aluminum '"" to make it an excellent choice with stamped reveal has interior- reflector in vertical lamp units, for architects,specifiers and welded seams for structural or hydroformed anodized .---..- :—. •-,- contractors in today's energy- integrity and is finished in aluminum reflector in and design-conscious polyester powder coat. U.L. horizontal lamp units. ��•••rr� environment.An aesthetic listed for wet locations.CSA reveal in the formed aluminum approved. E -Door housing gives the Galleria a Formed aluminum door has distinctive look while a variety B-•-Ballast Tray heavy-duty hinges,captive of mounting options and lamp Ballast tray is hard-mounted to retaining screws and is wattages provide maximum housing interior for cooler finished in polyester powder flexibility. operation. coat.(Spider mount unit has GMGALLERIA steel door.) APPLICATION C-••Ballast 250 - 400 W Long-life core and coil ballast. F--Lens The Galleria achieves superior - , Convex tempered glass lens. light distribution by utilizing a seamless reflector system, Metal Halide making it the optimum choice i■ii■I for almost any small or medium area lighting application. ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHT I I _ lc.:•,t!.,,ii. \\\\\\I\\\\\ - --\ A 11\ B 1 i . D .a 4011111 I E It i n F ENERGY DATA DIMENSIONS CWA Ballast Input Watts 250W MH HPF(295 Watts) Fixture A B C D E F G H J 400W MH HPF(455 Watts) Medium Iin.) 15 3/4 3 4 18 314 21 3/4 6 or 14 12 21 Imm) 381 19 76 102 476 552 152 or 356 305 533 A B INEMOMNIMMIIMIIIMMII. Ann Mount Spider Mount F I 1 -- F 1G 1- 1 i J 1 Il 1 F GMGALLERIA 4 4 4 4 3 3 -3 BEM. 3, ■i. 2 g', 1 2 101, 2 \,", 2 -A fl C 0 E 0 ,E 0 � E E 0 Mit1I p Jul ��/ ��,% �IJll/i , �/ 2 ■ 2 /.■ 2 =_/./II 2 3 3 3 �;�• 3 4 - .4 - 4 l'•• 4 • 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 GM-5 GM-6 GM-7 GM-8 GMA401291D GMA401292D . GMA401293D_- GMA40129AR lac-6 400-Watt MH Type 1 400-Watt MH Type II - ' 400-Watt MH Type-M 400-Wan MH Area Round 40,000-Lumen Clear Lamp 40,000-Lumen Clew Lamp 40,000-Lumen Clear Lamp 40,000-Lumen Clear Lamp Footcandle Table Footcandle Table Select mounting height and read across for footcandle values of Select mounting height and read across for footcandle values of each isofootcandle line. each isofootcandle line. Mounting Mounting Height Footcandle Values for Height Footcandle Values for GM-5,6&7 Isotootcandle Lines GM-8 Isofootcandle Lines A 6 C D E A B C D E 20' 11.25 4.50 2.25 1.12 0$6 20' 4.50 2.25 1.13 0.56 023 25' 7.20 2.88 1.44 0.72 0.36 25' 2.83 1.14 0.72 0.36 0.14 30' 5.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 025 30' 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.10 35' 1.58 1.18 0.79 0.39 0.19 35' 1.47 0.73 0.37 0.18 0.07 40' 1.28 0.96 0.64 0.32 0.16 40' 1.12 0.56 0.28 0.19 0.06 MOUNTING VARIATIONS IN IF H H : MI 4* AI 101 Post-Top Direct Mount Ann Mount Direct Mount Ann Mount Ann Mount Arm Mount Arm Mount Arm Mount Single Single 2 @ 180' 2 @ 180° 2 @ 90• 3 0120' 3 @ 90' 4 @ 90' ORDERING INFORMATION SAMPLE NUMBER: GMA251292D l GM 1 2 I Options (add as suffix) Accessories (order separately) I I I J I I I Product Mounting Lamp Ballast Voltage Distribution F-Single Fuse MA1004-14°arm for square pole.1.0 EPA Family Method Wattage Type 1-120V 1D-Type I FF-Double Fused MA1005-6'arm for square pole.0.5 EPA G-Galleria A-Arm' 25-250 2-CWA 2-208V MCO R-Photocontrol Receptacle MA1006-Direct mount kit for square pole 13-Spider 40-400 3-240V 20-Type II 0-Quartz Restrike MA1007•14'arm for round pole.1.0 EPA Housing Size for 2' 4.277V MCO HS.House Side Shield(AR and AS MA1008-6'arm for round pole.0.5 EPA M-Medium tenon i Lamp 5-480V 3D.Type Ill distributions only) MA1009-Direct mount kit for round pole C.Spider TYPe 9-Multi- MCO VS-Vandal Shield `/ 0A1016-Photocontrol-Multi Tap for 3° 1 -MH Tap FT-Forward Throw 4 Gf 0A1027-Photocootrol-480V tenon wired AR-Area Round 4I---- G M411010-Single-arm tenon adapter for 3'tenon 277V AS-Area Square MA1011=2 @ 180°tenon adapter for 3°tenon 6-Triple- RW=Rectangular Wide MA1012-3 @ 120°tenon adapter for 3'tenon • Tap MA1013-4 @ 90'tenon adapter for 7 tenon wired 347V MA1014-2 @ 90'tenon adapter for 3'tenon MA1015-2 @ 120'tenon adapter for 3'tenon Catalog Lamp Lamp Ballast Type! Net Wt, Shipping MA1016.3 @ 90°tenon adapter for 3'tenon Number' Wattage Type' Power Factor Voltage' Size EPA (Lbs.l Volume(Cu.Ft-1 MA1017.Single-arm tenon adapter for 2'tenon Arm Mount(Order arm separately) MA1018-2 @ 180°tenon adapter for 2'tenon GMA25129XX 250 MH CWA/HPF MT Medium 2.4 64 5.5 MA1029-Wall bracket GMA40129XX 400 MH CWA/HPF MT Medium 2.4 64 5.5 Spider Mount(For 2-tenon) Colors (add as suffix) GMB25129XX 250 MH CWA/HPF MT Medium 2.4 57 9.1 GMB40129XX 400 MH CWA/HPF MT Medium 2.4 57 9.1 I Spider Mount(For 3-tenon) AP-Grey GMC25129XX 250 MH CWA/HPF MT Medium 2.4 59 9.1 BZ-Bronze GMC40129XX 400 MH CWA/HPF MT Medium 2.4 59 9.1 13G-Beige 6K-Black NOTES:'Arm not included.See accessories. 6L-Blue 'Designate distribution by changing 9th and 10th digits. GR-Green 'All lamps are mogul base.Lamps are not included. RD-Red 'Multi-Tap ballast is 120(20EV240(777V.Triple-Tap ballast is 120r277/347V. SY-Silver WH.White NIL-Yellow / NOTE.Spec.f.cat,ons and D,mens,ons subject to change....MOW not■ce W A P A It 50-400 WATT -= HPS/MH 7y , Wall Mount Applications Dimensions Wal-Pak provides efficient r z illumination in a rugged die-cast aluminum housing '.• -_. =-_ for lasting performance. Easy to install,Wal-Pak -'•: - = complements any = - environment and is ideal c.. .. for loading docks, underpasses,offices, 4'. Vehicle ramps and schools. .-1ern.rwr..r (50-250W HPS i MM _ 12V+r,o_-• (400W HPS&Hut " /- i ;X Ordering Information S. Catalog Number Logic Lamp Product Lamp Wattage/Base Refractor Family Wattagease Vo flags Y HP=HPS W=orosilicate Glass L=Wa!-Pak 50s /Mogul 120=120 Volt MH=Met.Hal. P4"olycarbonate' 70=70W/Mogul 208=208 Volt 75=75W/Mogul 240=240 Volt 100=100W/Mogul 277=277 Volt 150=150W/Mogul 347=347 Voh 175=175W/Mogul 480=480 Volt 's' 200=200W/Mogul MT=Multi-Tap I 250250W/Mogul TT=Tri-Tap Note: See Options and Accessories at the end of the Wall Mount Section. 400=4flOW/Mogul Catalog' Lamp* Lamp Ballast Net.Wt. Shipping Number Type Wattage Type (Lbs.) - Volume HPWL-50 HPS 50 HPF 32 1/ctn. HPWL-70 HPS 70 HPF 35 1.48 cult. HPWL-100 HPS 100 HPF 35 r. HPWL-150' HPS 150 HPF 35 I,' - HPWL-200 HPS 200 HPF 35 ,[' ,. HPWL-250 HPS 250 HPF 37 ,' �_ HPWL-400 HPS 400 HPF 42 MHWL-175 MH 175 HPF 33 —) MHWL-250 MH 250 HPF 36 F- MHWL-400 MH 400 HPF 39 1 Available in HPS 150W and lover. Z t f 2 Add desired voltage to end of catalog number 120.208.240.277.347 or 480 Volt.Tri-Tap ballast are 120/277/347 Volt 7 3 Standard lamp is mogul base.Not included. 4 Uses S-55(55 Volt)lamp only. ., O r •-• :h J ' j -1 Q ' 7': 1 r• 4 nr. 1 .......... . D p r fr r Design Features 3,46 NPT threaded hub i 3 il. . 1110 1 r O Oil High power factor ballast with Class H 0 insulation.Minimum starting temperature I Z Is-40°C for HPS and-20°C for MH �0 _. tA Rugged die-cast aluminum housing is • Is O tai_. finished in dark bronze polyester powder coat-anodized aluminum reflector -- Field-adjustable mogul base screw-shell _ Mk socket provides two beam patterns (175W max) f r Lens assembly hinged at bottom for easy Installation and relamping i //i1- 7! i Stainless steel captive screw i Closed-cell,gas-filled high-temperature } silicone gasket—UL listed for wet locations.CSA approved Impact-resistant borosilicate prismatic glass or polycarbonate refractor • Mounting plate detail • 6112"tt6smm•—•—61/z^n65mml-+ 1 '..f. 0�/a"(121..1 outlet Bo= 1 28/16"(SSmm) i 4°(162..1 tD batto Three 3/e'41omry/4 wing illi.:::. Dia.Mtg.Moles Photometrics 1NL-1 Lateral and Longitudinal Distance s . Catalog Number HPWL-250 in Units of Mounting Heights 6 W0Watttt Hen Clear .pp=='■ 4 Footcandle Table Lamp I��i\� Mounting o,'.,: .. ' � =_�, 3 Height A B 2. 1. E I 2 10' 8.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 .050 I„�/'�. 15' 3.54 1.77 0.89 0.44 0.17 `��■�� 1 20' 2.00 0.64 0.50 020 0.10 25' 128 0.64 032 0.16 0.06 2 ilam • )' 6 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 MIL-1 s Lateral and Longitudinal Distance r Catalog Number MHWL-250 E— in Units of Mounting Heights 250-Watt Metal Halide 6 Footcandle Table 19.500{e(r1Qn Clear Lamp .'.11,. 4 Mounting , simitl , 3 Height A B C D E 10' 8.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 .050 111 2.00 1.00\\.11tlefiolll,/I 6 25' 1.28 0.64 0 32 0.16 0.06 2 5 • 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 • 5 • WARRIOR 70-400 WATT HPS/MH T YPE 'SW Floodlight 11 Applications Dimensions Warrior offers a variety of 1 lamp and mounting options 13' . ,...7.. a+�w b"! '`O. in both HPS and metal IP — halide.These combine with `�"�""III •—is_. _r- ;� water-tight construction r'°"" "'""'" and adjustable light cutoff t to make Warrior perfect for it a+a�r marinas,storage/service areas,parking lots and e'r+sm..+ light industrial areas. 1 •-1s—• •—r- - Maw/4 Ordering Information Catalog Number Logic Lamp Product Mounting Lamp type Family Distribution type Wattage/Base Voltage HP=HPS WR=Warrior 65=6X5 S=Slipfitter 70=70W/Mogul 120=120 Volt ) ) .? MH=Met Hal. T=Trunnion 100=100W/Mogul 208=208 Volt 150=150W/Mogul 240=240 Vol 175=175W/Mogul 277=277 Vol 250=250W/Mogul 347=347 Volt 400=400W/Mogul 480=480 Volt 250/400=250/400W/Mogul MT=Muli-Tap (wired 250W) TT=Tri-Tap Note: See Options and Accessories at the end of the Floodlight Section. •..i . Catalog' Lamp' Lamp Ballast Net Wt Shipping Number Type Wattage Type EPA (Lbs.) Volume . HPWR-65S-70 HPS 70 HPF 1.3 30 1/ctn. HPWR-65S-100 HPS 100 HPF 1.3 31 2.O cult. i • HPWR-65S-150 HPS 150 HPF 1.3 32 HPWR-65S-250 HPS 250 HPF 1.3 35 O HPWR-65S-250/400 HPS 250/400 HPF 1.3 35 HPWR-65S-400 HPS 400 HPF 1.3 35 Z MHWR-65S-175 MH 175 HPF 1.3 30 _ MHWR-65S-250 MH 250 HPF 1.3 33 . —41► MHWR-65S-400 MH 400 HPF 1.3 35 i- 1 Add desired voltage to end of catalog number-120.208.240.277 or 480 Volt.Multi-Tap ballasts are 120/208/240/277 Volt.Tri-Tap ballast are 120/277/347 Volt.Factory prewired for 347 Volt = 2 Standard lamp is mogul base.Not included. 0 _l 0 O 0 J U- 11 r O Design Features 40 0 Corrosion-resistant captive retaining screws _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r UL listed as sealed beam system suitable — for wet locations.CSA approved I H eat-and impact-resistant clear A tempered glass lens _ = Specular aluminum,one-piece reflector for sharp beam cutoff -I ...I Watertight die-cast aluminum housing i l and door finished in wrier coat enamel 1=1 dark bronze polyester powder coat enamel Z Foam-in-place gasketing seals out - — I p contaminants Iiikr Porcelain enclosed screw-shell socket fits mogul base HID lamps Ill Variable mountings of either 4.• . li galvanized steel trunnion or integral die- cast aluminum slipfrtter for 2V-3"O.D. 1 Trunnion detail and dimensions . 3,h• r••• 1 1 ra,••• ti s,3ie- �nar°..y Photometrics WR-1 a Lateral and Longitudinal Distance Catalog Number HPWR-65S-400 in Units of Mounting Heights 400-Watt HPS.45°Vertical Tilt nailiiiIIIIO■ s Footcandle Table 50.000 Lumen Clear Lamp JIf` rI!li 2 Height ng A B C 0 E MUNIE•„v/" 20' 4.50 2.25 113 0.56 0.23 1121111111111.E1111 25'1 30' 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 010 mi`��r/■■ 1 2 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 WR-2 Lateral and Longitudinal Distance I Catalog Number MHWR-65S-400 - In Units of Mounting Heights 400-Watt Metal Halide.45°Vertical Tilt s Footcandle Table 34.000-Lumen Clear Lamp ,/ E,, 4 Mounting ��. a Height A BC DE .'-rd` 20' 450 2 25 1 t 3 056 0.23 tr �ri �� ; 25' 200 100 0.50 025 0 14 il .._ _.,..... / 2 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 • 5 K KITTK\ ELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. N TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 S.W ALDER,SUITE 700 • PORTLAND,OR 97205 • (503)228-5230 • FAX(503)273-8169 December 28, 1995 Project: 1775.00 Mr. Loy Rusch MCM Architects 1022 SW Salmon Street, Suite 350 Portland, OR 97205 Subject: Proposed Cascade Blvd Retail Development Dear Loy: As you requested, we have reviewed the proposed development plans for the Rembold property located adjacent to Cascade Boulevard opposite the existing Beaverton Honda Development. As part of our review we compared for consistency the trip generation assumptions used in our analysis of the zone change application for the subject property' against the current development plans. We also estimated left-turn queuing requirements on Cascade Boulevard between the proposed south access for the subject property and the south access for Beaverton Honda. The results of our review are discussed in the following paragraphs. Trip Generation Comparison The analysis for the original zone change application assumed a retail development of approximately 110,000 square feet of retail space and a trip generation rate of 3.86 trips per thousand gross square feet of retail space. This yielded a trip generation estimate of approximately 420 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. The trip generation rate assumed in the 1994 study was based on the highest trip generation rate observed at three retail uses along Cascade Boulevard. A detailed discussion of the trip generation assumptions are included on pages 13-14 of the 1994 Traffic Impact Analysis. The current development plans will call for approximately 95,000 gross square feet of retail space including a computer store, an office supply store, and a furniture store. The land uses we studied as part of the trip generation analysis for the zone change application included a video/computer store(Silo), a furniture store (Levitz)and a toy store (Toys-R-Us). The uses currently proposed are most similar to the Silo and Levitz in terms of trip generation potential. As documented in our 1994 study, these uses had trip rates that were considerably lower than Toys-R-Us. The observed rate at Toys-R-Us was used in our analysis of off-site traffic impacts to represent a reasonable worst-case development scenario. Based on a review of the uses that are proposed, it is believed that the trip generation for the proposed uses will be lower than what was assumed in our 1994 study. 'Traffic Impact Analysis for Cascade Boulevard Re-Zone Application Prepared by Kittelson & Associates. June 1994. Mr. Loy Rusch December 28, 1995 Page 2 Queuing Analysis The City of Tigard Engineering Department asked that we estimate left-turn queuing requirements on Cascade Boulevard at the proposed south access drive for the development as well as the south access drive for Beaverton Honda. These driveways will be off-set approximately 125 feet (centerline to centerline). This offset would provide queue storage for approximately three vehicles. The 1994 Traffic Impact Analysis estimated a left-turn demand at the south access drive of 85 vehicles per hour. As discussed previously, this is believed to be a conservatively high estimate based on actual development plans. The opposing through volume in 1997 on Cascade Boulevard was projected to be 415 vehicles per hour. Using these volumes,the 95th percentile left-turn queue length for the northbound left-turn at the south access drive was estimated to be less than one vehicle. The 95th percentile queue length was estimated using the queuing analysis procedure described in Chapter 10 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. Although the left-turn volume into the south access for Beaverton Honda was not available, the left- turn demand is likely to be less than 10 vehicles per hour. The northbound opposing volume on Cascade Boulevard in 1997 was projected to be 445 vehicles per hour. Based on these volumes, the 95th percentile southbound left-turn queue length was estimated to be less than one vehicle. It is important to note that from a statistical perspective, the 95th percentile queue lengths noted at each driveway,are considered as independent events. Given the low probability of having a queued vehicle present at either driveway, the likelihood of having a queued vehicle present at both driveways simultaneously is extremely low. City staff also had questions regarding queues at these driveways as background volumes on Cascade Boulevard continue to grow over time. To address this question the same queuing analysis procedure was used to estimate the growth in traffic on Cascade Boulevard that could occur while still maintaining a 95th percentile queue of two vehicles or less at either driveway. The results of the analysis indicated that an opposing flow on Cascade Boulevard of up to 1,500 vehicles per hour (which is unrealistically high)would result in a 95th percentile queue length of two vehicles. I trust this information adequately fulfills the City's traffic related concerns with respect to the proposed development. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, KITTEL ,ON & AS CIATES, INC. ark A. Vandehey, P.E. Principal Transportation Impact Study Cascade Rezone SW Cascade Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 111111111111 11 11 11 III III III 111 III III III KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1111111 Transportation Planning/Traffic Engineering 11111111111 June 1994 in=III MCM Architects RECEIVED JUN 2;3 1,(24 ;v ,. Transportation Impact Study .N,, r., _IL Cascade Rezone SW Cascade Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Prepared for: Rembold Trust, Inc. Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 610 S.W. Alder, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 Project No.: 1235.00 June 1994 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2 Introduction 3 Section 3 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis 10 Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 23 Section 6 References 25 Appendix A Description of Level of Service Methods and Criteria 27 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. li June 1994 Cascade Rezone List of Figures List of Figures Figure 1 Site Vicinity 5 Figure 2 1997 Base Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 3 Trip Distribution 15 Figure 4 Existing Zoning (I-P) Site-Generated Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . 17 Figure 5 Proposed Zoning (C-G) Site-Generated Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . 18 Figure 6 Existing Zoning (I-P) 1997 Total Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . . 19 Figure 7 Proposed Zoning (C-G) 1997 Total Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour . . . . . . 20 Figure 8 Recommended Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 List of Tables Table 1 Existing Transportation Facilities within Study Area . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 2 Accident Analysis 9 Table 3 1997 Base P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service 11 Table 4 Survey of Trip Generation Rates for Specialty Retail 14 Table 5 Trip Generation 14 Table 6 P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service 16 Table 7 P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Comparison 21 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. iii yw ,•rcz�'�{w • f D Section 1 Executive Summary June 1994 Cascade Rezone Executive Summary Executive Summary Rembold Trust, Inc., is proposing amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for two parcels on SW Cascade Boulevard between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Greenburg Road in Tigard, Oregon, changing the zoning designation from I-P (Industrial Park) to C-G (Commercial General). This study presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts associ- ated with the proposed zone change. Existing conditions and 1997 base year traffic volumes and analyses have been taken from the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study (Reference 1) prepared for the City of Tigard. The specific conclusions and recommendations are as follows: • The intersections of Cascade Boulevard with Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road currently operate at acceptable levels of service per the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. • No significant accident problem has been identified for the key intersections in the study area. • Under 1997 base traffic volumes, the intersections of Cascade Boulevard with Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service per the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. • The only intersection which requires mitigation as a result of development of the site is Scholls Ferry/Cascade. This intersection can be mitigated by simply reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from left/through and right to left and through/right. No signal phasing changes or geometric improvements are required. It should be noted that this intersection requires the same mitigation with development under either existing or proposed zoning. • The intersections of Scholls Ferry/SR 217 SB Ramps and Greenburg/SR 217 SB Ramps are projected to be approaching capacity regardless of the development of the site. For the Greenburg/SR 217 SB Ramps intersection, the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study has recommended the provision of two right-turning lanes on the southbound ramp and two westbound receiving lanes on Greenburg Road. Operations at the Scholls Ferry/SR 217 SB Ramp intersection can be further improved at some future time by converting the left lane of the ramp approach into a shared left-through-right lane, creating an additional lane for right-turning traffic. This will require restriping and may require some widening of the ramp to accommodate two lanes on the ramp for a minimum of 225 feet. • Statewide Planning Goal 12 is satisfied, as the proposed change in zoning will not significantly affect the surrounding transportation facilities. Further, with minor miti- gation, adequate transportation facilities are available to accommodate full development of the site under the proposed zoning. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 2 •1 11111 111 11/ 111 1 111 111 111 • Section 2 K ■■ Introduction � ■■ June 7994 Cascade Rezone Introduction Introduction PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rembold Trust, Inc., is proposing amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for two parcels on SW Cascade Boulevard between SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Greenburg Road in Tigard, Oregon, from its existing zoning designation I-P (Industrial Park) to C-G (Commercial General). Access is proposed via site driveways onto Cascade Boulevard. A map showing the vicinity of the site is given in Figure 1. SCOPE OF THE REPORT This report addresses traffic-related impacts of the proposed rezone application. Specific traffic related issues discussed in this report include: • Existing land use and transportation facilities in the project study area. • Development and analysis of base traffic conditions in the study year 1997. • Trip characteristic estimates for buildout of the site under existing and proposed zoning designations. • The traffic impact and necessary mitigation measures required under both zoning scenarios for weekday evening peak hour operations at the intersections of SW Scholls Ferry Road/Cascade Boulevard and SW Greenburg Road/Cascade Boulevard. • Comparative analysis of the two zoning scenarios at the SR 217 ramp terminals on Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road. • The traffic impact and necessary mitigation measures required for weekday evening peak hour operations at the site driveways on SW Cascade Boulevard. This report has been prepared in accordance with guidelines and scope set forth by City of Tigard transportation and planning staff. OREGON'S STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 12 (TRANSPORTATION) Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation (OAR 660-12-060(1)(a)), provides the following guideline for determining when to evaluate the function,capacity and level of service of transportation facilities with respect to proposed land use changes: "Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans,-and land use regulations which signif- icantly affect (emphasis added) a transportation facility." As will be demonstrated by the analysis presented in this report, the proposed zone change and comprehensive plan amend- ment, as well as the proposed use, will not have a significant effect on the transportation facilities (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) serving the site; that is, the capacity and level of service of transportation facilities will not degrade significantly with the proposed change. Therefore, as this report will demonstrate, according to OAR 660-12-060(1)(a) no further analysis or discussion of these issues will be required. Nonetheless, this report demonstrates that adequate transportation facilities are available with minor mitigation. Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 4 i kB m WASHINGTON SQUARE 99,, SHOPPING CENTER c7 I( (zo cp CRESCENT o GROVE r. CEA1. CV i ,1 • f U \111-- R° SIT '''‘11411% .., g -\ . i SITE VICINITY REMBOLD TRUST, INC. I FIGURE e CASCADE REZONE 1 JUNE 1994 I IX 1235F001 r 111 .,,- • ._ 'Z°- --..,1",. ', .,"•‘'.ZA, • A. MIMI 111111.11111 11111E 1111111M 1111 4 II 111 111 II 111 . IIIi Section 3 V< N i Existing Conditions , June 1994 Cascade Rezone Existing Conditions Existing Conditions SITE CONDITIONS AND CURRENT LAND USE The site consists of two parcels totaling 9.91 acres. The northern parcel, 2.15 acres, is currently occupied by a Portland General Electric substation; the remainder of the site, 7.76 acres, is currently occupied by an engineering and electronics manufacturing building with accompa- nying parking and storage. On the east, the site is bounded by Cascade Boulevard; the remaining three sides are bounded by Southern Pacific railroad tracks on the west, Suburban Propane on the north, and Cascade Business Center on the south. The site and all adjacent parcels are currently zoned I-P (Industrial Park). Along with businesses and industrial land uses, Cascade Boulevard serves a variety of specialty retail stores, including the Cascade Plaza shopping center, Toys 'R' Us, Levitz Furniture, and Shane Company, and recreational uses such as Malibu Grand Prix. Just east of the study area, the Washington Square shopping center serves as a regional draw for retail consumers through- out the Portland Metro area. Table 1 Existing Transportation Facilities within Study Area Functional Posted Speed On-Street Name Classification (mph) Sidewalks Bike Lanes Parking SR 217 Regional Arterial- 55 No No No Freeway Scholls Ferry Rd. Major Arterial 35 Yes Yes No (SR 210) Greenburg Rd. Major Collector 35 Yes No No Cascade Blvd. Major Collector 30 No No Unmarked TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES A summary of the existing transportation facilities within the study area is given in Table 1. The major intersections within the study area are as follows: • SW Scholls Ferry Road/Cascade Boulevard: This intersection is controlled by a fully actuated signal with protected left turns on Scholls Ferry Road and permitted left turns on Cascade Boulevard. The eastbound approach on Scholls Ferry Road has three lanes; the lane closest to the curb drops off at the intersection of Scholls Ferry Road/SR 217 Southbound Ramps. • SW Greenburg Road/Cascade Boulevard: This intersection is controlled by a fully actuated signal with protected left turns on Greenburg Road and permitted left turns on Cascade Boulevard. The south leg of the intersection serves a motel driveway. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 7 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Existing Conditions TRANSIT SERVICE Although no Tri-Met bus routes serve Cascade Boulevard directly,a number of bus routes serve Scholls Ferry and Greenburg Roads with stops at their intersections with Cascade Boulevard. Scholls Ferry Road is served by Tri-Met Routes 45, 62, and the 92X express to downtown Portland; Greenburg Road is served by Tri-Met Route 78. PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS To assess the traffic conditions at intersections in the study area,a volume-to-capacity ratio(V/C)and Level of Service (LOS) were derived for each movement that reflect how much available capacity, traffic congestion,and vehicle delay exists. This capacity and LOS analysis is based on the techniques described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual(Reference 1). The volume-to-capacity ratio is a measure of effectiveness used by the transportation engineer- ing profession to quantify the degree of saturation of a facility. A volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.00 indicates that more traffic is attempting to pass through a facility than the facility can accommodate. For signalized intersections, a v/c ratio in the range of 0.95 to 1.05 indicates that the intersection is operating at capacity. LOS is a concept developed by the transportation engineering profession 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. LOS is expressed as a letter grade that ranges from "A", indicating that vehicles will experience little, if any, delay, to "F", indicating that drivers will experience significant traffic congestion and delay. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS "D" is considered by the City of Tigard to be the minimum acceptable LOS grade; for unsignalized intersections LOS "E" is considered to be the minimum. A detailed explanation of these LOS letter grades, as well as the criteria used to establish them, are presented in Appendix A. Existing traffic volumes were taken from a previous study of the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls area conducted by Parametrix, Inc., for the City of Tigard (Reference 2). That study reports LOS C at the intersections of Scholls Ferry Road/Cascade Boulevard and Greenburg Road/Cascade Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. r Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 8 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Existing Conditions ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A review was made of accident history at the key intersections in the study area. The Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study examined accident history over a larger study area; excerpts of those findings are presented in Table 2. For the Greenburg/Cascade intersection, not reported in that study, a review was made of City of Tigard accident records over a three-year period from 1991 through 1993. As the table shows, the highest accident rate occurs at the Green- burg/SR 217 Ramps. Based on this cursory analysis, it appears that the accident experience at the intersections most impacted by this rezone application, Scholls Ferry/Cascade and Greenburg/Cascade, is suffi- ciently low to not require safety-related improvements. The accident experience at Green- burg/SR 217 Ramps is likely to improve with the improvements recommended in the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. However, no specific conclusions can be drawn without a detailed analysis of accident type and severity. Table 2 Accident Analysis Average Daily Average Annual Accidents/Million Intersection Entering Volumes Number of Accideents Entering Vehicles Scholls Ferry Rd./Cascade Blvd.• 36,050 6.4 0.57 Scholls Ferry Rd./SR 217 SB Ramps' 34,650 4.0 0.37 Scholls Ferry Rd./SR 217 NB Off-Ramp' 25,550 1.3 0.16 ` Scholls Ferry Rd./SR 217 NB On-Ramp' 29,750 7.5 0.81 Greenburg Rd./Cascade Blvd. 23,350 1.3 0.16 Greenburg Rd./SR 217 Ramps' 36,400 14.3 1.27 • From Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Study(Reference 1). Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 9 t , MEM, NM• III III A Section 4 Traffic Impact Analysis June 1994 Cascade Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis The weekday peak hour impacts of traffic generated by the proposed development were analyzed as follows: • 1997 base year traffic volumes were taken from the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. • Traffic generation characteristics for both existing and proposed zoning scenarios were estimated from published data summarized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. • The distribution characteristics for the site-generated traffic were estimated from existing traffic patterns within the surrounding transportation system. • The site-generated traffic for both zoning scenarios was superimposed onto the 1997 base traffic volumes and assigned to the street system. • A level of service analysis was performed for the intersections within the study area for weekday p.m. peak hour conditions. • Comparisons of impacts to capacity were performed for the SR 217 interchange ramp terminals for both zoning scenarios. • Mitigation measures were developed to provide for smooth traffic operations and adequate storage of queued vehicles, as well as for geometric considerations. 1997 BASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Based on discussions with City of Tigard staff, the base year traffic volumes for this study were borrowed from the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. To ensure a conservative estimate of potential background development in the region, the base traffic volumes were taken from the reported worst-case scenario entitled, "1997 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volume with Growth on 80%-90% of Vacant Developable Land." These volumes, after balancing where appropriate, are presented in Figure 2. 1997 BASE PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS Based on the analysis methodology described previously, volume/capacity ratios were esti- mated for the study area intersections for the weekday p.m. peak hour; these are given in Table 3. Level of service estimates were taken directly from the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. 1 As the table shows, all intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. 1 Table 3 1997 Base P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service • Intersection V/C LOS Scholls Ferry Rd./Cascade Blvd. 0.86 D' Greenburg Rd./Cascade Blvd. 0.71 C' s From Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Study(Reference 1). • Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 11 0 \" 0 �0 0 I t ^R o 4::%,:s190° 305 1 r 455 h n 0 T m J °h W �h° i J so q s\ . 40. S \ \ A , o" eV 41 i ',,N I°,4, S35 i )[ I 0-300 t °/h 1 SITE ® a� '.144\11111 u. s ss h 3 'Y,s �1,. °61� \ts 1997 BASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES P.M. PEAK HOUR REMBOLD TRUST, INC. I FIGURE CASCADE REZONE IC JUNE 1994 ~ 1235F002 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS In order to perform a comparative analysis between existing and proposed zoning scenarios, each scenario was assumed to be built out to a maximum practical level given the nature of the study area. Under the existing zoning designation (I-P), a reasonable worst-case scenario involves a site occupied by 160,000 square feet of general office space. The proposed zoning designation(C-G)allows for a wide variety of commercial and retail uses. Given the location of the site midway between Scholls Ferry Road and Cascade Boulevard and the nature of businesses in the area, a reasonable worst-case development scenario consists of specialty retail stores. This land use assumption is consistent with other retail development along Cascade Boulevard. According to Trip Generation, 5th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Reference 3), "specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers • containing a variety of retail shops, specializing in quality apparel, hard goods, services such as real estate offices,dance studios,or florists, and small restaurants." These types of land uses are more destination-oriented than shopping centers containing supermarkets or other pass-by type of retail uses; as such, trip generation rates for specialty retail is generally lower than that for general shopping centers. Most of the existing retail land uses on Cascade Boulevard could be classified as specialty retail. Therefore, a reasonable worst-case scenario under proposed zoning involves 110,000 square feet of specialty retail. It is also important to note that the PGE substation has been assumed to be included in the area to be redeveloped. However, the substation is likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future, and thus actual buildout of the site will be less than that presented in this report. With the PGE substation in place, the developable square footage on site will reduce to 125,000 square feet of office or 86,000 square feet of specialty retail. Consequently,the level of buildout assumed in this analysis for either zoning scenario is conservative. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for the existing zoning scenario have been calculated based upon trip rates from similar land uses that have been compiled in Trip Generation. The weekday p.m. peak hour is considered to be the most critical time period for traffic around this site because it combines the highest trip generation of the site with the highest background traffic on the adjacent streets; neither the weekday a.m. peak hour nor the Saturday midday peak hour meets both these criteria. Given the sensitivity of retail trip generation to the-location of the site, local retail trip generation rates offer a more realistic measure of the trip generation potential of retail in the site vicinity. To determine these local trip generation rates, a survey was made of three existing retail sites along Cascade Boulevard. This survey is summarized in Table 4. Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 13 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Traffic Impact Analysts Table 4 Survey of Trip Generation Rates for Specialty Retail Existing Retail Sites P.M. Peak Hour Rate j Per 1000 sq.ft. Silo Retail Center 1.17 Levitz Furniture 1.10 Toys 'R' Us 3.86 Average 2.04 Using this information, the expected number of site-generated trips for each zoning scenario during the weekday p.m. peak hour is presented in Table 5. As can be seen in the table, both low and high estimates of specialty retail trip generation have been presented. To ensure a conservative analysis, the highest of the measured trip generation rates has been used for the remainder of the analysis in this report. Because specialty retail is destination-oriented and does not lend itself to pass-by trips, no pass-by trips have been assumed. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS Using existing peak hour turning movements and the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study as a guide, the trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3 was estimated for traffic generated by the proposed development. Table 5 Trip Generation Trip P.M. Peak Hour Trips Generation Land Use Size(sq.ft.) Rate Total In Out EXISTING ZONING (I-P) Office 160,000 1.63 260 45 215 PROPOSED ZONING (C-G) Specialty Retail Low 110,000 1.10 120 60 60 High 110,000 3.86 420 210 210 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 14 ` O `IL r r i o\o • 1 -r m C cc 1\ Fw t. Q. SITE rs� N o\° TRIP DISTRIBUTION REMBOLD TRUST, INC. FIGURE IFffi CASCADE REZONE Z JUNE 1994 •J 1235F003 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis Based on this trip distribution pattern, the site-generated traffic was assigned to the streets within the study area under the existing and proposed zoning scenarios. These site generated traffic volumes are presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES/OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS To determine projected 1997 total traffic volumes, the site-generated volumes for each zoning scenario (Figures 4 and 5) were added to the 1997 base volumes (Figure 2) to produce total traffic volumes. These are presented in Figures 6 and 7 for the existing and proposed zoning scenarios, respectively. A capacity analysis was then conducted for the key intersections and the site driveways. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6. As the table shows, the intersection of Scholls Ferry/Cascade is expected to operate near capacity under both existing and proposed zoning. With the mitigation discussed in the next section, this intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. All other intersections, including the site driveways, are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service. Table 6 P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Signalized V/C LOS V/C LOS Scholls Ferry Rd./Cascade Blvd. 0.96 E 0.95 E With Mitigation 0.80 D 0.80 D Greenburg Rd./Cascade Blvd. 0.76 C-D 0.81 D Unsignalized Reserve Capacity LOS Reserve Capacity LOS Cascade Blvd./North Site Entrance 270 C 230 C Cascade Blvd./South Site Entrance 260 C 190 D To analyze the impact of the proposed zoning change on the SR 217 interchanges, a comparison was made between volume-to-capacity ratios for each ramp terminal. The results of this comparison are presented in Table 7. As the table shows, all critical intersections are projected to operate virtually the same under the proposed zoning scenario as under the existing zoning. As Table 7 shows, both intersections of Scholls Ferry/SR 217 SB Ramps and Greenburg/SR 217 SB Ramps are projected to be approaching capacity regardless of the development of the site. The Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study has recommended a number of improvements to the Greenburg/SR 217 interchange; one of these is the provision of two right-turning lanes on the southbound ramp and two westbound receiving lanes on Greenburg Road. The intersection of Scholls Ferry/SR 217 SB Ramps can be mitigated by converting the left lane of the ramp approach into a left-through-right lane, creating a double right turn. A queuing analysis using a 95% confidence level and an assumed vehicle length of 25 feet indicates that a minimum of 225 feet of storage per lane needs to be provided. This will require restriping and possible widening of the ramp to accommodate two lanes on the ramp for the required distance. • Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 16 1 i i h 1 1 z 5 + ti�1 le-I n J CO <oW V s r m-,,,,,\ \ Z s y�� S 50 s 4, 1 fit ,s SITE ® 1" o ss,o t. � ' s0 s 0 a 1 s v v\4 S� ,, 0 I- l-. r N EXISTING ZONING (I—P) SITE—GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES P.M. PEAK HOUR I, REMBOLD TRUST, INC. 1 FIGURE I p CASCADE REZONE JUNE 1994 1235F004 1 1 it 1 / t \y IP! BO psi / . ° � 1 i ' 4/#4. S bo ~so i op [ c?. N �, 1 p W ® no F 1\ , SITE , h sp I P. v` L y}�� .r J t y Krs 0 ii y., Sl 1 r,. 5 .. f PROPOSED ZONING (C—G) SITE—GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES r. ii P.M. PEAK HOUR REMBOLD TRUST, INC. I FIGURE I p CASCADE REZONE JUNE 1994 1353Fba OOryO 0 o r 1 vi. 3o5 ,-/O r-'95 / 0.-4$5 0 2 J m W 0,y 510 8 '1ti 1\ ,�r15o r l o h �h r► ~ J101 5. n '90 `, q N^ .,0 o h W rs,v .....%,‘,0 g 33 s r � ) r r 3o5 -'c" t SITE \(, o_-+ ��,dOrJ �� 0 1 �O \No r, J'J • q) 10 r0 0j 0 J,J.7'�� / y0 a ?r 0y 5 - O`\ f ."1iJJV �N• + G J EXISTING ZONING (I—P) 1997 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES P.M. PEAK HOUR REMBOLD TRUST, INC. I FIGURE CASCADE REZONE C JUNE 1994 V 1235F006 V n0vl 0 f/ G. 1 -...t<,90 `305 ,y / *-•195 co / r 460 0 J m W 0 f ,Ps��y ``20 B�� y0 . • C O� yy ` NO��O~ Q0 y0� ~jsds xiip R Rv ''1 *f`s\� ��6y► 535 + a l\ ) r x'330 ,,O1* f \t, SITE ® `' NNtp,411/4 r • o? y ms°0 4:26) 7/1:3: ti'y Oy�•• A. PROPOSED ZONING (C—G) 1997 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES a P.M. PEAK HOUR REMBOLD TRUST, INC. I FIGURE p CASCADE REZONE 7 JUNE 1994 1235F007 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Traffic Impact Analysis Table 7 P.M. Peak Hour Capacity Comparison 1997 Base 1997 Base+ 1997 Base + Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Intersection V/C j V/C V/C Scholls Ferry Rd./Cascade Blvd. 0.86 0.96 0.95 With Proposed Mitigation 0.80 0.80 Scholls Ferry Rd./SR 217 SB Ramps 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.811 I 0.821 0.851 Scholls Ferry Rd./SR 217 NB Off-Ramp 0.70 0.72 ! 0.72 Scholls Ferry Rd./SR 217 NB On-Ramp 0.84 0.86 0.86 Greenburg Rd./Cascade Blvd. 0.71 0.76 0.81 Greenburg Rd./SR 217 SB Ramps 0.95 0.96 0.99 0.892 0.902 0.922 Greenburg Rd./SR 217 NB Ramps 0.81 0.82 0.82 Assumes recommended improvement from left lane converted to shared left-through-right. 2 Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study(Reference l). RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The only intersection which requires mitigation as a result of development of the site is Scholls Ferry/Cascade. This intersection can be mitigated by simply reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from left/through and right to left and through/right. No phasing changes or geometric improvements are required. It should be noted that this intersection requires the same mitigation with development under either existing or proposed zoning. This recommended mitigation is shown in Figure 8. lI I I Kittelson&Associates, Inc. 21 \ \ 0 J m W t U N U Qe o ck- .. co W V SITE ..1 0 )\-- err( NIIIIIP‘ )f/A_ ..t r T REASSIGN LANES ON `--, NB AND SB fr( APPROACHES RECOMMENDED MITIGATION REMBOLD TRUST, INC. FIGURE U 7a CASCADE REZONE Q IN JUNE 1994 t 235F008 3 Section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 3 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of the traffic analysis and recommended mitigation discussed in this report, the proposed change in zoning designation from I-P to C-G can be accommodated while still maintaining acceptable levels of traffic operations and safety on the surrounding street system. The specific conclusions and recommendations are as follows: • The intersections of Cascade Boulevard with Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road currently operate at acceptable levels of service per the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. • No significant accident problem has been identified for the key intersections in the study area. • Under 1997 base traffic volumes, the intersections of Cascade Boulevard with Scholls Ferry Road and Greenburg Road are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service per the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study. • The only intersection which requires mitigation as a result of development of the site is Scholls Ferry/Cascade. This intersection can be mitigated by simply reassigning the lanes on the northbound and southbound Cascade approaches from left/through and right to left and through/right. No signal phasing changes or geometric improvements are required. It should be noted that this intersection requires the same mitigation with development under either existing or proposed zoning. • The intersections of Scholls Ferry/SR 217 SB Ramps and Greenburg/SR 217 SB Ramps are projected to be approaching capacity regardless of the development of the site. For the Greenburg/SR 217 SB Ramps intersection, the Hall/Greenburg/Scholls study has recommended the provision of two right-turning lanes on the southbound ramp and two westbound receiving lanes on Greenburg Road. Operations at the Scholls Ferry/SR 217 SB Ramp intersection can be further improved at some future time by converting the left lane of the ramp approach into a shared left-through-right lane, creating an additional lane for right-turning traffic. This will require restriping and may require some widening of the ramp to accommodate two lanes on the ramp for a minimum of 225 feet. • Statewide Planning Goal 12 is satisfied, as the proposed change in zoning will not significantly affect the surrounding transportation facilities. Further, with minor miti- gation,adequate transportation facilities are available to accommodate full development of the site under the proposed zoning. . Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. 24 4‘ ,1,',0 •IMMO 111 IN 1 Section 6 References June 1994 Cascade Rezone References References 1. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report No. 209. 1985. 2. Parametrix, Inc. Hall/Greenburg/Scholls Area Traffic Needs Study. January 1994. 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 5th Edition. 1991. 26 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. S.> al ••• IIMUM Appendix A Description of Level of Service N Methods and Criteria t June 1994 Cascade Rezone Appendix A Appendix A 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 Al 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. 28 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Appendix A Signalized Intersections The six LOS grades are described qualitatively for signalized intersections in Table Al. 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 A2 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Stopped Delay per Vehicle(Seconds) A S 5.0 g 5.1to15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 p 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F >60.0 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. 29 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Appendix A 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 A3 General Level-of-Service Descriptions for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street 1 A • Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. • Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. g • 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. p • 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. • 30 Kittelson &Associates, Inc. June 1994 Cascade Rezone Appendix A Table A4 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 * F *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 method- ology 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. 31 June 1994 Cascade Rezone Appendix A 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 A5 Level-of-Service Definitions (All-way, Stop-Controlled Intersections) Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle to Minor Street A < 5 Seconds 1 g 5 to 10 Seconds t_ C 10 to 20 Seconds 1 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. 32 Harper Righellis, Inc. N Job No MCM-0♦ o To: Loy Rusch MCM Architects FROM: Chuck Harper Harper Righellis, Inc. DATE: January 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Cascade Boulevard Commercial Center - Site Investigation N N Loy, I have investigated the subject project and discussed the project with the City, Fire District and Water District. Based on this investigation, the preliminary plans for grading, utilities and street improvements were prepared. The following is a brief summary of the proposed improvements. Water: According to the Tualatin Valley Water District, water service in the area is adequate, both quantity and ° pressure. A twelve inch main exist in Cascade Boulevard. Four domestic services are proposed, along with three fire service lines serving "Wickes", "Comp USA", and "Staples" separately. The fourth water service line is for the small tenant located in the east end of 0 the Wickes building. Two on-site fire hydrants are proposed with three fire department connections (FDC) o to serve each tenant separately. For the fire line, a double detector check valve with vault will be place just west of the R/W near the point of connection to the public main. Four separate water meters and boxes will be placed in the R/W near the point of connection to the public main. The option of using the existing service to the site will be analyzed at time of final design. 0 a All design and materials for the water improvements will meet the requirements of the Tualatin Valley Water District and Fire District. Sanitary Sewer: N An eight inch main exist in Cascade Boulevard. Two sanitary laterals are proposed for the project, one serving the "Wicks" building, the other serving the "Staples/Comp USA" building. w 'n Due to the depth of the main in Cascade Boulevard and the proposed finished grade of the "Staples/Comp USA" building, the depth of the lateral will be approximately 4.0 feet at the center of the east face of the building. The lateral will be designed at a grade of 0.5 percent. The option of using the existing service to the site will be analyzed at time of final design. All design and materials for the sanitary sewer improvements will meet the requirements of the City of Tigard. E 0 Q U Q 0 0 N Cascade Blvd. Commercial Ctr. Site Investigation Page 2 Storm Drainage: The storm drainage will continue to flow off site as it currently does with the existing development. The City was concerned about the condition of the existing downstream facilities and required an investigation of the storm drainage. Refer to "Off Site Storm Drainage Investigation - REPORT", dated 1/20/96. The conclusion of the investigation shows that the existing facilities can and are adequately providing drainage for the site. Storm water treatment of the added impervious area will be accomplished using an "Extended Dry Detention Pond" located at the southwest corner of the site. Only the quantity of water associated with the added impervious areas will be routed to the pond, all other storm water will flow directly to the ditch west of the site. All design and materials for the storm drainage improvements will meet the requirements of the City of Tigard and the Unified Sewerage Agency. Site Access and Street Improvements: The proposed development will access onto Cascade Boulevard at two locations. Due to the location of the southerly driveway, a small median island will be constructed north of the new driveway and south of the driveway across the street. The island indicated on the plans is based on discussions with Gary Alfson at the City. The street improvements to Cascade Boulevard shall include the following: South Portion: Half street improvements shall include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and pavement widening to provide for a half street width of 22 feet from the center line of the R/W to the west curb face. Center Portion: The street shall be realignment to provide for a centerline radius of 275 feet. The west half improvements shall include curb/gutter, street,and sidewalk. The east half improvements shall include curb/gutter, street, and sidewalk improvements limited to the reconstruction of the existing sidewalk required for the realignment. The street width will be 44 feet from curb face to curb face. North Portion: Half street improvements shall include curb/gutter, sidewalk, and pavement widening to provide for a half street width of 22 feet from the center line of the R/W to the west curb face. All street improvements shall include signing, striping, and street lighting as required by the City. All design and materials for the street improvements will meet the requirements of the City of Tigard. Summary: Based on this initial investigation, utility services and access is adequate for the development of the project. � arper g "i hellis, Inc. Off Site Storm Drainage Investigation - REPORT ° Cascade Boulevard Commercial Center Tigard, Oregon Background The proposed project involves redevelopment of a site located along Cascade Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon. In order to develop the site a field investigation of the existing drainage systems was performed. The investigation involved field inspecting the existing sites' drainage characteristics along with estimating the proposed drainage impacts to the existing system. The investigation also included inspecting the downstream facilities to determine adequacy. The field investigation was performed on , November 27, 1995 at approximately 4:00 PM during a severe winter storm. The field investigation was performed by Tony Righellis, P.E. Existing Conditions The existing site is approximately 7.85 acres in size. The site currently has a large building with parking and site access roads. The site is covered with approximately 6.2 acres of impervious surface. The existing storm runoff flows to catch basins and pipes that flow to the ditch along the west side of the site (refer to Exhibit "A"). rnFrom the site the storm runoff flows south in ditches, channels, culverts that outfall into Fanno Creek (refer to Exhibit "B"). Approximately 900 feet south of the site exists an abandoned driveway that goes under the railroad. The driveway served a residence west of the railroad. Currently the property o west of the railroad has redeveloped and the need for the driveway eliminated. This is apparent due the fact that a drainage channel has been excavated across the driveway east of the railroad. This channel o appears to have been excavated recently in order to remove a restriction which apparently created a backwater situation. The restriction was a 18"± culvert, which is lying in the channel. On this day, November 27, 1995, the rainfall was intense, creating significant flows in the drainage a ditch along the east side of the railroad. The estimated water elevations at the southwest corner of the site was 166.5 and 164.00 at the driveway 900 feet south of the site. The developments along the ditch were not flooding and the ditch was functioning adequately. It was also noted that Fanno Creek south and west of the site was over its' bank and near or at flood stage, due to the severe rainfall. Proposed Improvements 0 CO '" New storm drainage catch basins and pipes will be constructed with the redevelopment of the site. The proposed improvements will add approximately 1.6 acres of impervious surface. This is an increase of 5 approximately 20%. The added impervious surface will flow to an "extended dry detention pond" providing storm water treatment and some detention (refer to exhibit C). The impact to the existing ditch/channel will be minimal since the increase in impervious materials is minimal. Conclusion The proposed project will flow to the ditch along the railroad as the existing improvements currently flow. The impervious area is increasing from approximately 6.2 acres to 7.8 acres, an increase of 20%. Based on our field investigation of November 27, 1995, the downstream appears to be adequate. The only apparent restriction has been modified to allow greater flows. No flooding of the developments along this ditch during the severe storm on 11/27/95 was apparent. 2 MCM-04 1/20/96 CLH N N 1 of 4 , , , A . - - ,, .• - C- 177.8 ._ckri9 a y ` ,• \ : :::Ij '''c, ,� Ii t {'":.•�°r l �i ,.y••s \� \� ��i X C• J.6 ..! .Al. c•$�4 9 '�';• ,w `�4 ‘.4.i�t4jp � i to. , 174. 1 t ,, ,•4 P,'41, ^.• 9 „ , , y, ,ti. , , x e�Crj S i I 0.2 :�iti. a I•' k1 1\. \ ,, i i 4 1 -.. .6,...,3'A r""#M en. qr1 ,,c+r{l);.d Wf,Jr16 +1 !t` '.f \ 110:6\.% .4 .,,.,,•t r 4 " 'r J� > ""r ,, v*1-"s!�* °,+'Y"1:sa y,'`,.y- i' i°� � � / I x 173. 1 � \\\ %,%i -# PAVED PARKING . / iF _ � PAVED � f �,^• _. , ►; ao Mu I i1 i\\ \\ PA: KIi15 ii Q � x 1 . x 14 1 ` �, 110 I ,� x 175.4 1 f 1 74.1 �--- a 1`r, 173.2 tr li i 1 ill 0 \ C. \ .* 1T x 7 r 1 •� •1 •FFI 169.1 0 166.5 x 169.4 �,\++ }1 0 , 1 a + M c. .§ p x 168.3 X70.2 x 168.61y x 168.3 D (ii)5 a CB I ti it J N �,I 166.6 �y 1 PAVED p a U U C,1-4 \\I i `� .; f.Q I PARKING CB f' .168.6 t+ ' c 1+ + 3I• I ;E---t7----i41 rE --3c J � �� C I I 16x6.5 166.9 yy V a Ctl PAVED x PO t+ � • 167.1►+ x lse.3 k i ,r y+++ , a x 165.9 x 165.8 x 166.9 +,\ 1 •:■ 168.1 �� , x a �\, I sr (ii '6.2 x 167.2 \ \\\ s3.8 A PARKING p 166.5 ',\ Is ‘,, ++ 1 1 ++' 1 < x 167. MHO GD 1 00� /~^ s' , ++`y+ j`' 165.8®C © j0 :165.5 x 165.5• _� r► It t∎ kt,\‘ ,- x 166. 1 tyy `` o k,0 FH� Iti\iue - /x 164.7 ' k 65.4 1 iir�` x 167. © �' ,� -��- u tt 0 x 165.6\ li t + 1 166. •� MHO' 3 V) +y d n lfl e\ . t 165.0 ++ +� ? �- c , x� P � J 1 P ri 165.4 i 16Xy y 1609X1 r \ ■ \ y + Q x I64.4�- ■ s. _ .....- -- ) \A, \\ , ,,, 1 . ,_:. ‘ , \x 164.7 } -\ -, X 66.2 ............. i,...... ,\.t.- \\, ` + ,�-• x 165.0 x 16 1, ,� 164.4 161 .6 �� \,_ ..‘, i 1. ++ . 160.7x �' ,plii + . ' � .� x �-I PARKING \ _ •• 't - -�-• t ,ik•1110 ��`, _-'^ ■ \ V'A '� - x 163 6 x 162. 7 �1657 x DCB �MH 1 C) ` -,- x 165. V 154.7 ``l, -. f x • I #j� . x ` 6 X- ; 162.5 (it:. n , W1 1 `�1 t"7n r�, I . . e° • :1 ) • I I II Ito •i C.) r "sls'• 1:4•:2\ '''• -----..---' • 1 I 0, ..i. :.: r; • i /..," , -. •,.....-.•:.:.:.:......,,....... .... , cr .... W. vi rm.., , L 11 . %.-raj \` 1i r a . , f•• • �—� r L� 1 ' • J 1 ,_: I _ • • • •. • ■ ■ • • E / ••. pia, . \ Robinson • r- nrve _ a „- —_ . . . • . ■ • �I '�' ) � - • •' moo411119°S_ F• ,- i • ark o• tP' W.__ �'� t• Q1• ' � � . e • l'• ,.I OS . . .. }, _ , -'.11 ' ' red • • ea ,V1* L,• 1....7, --• _..:[....,_ i ),/... „.....,..., •-•• ., ; . .--.4.4„,,:a„,v,„....To& ---..-.. 1 -;,...a, ... i A . • ..• . . , -,• ..•,,,••• •.....1'85"..,„..,,-'• :1;A - -`1.` • . . • . .• rm . . , ,„ iii „ Niro 1 II .. ... .•.. ..., • . • •"Ai,,,la . • I iii i �„, ti 1 • : �y i ■ PINE I �---�� - o ate, ,(: •, „ / r' 10::::..' • !►_--z; , • ,N • , t •I ----, ,. __...11--g-S „ • • 4 ■•,.-7•-•......,.s.:1,4-1- --( —• 7-..". • i a , • ' . ._._,____. _ . r-.,,,.. • t .„• ,,,., %• . •. . . • • . .. N• . • . .II • . y. • :f• • ••• I. i! \ •' • {11' - • Gr-eelrib ---.."' �- ••� ' •+4 .; ;1,•,.;.,. •'4. •• NQRTIJ •APG0,;9• : . • . •-S 3. •- • ..• • 1 . �• • : /., le • 1 • • •■• ■••• I!Yom' • • •, �.. 1 • i �� • j..a. �.♦r▪l 2 ■ -. •l,3 •r—.... ,, • •• •iii •• a • • I. I 1 1 ,4, i • •• '� _•ai. - 571. • . • ■ •• • •■• • 'r' ._r A-F �E• • r r• • • 3 • ( ..�/ • •• • ti • ••• • •■ •• • • •r1• • 4 ■•s .04 j .0 • �_\ • i • - i , • • �• •■,- ---1ti.---.. * •■ • • • we i • • • • •' • • 1•la • \•7\-1\ • -/ .‘ . 6 SU° .—.?'• • ' 1—." ii a ,....... /4111•(a • .-__..--- . . 111 • • • n •• • • • r ,.�.� t •1 t x,111 . . �I n �;, • •• . f--' - •l• i— 4 : - 111 0 •S: _. _. aI1 , ♦ •• • 0% t 7•� ` ��J 1 .�� J9. • 11 .• •• •�•- . /•/I/�`! • • • • ,I�. /�� ••2Erir- ,A;�_ ALIGA. 8 • •I• 1 '. a-2,C/ 9' • • • .'i'it [�/ !/• 8 9.- sh:` tw • r f• T ' • -- f--- ✓ 0\i ir. • • -••.., • -�..i.15 \.1. Y••Y:+ • • ,F •1 `� • 1 •,} - •a• '`•.- •w/ ••,' K'1 -QO��f••• ~ ' . . ..a. 111S‘‘‘4ks.\\„)c\\.\ .. 1.11 in \re% - .,.....'" ' \\\•.\•\.,4;•.&.. . rap am amt rt. ......„...-04 ‘----- .-- ------ IT SANITARY NAN • ' "~."INTO==NG . . \ \ , ....- lk%)N \ ...SiCk4 L .1.1tE. ANT %N.: \ •, \ , . STAPLES . • ,,,,,‘ -1::::\\--::\_:::811,,,,,-11. Irs.---90/°""'-'1101,' .,.... .„...-.-z...... . „... ._____:._. ' • . ,\,‘ \\4.\\. ‘.\\ ,i,.....‘,,,__,. .1 ...sim.0 t4,.o. ".%.'„ *,c,1\ \ FA (.'" , --" .1.111kv" ----All- -,---- -,------- -... .- '\ \„.,„\ 1.\ '.\. \ _......-C.1..T•3:NW.i. . \ \ A . k -- .....,-Ic _,,_.... Rii.•EL-.,M.:::: . • 4 1 ".• \ '- \\ • s-----r.::assv(et To: . \: MP.AS SNOW; \ \ 1 \S ,.,...„.... '1 .„.„..... \ ... ,,, .....0":1 ....--"."' ... '''''..- ....„,:r'"- • ---1-7:.',ri.i4diok,.___, ---- ---- -- - --r."-- T .. in..,:-. II ''' I I 1 \ 41 1\(1' \f\ \ , . .., •,, tt ‘ • ' .- I t i / WV ' .__, Ili- : . s, 0‘,A,. ..." , ,,_, ., ._ 4 : ,i„ , _..... . • ....,,,,„ =,....,:m ' e ,•• . ..., TM IRK—1 \ 1.1 i 1 1 r. mml.,..-snl =1■11N., 7. . N EA / I. I i 11 \ TAP V/ 1 Mire DOME IMMO OM/ \ -. Si ---- . / \7A• IATCM BASIN Iri• ECM ',..... .fr CATCH BA SIN 1 r DOVNSROUT(OCA I ION(WI , i I ::. 1 (SYPHON TM c: 0 i le REMOVE EXIST INLET STRUCTURE ARO • ... 1 i- 'or i I*it. , 0 .. -.11cv 11111111 10• i Geotechnical Resources Incorporated Consulting Engineers, Geologists, and Environmental Scientists IYiCIY1 Architects November 1, 1995 RE-:-,t,'rrj 5FlNRPT-1.973 NOV 1995 Rembold Trust, Inc. 1022 SW Salmon Street, Suite 450 Portland, OR 97205 Attention: Wayne Rembold SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, CASCADE BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL CENTER, 10385 SW CASCADE BOULEVARD, TIGARD,OREGON At your request, Geotechnical Resources, Inc. (GRI) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the above-referenced project. The Vicinity Map, Figure 1, shows the general location of the site. The investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and provide design recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, subdrainage, foundation and floor support, and pavement design. Our investigation consisted of a review of available subsurface information, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering studies and analyses. This report describes the work accomplished and provides our conclusions and recommendations for site preparation and design and construction of the proposed building(s)and pavements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following reports were reviewed by GRI as part of this investigation: RZA AGRA, Inc., "Combined Phase I — Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 7.76 Acre Property, 10385 S.W. Cascade Boulevard, Portland, Oregon," dated April 1994; prepared fir Holce Investments AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc., "Follow-Up Environmental Site Assessment, 10385 S.W. Cascade Boulevard, Portland, Oregon," dated September 1994; prepared for Holce Investments SITE DESCRIPTION General The approximately 7.5-acre site is located at 10385 SW Cascade Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon. The property is bounded by Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to the west, Cascade Boulevard to the east, and commercial development to the south. A wetland area is located between the west edge of the 9725 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy Suite 140 Beaverton,Oregon 97005-3364 .( Phone(503)641-3478 FAX(503)644-8034 e-mail gri @teleport.com f/ property and the embankment for the Southern Pacific Railroad. Our observations at the site and review of the available topographic information indicate the site is relatively flat to gently sloping down to the west. Ground surface elevations range from about 185 ft in the northeast corner of the site to about 170 ft along the west edge of the site. As shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2, the majority of the site is currently occupied by an office/warehouse building having a footprint of approximately 48,000 ft2 and associated asphaltic-concrete (AC) pavement. Additional improvements include an approximately 30- by 30-ft storage building in the southwest corner of the site and a covered picnic area near the northwest corner of the existing building. Geology The project area is mantled by soils of the Willamette Silt Formation, which is composed of unconsolidated beds of clayey silt and sandy silt soils with lenses of fine-grained sand and pebbles and occasional scattered cobbles and boulders. The silt is typically brown and becomes gray with depth. The unit is typically in the range of 20 to 60 ft thick and is underlain by the Troutdale Formation. In the project area, the Troutdale Formation typically consists of weathered siltstone with interbedded sandstone and claystone that is frequently weathered to the consistency of very stiff soil. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the existing building and associated improvements will be demolished prior to construction of the proposed development and that concrete debris from the demolition is being considered for use as fill material. We also understand that two options are being considered for site development. One option would develop the site with two buildings, each with a plan area of about 50,000 ft2. A second option would have a single building with a footprint of about 100,000 ft2. Building locations associated with both options are shown on Figure 2. Both options have the majority of the area outside the buildings designated for parking. The buildings will have concrete tilt-up walls and a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Schematic site plans reviewed by GRI indicate that each of the proposed buildings will have dock-high loading areas. We anticipate that the maximum height of cuts and fills required for site development will be in the range of 4 to 6 ft. For the purpose of our studies, we have assumed the maximum column and wall loads will be in the range of 100 to 150 kips and 4.5 to 5.5 kips/ft, respectively. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Subsurface materials and conditions at the site were investigated on October 12, 1995, with nine borings, designated B-1 through B-9. The borings were drilled to depths in the range of 16.5 to 26.5 ft. Details of the field and laboratory testing programs are provided in Appendix A. Logs of borings B-1 through B-9 are shown on Figures 1A through 9A. The terms used to describe the soils encountered in the borings are defined in Table 1A. -2- Soils Field explorations performed for this investigation indicate the site is underlain by relatively uniform and firm silt soils. As disclosed in several of the borings, the silt is underlain by sand at depths typically greater than 20 ft. Fill materials, consisting primarily of silt were also encountered in several of the borings. For the purpose of discussion, the materials disclosed by the explorations have been grouped into the following major units based on their physical characteristics and engineering properties. Listed as they were encountered from the ground surface downward, the units are: 1. PAVEMENT • 2. FILL 3. SILT 4. SAND The following paragraphs provide a detailed description of these units and a discussion of the groundwater conditions at the site. 1. PAVEMENT. Asphaltic-concrete(AC) pavement was encountered at the ground surface at all boring locations with the exception of borings B-4 and B-9, which were drilled in landscaped areas. The AC is in the range of 2 to 4 in. thick and is underlain by 4 to 20 in. of 3/4-in.-minus crushed rock base course. 2. FILL. Fill materials consisting primarily of silt were encountered to depths of 5 to 8 ft in borings B-4, B-7, and B-8. The silt fill contains varying amounts of clay and fine-grained sand. In boring B-4, the silt fill contains some fine to medium gravel between a depth of 7.5 and 8 ft. Based on Standard Penetration Test N-values of 5 to 13 blows/ft, the relative consistency of the silt fill is medium stiff to stiff. The moisture content of the silt fill ranges from 22 to 33%. 3. SILT. Native silt soils were encountered at the ground surface in boring B-9 and beneath the pavement section and/or fill materials in the other borings. The silt contains a trace to some clay and fine- grained sand. The soil is typically grayish-brown mottled rust and becomes gray with depth. Based on N-values of 3 to 38 blows/ft and Torvane shear strength values of 0.4 to 0.5 tsf, this material has a relative consistency of soft to hard. More typically, the relative consistency of this material ranges from stiff to very stiff. The natural moisture content of the silt range from 26 to 36%. A one-dimensional consolidation test performed on a sample of the silt indicates the preconsolidation pressure of the silt is on the order of 4 tsf. The test data also indicate the compressibility of the silt is low for the range of stresses below the preconsolidation pressure and moderate in the range of stresses above the preconsolidation pressure. -3- 4. SAND. Sand was encountered below the silt at depths of about 20 to 25 ft in borings B-1, B-2, and B-7. The sand is fine to coarse grained and contains varying amounts of silt. The sand encountered in boring B-1 contains fine to medium gravel between a depth of about 25 and 25.5 ft. Based on N-values in the range of 24 to 36 blows/ft, the relative density of the sand is medium dense to dense. Groundwater Groundwater levels at the site were measured by GRI on October 12, 1995, in monitoring wells installed by AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. as part of their September 1994 environmental site assessment. Groundwater levels are summarized below for the six monitoring wells which are located as shown on Figure 2. Also presented below are water level readings made by AGRA on August 18, 1994. Monitoring Depth to Groundwater,ft Well 8/18/94 10/12/95 MW-1 5.5 2.6 MW-2 2.5 1.5 MW-3 5.0 4.4 MW-4 4.5 2.5 MW-5 4.5 3.3 MW-6 5.5 5.4 The groundwater level in this area fluctuates with respect to seasonal precipitation and the water level in the adjacent wetland. We anticipate the groundwater level will approach the ground surface during periods of prolonged and/or intense precipitation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Subsurface explorations performed for this project indicate the site is mantled with relatively firm silt soils. Groundwater was measured at relatively shallow depths and should be anticipated to rise to near the ground surface during the wet winter months. Based on past experience, the on-site, fine-grained soils are sensitive to moisture and can be easily disturbed and softened by construction activities. The moisture- sensitive nature of the fine-grained soils and the relatively high groundwater table are important factors that must be considered during the design and construction of this project. If possible, site grading and earthwork should be scheduled for the normally dry summer months. Site work during wet conditions will require the use of granular fill and careful planning and work procedures by the contractor. In our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed development. Structural and live loads of the proposed buildings can be supported by conventional spread footings and a slab-on-grade floor system. Our conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, earthwork, and the design and construction of the foundations, floor slabs, and pavement sections are summarized below. -4- Site Preparation and Grading The ground surface within proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped of vegetation, surface organics, and the existing pavement section (asphaltic concrete and crushed rock base). Alternatively, and only outside of proposed building areas, the asphaltic concrete could be left in place in areas to receive fill, after being broken into pieces having a maximum size of about 6 in. Asphaltic concrete and base rock removed from cut areas could be re-used as structural fill. Areas of existing fill, such as that encountered in borings B-4, B-7, and B-8, should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer during the stripping and site preparation to determine whether the fill is suitable for building and/or pavement support. Within planned building areas, demolition of the existing building should include removal of all foundations, floor slabs, loading dock walls, underground utilities, and any back ill associated with the building. Within planned pavement areas, existing foundations, slabs, and walls should be removed to a depth of 1 ft below subgrade level. The concrete from the building may be crushed and used as structural fill. Existing monitoring wells should be decommissioned by an Oregon-licensed well driller in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules(OAR)Chapter 690, Division 240. Upon completion of the building demolition and site stripping and prior to the placement of fill materials, the resulting ground surface within building and pavement areas should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. During dry weather and ground conditions, the ground surface should be proof rolled with a loaded 10 yd3 dump truck. Any soft areas or areas of unsuitable material should be overexcavated to firm undisturbed soil and backfilled with structural fill. Particular --attention should be paid to any areas of possible uncontrolled fill exposed during site stripping. It may be appropriate to excavate several test pits in areas of existing fill to document the extent and thickness of the fill, and determine if additional overexcavation is necessary to remove soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable materials. During and following stripping and excavation, the contractor must use care to protect the subgrade from disturbance by construction traffic. Past experience has indicated the fine-grained soils disclosed by the subsurface investigation are sensitive to moisture content. When these soils are in excess of 4 to 5% of their optimum moisture content, they typically become weak and unstable when remolded by construction traffic. For this reason, we recommend that, if possible, all site preparation, earthwork, and paving be accomplished during the dry summer months, typically extending from mid-May to mid-October of any given year. If construction is to proceed during the wet months of the year or if subgrade soils are significantly wet of their optimum moisture content, we recommend that all construction traffic be limited to movement on granular work pads. We further recommend that any excavation work performed during periods of wet ground conditions be performed using large hydraulic excavators (backhoes), in lieu of bulldozers or scrapers, to prevent softening of the subgrade soils. Also, the contractor should plan the earthwork operations such that construction equipment, i.e., bulldozers, dump trucks, etc., does not traffic the fine-grained subgrade soils during periods of wet weather and/or ground conditions. This will require the placement of granular -5- fill for a working pad as the earthwork progresses. If the subgrade is disturbed during construction, soft, disturbed soils should be overexcavated to firm soil and backfilled with granular structural fill. In our opinion, a 12-in.-thick granular work pad should be sufficient to prevent disturbance of the subgrade by lighter construction equipment and limited traffic by dump trucks. Haul roads and other high- traffic areas will require an 18- to 24-in. thickness of fragmental rock to prevent subgrade deterioration. Any subgrade soils disturbed by construction activity should be overexcavated to firm soil and backfilled with structural fill. Haul road requirements will be minimized if work is accomplished during the driest months of the year. Geotextile fabrics may be used between the granular work pad/haul road materials and the underlying fine- grained subgrade soils as a separation filter to prevent the movement of fines into the fragmental rock. Use of these fabrics may improve haul road performance and reduce maintenance, particularly during wet ground conditions. Structural Fill All concrete and AC from existing structures and pavement areas should be crushed to a maximum size on the order of 6 in. for use as structural fill. All unsuitable material, such as wood, reinforcing steel, and other building debris, should be removed prior to placement as structural fill. Recycled concrete and AC fill should be placed in 12-in.-thick (loose) lifts and compacted by at least five passes with a moderate to heavy, steel-wheeled vibratory roller. Approved, organic-free, fine-grained soils used to construct structural fills should be placed in 9-in.-thick lifts(loose)and compacted using sheepsfoot or segmented-pad rollers to at least 95%of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Fill placed in landscaped areas should be compacted to about 90%of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. In our opinion, the moisture content of fine-grained soils at the time of compaction should be controlled to within 3% of optimum. Some aeration and drying of the on-site fine-grained soils may be required to meet the above recommendations for compaction. Imported granular material used to construct structural fills or work pads during wet weather should consist of sand, sandy gravel, or fragmental rock with a maximum size of up to 6 in. and with not more than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). The first lift of granular fill material placed over silt subgrade should be in the range of 12 to 18 in. thick (loose). Subsequent lifts should be placed 12 in. thick (loose). All lifts should be compacted with a medium-weight (48-in.-diameter drum), smooth, steel- wheeled, vibratory roller until well keyed. Generally, a minimum of four to six passes with the roller are required to achieve compaction. All backfill placed in utility trench excavations within the limits of the buildings and paved areas should consist of sand, sand and gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum size of up to 11/2 in., and with not more - than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). In our opinion, the granular backfill should be -6- placed in 9-in.-thick lifts (loose) and compacted using vibratory plate compactors or tamping units to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Flooding or jetting the backfilled trenches with water to achieve the recommended compaction should not be permitted. Floor Support To provide uniform floor support and a capillary break between the fine-grained subgrade soils and the floor slab, the floor slab should be underlain by a minimum 8-in.-thick granular base course. The base course material should consist of crushed rock having a maximum size of about 1 in. and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). Prior to installation of the base course, the subgrade should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. Areas of soft or otherwise unsuitable subgrade should be overexcavated and replaced with granular structural fill. The base course material should be placed in a single lift and compacted to structural fill specifications. In addition, it may be appropriate to install a suitable vapor-retarding membrane, such as MoistStop, beneath the slab-on-grade floor in areas that will have moisture-sensitive flooring or moisture-sensitive materials stored on the floor. The vapor-retarding membrane should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The above recommendations assume that floor slabs will be established above final site grades. If buildings or portions of buildings will be embedded below final site grades, a subdrain system is recommended to reduce hydrostatic pressures and the risk of groundwater entering through embedded walls and floor slabs. Specific underslab recommendations, if required, could be provided by GRI as the design progresses. In our opinion, it is appropriate to assume a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 175 pci for the design of concrete floor slabs and/or concrete pavements. Foundation Support Foundation support for the building(s) can be provided by conventional wall- and column-type spread footings. Footings should be established in firm, undisturbed soil or compacted structural fill at a minimum depth of 11/2 ft below the lowest adjacent finished grade. The width of footings should not be less than 18 in. for wall footings or 24 in. for isolated column footings. During wet weather, a 3-in.-thick layer of 3/4-in.-minus crushed rock should be placed in the bottom of footing excavations to minimize disturbance of the silty foundation soils. Footings established in accordance with these criteria can be designed on the basis of an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. This value applies to the total of dead load plus frequently and/or permanently applied live loads and can be increased by one-third for the total of all loads; dead, live, and wind or seismic. We estimate that the total settlement of spread footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented above will be less than 1 in. Differential settlements between adjacent footings should be less than half the total settlement. We anticipate that these settlements will occur relatively rapidly, with the majority of the settlements occurring during construction. -7- Horizontal shear forces can be resisted partially or completely by frictional forces developed between the base of spread footings and the underlying soil and by passive soil resistance. The total frictional resistance between the footing and soil is the normal force times the coefficient of friction between the soil and the base of the footing. We recommend an ultimate value of 0.35 for the coefficient of friction; the normal force is the sum of the vertical forces (dead plus real live load). If additional lateral resistance is required, passive earth pressures against embedded footings can be computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid having a unit weight of 225 pcf. This design passive earth pressure would be applicable only if the footing is cast neat against undisturbed soil, or if backfill for the footings consists of granular structural fill. Loading Dock Walls Design lateral earth pressures depend on the drainage condition provided behind the wall and the ability of the wall to yield. Assuming the dock-high loading area walls will be fully drained and restrained by the floor slabs, i.e., a rigid non-yielding wall, we recommend that the walls be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure, Ph: Ph=45H+0.5Q where H=wall height in feet measured from the base of the footing Q=uniform surcharge load, psf Lateral pressures due to surcharge loads other than uniform pressures, such as wheel loads, may be estimated using the guidelines shown on Figure 3. Drainage behind walls may be provided by weep holes through the wall or a perforated drain pipe located at the bottom of the backfill. It may be appropriate to use a filter fabric to prevent backfill material from passing through the weep holes or pipe perforations. Wall backfill should consist of clean structural fill material compacted to about 95% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 698. Overcompaction of backfill behind walls should be avoided. Heavy compactors and large pieces of construction equipment should not operate within 4 ft of any embedded wall to avoid the buildup of excessive lateral pressures. Compaction close to the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated vibratory plate compactors. Overcompaction of backfill could significantly increase lateral earth pressures behind walls. Pavement Sections In lieu of project-specific traffic estimates, the following pavement sections are based on past experience with similar facilities and subgrade soils. We have assumed that the pavement subgrade will consist of firm undisturbed silt in cut sections and fine-grained or granular material compacted as recommended for structural fill in fill areas. -8- For automobile parking areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2.5 in. of asphaltic concrete over 6 in. of crushed rock base. For truck traffic areas, the pavement section should consist of 3 in. of asphaltic concrete over 10 in. of crushed rock base course. • The above pavement sections should be considered minimum thicknesses, and it should be assumed that some maintenance will be required over the life of the pavement (15 to 20 years). The sections are based on the assumption that pavement construction will be accomplished during the dry season and after construction of the buildings has been completed. If wet-weather pavement construction is considered, it will likely become necessary to increase the thickness of crushed rock base course to support construction equipment and to protect the subgrade from disturbance. It should be noted that the recommended • pavement sections may not be adequate for the support of intense, heavy construction traffic. Pavement area subgrades should be proof rolled with a loaded dump truck prior to and after the placement of the base course. Soft areas identified by proof rolling should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. All workmanship and materials should conform to the applicable standards of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, 1991. Due to the potential for relatively high groundwater, subdrains should be provided under loading dock pavements that extend below existing site grades. Seismic Considerations The project site is presently assigned to seismic zone 3 in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the results of our investigation and review of the UBC, we recommend using a site coefficient (S2) of 1.2 to evaluate the seismic design of the structures. Design Review and Construction Inspection We welcome the opportunity to review and discuss construction plans and specifications as they are being developed. Additionally, we are of the opinion that to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, all construction operations dealing with earthwork and foundations should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. We would be pleased to provide these services for you. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid the architect and engineer in the design of this project. The scope is limited to the specific project and location described herein, and our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of the foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. In the event that any changes in the design and location of the building(s) as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations of this report in writing. -9- The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on Figure 2 and from other sources of information discussed in this report. In the performance of subsurface investigations, specific information is obtained at specific locations at specific times. However, it is acknowledged that variations in soil conditions may exist between exploration locations. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these explorations. The nature and extent of variation may not become evident until construction. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Sincerely, GEOTECHIVICAL RESOURCES, INC. `ssi �TyGINgEA- Q�. Q, PRpFF 804 , ``- GIhFFSS� f -EG.N 14,957 9 'y /04 22� IV' P� p(k1 �GOREGON o0 ST ��. C ✓� )1 25. A �, &if/ gNEEY ti — W, I NE. GAM H. Stanley Kelsay, P.E. John E. Gambee,P.E. Principal Project Engineer -10- ,/, / / :' tee• /Z , '/. 1 .w : ,'`/:• I •; 3 ¢h — ' "'"" 7•03 en Hone--/- —--(-7:::-. .;• • ':.j' y �,i. :l:' � r• - •:‘I ' >:111 Q / EH,i : 1 ,�1 : 6� ��!� • ' t n 'r.c y :f` �:.•�`�-- _ , I( ; �:. ?• ,�° • SITE n .��,.1►rfi ''(p,:, I:: ` � r :r'T. x L LO'f(�y, pP - \ ' '-`--111:-.1.•:...•_7' :y • 1 ; - . ,t"41•-i • :. i, �_ � `yew � - - �• .__ i - --04 '-- I-:. • 1 o1/4 •‘. l : ` :T` -- ~ ` ts . • .. , J, . Y _ -+ r;55 .;icy • � - :, _ _.. tiIt gyp.• . .7 • 1 •' ".:440k, 5~.• a :.`'a.:-•.• •5y. . Tlc ;R• ". ... ,� : _ • '0 ,.• . ,, •; • ",.x. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP BEAVERTON,OREG.(1cd)QUAD lat - 0 1/2 1 MILE REMBOLD TRUST,INC. CASCADE BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL CENTER III lk VICINITY MAP NOV.1995 JOB NO. 1973 FIG 1 ((DO'aA o05i 111.:' rat EN.L14nAlie .. "' ‘9GN.'n b\\ . ✓SCR '�. '� k r L . 11'11'06- w `_ F ,286 0C' '• - �'t �� .. - 73•,S. • �..Via-- \' ,>\ +7' .. C•• - 36.'`...,P w / ,,`\1`` � '_ ' .�i?■tl3i vhf • \�. 1 ` .. 1111 \ 1 _ - p �\ _ •�` `' \\.• .\\. �� i 4�' t- \,....., f onfvF•f-.\‘\\,,,\\,11 \;, B-4 �.t ski§"`1, \ . \ .. % \\ \ \\,1, S.\ \ .--_-:'. ),•‘,‘\ ';`\,,\S 1Ys(9.a: : .rte `t �� .d \'� t - 5`' ("CM[ �.. Y 7.66 ACRES .t ..,ru \N ■ i• 1 - • '4.• Z ♦ t\\,,� �. B-3 ,7 �,� 8-2 �.., %''' \\ \ `. ., 8-6 1 inv.-J ———-:7_:_-_.= \1-::... 1. , ■ / N r-4 %\`\ I i \ /_4 _ _ - - i • •B-� f TWO BUILDING OPTION 7J at\;\ , — • _-° �`_ —.-......... ` ; 1 ONE-BUILDING OPTION = ;n \, \ `1 o t ■ �Q; �1 - _ _ [ O� , m & BORING MADE BY GEOTECHNICAL RESOURCES,INC•' \`' ` 1 �\ , _�_ I n (OCTOBER 12,1995) U — -- r- , . • MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY AGRA EARTH& %\\ \` ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 1 ;�i'\`\, ; _ (AUGUST 1994)• , ` FROM DRAWINGS BY MCM ARCHITECT DATED SITE PLAN FRO S,D '\�, `, s a a .,...* —-- B-9 \l . AUGUST 1995 • 'V', ` •italls17. 1; & _ ._ _ , „\A • ��\1., L� ,N 98'49 S6• E ..1 444 A5' ,4014t,4u.. v 0 North yr 1.'5.. , 0 100 200 FT r _ REMBOLD TRUST,INC. CASCADE BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL CENTER L SITE PLAN NOV 1995 JOB NO 1973 FIG 2 I-----X= mil -I LINE LOAD, OL ._�« STRIP LOAD, q Zr wp4-jo,,,wfi,2 "-1 MEW i LIW For m < 0A: re Qh = QL 0.2n H Filif H WV H (0.16 + n2)2 Ilif III cfh O Form > 0.4: h \ – ah = a (B - SINB COS 2a) QL 1.28m2n Qh H (m2 + n2)2 4 \ (B in radians) LINE LOAD PARALLEL TO WALL' STRIP LOAD PARALLEL TO WALL 1-----x= nra—I 1 PANT LOAD, Op TFor m < 0.4: Zr rti 11.1p Q 0.28n2 - oh = A= Or -.A H2 (0.16 + n2)3 VirFor m > 0.4: H ah _ Q 1.77m2n2 IH2 (m2 + n2)3 A . . 0 Notes: ■ 6 1. These guidelines apply to rigid walls with Poisson's X= mH ■ ratio assumed to be 0.5 for backfill materials. o' i Q'h = ahCOS2(1.16) I �� 2. Lateral pressures from any combination of above l loads may be determined by the principle of super- DISTRBUTION OF HORIZONTAL PRESSURES position. VERTICAL Ptt4T LOAD REMBOLD TRUST,INC. CASCADE BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL CENTER II Ilk SURCHARGE-INDUCED LATERAL PRESSURES NOV.1995 JOB NO. 1973 FIG. 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS General Subsurface materials and conditions at the site were investigated on October 12, 1995, with nine borings, designated B-1 through B-9, at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The borings were drilled with a trailer-mounted drill rig, using continuous-flight-auger drilling techniques. The drill rig was provided and operated by Greg Vandehey Soil Sampling of Forest Grove, Oregon. An experienced geotechnical engineer provided by our firm directed the drilling operation and maintained a detailedlog of the materials and conditions disclosed during the course of the work. The depth of the borings ranged from 16.5 to 26.5 ft. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were typically obtained from the borings at 2.5-ft intervals of depth in the upper 15 ft and at 5-ft intervals thereafter. Disturbed samples were obtained using a standard split-spoon sampler. At the time of sampling, the Standard Penetration Test was conducted. This test consists of driving a standard split-spoon sampler into the soil a distance of 18 in. using a 140-lb hammer dropped 30 in. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 in. is known as the standard penetration resistance, or N-value. The N-values provide a measure of the relative density of granular soils, such as sand, and the relative consistency, or stiffness, of cohesive soils, such as silt. The soil samples obtained in the split-spoon sampler were carefully examined in the field and representative portions were saved in airtight jars for further examination and physical testing in our laboratory. Relatively undisturbed samples of the fine-grained soils were obtained by pushing 3-in.-O.D. Shelby tubes into the undisturbed soil a maximum distance of 24 in. using the hydraulic ram of the drill rig. The soil exposed in the end of the Shelby tube was examined and classified in the field. After classification, the ends of the tubes were sealed with rubber caps and tape to preserve the natural moisture content of the soils. All of the samples were returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The logs of borings are provided on Figures 1A through 9A. Each log presents a descriptive summary of the various types of materials encountered in the boring and notes the depth where the materials and/or characteristics of the materials change. To the right of the descriptive summary, the numbers and types of samples taken during the drilling operation are indicated. Farther to the right, N-values are shown graphically, along with the natural moisture contents and Torvane shear strength values. The terms used to describe the soils are defined in Table 1 A. LABORATORY TESTING General All samples obtained from the borings were returned to our laboratory where the physical characteristics of the samples were noted and the field classifications were modified where necessary. At the time of A-1 classification, the natural moisture content of each sample was determined. Additional testing included Torvane shear strengths, consolidation, and dry density determinations. The following paragraphs describe the testing program in more detail. Natural Moisture Content Natural moisture content determinations were made in conformance with ASTM D 2216. The results are presented on the Boring Logs, Figures 1 A through 9A. Torvane Shear Strength The approximate undrained shear strength of relatively undisturbed soil samples was determined using a Torvane shear device. The Torvane is a hand-held apparatus with vanes which are inserted into the soil. The torque required to fail the soil in shear around the vanes is measured using a calibrated spring. The results of the Torvane shear tests are shown on the Boring Logs,Figures 1 A through 9A. One-Dimensional Consolidation Test A consolidation test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 2435 to obtain data on the compressibility characteristics of a sample of relatively undisturbed soil from boring B-1. The results of the test are shown on Figure 10A in the form of a curve showing effective stress versus percent strain. The initial and final moisture content and dry unit weight of the sample were determined in conjunction with the test and are provided at the top of the figure. Dry Unit Weight The dry unit weight of several undisturbed samples was determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D 2937 by cutting a cylindrical specimen of soil from a Shelby tube sample. The dimensions of the specimen were carefully measured, the volume calculated, and the specimen weighed. After oven drying, the specimen was reweighed and the water content calculated. The dry unit weight was then computed. The dry unit weights are summarized below. SUMMARY OF DRY UNIT WEIGHT DETERMINATIONS Natural Moisture Dry Unit Boring Sample Depth,ft Content,% WciQht,pcf Soil Type B-I S-2 6.4 31 89 SILT;some fine-grained sand,trace clay B-5 S-3 10.4 30 90 SILT;some fine-grained sand,trace clay B-7 S-2 5.3 30 95 SILT;trace fine-grained sand and clay A-2 Table 1A GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL Description of Relative Density for Granular Soil Standard Penetration Resistance Relative Density (N-values)blows per foot very loose 0-4 • loose 4- 10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30- 50 very dense over 50 Description of Consistency for Fine-Grained (Cohesive) Soils Standard Penetration Torvane Resistance(N-values) Undrained Shear Consistency blows per foot Strength, tsf very soft 2 less than 0.125 soft 2-4 0.125 -0.25 medium stiff 4-8 0.25 -0.50 stiff 8 - 15 0.50- 1.0 very stiff 15 -30 1.0-2.0 hard over 30 over 2.0 Sandy silt materials which exhibit general properties of granular soils are given relative density description. Grain-Size Classification Modifier for Subclassification Boulders Percentage of 12-36 in. Other Material Adjective In Total Sample Cobbles 3 - 12 in. clean 0- 1.5 Gravel trace 1.5 - 10 1/4-3/4 in. (fine) 3/4-3 in. (coarse) some 10-30 Sand sandy, silty, 30- 50 No. 200-No. 40 sieve(fine) clayey, etc. No. 40-No. 10 sieve(medium) No. 10-No. 4 sieve(coarse) Silt/Clay-pass No. 200 sieve STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE cc LD o CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL 140-LB WEIGHT.30-IN DROP) u_ ci L o A BLOWS PER FOOT _ cc a • MOISTURE CONTENT,% a c, SURFACE ELEVATION 17311(±) o o u) 0 50 100 —'s Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT(4 in.) over CRUSHED ROCK 10 -.-- -, —H-- - . . . . . base course(8 in) - Stiff, grayish-brown mottled rust SILT;trace to some fine- _ = = grained sand, trace clay St I _ _A 11. ;• _ 5 II — i I i' 6$6- -. . __ S•3 I JO : 1 t i 10 -1 5-4 I -__i. : 2-14 : 1 ,,I ,,, ---------very stiff, gray below 13 ft �1111W1 -- --- - S-5 Inc ► : -_ 15 — ' i I I I24t ^_, __, H- —t------r—_ y —; ` ; I ; I j T --- 11 ; 1 H . 1; '—i-- 20—' ----hard, clayey below 20.5 ft $7 T _ ■ ;-7- -� 1Nual -■ / — � I-1 I I 4 ' _.�.� 25--'-/--- -- — 250 I -..`: : •••; Dense rust SAND;fine to medium grained,some silt to silty, I _Hil. iii! H ;. . • .. „ some fine to medium gravel between 25 and 25.5 ft 2s.s 1 I — ' ' I ' . I (10112!95) i -- ` --` 30— 1.--t- ; I i ; 1— 'T 35 1 ( T .iii _ -. —40 I 2-IN-0D SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR 0 0.5 1.0 11 STRENGTH,TSF R�PER FT) 3-IN-0D THIN-WALLED SAMPLER UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF NX CORE RUN * NO RECOVERY 1 BORING B-1 I—SLOTTED PVC PIPE t t--� id '' Moeue Cadent I Water Level(date) a�u i,rr NOV. 1995 JOB.NO. 1973 FIG. 1A STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL ¢ (140-LB WEIGHT,30-IN.DROP) L 0 L o w • BLOWS PER FOOT a • MOISTURE CONTENT,%cc o SURFACE ELEVATION: 174 ft(±) o 0 0 50 100 Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT(2.5 in.)over CRUSHED ROCK 0.5 - i -____ — L---7292E\base course(4 in.) _ -- _ Stiff,grayish-brown mottled rust and black SILT;trace to some — — fine-grained sand,trace clay S-1 to___-�— --L� —.----!_ - 5 S-2I 1 -- — ---very stiff below 8 ft b �� i— i iH 10 -----gray below 10.5 ft w i■iq _S4 I 7 ' ' 1••••EN , I ••�• S-5 I ___; p/.,.M..■ - -- �■o■■.■■EllnWIMINI 15— ---trace to some clay below 15 ft '11•••••I . ua 111••111•••••••■ UMW=MI ••11•1•11U11•••NM= 20-- 1111.1=•••••••0111•1 —•• • • , Dense SAND;fine to medium grained,trace to some silt 20.5 S-7 EIh� •• ---r 21.5 MN MI MEMO (10111195) Imuumm simm I •••••■N ■■■■■ — EE■■■E•■a■■••■ , 7 • —• • •••■•■■ ■•. • Mm ■■•■.E■■• • ■••■E•• 25— E MEREEM■■MEM■M ■E•E••••••••• ■ — ■ EM■••M■■■•E••■■ — =E�uE�■E•aii•E� — ■■■■■■■ •■■■ ■ ■M••••• ■•■W■■E•ia■■■ ■ 30- ■■ME ■■■■NE■ •N••EN■•■•■■MMM .. — - M■v.E■EEEEE•• — 35— _ •••••••• I --* r-1-- • 1 -40 I 2-IN.-OD SPLrrSPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR 0 0.5 1.0 7� STRENGTH,TSF (TONS PER FT 2) ll 3-IN.-0D THIN-WALLED SAMPLER • UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH,TSF il ' NXCORE RUN * NO RECOVERY BORING B-2 I—SLOTTED PVC PPE I�---�1 Lid , Water Level(date) Plastic Link NOV. 1995 JOB.NO. 1973 FIG. 2A STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE cx CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL ¢ (140 LB WEIGHT,30 IN.DROP) L v L o w A BLOWS PER FOOT _ d • MOISTURE CONTENT,% a a O s wa co SURFACE ELEVATION: 17311(1) o o N 0 50 100 •.?j• Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT(3 in.)over CRUSHED ROCK _-- - .'.t ,!:�: base course(15 in. ; -7-77 is - ' - Stiff,grayish-brown mottled rust and black SILT;trace to some S t II "` ( , — fine-grained sand,trace clay . I , -�-+r r_- ; 1 ; , S-2 1i!Mi 'EL .. .....•.®... S-3 I L Im ..o■RIM ...1111•.. 10 — very stiff below 10.5 ft , ' ' ' , ' S` 1 11.E '` It=n1=.■ -- - -gray below 12.5 ft •••11111•1111•M••••111111•11W11 ■■.IN..rat■N■■MI■ MUM — S.6 I ■■■I ■■■■■■ 1 •■-- MINiM,��■NON 15-- ' — some ciay below 16 ft 5-6 I ■■iiI1■■ ■U_MI (10112!95) 16 5 _= ■■■ N■■■■INN■■■ - _, MIU■■uEME•••.N.NN — •••111111•11•11M111••=11111111• ■■■MIUMI■ MEE - BIM �■■■■■■■■■ N.•NMIN■ ' ..NN.aN■ — N■■■...._. °-U.9 _ MEM MI OWN UNUN•NUNUN NU*• ■■MI■MIMIMI■■■■■■■O■■ 25 EirdINIES••non . — ■■■■■�■■ ■■■.■■■■au■aUN - ii. .MI . ••■R U• _ ..■■■ w■■■..■s • — •••••11••••MEM • iiii■■ ■1iii■i • 30— ■■N .■u..■ M .m mM.....■...■o.. . ■MINE■■■■.NNN.a■ 91111•••1111111111•■■■ MIN ■N.a -■ ■ Ell= 35-- , i , , I Mil 1 MI ■■ '•M I ' ` I M -_ _.l_ - ■ um • _40 — I I -I- I 2-IN-OD SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR 0 0.5 1.0 STRENGTH.TSF (TONS PER FT 7) II 3-IN-OD THIN-WALLED SAMPLER • UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF ' NX CORE RUN * NO RECOVERY i BORING B-3 I-SLOTTED PVC PIPE I L Un , �V Water Level(date) L-Moatn C1 Uri NOV 1995 JOB.NO. 1973 FIG 3A STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE cc (2, CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL Q /140 LB WEIGHT.30-IN DROP, u o A BLOWS PER FOOT w _ ._• MOISTURE CONTENT.% a a O S o c2 SURFACE ELEVATION 178 ft(±) o co ( 0 50 100 FILL Stiff, brownish-gray mottled rust and black SILT,trace to =. _ _ : _ some clay, trace fine-grained sand, occasional organics 1 - ! l t ` _ 5 S-2 I , ' --4--1 l ' ' 1— some fine to medium.angular gravel below 7.5 ft — r ' 1 1 11 Stiff, grayish-brown mottled rust and black SILT; trace to some S-3 • . _ NE fine-grained sand, trace clay •1111•11110 ' ' — __ occasional coarse-g rained sand and fine gravel between 13 and 14 ft S-5 , ' ■s■11 is , . , _ 1 , , — r -rr-- �I` +�■■■■■ ' ■ , 1- 20— stiff to very stiff,gray below 20 ft �, S7 I �. -' :� � — -Nu N■11■■G■ , r _ _ ; i ■. +- r 25--- trace to some clay below 25 ft 1 T S-8 T 1 1--- ;i , >- 265 1 ' �' — (10/12/95) II1 , ' , } I .rt - t h l • ti:■■ —r . , _, • , 30— i 1 EiEIEEL. ' ■ ---- 1-4--_.f-: • r— M -- — • I —' :-- O■ . -- -' I ' t i T—_;-- Ii _I —40 0 0.5 1.0 I 2-IN.-OD SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTH,TSF (TONS PER FT 2) 3-IN-OD THIN-WALLED SAMPLER • UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF ' NX CORE RUN * NO RECOVERY BORING B-4 I—SLOTTED PVC PIPE RI i Y- Water Level(date) `—Rasbc Lnit NOV. 1995 JOB.NO 1973 FIG. 4A STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE o CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL ¢ (140 LB WEIGHT,30-1N.DROP) L o w• BLOWS PER FOOT 4 cC • MOISTURE CONTENT.% 0 ET] c0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 173 ft(±) o rh- o 0 50 ioo p;e z Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT (4 in.)over CRUSHED ROCK --?-r- i; •;+• base course(20 in.) —'-� 2.0 Soft to medium stiff,grayish-brown mottled rust SILT;trace to I some fine-grained sand,trace day I 1 3. __—T--art ----- 5 t 1. • 7-'--- y-- -medium stiff to stiff below 7.5 ft �I : ' � - S•2 I �1__I l -1------t-- --f , -- -}- '� J� - - .LL — — - -------stiff,gray below 13 ft S 4 -� 15— S-5 I !. = r- - 20— i i — -------very stiff below 21 ft s-6 I - -11:4-- _ -.- ' ' 215 t i 1 y — 1 -—i—: STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE o CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL Z (140-LB LB WEIG►1r•341N.DROP) C o w A BLOWS PER FOOT 1 J • MOISTURE CONTENT, o (2 SURFACE ELEVATION 171 ft(±) 0 (-9 0 50 100 ��4 Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT(2 in.)over CRUSHED ROCK 07 .-_-. ----- -'— _..-•_--__ _ \base course(6 in.) Stiff, grayish brown mottled rust SILT;trace to some clay and fine-grained sand s-i it*__ _ = 1 S-2 _+� _ . ! ; ' . -I ;Ai ; 1 _ S-3 I 1 J +1O :4t ' 10__ medium stiff below 10 ft S-4 T.__ _ * - +--- , , , rte — --- _, I f I i 11- I i S-5 12 j lilt 15— 1 l — stiff, gray below 15.5 ft S_s — 1-'-1-"--1-- { j :; } . ' ( ' 4 ' ' 1 — 16.5 — +�- (10/12/95) - -----`H —i---j • - i , ; II - ! _ Tt "..4 1 f !. _ 1 25 -I --- I 1 •--7-I a --�.1_- i II ' , 4! ,1--III - -'T'I l i � n f t - - +' '-1 30 — -i-17;—f 1 1 I . j; 1 ?_ 1 — -�+i----,--i--f 1 i 1 , - -_ i I 1 __ -}-4--1 1.. ) • i t- I I _ , 1 —40 0 0.5 1.0 I 2-IN.-0D SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR (TONS PER FT') 11 STRENGTH,TSF 31N.-00 THIN-WALLED SAMPLER • UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF ' NX CORE RUN k NO RECOVERY BORING B-6 I-SLOTTED PVC PIPE `—�'4id�"'t =M°sve Cmeert Water Level(date) —Paste Lc* NOV. 1995 JOB.NO 1973 FIG. 6A STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE o CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL Q (140 LB WEIGHT,30-IN DROP) — L o <n A BLOWS PER FOOT ff _ ff E a • MOISTURE CONTENT. Lir o co SURFACE ELEVATION 169 ft(±) w CD ( 0 50 100 "r Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT (3 in.) over CRUSHED ROCK -- —•—----;---- ---- . base course (18 in.) . ----_— . _— --. :: - - — - - - - — 18 -- FILL: Stiff, brownish-gray SILT; some clay.trace fine-grained I } sand,occasional fine roots and organics S-1 I t13�_— ` ` ' 1 _�^--- 5 5 0 ---7-- ,- - — Medium stiff to stiff,grayish-brown mottled rust SILT; trace to S-2 W,IP, ' •Y some fine-grained sand, trace clay — -+ I ■ ; •_ : 1 — --- ---.__ ;- S-3 I �0�0 • . 1 NW • Mill ,Mr aim aummilm _ i 0 I L , . 4 , S4 ISMENNIIIII•11 ----stiff,gray below 13 ft ' • ' ' S-5 , �■■�■. • �■. �mm• ___, I gii .... ..1.15- _ :_ -_ _ � Il-`-T 20— --------very stiff below 20 ft • ±._„ VUU!EF -- + r — t I • ■■■■■__ _ U. - +414 ( p1111•••••• -- __H 1111111111111111111111 25 Medium dense,dark gray, silty SAND;fine to coarse grained, 25 0 1 N. • —. • • trace clay I MIAMI , - ' ' 26.5 — .■.■■ _ I (10112195) o■ ■�00■ —. .■ ■ ■=■■A■ — . 111111111111=11111111111111111111111111111111 — I .■■■H■.■.■.■ • ■■.• • •.• 30 - 1 N El , IN i.■ - , I— ' I j 35— — 1I _ .. ®■ ! I — —1— —T— 4—: ' ' - - _.• ! ' — ---�I_ —40 I 2-IN-OD SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR 0 0.5 1.0 STRENGTH,TSF (TONS PER FT') II 3-IN.-OD THIN-WALLED SAMPLER • UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF NX CORE RUN * NO RECOVERY pill 1 BORING B-7 I-SLOTTED PVC PIPE `4id t F Water Level(date) l_ C L''' NOV. 1995 JOB.NO. 1973 FIG. 7A STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE cc o CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL c (140-LB WEIGHT.30-IN.DROP) �_, o w A BLOWS PER FOOT _ a • MOISTURE CONTENT,% c_ E o o c2 SURFACE ELEVATION 172 ft(-+) 0 0 50 100 —.!%4% : Asphaltic-concrete PAVEMENT(3 in) over CRUSHED ROCK _del�. base course(18 in.) — 1 8 FILL: Medium stiff to stiff,gray and brown SILT;trace to some S-1 -` 5 -___` --- `` clay, trace fine-grained sand I S-2 _ _=-- 7__,,T= --�•— Stiff, grayish-brown mottled rust SILT;trace to some fine- S-3 _. 13 •; grained sand, trace clay -- 10— . • ti ' _._._.- .).._)-_, S-6 I ' -:� 20— -------very stiff, gray,trace to some clay below 20 ft Tu r �r S-7 I _:1_ 16 --- r- 215 • j- �/- -- (10112195) - .•-•4._.. 1 ' . - - -i-- • , I _ ! �--`- — 25— _-__L _i1- }'-- ■ ;; -�- j— • 35--- i —40 0 0.5 1.0 I 2-IN.-CD SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR II STRENGTH,TSF (TONS PER FT 2) 3-IN.-OD THIN-WALLED SAMPLER UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF ' NX CORE RUN * NO RECOVERY p BORING B-8 .--tom I—V SLOTTED PVC PIPE LL'4i°Li* j Water Level(date) 1 L Moses Cortert NOV. 1995 JOB.NO. 1973 FIG. BA STD PENETRATION RESISTANCE ° CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL Q (140-LB WEIGHT,30-IN DROP) L v L o . A BLOWS PER FOOT _ a • MOISTURE CONTENT.°r: 0 o 0 SURFACE ELEVATION 17011(±) o 0(..9 a 0 50 100 • Stiff,gray mottled rust SILT;trace to some clay.trace fine- - --4ti i�- _ — grained sand ' f --- 1 S-1 I .14-` - ; _ ___1_ ...._= --grayish-brown mottled rust below 7.5 ft ■ - --I—- S.2 I L N _ _ - .iiami - _ s-3 ■■ /■0 --- ■ ii=i■■a•uo T ------gray below 13 ft ■■1i■■■t!■■■ &a I � 1 T- ■■ar E ■ , -- ••••■■■■■ - • : • 15- -----very stiff below 15 ft 1� S-511111=111 „ . — - 16.5 (10112195) 1111/1/111 I ' ' ' — ■■••u•••■ i ■ — ••••••■•■■ • • ••••••u• • ' ' ' ' 1 I 20— ■■■■■■■■•S■•■ ■N•■�■u•■■u■■■■■■u W■••••� N h•..M ■=EN ME 25— u=■n ■ • _ uu.••1 ---' • 111/1111 ”' ■■■u•••••••••• ■1 ■■■■■••••••••••• •• 30— IIIflIIIIiHHH_ - - ■■■u■■■■■ ; : ' �__ ' — ■■■■u■■u • ----I 1 4 - .h 35— ■••■■■u■■ , }_ . N■■■■ ' • _ prea••••• ■■■■■C■■ -'__ - u ■■ -; - ••�u■•• . , . -L_ - ■■■■uu■■■s■■u■ —40 — I i • I 0 I 2-IN.-00 SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLER • TORVANE SHEAR 0.5 1.0 II STRENGTH,TSF (TONS PER FT 2) 3-IN.-00 THIN-WALLED SAMPLER • UNDRAINED SHEAR G GRAB SAMPLE OF DRILL CUTTINGS STRENGTH, TSF ll ' NX CORE RUN * NO RECOVERY BORING B-9 I-SLOTTED PVC PIPE ±1 Lid Link , HosUe Carted LV__Water Level(date) P i,n NOV. 1995 JOB.NO. 1973 FIG. 9A BORING SAMPLE DEPTH, FT MOISTURE CONTENT, % DRY UNIT WEIGHT, PCF SOIL DESCRIPTION (INITIAL) (FINAL) (INITIAL) (FINAL) B-1 S-2 5.5 32 30 915 99.8 STIFF,GRAYISH-BROWN MOTTLED RUST SILT;SOME FINE-GRAINED SAND,TRACE CLAY STRESS, TONS/FT2 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 _. N e., a an eh r as co-• N C., a en CO v CO CO .. N ev a en CO V CO CO-. N W a er 0) r eb CO ill III 0..■................. *--- III MILO MEM 5 -- - .11111 i11 . : II — :�___ — III , tuuii III li ■ __- _�.... —p I■ U. • ■■ _I.... ::: :'::� ��I 10 11111111 -- �_ _ Ili. -:- _ — III IIII cricc<, — Ellirll 1 ► -- -- — =�1� - III mom — i - iii: ..:: :::15 _ ■11111 -=':_ __ _ . _ AA _ Hi ____. �1 _ •__- ..■. .■■ ----- ----- El - • I ii.1 - ---__-_____-_-____:.= ... ____Ell moo I� �__._ _ !ii _ _._ ______ ____.__- __- ; PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL __,, TIL CITY OF TIGARD DATE: a/c?' jq5 STAFF: wt f/ DAN D F4 APPLICANT: AGENT: toy 7:?►_, 21 Phone: ( ) Phone: ( ) PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: ICS5 TAX MAP/TAX LOT: 151 ?S `3Q — NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): c_1 DEVM(C)PMF1u7" e Jt c.) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: r 7 (-OMI✓I E2L'14 g(24/Ch S 451i R75 j7/O COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: C ' CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACILITATOR: TEAM AREA: PAST PHONE: (503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size: sq. ft. Average lot width: ft. Maximum building height: ' {') ft. Setbacks: front ft. side ` ft. rear ` ft. corner ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: S'.5—% Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: °,'o (Refer to Code Section 18. 6 ) ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 NON-Residential applicationiPlanning Department Section /1.14/95" . oo. L7 op/km Are4e,,/L . /D 464,;,'4,5 �filfGPriJ Q'i/ €7 a/1/d./, L ct et/1. Cus4de / w;l/ ,'& 4 71 healers,' 4. en,p 5/'I) avi ar- 711-67 Gvi// a'i>0 //,,;5 41,14 e'Gc � ,/ � 'ge' r90/71, 0/ice 7/ /, 7; L d 4 /Ih1l • The depth of all lots shall not ex__.:d 2Y2 times the average width, unless the pat,,l is less than 1'/: times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) SPECIAL SETBACKS d SEE CACr10Ecet,,: • Streets: 30 feet from the centerline of (4 51,4 r)[ . mE • Established areas: feet from • Lower intensity zones: feet, along the site's boundary. • Flag lot: 10 foot side yard setback. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.040 and 18.96) SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: • A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; • All actual building setbacks will be at least Y2 (half) of the building's height; and • The structure will not abut a residential zone district. (Refer to Code Section 18.98.020) E,N. T?iFr4i /= 'boo PARKING AND ACCESS 8 ea. 5.41ESircAv 1. 3 9 tJ Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): Required parking for this type of use: Ft:=7 /tS av t) e.s Secondary use required parking: FJA.i 7✓.ec 144 p. No more than 40% of required spaces may be designated andlor dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020) • Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. Bicycle racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for every fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: / Minimum pavement width: =/ All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: (Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.108) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 NON•Residential applicationIPlanning Department Section • ' WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial compleses. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new develpment and neighboring developments. (Refer to Code Section 18.108.050) LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS Every commercial or industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070-090) CLEAR VISION AREA , The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at road/driveway, roadlrailroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.102) BUFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must he occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100) The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: ft. along north boundary. ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along wic,tt e '- c„lc \\nl'� k-41(- t lrlte3 li LANDSCAPING / Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six 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) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 ION-Residential applicationiPlanning Oepartment Section SIGNS Sign permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. (Refer to Code Section 18.114) SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regu ns for lands which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetlan eas, on slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at t pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their boundaries is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodplains. In most cases, dedication of 100-year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas is required as a condition of the approval of a development application. (Refer to Code Section 18.84) NARRATIVE The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. (Refer to Code Section 18.32) CODE SECTIONS 18.80 18.98 18.114 18.150 18.84 18.100 18.116 18.160 18.88 18.102 18.120 18.162 18.92 _ 18.106 18.130 18.164 18.96 18.108 18.134 NE1GJH80RHOOD MEETING f The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator and the members of any land use subcommittee(s) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting your application or the application will not be accepted. RECYCLING Applicant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride Disposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. (Refer to Code Section 18.116) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 YON-Residential appiicationiPlanning Oepartment Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMEIr.... `TRAFFir X T r• ca. •o. l' 1. 4` A ' Ci; v,}UE13.) L.4Cn-�t PROCEDURE Administrative staff review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 NON-Residential applicanonlPlanning Department Section The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard T'UN r'A-.n1 5 t c-r . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. gE E ; OTE: 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 application(s) islare to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: ■ 11;1\i (?�� CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 1::ogimpattrimasterspreapptmst Engineering Section:masters'ipreapp-c.engi CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 NON•Residential applicaUOniPlannmg Department Section A PUBLIC FACILITIES CITY OF TIGAR 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 decis 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 City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision mak authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an apportur to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requiremer that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-wav 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 specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. R6A-L-/ ) -ZA-SeotOe /V.S Z7 J, lei .approval of a development application for this site will require right-of•way dedication for: (1.) Z L-A to feet from centerline. 6.c1 id&/T' (2.) to ' feet from centerline. i'�-� s�LlG (3.) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: IX) (1.) �i street improvements will be necessary along 5c . ) 40 (2.) �Ul� i street improvements will be necessary along L�l4 6.- (Ai 72e A.' (3.) Street improvements shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installation of c::- and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determine appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wide on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Central Business District), necessary street signs, streetlight. and a two year streetlighting fee. -7-2r eaafF7' ' P /41-4.-W 1 Z7 y'b/Pr C:TY OF TiGARO Pre-Application Conference 'dotes Page 1 3f 3 iesdenvaf -a is t.'trYL^.¢neeftttq 2esarzlnt :ac^.cn In some cases. where street improvements or other necessary public ' -lrovements are not currently practical, the s: improvements may be def, . In such cases, a condition of developmei. grovel may be specified which requires the prop! owner(sl to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the forma of a local improvement district formed to improve: (1.) (2.) vEz/r-1r ArFc/G Przoje-c770v5 GOA/s/s- , fr err' 7Y2fP/ I'2 j Pedestrianwaystbikeways: 07/2- -Zovfr, D2/V6vay Goc ,t) I r v fiie� Cowls year AlS?1.< 7PpeL A om' Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this aroperty is a(n) ell, inch line which is located in 641—GA—Or . The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It the developer's responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's Water Suonly: The I V Water District Phone:(503) ' 2-15U provides public water service in area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your propos. development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2502) provides fire protecti; services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequai of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Other Agency Permits: - Storm sewer improvements: Al)V Y S y® v`ete `-'vvy 6k44-mk r& Pi9ea-2)s te21- vi 4OAfOk71c J S ' 1'62 'tS4.) R. ,{ ( . , Ord • - STORMWATER QUALITY FEES The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce, Resolution No. 90-43 Surface WatE Management Regulations which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. At the discretion of the City, tl- applicant may be offered an opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of the construction of such a facility. The resolution requires th construction of a water quality facility andfor the payment of a fee. The fee shall be based upon the amount of imperriou. surface; for every 2,540 square feet. or portion thereof, the fee shall be $285.00. The City of Tigard shall determine a fee may be paid or a facility shail be constructed. LUA— cy0.41-4 r,r g&ivrne, CST? OF T IG, RO Pre-Aopiication Conference 'dotes doge 2 of 3 ReIIe nual :C:uCatt^.NLv;rtes ttg:eSiR.Tant .ec n TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990. Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program calle fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The appiic shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed developme The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based category. The T1F shall be calculated at the time of building aermit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the T1F rr be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permiss; only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. STREET OPENING PERMIT No work shall be preformed within a public right-of-way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street open 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 fi plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. PREPARED BY ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 di' 4 it, ° 1 49 !vo JVD 7fl,G,6 /,„„ IN c/o c y� ?& / 5 � 1 l"141) t:aunou:Yioreacc c( enq secaen NUM ' :actuary 1 CITY OF TIGARO Pre-,application Conference Notes Page 3 or 3 3esdennal=caianor E';r ennq:e:aranem • .4'1/` MCM AR CHI T E C T S 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 PORTLAND,OREGON 97205•USA•TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE DATE' November 12, 1995 DISTRIBUTION: Rembold delivered TO: City of Tigard file 2.40 Office of Community NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: Development PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 FILENAME: city/11-08-95/pre-app narrative Via:Hand Delivered PROJECT: Cascade Blvd.Commercial Center FROM: Loy Rusch Project Description: The accompanying drawing package,which consists of a Schematic Site Plan,perspective views,and a boundary/topographic survey,are submitted for a new Pre-Application Conference review,in accordance with the zoning code requirements. A previous pre-application conference for this scheme was held on 5-25-95,and a second pre-app for the site was held in early September for a scheme that depicted a new Wal-Mart store,which is no longer involved. This re-submitted Schematic Design depicts a new commercial development on a±7.65 acre site located at 10385 SW Cascade Blvd.,by Rembold Trusts Inc. The parcel is zoned Commercial-General(C-G) and is currently occupied by the vacant Sentrol building. The land immediately north of the site,which is owned by PGE,is zoned C-G as well,while the property to the west and south is zoned I-P. The proposed development consists of two new retail buildings,along with the parking necessary to support the project. The one-story building which borders the southern property line and Cascade Blvd. will be Occupied by a_home furnishings store and will have a footprint of roughly 41,000 gross square feet. The majority of the building will be roughly 30'in heightthe neighborhood of 50' . Along the western property line will be a one-story building of±47,000 gross square feet which will house two separate tenants;one is a computer store,and the other is an office supply store. This building will also be in the neighborhood of 50'in height._ The exterior walls of these buildings will be a combination of painted concrete and synthetic stucco, along with aluminum storefront entrance systems. The site plan features a significant landscape area along Cascade Blvd.which will allow screening of the parking area through the use of plant material and landscape berms. Walkway connections from the street to the stores,as well as between the two pads,have been provided to facilitate convenient pedestrian circulation. Location of the accessible parking stalls and bicycle parking areas has not been shown at this conceptual stage. The triangular-shaped landscape zone in the southwest corner of the property will be developed as the storm water detention area. From the previous conferences,the Owner is aware of the need for half and full-street improvements along Cascade Blvd.,as well as the need for the relocation of the existing overhead power lines(or paying an in-lieu-of fee). We are in the process of obtaining the additional Cascade Blvd.right-of-way survey data for the necessary improvements and to document the locations of existing curb-cut's on the opposite side of the street from our site. I have included one copy each of the city's two previous pre-app conference notes,for reference. • sec L- 1--K 71F"" MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON.SUITE 350 • PORTLAND.OREGON 97205•USA•TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE DATE November 12, 1995 DISTRIBUTION: A Rembold d delivered TO: City of Tigard file 2.40 Office of Community NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: Development PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 FILENAME: city/11-08-95/pre-app narrative Via:Hand Delivered PROJECT: Cascade Blvd.Commercial Center FROM: Loy Rusch Project Description: The accompanying drawing package,which consists of a Schematic Site Plan,perspective views,and a boundary/topographic survey,are submitted for a new Pre-Application Conference review,in accordance with the zoning code requirements. A previous pre-application conference for this scheme was held on 5-25-95,and a second pre-app for the site was held in early September for a scheme that depicted a new Wal-Mart store,which is no longer involved. This re-submitted Schematic Design depicts a new commercial development on a±7.65 acre site located at 10385 SW Cascade Blvd.,by Rembold Trusts Inc. The parcel is zoned Commercial-General (C-G) and is currently occupied by the vacant Sentrol building. The land immediately north of the site,which is owned by I'GE,is zoned C-G as well,while the property to the west and south is zoned I-P. The proposed development consists of two new retail buildings,along with the parking necessary to support the project. The one-story building which borders the southern property line and Cascade Blvd. will be occupied by a home furnishings store and will have a footprint of roughly 41,000 gross square feet. The majority of the building will be roughly 30'in heightthe neighborhood of 50'. Along the western property line will be a one-story building of±47,000 gross square feet which will house two separate tenants;one is a computer store,and the other is an office supply store. This building will also be in the neighborhood of 50'in height. The exterior walls of these buildings will be a combination of painted concrete and synthetic stucco, along with aluminum storefront entrance systems. The site plan features a significant landscape area along Cascade Blvd.which will allow screening of the parking area through the use of plant material and landscape berms. Walkway connections from the street to the stores,as well as between the two pads,have been provided to facilitate convenient pedestrian circulation. Location of the accessible parking stalls and bicycle parking areas has not been shown at this conceptual stage. The triangular-shaped landscape zone in the southwest corner of the property will be developed as the storm water detention area. From the previous conferences,the Owner is aware of the need for half and full-street improvements along Cascade Blvd.,as well as the need for the relocation of the existing overhead power lines(or paying an in-lieu-of fee). We are in the process of obtaining the additional Cascade Blvd. right-of-way survey data for the necessary improvements and to document the locations of existing curb-cut's on the opposite side of the street from our site. I have included one copy each of the city's two previous pre-app conference notes,for reference. CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL /,hrR Alit s"r A CITY OF TIGARD DATE: 7 T STAFF: APPLICANT: W.hoac AGENT: giirr'ita4'-( 6-05'04 Phone: ( ) Phone: j ) Lc fi - fi qy PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: / _i as 5 'w �4 c<Se TAX MAPITAX LOT: ;% l vac.: . G540 NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): .5-1117€.5-1117€ O.-tA-AQ tap I'VI e 192,6//4e4-4/ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: s,,t y a /(5 $X 4 _14 a,L/ _lnu.l ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: 6ceti4m� 491'1-1 evelge / ZONING DESIGNATION: G 2 b06'd/ �O144 Psi Okedo/ CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT , FACILITATOR: � U5 TEAM AREA: PHONE: (503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size: sq. ft. Average lot width: 50 ft. Maximum building height: S ft. Setbacks: front ft. side ft. rear ft. corner ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: 6 % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: I % (Refer to Code Section 18.c 2) ADDIT10111.ALIQLIIIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Minimum lot frontage: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition oils. L created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 oat wi a access easeme . CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 NON-Residential appiicatiomPianning Department Section N The depth of all lots shall not exceed 21/2 k es the average width, unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) SPECIAL SETBACKS f • Streets: 0 feet rom the centerline of �a S e"- G4 - . • Established areas: 4' feet from it . • Lower intensity zones: hi feet, along the site's r, boundary. • • .1 • • L. ,: . . . u - I. . (Refer to Code Section 18.106.040 and 18.96) SP'CIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height.of 75 feet provided: • A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; • All actual building setbacks will be at least 1/2 (half) of the building's height; and • The structure will not abut a residential zone district. Refer to Code Section 18.98.020) - PARKING AND ACCESS Parking shown on preliminary plan(s): / -2.Y Required parking for this type of use: 1 /;...�(^ ii 2 -� Secondary use required parking: / . _ ____________ _ No more than 40% of required spaces may be designated andlor dimensioned as compact spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020) • Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. Bicycle racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided o •• •.sis of one space for eve• fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: T,C)ri Minimum access width: `2 ��e-ri/ 30 404-44, Minimum pavement width: 71-0 ! v-e-,;; ' ir1 All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: 1-7 4 _ (Refer to Code Section 18.106 and 18.108) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 NON-Residential aopiicatmnjPlanning Depanment Section WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS f( Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial compleses. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new develpment and neighboring developments. - (Refer to Code Section 18.108.050) LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS Every commercial or industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a loading space. The space size and location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070.090) l -- —,- - _ CLEAR VISION-AREA - The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at road/driveway, roadlrailroad, and I 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 SCRE NG In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between differe nd uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in to width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balances etween vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if no equired by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional infor 'on on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Community Development Code. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.100 The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposa -ea are as follows: ft. along north boundary. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. ft. long west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along LANDSCAPING -- Street trees are required for all developments fronting on a public or private street as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six 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) - CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 NON.Residential applicationiPlanning Department Section /SIGNS Sign permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout i 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 Hearing Officer. (Refer to Code Section 18.114) SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations for ds which are potentially unsuitable for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, Jul slopes in excess of 25 percent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identify sensitive lands areas and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting-the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodpiains. In most cases, dedication of 100-year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas is required as a condition of the approval of a development application. (Refer to Code Section 18.84) NARRATIVE The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. (Refer to Code Section 18.32) CODE SECTIONS 18.8098 18.114 -111150 18.84 18.100 � 1 8 18.160 18.88 8.102 ( 18.120 18.162 18.921 .106 18.130 18:164 - 18.96 9/ 18.108 18.134 / ( NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator and the members of any land u subcommittees) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please revie the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting you application or the application will not be accepted. RECYCLING '-_ - .-- ----— --,_-- Applicant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride Disposal's vehicles CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. (Refer to Code Section 18.116) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 NON-Residential aopiicationiPlanning Department Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: • I `V /40z P164C__ Acte_e /Cid L Gvksali M410 a ! .5 4/e s W kir . 714a5 Q ,v' ,r^12' e GI clo Sit �°� I / !5 v u) c /* e5 j vt a vrG 14GcZV e- S 6t6 d42,( v Y-6 (2- tea C )5C2- oV ISM laSCa Ivr u/'s,e0 vto� rticli�( arm' w� ! i ...a)/ 1. 1.�►-of - �� ,,..J s ...CLws cx v:a o--vo a r toll 1a, 51 Lt ()PHA) 5+1 crAS `,4 extsk 'tv. 11,Q_ e cd-04 ooc)--4e,io c:v coP- Pta-ec1t t,- ( ��u1 Wit1 (0� va ofe VytcQ.(.-) ©& s÷1-42 txs�SeQn PROCEDURE PVC/141 k 1 `Z ■ 5 t� �✓'r^'O 7 GokGe4"K ,,,/� 5+r,¢.ef' �t in tn,tre,t — 01" CaScdtde. „va j G� c uSS4f/' 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. tliet 1444d 0 (2- ViOe Wa. L/5- 4/V.05*-IT; APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the fallowing week's applications. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on 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 of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 NON-Residential applicationlPlanning Department Section The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an • application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10, tq 20 day I public appeal period ollows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard %z - ilk 61-7144- ,./�� 1 . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division- ion request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects of good site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. Additional pre-application conference(s) islare required if an application(s) islare to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 h rlogmlpatty'JnastersipreaoP{mst Engineering Section:masterstpreapp-c.engl CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 NON-Residential appiicationlPlanning Department Section PUBLIC FACILITIES The purpose of the pre-application conference is to: CITY OF TIGAR t 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 decisi 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 City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision maki authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportun, to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requiremen that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of•wav 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 specified by the Community Development Cade; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. / gA-t/ J ** V e 'z i 'S z75 .yi41 Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: (1.) L�,f5Gtfrie to feet from centerline. /A1 T / /14—r: (2.) // to feet from centerline. 4- (3.) to feet from centerline. Street imorovements: (1.) 14/street improvements will be necessary along -SC-1 . ") (2.) street improvements will be necessary along L��-�►ri Er ( • (3.) Street improvements shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the a installation of cur and gutters, storm sewers, underground placement of utility wires (a fee may be collected if determine appropriate by the Engineering Department), a five-foot wide sidewalk (sidewalks may be required to be wide on arterials or major collector streets, or in the Cantral Business District), necessary street signs, streetlight: and a two year streetlighting fee. 4z- ea4077tgr (4) 7� cis ufr vxrr 02ang:, pay fee I4/-I./611 z1 /17 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 3 Aesidanual,oaicauomecnpneenng Jeoartimnt Sacnon In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the str improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the grope owners) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formar of a local improvement district formed to improve: (1.) 12.) UFIZiPY 7121-/G 7(24/6r-770.0S 5/$T 7 i- a//r# 77 4 Pi P'destrianwaysrbikeways: 0272- ,26-Zov{-, Pg/vavay Goat-7zo i 5 pie 4r Isis luii7f j f'L/ Al'Y[ 0001 See/WA-Aoki Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) to inch line which is located in . The proposed development must be connected to a sanitary sewer. It the developer's responsibility to extend the sewer along the proposed development site's Water Suopiv: The %r . ,/ 1 Water District Phone:i503) provides public water service in area of this site. The District should be contacted for information regarding water supply far your propos< development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526.2502) provides fire protectic 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. Other Aaencv Permits: Storm sewer improvements: / i Z i'/ `-WO 7Z .-)0k1 J r .s a2AD2` s ( vsq) STORMWATER QUALITY FEES The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce, Resolution No. 90-43 Surface 'Nair Management Regulations which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. At the discretion of the City, th 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 2,540 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $235.00. The City of Tigard shall determine i a fee may be paid or a facility shall be constructed. /&4-76L VA-24T y j057Ft1/92 C1TY OF TiG,iRO Pre-appiication Conference 'Dates Page 2 of 3 Residential ;c ucanoniEr. neenng:ecart;nent :ac::cn TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program coile • fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The aopiic shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed developme The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based category. The TiF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF rr be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissi. only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. STREET OPENING PERMIT No work shall be preformed within a public right-of-way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street open: 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 fl plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. PREPARED BY ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 6394171 4fg c ! iv � x7, G6 b '' /4„ t � 4 V ) *j z:::cgnicattyncreacc W engsecaon:ream .anuafi C;TY OF TIGAR0 Pre-Application Conference Votes Page 3 of 3 3eswennal •ccucatiomer.mr.eennq:ecarrment _ec::on CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TIGARD The items on the checklist below are required for the succesful completion of your application submission requirements. This checklist identifies what is required to be submitted with your application. This sheet MUST be returned and submitted with all other applicable materials at the time you submit your land use application. See your application for further explanation of these items or call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503) 639-4171. Staff: v,rn vl ek Date: 7 1APPLICATION & RELATED DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE ,/ MAR ED ITEMS 1 A) Application form (1 copy) B) Owner's signature/written authorization C) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed D) Applicant's statement No. of Copies E) Filing Fee $ 5' 'e Fee �� 7 SITE-SPECIFIC MAP(S)/PLAN(S) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE J MARKED ITEMS' A) Site Information showing: No. of Copies 1. Vicinity map ca 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds 5. Locations of natural hazard areas including: (a) Floodplain areas (b) Slopes in excess of 25% $� (c) Unstable ground (d) Areas with high seasonal water table (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 10. Location of existing utilities and easements 11 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways LAND USE APPLICATION./UST PAGE 1 OF 5 B) Site Development Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 26 1. The proposed site and surrounding properties 2. Contour line intervals • 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and fDt - easements on the site and on adjoining properties (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site G� (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 0/-7— (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation (e) Outdoor common areas (f) Above ground utilities (g) Trash and recyclable materials areas t� 5. The location, dimensions & setback distances of all: (a) Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities, and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25 feet of the site (b) Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 7. Sanitary sewer facilities ef` 8. The location areas to be landscaped 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques 10. The location of mailboxes 11. The location of all structures and their orientation 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C) Grading Plan Indicating: No. of Copies 2.0 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 m� 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 USE APPLICATION./LIST PAGE 2 OF 5 D) Architectural Drawings Indicating: No. of Copies 7--6 The site development plan proposal shall include: 1. Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site • 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure E) Landscape Plan Indicating: No. of Copies -2$&? The landscape plan shall be drawn at the same scale of the site analysis plan or a larger scale if necessary and shall indicate: 1 . Description of the irrigation system where applicable 2. Location and height of fences, buffers and screenings 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces,$ - 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials 40' 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 Revie or prior t taining a Building Permit to construct a sign G) Traffic Study: H) Prelimina , Partition/Lot Line Ad'ustment Ma. Indicatin:: No. of Copies 1 . The ow -r of the subject parcel ❑ 2. The owne 's authorized agent ❑ 3. The map sc. e (20, 50, 100 or 200 feet-1 inch) north arrow and date ❑ 4. Description o •arcel location and boundaries ❑ 5. Location, width .nd names of streets, easements and other public ways within and .•jacent to the parcel ❑ 6. Location of all per -nent buildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines 0 7. Location and width of a water courses ❑ 8. Location of any trees wit 'n 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level ❑ 9. All slopes greater than 25% ❑ 10. Location of existing utilities an. utility easements ❑ 11 . For major land partition which c rates a public street: (a) The proposed right-of-way lo rtion and width ❑ (b) A scaled cross-section of the pr.sosed street plus any reserve strip ❑ 12. Any applicable deed restrictions ❑ 13. Evidence that land partition will not precl se efficient future land division where applicable ❑ LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PAGE 3 OF 5 I) Subdivision Prelim a Plat Ma. and Data Indicatin:: No. of Copies ' 1. Scale equaling ( 4, 50, 100 or 200 feet— 1 inch) and limited to one pha e per sheet ❑ 2. The proposed name of the subdivision ❑ • 3. Vicinity map showin: property's relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ 4. Names, addresses and t- ephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyer and de igner (as applicable) ❑ 5. Date of application ❑ 6. Boundary lines of tract to be ubdivided ❑ 7. Names of adjacent subdivisio (s) or names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of un-subdivi•ed land ❑ 8. Contour lines related to a City-e ablished benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10% grades greater than 10' ❑ 9. The purpose, location, type and siz. of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision : (a) Public and private right-of-ways :nd easements ❑ (b) Public and private sanitary and st•rm sewer lines ❑ (c) Domestic water mains including fi - hydrants ❑ (d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts or greater) ❑ (e) Watercourses in (f) Deed reservations for parks, open spac-s, pathways and other land encumbrances ❑ 10. Approximate plan and profiles of proposed san ary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the pla . ❑ 11. Plan of the proposed water distribution system showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants ❑ 12. Approximate centerline profiles showing the finisheb, grade of all streets including street extensions for a 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 ater overflow ❑ 15. Location, width & direction of flow of all water courses . drainage-ways ❑ 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensi. s and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes othe than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. ❑ 17. The location of all trees with a diameter 6 inches or greater , easured at 4 feet above ground level and the location of proposed tree • antings ❑ 18. The existing uses of the property including the location of all • ructures and the present uses of the structures, and a statement of whic structures are to remain after platting ❑ 19. Supplemental information including: (a) Proposed deed restrictions (if any) ❑ (b) Proof of property ownership ❑ (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements ❑ • LAND USE APPLICATION/LIST PAGE 4 OF 5 20. Existing natural feats es including rock outcroppings, wetlands and marsh areas ❑ 21 . If any of the foregoing I formation cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall .e incorporated into a narrative and submitted • with the application ❑ J) Solar Access Calculations: ❑ K) Other Information No. of Copies ❑ h:Uogin\patty\rnastersUtkl ist.mst May 23, 1995 LAND USE APPLICATION 1 LIST PAGE 5 OF 5 g' \ va \ P' P fll;*i[P 2�O 3.6 - � � � # h. *ob �* PARKIN( PARKIN * y } ClCB 006 .��- �� a.173.2 # s# ' �.a_!'�l_ r ∎ 1 MHo`�jk ;'>'* x 202.7 mH O'MH x 201.3!,.'� # C0,4 MHO MHO ^ x 176.8 � _ _ p�� 76.9 %�� ,_� :A, # �' x1 9p \\\\H4-\' .'s: 1 1 Q rap©p F •' 202.3 >� . ., . \ __ 1 \(:) `�. r �I 201.1 -�_;; ..- 177.6x ,, , CB F p.., i, �; •, x 202. i.-1.1 x 177.8 1� O1H �. ♦ 10 _", �• �r 04.9 � �� ` ` �� `\ x 2 PAVED 201.6 O px 177.5 ✓'� CB _4 ° - \• ��: x 2' 3.6 201.5 �� fL7JIlw_�:3!I•w\\s ..N4... x 174. 1 x 179.7 -. . i O x 202.6 126 `�' /B x 204.9 PARKING 1 17 .2 ' ■ \ss44:\ iliiii ,lii £O y! Ni'- 201.5 201.6 x `f - -_� ' � \�/ �� ,/ � PAVED $s x 173. 1 �� w- 4 ' PARKING`� PAVED PARKING �I\ . • !, PAVED Lii� r � �. `� � I� ,... oCB • tri:'� if' • 111 I NN/ `� el 4. ._... pa lip A, * PARKING 17x0.5 �'` OCEI x 175.4 „ x l I Ng 1 ' �� / 185.0 1\ \‘\,\\ fd x 171.0 Q 175.3 x 174.6 % �#1441 1``� 17. � O �` t75.0 # Q 431. I \ x 175.4 ki. +, 1,t 174.1 L r1-X .i.� -- _ # ii � - . x 173.2 tr+ 4' 6 x 4 /l y\ 11 1 1690 0 y ��C r x x •- se \.p \\ %\\ p �.,�� , MHI p CAB I I 169.7\ 1 169.1 16:5 I 17� i /TO`/ 1 !�� FH 168.9 •'� \ \ x 169.4 ^_!. /-- ,? x �� ` p lx 168.3 170.2 g oCB S 2 cQ c� c - 168.3 Co .a. I._`- # l I 1 I > • MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 PORTLAND,OREGON 97205 • USA • TELEPHONE 503 222 5757 • FAX 503 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE DATE: September 1, 1995 Rembold DISTRIBUTION delivered TO: City of Tigard Robinson delivered Office of Community W&H/Pacific delivered Development file 2.40 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: 1 Via: Hand Delivered PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 PROJECT: Cascade Blvd. Commercial FILENAME: city/08-31-95/pre-app Center FROM: Loy Rusch The accompanying two drawing packages, each of which contains a brief project description and Conceptual Site Plan prepared by W&H Pacific,schematic building elevations and a schematic floor plan prepared by BSW International, and a boundary/topographic survey,are submitted for a Pre-Application Conference review. This Pre-App. meeting has already been scheduled by Dick Bewersdorff for September 7 at 9:00 A.M.,assuming the enclosed information was received no later than today This submittal represents the Schematic Design for a new single-tenant commercial development on a± 7.65 acre site located at 10385 SW Cascade Blvd., by Rembold Trusts Inc. The parcel of land involved (Tax Lot 500) received approval for a Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment to Commercial-General (C-G)from its previous Industrial Park designation earlier in the year,and the site is currently occupied by the vacant Sentrol building. The land immediately north of the site, which is owned by PGE (Tax Lot 300), was also part of the Map Amendment process and is now zoned C-G as well, while the property to the west and south is still zoned I-P. On May 25th of this year,a Pre-Application review was held for this piece of property,which involved at that time a two-pad commercial development of approximately 100,000 gsf of building area and parking for 390 cars. I have enclosed two copies of the City's Pre-App. notes from that conference for your reference, as well as two copies of"Exhibit 1" from the approved zone change submittal which serves as a vicinity map. If you have any questions about the information contained in this submittal, please call me. Thank you. PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING The proposed building on Cascade Boulevard is intended for a discount retailer. The building will be approximately 105,000 square feet of gross area. An outdoor garden center is intended to be located along the street frontage adjacent to the building's easterly elevation. The receiving dock will be located on the westerly frontage adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The exterior of the building is constructed of masonry materials. The type of materials vary but usually consist of smooth face and split face block. The exterior walls are painted with color coordinated paints. The site will be landscaped meeting the city's requirements. I __,, 1 / II■ II 1 \ a 11 1 isfri ) I • ftir ® ; rhew ill f -4$ als al ` DR r) 1 c it -1 _ fear o °* 0 • Fig ■■ w 1 mum R-40 it IfimaiL airlir. / ..1.;),, i WASH e ON I - C-P hilial lia 11.4 ' ,__,1 e e . • all H I. ME ■ inn ®1�494 MALL ■ ■ �. ■ �r. .. 1.� 1■ ■■11■r - R-12 ri :T -\) W CRESCENT GROVE / ■ ,�� ■ �I!II i■ ■1111■ sT. i CEMETERY wi U 11 ��;t;■ 9111111 Kai R-4.5 °`, ! II 11111. !1■1.7 BUSINESS i■■■li` 11:1■■■■ 1111/W , CENTER =` Tax Lots Ii■',,,''■ IR ,■ /I , �a 300 and 500 �� ∎�� REIR-12 y IIP Elp ROMEO ■�p • • 1IIIiVIiiE !J IP ��' '� lina_ Niillie `111 r•7>P, il 7 , . . c ovirso% Illailrillri.7. 11116"-w, .1,4 tam. 'A Ma mob 401.4 a wihei k mi miff i, FR ws3 • moo • =Alm. ■111, limo! a Om int 1 r - re MI _� �WI_ __ ■ /III1l .5 �� g I 7-1=Ro ..-- E. Lis in .411h. ■ RIMI. r- ! iiI !I' wv. 001------rjeue /I■ ■s ■■ ■,la-7p zr am Eigrj Elm &Tam, M.' gal IN IS R-1 All "IMIFIMIIMIMAIM II 11111.1111410.1.11;111111 IV ri IS 111 11111' , 11. ... �` i rim in Ns CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES NON-RESIDENTIAL atfir �,r fa !� 4 CITY OF TIGARD �n DATE: MAY lAY 46 i 5 STAFF: W0% t D` NY/Dge4 APPLICANT: AGENT: LC 4.--)5C,H Phone: J ) Phone: ( 1 &c98- 5-251 PROPERTY LOCATION ADDRESS: ( 3j3 S5 al) C.P eA to UD, TAX MAPITAX LOT: NECESSARY APPLICATION(S): erre DEV,LC/P/4gil7 REV/ PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: a COMMC rFtiN tood,Ns L-qi iiL3e' 6.5 F 61 , aoc) Ca-'5F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: C—C' ZONING DESIGNATION: C—Cr CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FACILITATOR: TEAM AREA: EAST PHONE: (503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum lot size: sq. ft. Average lot width: 60 ft. Maximum building height: 145 ft. Setbacks: front — ft. side —' ft. rear -- ft. corner ft. from street. Maximum site coverage: $S % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: {Jr' °,o (Refer to Code Section 18. 6, ) ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQ MENTS Minimum lot frontage: 25 " unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of feet of frontage or have a minimum 15 foot wide access easement. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 6 YON•Residential aapiication,P!anning Department Section Tice depth of all lots shall not exceed 21/2 times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.164.060 Lots) SPECIAL SETBACKS �g �P iN • Streets: 30 feet from the centerline of CASCADE . • Established areas: feet from . • Lower intensity zone • feet, along the site's boundary. • Flag lot: 10 f side yard setback. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.040 and 18.96) —4 SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Building Height Exceptions - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided: • A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; • All actual building setbacks will be at least '/: (half) of the building's height; and • The structure will not abut a residential zone district. (Refer to Code Section 18.98.020) l�}( sfeatta 'pEz `{.. Cr.FA. f T'4/L —4 PARKING AND ACCESS (�K 1000 fah ' OFFICE • No more than 40% of required spaces may be designate andlor dimensioned as com act spaces. Parking stalls shall be dimensionec as follows: • Standard parking space dimensions: 8 ft. 8 inches X 18 ft. • Compact parking space dimensions: 8 ft. X 15 ft. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.020) ___ • Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, arE mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbo shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. -- .BICYCLE RACKS Bicycle racks are required for multi-family, commercial and industrial developments. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protectec from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of one space for ever- fifteen (15) required vehicular parking spaces. Minimum number of accesses: a !"R. Minimum access width: 30`�� AvGD dlL Q Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: . —_— . All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use que . areas: Minimum n er of accesses: feet Minimum access ' . feet Maximum access width: feet. (Refer to Cade Section � (/� ' I , // ( •, tog CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 YON-Residential application/Planning Jeoartment Section WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS �] Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of al commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provid convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial compleses. Unless impractica: walkways should be constructed between a new develpment and neighboring developments. (Refer to Code Section 18.108.050) _-� LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS Every commercial or industrial building in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be provided with a loading space. The space size an, location shall be as approved by the City Engineer. (Refer to Code Section 18.106.070-090) _-CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that clear vision areas be maintained between three and eight feet in height at roadldriveway, road/railroad, anc road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification. (Refer to Code Section 18.102) BUFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer area are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees anc 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 18.100) The required buffer widths which are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: ft. along north boundary. ft. along east boundary. ft. along south boundary. ft. along west boundary. In addition, sight obscuring screening is required along L,40,JD 5G4'>/tN3 7 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) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 YOM-Residential aoplicationiP!anrong Oeoartment Section SIGNS • Sign permits must be obtained prior to installation of any sign in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be filed for review before the Hearings Officer. (Refer to Code Section 18.114) SENSITIVE LANDS The Code provides regulations for lands which are potentially unsuit .le for development due to areas within the 100-year floodplain, natural drainageways, wetland areas, on slopes in excess of 2 sercent, or on unstable ground. Staff will attempt to preliminarily identify sensitive lands areas at the pre-application confe ce based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility tc precisely identify sensitive lands areas, and their bound. es, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans 'mitted with the development application. Chapter 18.84 also provides regulations for ti use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. Residential development is prohibited within floodpiains. In most ca • , dedication of 100-year floodplain areas to the City for park and open space areas is required as a condition of the approva t'f a development application. (Refer to Code Section 18.84) NARRATIVE The applicant shall submit a narrative which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. (Refer to Code Section 18.32) CODE SECTIONS 18.80 V 18.98 18.114 8.150 18.84 X18.100 c 18.116 18.160 18.88 f/'18.102 ,/18.120 18.162 18.92 18.106 _ 18.130 18.164 V 18.96 ✓18.108 18.134 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant shall notify all property owners within 250 feet and the appropriate CIT Facilitator and the members of any land use subcommittee(s) of their proposal. A minimum of 2 weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. ECYCLING Applicant should contact franchise hauler for review and approval of site servicing compatibility with Pride Disposal's vehicles. CONTACT PERSON: Lenny Hing with Pride Disposal at (503) 625-6177. (Refer to Code Section 18.116) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 6 NON-Residential applicationiPlanning Oeparment Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: � (O CA-M- 57, -ro4 - E&7 1 60-44p)// Wfl 7Rr}JsTo 2i-4--770 v ?1,4.)AJ/ Xt Role. 1 AreuoA 1 -11006 "17 NEi( 42sDglNC7 DRtorca4y t0t,4-h7ws i;K:>.Towx yk,n SCD 17FFRK\NG- Co TJN6c4: RDDynopPL ( 1-R No• lc - 4et..S 1' 1 . 7b C1-11vE RENT `tv� :� i s 7E1) :Z . : CCE bE r — or. • ' Act 6 TT # "B,iS t J -007 of„) C�Sc (Z ter F E et-- t i- c.CE55 -CR/Ws t 1°; p N-5!- 49 T,ei.poi C I r2t 1.4"t lo+,J (5 Ctcyy w!Tt-} Cv c-ze_N)-r .S/G , PROCEDURE .dministrative staff review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All applications must be accepted by a Planning Division staff member of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications submitted after 4:30 P.M. on Thursday will be batched for processing with the following week's applications. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8.5 inch by 11 inch map of a proposed oroject should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 YON-Residential aoai cat:oft PIarrnnq Department Section The Planning Division and Engineering Division will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether ar application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additiona copies of the submitted materials are required. The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions mati take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing A 10, to 20 day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard �1 �4a t e,)Ct [p M.M(SS 100 . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from thr Planning Division upon request. This pre-application conference and the notes of the conference are intended to inform the prospective applicant of the primar' Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staf- and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. .FtgASCAPIfi 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 application(s) islare to be submitted more than six months following this pre-application conference, unless the additional conference(s) is deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division. PREPARED BY: W. A (•-)1 ►Z CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 ie:agrtoattryreaoo-c.-nst Engreenng Secton:oreaae-P..31) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 NON-Residential aaolreation■Planning Department Section A PUBLIC FACILITIES 461 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. / - R' , -t/ A) 7z-) /,9/us "p a7c /Li, Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: (1.) 15- to feet from centerline. te' /± (2.) I/ to feet from centerline. /A/ ,eA116D (3.) to feet from centerline. Street improvements: (1.) /y street improvements will be necessary along (1u 7 "! ) (2.) P1/64--64— street improvements will be necessary along 4' . �N geo4elA/es=7 Ait-t" (3.) Street improvements shall include feet of pavement from centerline, plus the installs ion 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. PGA /s/7/4 OG fl if 5 /2aa ,iy /Lj611 $7.517/ CITY OF TIGARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 3 Non-Residential aopiicaticnsEngineenng Department Sewon 4: in some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the stree improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the propert. owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district formed to improve: (1.) (2.) 5 !, -i 7)14"fP/c Tl'lo.J5C-T1°A-)s e-0,-)57 s TL S- Gv/ Pedestrianways;bikeways: rU,` Z2� Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 6 inch line which is located in . 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 Water Supply: The Tigard Water District Phone: (503) 639-1554 AI646 41/6 7 ❑ Tualatin Valley Water District Phone: (503) 642-1511 provides public water service in the area of this site. The District should be contacted for informatior regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (Contact: Gene Birchill, (503) 526-2502) provides fire protectior services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Other Agency Permits: Storm sewer improvements: 41667— el --- " / 'f^'0 fl S t' Atifithhi-nom :s p16 m >/77 .L 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 and/or 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. of- 17E Gi/f7 X. f v�s- ' CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 3 Non•Residential lcoocaaonrEng,neenng 3eoarment 2ecvon TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (T1F) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the T1F is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The T1F shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the T1F is greater than $5,000.00. 9 ` Ci270 — 5�-(51-2° 13 ) 70.tg c /zd .675 STREET OPENING PERMIT No work shall be preformed within a public right-of-way, or shall commence, until the applicant has obtained a street opening permit from the Engineering Department. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS All projects that require a grading plan also require that the applicant shall submit a typical floor plan for each lot. This floor plan shall indicate the elevations of the four corners of that plan along with elevations at the corner of each lot. PREPARED BY• %-011IE-4-e. ENGINEERING DIVISION PHONE: (503) 639-4171 n^,loginipactvlpreacp-c.enq 'master section:)reaop•c.mstl March:9, 199E CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 3 Von-Aesidential a ooticanamEngneenng Oeoartment Section CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R MENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST '�!I 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. ITEMS TO BE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED: A.) Application form (1 copy) p/ B.) Owner's signature/written authorization ,ems' C.) Title transfer instrument/or grant deed re-' F.) Applicant's statement (No. of copies iS ) G.) Filing Fee (S SeE Fee SC4E to ) PROJECT SPECIFIC-MAP SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A.) Site Information showing: (No. of copies 1 ) 1 . Vicinity map e� 2. Site size & dimensions 3. Contour lines (2 ft at 0-10% or 5 ft for grades > 10%) o� 4. Drainage patterns, courses, and ponds ser- 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 ram 8. Location of existing structures and their uses 9. Location and type of on and off-site noise sources ge- 10. Location of existing utilities and easements se* 11 . Location of existing dedicated right-of-ways t� APPLICATION CHECKLIST PACE 1 OF 4 , B.) Site Development Plan showing: (No. of copies lc? ) 1 . The proposed site and surrounding properties ar- 2. Contour line intervals 0- 3. The location, dimensions and names of all: (a) Existing & platted streets & other public ways and easements on the site and on adjoining properties (b) Proposed streets or other public ways & easements on the site Er- (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 e- (b) Parking and circulation areas (c) Loading and services area ze- (d) Pedestrian and bicycle circulation (e) Outdoor common areas a (f) Above ground utilities ems' 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 40".- on the site 6. Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions 7. Sanitary sewer facilities 8. The location areas to be landscaped 9. The location and type of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques.- 10. The location of mailboxes 11 . The location of all structures and their orientation 12. Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements C.) Grading Plan: (No. of copies tS ) 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 general ✓ contour lines, slope ratios and soil stabilization proposals, and time of year it is proposed to be done 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 ✓ D.) Architectural Drawings (No. of copies 1 g ): The site development plan proposal shall include: 1 . Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures proposed for use on-site 2. Typical elevation drawings of each structure .00°- APPLICATION CHECKLIST PAGE 2 OF 1 . E.) Landscape Plan (No. or copies 1 0 ): 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 8/ 3. Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces 4. Location, type, size and species of existing and proposed plant materials .0-- The landscape plan shall include a narrative which also addresses: 1 . Soil conditions 2. Erosion control measures that will be used F.) Sign Drawings Sign drawings shall be submitted in accordance with Chapter 18.114 of the Code as part of the Site Development Review or prior to obtaining a Building Permit to construct a sign. G.) Traffic generation estimate H.) Preliminary partition or lot line adfustment ma. showi .L (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 ) inch north arrow and date 4. Description of parcel location and ..undaries 5. Location, width and names of st . ets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to •e parcel 6. Location of all permanent • ildings on and within 25 feet of all property lines 7. Location and width of a water courses 8. Location of any trees ithin 6" or greater caliper at 4 feet above ground level 9. All slopes greater an 25% 10. Location of exi ng utilities and utility easements 11 . For major la • partition which creates a public street: (a) The •- oposed right-of-way location and width (b) A : aled cross-section of the proposed street plus any reserve strip 12. Any .•plicable deed restrictions 13. Ev'.ence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land • vision where applicable I.) Subdivision Preliminary Plat .eta. and data sh•- ina (No. of copies ): 1 . Scale equaling 30,50,100 or 200 et to the inch and limited to one phase per sheet 2. The proposed name of the : •division 3. Vicinity map showing • .perty's relationship to arterial and collector streets 4. Names, addresses - d telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, survever and d•. gner, as applicable 5. Date of app ation 6. Bounda• ines of tract to be subdivided APPLICATION CHECKLIST PAGE 3 OF.4 7. Names of adjacent subdivision or names of recorded owners of adjoining - parcels of un-subdivided land 8. Contour lines related to a City-established benchmark at 2-foot intervals for 0-10 910 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 private right-of-ways and easements (b) Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines (c) Domestic water mains including fire hydrants (d) Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 volts •r greater) (e) Watercourses (f) Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, path --ays and other land encumbrances 10. Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary a : storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans 11 . Plan of the proposed water distribution system, s •wing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants 12. Approximate centerline profiles showing the r ished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision 13. Scaled cross sections of proposed sire- right-of-way 14. The location of all areas subject to undation or storm water overflow 15. Location, width and direction of .w of all water courses and drainage ways 16. The proposed lot configuratio• , approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used fa- purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. 17. The location of all tree with a diameter 6 inches or greater measured at 4 feet above ground level, .nd the location of proposed tree plantings, if any 18. The existing uses ► the property, including the location of all structures and the present uses of e structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after plattin: 19. Suppleme, al information including: (a) Prposed deed restrictions (if any) (b) ''roof of property ownership (c) A proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements 20. •. isting natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands and marsh areas 21 . If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application J.) Other Information APPLICATION CHECKLIST PAGE 4 OF 4 STOEL RIVES LLP RECEIVED PLANNING ATTORNEYS JAN 291997 • STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 C1�1/F m�R PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 VI i Vf ,RifYyl Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com January 28, 1997 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 email mcrobinson @stoel.com Mr. Will D'Andrea Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Cascade Avenue Project Dear Will: Please find enclosed a recorded copy of the public access easement satisfying the condition of approval for the Cascade Boulevard property. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson (LiJ MCR:ipc Enclosure cc(w/encl.): Mr. Wayne Rembold (w/encl.) Ms. Lois Portnoy PDX1A-63875.1 99999-0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. STATE OF OREGON l County of Washington J SS I, Jerry FL:1 ,Director of Asse: ment and Taxation ead Ex• ffibio Cour Clerk forsaiti-courgyivdcEbereby certify ti the within instruatatttawritirtg was receiv and reconied:fn.::ir' ; ads of sz county. - d _ • Zo • . —-• After Recording :Jerry-^'•/ s G RGHaneon,Dlrector Return To: As'sess.ient and Taxation, E Michael C. Robinson Oftbio,CAtisty Clerk Stoel Rives LLP Doc : 96107544 900 SW Fifth Avenue,Suite 2300 Rect: 176418 Portland,OR 97204 2 8. 12/03/1996 10: 31: 35am PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT PINNACLE INVESTORS, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company ("Grantor"), hereby grants to THE CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation in Washington County, Oregon. for use by the public, a nonexclusive, perpetual easement for ingress and egress over the driveway described in the attached Exhibit A. The purpose of this easement is to provide a vehicular connection between this property and the adjacent property to the south, as more fully described in Exhibit B attached hereto and included herein by reference, as required by the City of Tigard. This easement shall not be construed to create, convey or dedicate a public right-of-way. Under no circumstances shall the City or Grantor allow any parking on this easement. Grantor, its successors and assigns, agrees to be responsible for maintaining the driveway in good and workmanlike manner. DATED this 7 day of November, 1996. PINNACLE INVESTORS, L.L.C. an Oregon limited liability company ,__- i _ . W KC. Rembold APPROVED ASTO FORM By: Cttorney APPROVED By: - � City Administrator State of Oregon ) ss. County o ,„/„) The foregoi t: • trument is acknowledged before me this 7 day of , 1996, by L of Pinnacle Investors, L.L.C., an Oregon limited iability company, o its beh• f. 4CEe_ azu4.,11 Notary Publ for it A,• My commission expire s`. - � OFFICIAL SEAL j • BETTS JEAN OWEN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON �u� ' :CMMiSSIONN0.020237_ 1 y Exhibit A Legal Description for Public Access Easement Being a public easement for ingress and egress over and across that tract of land described in deed to Thomas J. Holce in Document No. 88-49269, recorded November 3, 1968, Washington County Deed Records, said tract of land lying in the northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, said easement more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the True Point of Beginning of Parcels 1 and 2 of said Holce tract, thence along the south line of said Parcel 2, S 71°19'13" W 1.60 feet; thence leaving said south line parallel with the west line of said Parcel 2, N 18°43'18" W 4.70 feet; thence parallel with the south line of said Parcel 1, N 88°49'58" E 32.45 feet; thence S 01°10'02" E 4.00 feet to the south line of said Parcel 1; thence along said south line S 88°49'58" W 29.51 feet to the Point of Beginning. a 1 ti/c ti � 73, DOC. NO. 88-49269 N\ o D ui 0 > 0 Ph co r < A SEE DETAIL BELOW i NO SCALE N 18'43.18" W 4.70' N 8849'58" E 5 0110'02' E 32.45 or 4.00' ) 29.51' S 88'49'58" W S 7119'13" W 1.60' POINT OF BEGINNING 3 Exhibit B A parcel of land situated the Northeast One-Quarter of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, County of Washington, and State of Oregon, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the D.C. Graham D.L.C. #52; thence North 01014'00" West (deed) (North 01007'14" West measured) along the Westerly line of said Graham D.L.C. a distance of 1401.20 feet (deed) (1401.01 feet measured) to the Northwest corner of that parcel of land conveyed to Herbert Olson and recorded in Book 304, Page 99, record of deeds; Washington County, Oregon; thence North 89°22'00" West (deed) (North 89°40'59" West measured) 60.00 feet (deed) (60.63 feet measured) to a pont on the Westerly right-of-way line of S.W. Cascade Boulevard, said point being on the Northerly line of a 20.00 foot wide spur track easement and the True Point of Beginning of the herein described tract; thence continuing North 89°22'00" West along the Northerly line of said spur track easement a distance of 28.80 feet to a point of curve; thence continuing along said northerly line of said spur track easement, along a 348.39 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 70039'00" an arc distance of 429.56 feet (the long chord of said curve bears North 54°02'30" West a distance of 402.89 feet) to a point on the Easterly right-of-way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence North 18°43'00" West along said Easterly right-of-way line a distance of 333.99 feet; thence leaving said Easterly right- of-way line, North 88°49'58" East a distance of 450.07 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of said S.W. Cascade Boulevard; thence along said Westerly right-of-way line South 01014'00" East a distance of 562.52 feet to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPTING THEREFROM the easterly five (5) feet of even width thereof, being a strip of land five (5) feet wide parallel and adjacent to the westerly line of Southwest Cascade Boulevard, and being that certain parcel dedicated to the City of Tigard by instrument recorded June 8, 1983 as Recorder's Fee No. 83019827, Records of Washington County; and containing 188,142.4 square feet, more or less (4.3192 acres). PDX 1 A-57064.1 99999-0006 After Recording Return To: Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204 PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT PINNACLE INVESTORS, L.L.C., an Oregon limited liability company ("Grantor"), hereby grants to THE CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation in Washington County, Oregon, for use by the public, a nonexclusive, perpetual easement for ingress and egress over the driveway described in the attached Exhibit A. The purpose of this easement is to provide a vehicular connection between this property and the adjacent property to the south, as more fully described in Exhibit B attached hereto and included herein by reference, as required by the City of Tigard. This easement shall not be construed to create, convey or dedicate a public right-of-way. Under no circumstances shall the City or Grantor allow any parking on this easement. Grantor, its successors and assigns, agrees to be responsible for maintaining the driveway in good and workmanlike manner. DATED this 7 day of November, 1996. PINNACLE INVESTORS, L.L.C. an Oregon limited liability company B /,�— -- Wa, C. Rembold APPROVED1 LAS TO FORM , By: [X� MI Ciby Attorney APPROVED By: City Administrator State of Oregon ) 4(zitniza 21) ss. County of The foregoing rument is acknowledged before me this 7 day of 1996, by, ti Pinnacle Investors, L.L.C., an Oregon limited lability company, on is behalf. Not. Publ for / My commission expires. // 02 9/96 .0114x. OFFICIAL SEAL BETTE JEAN OWEN 1 A' +: NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NO.020237 F 115i1AN53068-1 2i.4t241 29.1 ,mac-i Exhibit A Legal Description for Public Access Easement Being a public easement for ingress and egress over and across that tract of land described in deed to Thomas J. Holce in Document No. 88-49269, recorded November 3, 1968, Washington County Deed Records, said tract of land lying in the northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, said easement more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the True Point of Beginning of Parcels 1 and 2 of said Holce tract, thence along the south line of said Parcel 2, S 71°19'13" W 1.60 feet; thence leaving said south line parallel with the west line of said Parcel 2, N 18°43'18" W 4.70 feet; thence parallel with the south line of said Parcel 1, N 88°49'58" E 32.45 feet; thence S 01°10'02" E 4.00 feet to the south line of said Parcel 1; thence along said south line S 88°49'58" W 29.51 feet to the Point of Beginning. y/ ti� \--),- DOC. NO. 88-49269 n 'N D in C7 D 0 m CO r 0 SEE DETAIL BELOW NO SCALE N 18'43'18" W 4.70' -\ N 88'49'58" E S 0110'02" E 32.45' r 4,00' 29.5 ' S 88'49'58" W S 7119'13" W 1.60' POINT OF BEGINNING • Exhibit B • A parcel of land situated in the MorthWest One-Quarter of Section 3S, Township 1.South, Range 1 West of the • Willamette Meridian, .City of Tigard, County.:vf Washing- - .tOn, and State of Oregon, 9sscribgd as follows- • ComMencing at the Southwest- corner Of the D.C. Graham D•L.C.. t52; thence North 01'14.'00" West (deed) (North 0).'07'.14"', West measured) along the Westerly line of said • Graham D.L.C. a distance of 1401.20 feet (deed)- (1401.01 feet measured) to the Northwest corner of that parcel of land conveyed to Herbert Olson and recorded in Book .304, Page 99, record of deeds: Washington County, Oregon; thence t`orth, g9'22',00" West (deed) (North W40'59" Weat measured) 60.00 feet (deed) (60.63 feet measured) to a point on the Westerly right-of •way line of S.W. Cascade Boulevard, said point being on the Northerly line of a .20.00 foot wide spur track easenent and the True Point of Beginning of the herein described tract: thence continuing North 89'22'00" West along the:Northerly line of said spur track' easement a distance of 28'.80 feet to a point of curve; thence continuing- along said northerly line of said spur track easement, along a 348.39 foot radius. curve to the right, through a central angle of 7a 439•00". an.arc distance of 429.56 feet (the long chord . - -of said curve bears North 54'02'30" West a distance of 402.89 feet)' to a point on the Easterly right-of-way lini .of the Southern Pacific Railroad: thence North 16'43'00" West along said Easterly right-of-way line a distance of 333..99. feet; thence leaving said Easterly right-of-way line, North 88'49' 58" East a distance of 4S0.07 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way - line .of said S.W. Cascade Boulevard; thence along said Westerly right-of-way line south 01'14'00" East a distance of 562.52 .feet to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPTXNG :TREREPROM the easterly five (5)' feet of even width. thereof, being-.a strip of land five (5) feet wide parallel and adjacent to the westerly line of. . southwest Cascade Boulevard, -and being that certain parcel dedicated to the City of Tigard by instrument recorded June 8 . •, 1903 as -Recorder's Fee No_ 8R)19827 . . . : 'Records of Washington County; and con- . - taining 1876,142.4 square feet, more or. Ices (4.3192 - .acres) . • • 1 .' si e a 300 • •,.\\�9L 954 . V310: S . L I •w••f+i_ L `. r• .,� 1.. IY.. I• .. • 1•r '• w (PO I \ Soo t..I+ M �C,�,L, • _. ...y - i01Y T. LOT' 1 3 - i y} �I V. P.ST•f. 4' . \\ s e �'y� I \ •' w N FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY I ffT1 .■ �' _ _ 1 \ •'\M 1 • • SEE um = 131 34 'O \ • � ■ it • 1!.. SEE MAP . I 7., IS 133 SA • • i ;) " - soy NT • ■ I ,. ,\ z 1- 23-74 600 TOO SOO ;'`\`� . Ir SEE MA► r • \`\ F I S ! 34 AO : \ 1` \ \ I lStll OVt L0T 2\ •••••�f• •• d \ r •12.01»... • ' TIGARd SSW ( ,s�- 3588�-, SEE MAP IS I 33 SC i ■ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 Notice TT 8 4 3 4 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising ¶ity of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •r'igard ,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit �I i.;. [, r •I 9E� Accounts Payable—Terry • 11y OF TIGAk[i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on STATE OF OREGON, )ss Monday.April 8. 199C at 7:30 P bl„at the Tigard Civic Center—Town COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) • Hall, 1 125 S.W. Hall Boulevardi.Tigard,Oregon. Both public oral and I, Kathy Snyder written testimony is invited. The,public hearing on this matter will be being first duly sworn, depose and say that I em the Advertising conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard—Tualatin__Times Municipal Code,and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the and 193.020; published at Ti ga rd in the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to aforesaid county and state; that the allow the hearings authority anti all the parties to respond on the request, Comm.Dev.Code/Cascade Comm.Center precludes an appeal, and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the comment is directed recludes an appeal ppeal based on that criterion. Further entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. consecutive in the following issues: Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling 639-4171. I March 28 , 1996 PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(ZOA)96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION AND K_OstLy IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS - The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development �^ Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A.and 18.96.100 A.and B.to require impact study,reservation and dedication requirements Subscribed and sworn to fore me this 2Rth r3ay of March, 1 A. for public facilities and services. LOCATION: Citywide. ZONE: N/A. i.�. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, 11 and 12;Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a,2.1.1,2.1.3,3,7 x�e Notary blic for Oregon=. 1 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. �•: My Commission Expires: t � PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS AFFIDAVIT CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER . ____ ____ --n.••• The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site i i Development Review approval to allow the construction of two,one-story l commercial retail buildings totaling approximately 100,000 square feet. i LOCATION: 10385 S.W.Cascade Boulevard(WCTM 1S1 35BB,tax lot i 500).West side of S.W.Cascade Boulevard,south of S.W. Scholls Ferry :I Road, and north of S.W. Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General Commercial). The Genera! tvv:.,.icrcial zone allows public afie;ncy and � t administrative services, public support facilities, professional and otiF administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, '43§'• business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking - establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW 'I, r CRITERIA: Community,Development Code Chapters 18.62, 18.100, s 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120,and 18.164. Itt:. . e 1 J L17/ . " 1 // wo Mill r — r-�N' . \11111114 ! lustre, bh: itt 4.1 '` PAAC!L— )IlL ■ . —„...... . 1 EL% 7---\\--- , ... ... Pa ,/,' -4 mini �' I The adopted finding of facts,decision,and statement of conditions can be ti obtained from the Planning Department,Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Z { S Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223.The decision shall be final on April 10, � 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 an ---....„% ;x. appeal is 3:30 P.M.,April 10. 1996. �� ? x "TT8434—Publish March 28, 1996. J 1R: t; '.I, ` ! \ y':. • ____11.. 4 . '03 ;.5,'96 10:33 $503 '20 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 a001/003 STOEL RIVES Attorneys at Law Standard Insurance Building 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204-1268 Telephone (503)294-9194 Telecopier (503)220-2480 TO: City of Tigard Fax #: (503) 684-7297 Office #: (503) 639-4171 FROM: Michael C. Robinson Client No. : 23452 Client Name: Matter No. : 0002 Matter Name: Land Use DATE: March 25, 1996 TIME: 9:35 am No. of pages (including this cover) : Equipment: Canon Fax 510 (24-hour automatic) In case of error call at (503)294-9508 or 294-9401 This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not distribute this facsimile, notify us immediately by telephone, and return this facsimile by mail. Thank you. COMMENTS: Please see attached. -03/25'96 10:33 $503 920 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 0002/003 STOEL RIVES L L P A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 700 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUM 2300 PORT[AND,ORE[ON 972o•126tt Phone(503)2243380 Fax(5031220-2480 TDD(50.9)221-1045 Internet_www,sloel.CUm March 25, 1996 MICHAEL C.RoBENSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 mcrobinson@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Wil D'Andrea, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Casefile No. SDR 95-0025 Dear Wil: I represent the applicant, MCM Architects. Mr. Loy Rusch of MCM has asked me to review the draft staff report. He asked me to pay particular attention to Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") 18.108.110(B). This section provides as follows: "In order to eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections." This provision is under a section entitled "Director's Authority to Restrict Access." It requires two findings by the Director. First, the Director must find that there is a need to provide a connection between commercial or industrial properties in order to eliminate public street use. Secondly, the Director must find that it is feasible to provide an access connection. In this case, the Director should not require a connection between this property and the property to the south. There is little need for a connection because very little traffic will use Cascade Avenue to move between the industrial property to the south and this site. The property owner to the south, Mr. Thomas J. Hoce, stated in a January 2, 1996 letter that PBX I A-26180.1 99999-000I 03/25/96 10:34 $503 '20 2480 STOEL RIVES 5 Z003/003 STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Wil D'Andrea March 25, 1996 Page 2 because the properties have different uses, a connection is inappropriate. Moreover, it makes little sense to encourage vehicular trips between the two sites when a sidewalk along Cascade Avenue will provide easy pedestrian and bicycle access. A vehicular access, on the other hand, has the undesirable consequence of not only encouraging unneeded vehicular trips but encouraging pass through traffic, thus interfering with pedestrians in both parking lots. Moreover, a connection between the two properties is not feasible. The proposed site development review plan for this site shows loading areas and a storm water retention area at the site's southwest corner. A vehicular connection would have to go through this area. Vehicular traffic would interfere with the Ioading function of the site. It is also highly unlikely that the connection would be used much at all since it would be at the rear of the buildings, requiring drivers to drive around to the front of the buildings. We have scheduled a meeting for 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 27 at your office, to discuss this matter. Loy and I look forward to seeing you then. Very truly yours, Michael C. Robinson MCR/dkt cc: Mr. Wayne Rembold (via facsimile) Mr. Loy Rusch (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-26190.1 99999-0001 M AP' '96 14:50 CHRIS FRESHLEY. 5032247069 TO: 503 684 7297 P01 CHRISTOPHER FRESHLEY LANDSCAPE • ARCHITECT FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DATE: TO: FROM: 6Z[ f/1, PrW1f RE: NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE DESCRIBED MATERIAL, PLEASE CALL: (503) 222-9881 FAX (503) 224-7069 COMMENTS: Obi!l/ 2R1` Mf i t/ Pig K A--- Moi001/A-1■• �... ..� .'...Tr ee: . nnnTi ekin iiuRt(1X1 V77c15 . S•1/122AFS!II • FAX 50i/224.7009 APR2 '96 14:51 CHRIS FRESHLF' 5032247069 T0: 503 684 7297 P02 w t -' +' ll,, UVQj ' �We° ° to rounded � � :` Folia e. N. m to dark green ,;�.- � 9 .�iu aching, oval F. :a ^ , m> . Fall Color: Reddish -,,,, ,,,,,.. --..,_ ,,,,,,1, glossy ..�; '- orange-red Selected from a northern Minneso the University of Minnesota, North the source by the hardiest of the Red Maples °Od is probably !liable of nk Caliper: lard to 1.75" 2.0" 2.5" 3.0„ 3.5" growing 78.00 t 119.r.� 4.0" .in9 156.00 203.00 249.00 n the d and A(-er rubrulrl '0( Iober Glor '�u) October Glory Glory 'w) Maple Zone 4b Height: 40' 4 r .0', ' Spread: 35 ,.... .. Shape: k. ape: Broadly oval to 229. a°r1`� :< /,„,,, .=r Foliage: und ., age: Mediu ,� � Medium green glossy -,. Fall Color. g ° As;, :, Deep red to reddish- i Purple r ---�_ October Glory is a round the last cultivar to color headed � hea selection which is \ olor in the Fall. While it is less ■ cold hardy than most cultivars, it seem adapted to areas with mild winters to be better rs temperatures, and hot summer Caliper: 1.75" 2.0„ 2.5►, 3.0" 3.5" 4.0„ 78,00 94.00 119.00 156,00 203.00 249.00 1? AP STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com April 8, 1996 MICHAEL C. ROBINSON Direct Dial (503) 294-9194 mcrobinson@stoel.com Mr. Will D'Andrea Assistant Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: SDR Estates 96-0005 Dear Will: I represent Wayne Rembold and Pinnacle Investors, LLC. You and I spoke by telephone on April 5 regarding Condition of Approval 7(C), which provides as follows: "7. Revised site and landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Division, Staff Contact: Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised plan showing through the following: C. Provision that a parking lot connection with the property to the south. An access easement shall also be provided for the benefit of the adjacent property." I asked you if the City would be willing to defer provision of the access easement pursuant to the above condition of approval until after building permits had been issued but prior to certificates of occupancy being issued. I assured you that my client would provide the easement as required. Enclosed please find my client's letter attesting to this fact. You agreed, based on these representations, to defer compliance with this condition of approval until prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. PDX1A-27698.1 99999-0006 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA BOISE SALT LAKE CITY WASHINGTON,D.C. STOEL RIVES LLP Mr. Will D'Andrea Assistant Planner April 8, 1996 Page 2 Please call me if this letter is inaccurate in any respect. Otherwise, my client and I will proceed on the basis that the easement may be provided after the building permits have been issued. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, M .Q e , 1244. Michael C. Robinson MCR:ipc Enclosure cc: Mr. Wayne Rembold (w/encl.) P D X I A-27 698.1 99999-0006 . RPR- 9-96 TUE 10 :56 REMBOLD PROPERTIES 15032224053 P_ 01 REM BOLD C o M P A N I E , . •r1 To: Michael Robinson Stoel Rives LLP From: Wayne Rembold Re: 10385 SW Cascade Blvd. Date: April 5, 1996 Pinnacle Investors, L.L.C. is prepared to grant an access easement across our developed driveway areas to the property owner to the south of our site (Tom Holce) before occupany of our project. /11111 . cc: Loy Rusch MCM Architects 1022 SW Salmon P h on a Suite 450 603.222.7258 Portland OR 97205 • F a c s i m i l e U S A 5030222•4053 t MCM ARCHITECTS 1022 SOUTHWEST SALMON,SUITE 350 - PORTLAND,OREGON 97206 • USA - TELEPHONE 503 222 5767 • FAX 603 241 1514 COMMUNIQUE : April 10, 1996 DISTRIBUTION VIA DATE p Rembold delivered TO: Will D'Andrea file 2.40 City of Tigard NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED: 2 Office of Community Development PROJECT NUMBER: 94003 FILENAME: city/04-09-96/SDR rev's Via: Delivered PROJECT: Cascade Blvd. Center SDR96-0005 FROM: Loy Rusch Accompanying this memo is one set of revised Civil and Landscape Drawings (CI through C4 and L-1 through L-4, dated 4-8-96 andf 4-3-96, respectively) which reflect the changes required as a result of the Site Development Review process for the above-referenced project. Following is a brief response to the Conditions of Approval cited in the 3-28-96 Notice of Decision. This project was submitted for building permit plan review and approval on 2-23- 96. Plan review comments from the building department have been received for both the Site Permit and Building 1 permit. Responses to the Site Permit plan review were provided to the city on 4-5-96. I have also re-submitted, under separate cover, five sets of the above- referenced revised Civil sheets for Site Permit SIT96-0006 and another five sets of the above- referenced revised Civil and Landscape drawings for the Building Permits review. Two sets of revised storm calculations have also been provided to the Engineering Department. ENGINEERING: Conditions 1 & 2: Street Improvement drawings were submitted for review and comment by the Engineering Department on 2-23-96, as part of the Building Shells permit submittal package. The Design Team is currently awaiting response from the Engineering Department on the design. Once comments have been received,corrections will be made,along with the depiction of the required re- striping and re-signing at the intersection of SW Cascade Blvd. and SW Scholls Ferry Road. After the corrections have been made, the required number of drawing sets, along with the detailed construction cost estimate, will be re-submitted for final review and approval. For your information, the Design Team has met with representatives of the utility companies which have overhead lines along the west side of Cascade Blvd. (PGE,GTE,and TCI)in order to determine the requirements for placing these lines underground. Once the costs have been established for placing these lines underground, the Owner will determine whether to proceed with COMMUNIQUE PAGE 2 that work or to pay the "in lieu of" fee noted in the pre-application conference. Condition 3: The improvements to SW Cascade Blvd. have been designed by the project's Civil Engineer in accordance with the City of Tigard's Public Improvement Design Standards. Condition 4: These requirements are acknowledged and will be provided. It's my understanding that the letters and agreements will be prepared as soon as the project's Civil Engineer has received the city's red-line comments on the public improvements. Condition 5: The General Contractor will provide the street monuments will be in accordance with the city's requirements. Condition 6: The Civil Engineering drawings submitted as part of the Building Shells permit submittal on 2-23-96 documented the design of the required water quality/detention facility. Calculations for the water quality feature, prepared by the Civil Engineer, were also submitted at that time. The revision to the water quality feature necessitated by the provisions for a vehicular connection to the adjacent parcel of land to the south are documented on the accompanying revised Civil and Landscape sheets. In addition, revised storm calculations by the project's Civil Engineer, documenting the design and performance of the revised water quality/detention facility,have been re-submitted. The required maintenance plan for this water quality/detention facility is included in the report. PLANNING: Condition 7A: It is our understanding that, as a result of a conversation between the Landscape Architect and yourself, the spacing of the street trees as originally shown (40' o.c.) has been accepted. Condition 7B: The additional five parking lot trees have been provided and are shown on sheet L-2. Condition 7C: Provisions for the connection to the existing parking lot to the south have been made and are reflected on Civil sheets C1-C4. In addition, the changes to the Landscape Plan required by this modification are shown on sheet L-2. Irrigation system changes in this area are shown on sheet L-4. Also, it is our understanding that the provision of an access easement for the property owner to the south will now be a condition of Occupancy, not of building permit issuance. $111 CITY OF TIGARD April 22, 1996 OREGON Loy Rusch MCM Architects 1022 SW Salmon, Suite 350 Portland, OR 97205 Re: Outstanding Conditions of Approval Dear Loy: This letter is to update the status of the conditions of approval related to SDR 96-0005 (Cascade Commercial Center) which pertain to the Planning Department. The following conditions remain outstanding: Condition #7(a). I received a fax from Chris Freshley regarding the size of the proposed street trees. The information indicates that the height and spread of the proposed October Glory Maple would classify this tree as a medium size tree, as defined in Section 18.100.0035. A revised plan still needs to be submitted which provides for a maximum 30 foot spacing given this type of tree. Condition #7(c). The access easement may be deferred to occupancy. If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, William D'Andrea Assistant Planner h:Uog in\curpin\wil r\sdr96-05.Itr c: SDR 96-0005 land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 4-2.3-1996 10:53PM FROM C FRESHLEY LANDARCH S03+224+7069 P. 1 CHRISTOPHER FRESHLEY LANDSCAPE • A R C H I T E C T FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET DATE: 4 - TO: Wit 17UPf 16 -- FROM: e i' RE: ■ll_fl // NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE DESCRIBED MATERIAL, PLEASE CALL: (503) 222-9881 FAX (503) 224-7069 COMMENTS: • ,ntn Q UV TAVI r1D CI iTTC 'CC _ C,, DTI wwlft no CPI/11.1 1]'7lnC _ C.t2i11•t nuut . cwv [ni∎,,• •sncn 4-23=1996 10:54PM FROM C FRESHLEY LANDARCH 503+224+7069 P. 2 CHRISTOPHER FRESHLEY L A N D S C A P E • A R C H I T E C T April 24, 1996 Will D'Andrea Assistant Planner City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd,, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Street Trees - Cascade Blvd. Center Dear Will: As per our conversation yesterday, we will change the street trees from October Glory Maple to Autumn Purple Ash and retain the 40'on center spacing. 1 have enclosed a specification on this tree for your review. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, has Fres CF:jf cc: Loy Rusch - MCM Architects Mike Kaiser - Teufel Landscape in n c•wr revs nD ci rlrr 2(C . DnDTI AMTN nD Frn>,i o7)n[ . 4n2Y1».QR I . FAY Sill/71a_7eAo ~4-23-1996 10:54PM FROM C FRESHLEY LANDARCH 503+224+7069 P_ 3 V V im. V V l l%A la 1 CA i, 11...J..111 •1 11111 The most popular purple Ted beech, Rivers is deep ith a strong central leader. It is ul . purple in the spring and holds a good purple-bronze tains a relatively narrow oval shop color throughout the summer. The smooth silver- seedless. gray bark of the trunk is beautiful in winter. Caliper: Caliper: 1.75" 2.0" 2.5" 3.0" 3.5" 4.0" 1.75" _ 2.0" 2.5" 3.0" 96.00 116.00 147.00 193.00 251.00 303.00 71 86.00 115.00 148.00 Fa•us s 'viatica `Zlatia' Fraxinus oxycarpa 'Raywoo• Golden European Beech Zone [S] u}'"'OOd Ash Height: 50' Height: 35' Spread: 35' ,y';, , of, Spread: 25' p 4� $: ,�i- y.. Shape: Oval v Shape: Upright and pyramidal ` s�Prc.'� �",- Foliage: Nara x,10 Foliage: Yellow to golden green ,;. '�n z '� e y fine textured N.VON �j4f Fall Color: Re '14411 Or Similar form to European Beech except young leaves Raywood grows fast as a young tree are yellow and age to golden green. smaller than other Ash. Slender brc Caliper: row leaflets give it a delicate, fine to 1.75" 2.0" 2.5" 3.0" 3.5'' 4.0" once. Outstanding reddish purple fl - Caliper: ' .I. 16.00 • :• 1...00 • - 1.00 -03.00 - - • 1.75" 2.0" 2.5" 3.0" Fraxinus americana 'Autumn Purple' 71.00 82.00 110.00 139.00 Autumn PurpleTM Ash Zone [4] n ,�.,; ,: �," Height: 45' Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Max �� ' { ' ``�. Spread: 40' Marshall Ash ',, , !'� ,!/'t"` Shope: Rounded -� H ' v + �,�, ,e ,? ,, u, eight: SO � `i' f. ^ : Foliage: Green, heavily tex- �r� T * , �. Spread: 40'10 .' tured ,,' ` .„ Shape: Broadi '®®`�� y'��,. Fall Color: Reddish-purple F ��J Foliage: Gloss Fall Color: Bri The standard of comparison for White Ash. Beautiful fall colors of various hues in different years ranging Marshall has been proven over the from mottled yellow orange to orange red and deep tough and adaptable tree. The folio purple. Seedless. and very glossy. It probably produc Caliper: fall color of all the Ash. More irregi. 1.75" 2.0" 2.5" 3.0" 3.5" 4.0" in shape than Summit or Patmore. 71.00 86.00 115.00 148.00 185.00 229.00 Caliper: 1.75" 2.0" 2.5" 3.0" 18 68-.00 82.00 107.00 139.00 /( U\?th lqv P:t)- STOEL RIVES LLP A T T O R N E Y S STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE,SUITE 2300 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204-1268 Phone(503)224-3380 Fax(503)220-2480 TDD(503)221-1045 Internet:www.stoel.com October 22, 1996 MICHAEL C.ROBINSON Direct Dial (503)294-9194 mcrobinson@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Wil D'Andrea, Planner City of Tigard Community Development Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Cascade Avenue Project Dear Wil: I am writing to follow up on our telephone conversation on Monday. The Cascade Avenue project is the "power center" being developed by Wayne Rembold on Cascade Avenue just south of Toys R Us. As you may recall, I met with you and Loy Rusch (Wayne's architect) earlier this year to discuss how to comply with the Tigard Development Code requirement that vehicular access be provided between this center and the property to the south. The city agreed to allow Wayne to provide the vehicular access easement at or prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the power center. Wayne has asked that I contact you to find out whether the city will consider an alternative proposal. Since the Tom Holce property south of the Cascade Avenue project has not submitted an application for site development review, it is unclear where a vehicular connection would or could be located on that property. The most that Mr. Rembold can give you at this time is an easement in favor of the public at a particular location. That would fix the location for the driveway connection if and when the Holce property redevelops. Yet, that might be the wrong location from the perspective of the redevelopment of the Holce property. Instead, Wayne would like to offer an agreement with the city of Tigard to specify the kind of easement (vehicular access), its width (24 ft. wide) and in whose favor it runs (the PDX 1 A-52185.1 23452-0001 SEATTLE PORTLAND VANCOUVER,WA B(IISL SALT LAKL CI IN WASIIINC ION,D.C. r STOEL RIVES Li P Mr. Wil D'Andrea October 22, 1996 Page 2 public). The agreement would specify that Wayne or his successor would have to provide the easement whenever the Holce property redevelops and at a location to be determined at that time by the city. This agreement could be recorded so that future purchasers would have notice of it and the city would have the right to enforce it. Please give me a call after you have considered this. Very truly yours, 1\' C. 44 Michael C. Robinson MCR:kw cc: Mr. Wayne Rembold (via facsimile) Mr. Loy Rusch (via facsimile) PDX 1 A-52185.1 23452-0001 (7.4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON October 24, 1996 Michael C. Robinson Stoel Rives LLP Standard Insurance Center 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Re: SDR 96-05 Dear Mr. Robinson: This letter is in response to your letter dated October 22, 1996. The alternative proposal offered in the letter is not acceptable to the City. The City expects the provision of the easement prior to the Issuance of Occupancy permits as was assured in your April 8, 1996 letter. This easement is a required condition of the development approval. If you have any questions concerning this information, please feel free to contact me at (503) 639-4171. Sincerely, William D'Andrea, AICP Associate Planner i:cu rpin\wiIIlsdr96-05.It2 c. SDR 96-0005 land use file 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Oct-31 -96 O8: 13A 503-641 -5356 P_ O1 TEUFEL LANDSCAPE October 31, 1996 Don Schaefer Grady Harper Carlson 2945 NE Argyle St. Portland, OR 97211 Subject: Cascade Blvd. Center - Work Completed to Date Dear Don: As per your request, this letter is to verify our estimated percentage of completion of work at the Cascade Blvd. Retail Center project. As of today, we estimate that 55% ork has been completed on this project. This leaves a balance of 45% r 541,427 on he landscape portion of work. If you have any questions on this estimate, please do not hesitate to call. Thanks Don. Sincerely, TEUFEL NURSERY, INC. dzy,,,44e....„....,-,.., Mike Kaiser A Division of Teufel Nursery, Inc. 12345 N.W. BARNES ROAD• PORTLAND, OR 97229• Phone 503/646-1 111 •FAX 503/641-5356 OCT-31-1996 08:30 503 641 5356 97% P.01 Bond No. 11119376942 LANDSCAPING PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, Grady, Harper & Carlson, Inc., an Oregon corporation, as Principal, and The American Insurance Company, a corporation qualified and authorized to do surety business in the State of Oregon, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of Tigard, a municipal corporation, in the sum of FORTY ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN & NO/100ths ($41,427.00) lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, THAT WHEREAS, City of Tigard has approved a landscaping plan submitted in connection with the construction contract known as Cascade Blvd. Commercial Center, Tigard, Oregon. AND WHEREAS, the said Principal has completed its contract of the said Cascade Blvd. Commercial Center project with the exception of the landscaping portion. AND WHEREAS, the said Principal is desirous of obtaining from the said obligee a temporary occupancy permit for the said Cascade Blvd. Commercial Center project on the condition that it will complete or cause to be completed the said landscaping portion of said contract as soon as weather permits, but in no event later than six months from the date of the temporary occupancy permit. NOW, THEREFORE, if the said Principal shall complete or cause to be completed the said landscaping portion of the said Cascade Blvd. Commercial Center construction contract in accordance with the plan submitted to and approved by the said obligee within six months of the date set by said obligee for temporary occupancy and shall indemnify and save harmless the said obligee, its officers, employees and agents against any direct or indirect damages it sustains in connection with the work or the said obligee's authorization of temporary occupancy of the said Cascade Blvd. Commercial Center project and shall, in all respects, perform said work according to law, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the above bounded parties, have hereunto set our hands and seals this 315`day of October, 1996. PRINCIPAL Na ■- GRADY ,'RPER & CARLSON INC. By: . We y - - 6✓F0fv- ' Title SURETY Name: THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY By: N , oski. ' NJtA\,16.x.4.- Vicki Nicholson Attorney-in-Fact Street Address: P.O. Box 3825 City: Portland State: OR Zip: 97208 GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,a Corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey on February 20, 1846,and redomesticated to the State of Nebraska on June I, 1990,and having its principal office in the City of Omaha,State of Nebraska,has made,constituted and appointed,and does by these presents make,constitute and appoint VICKI NICHOLSON PORTLAND, OR its true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact,with full power and authority hereby conferred in its name,place and stead,to execute,seal,acknowledge and deliver any and all bonds,undertaking,recognizances or other written obligations in the nature thereof and to bind the Corporation thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds were signed by the President, sealed with the corporate seal of the Corporation and duly attested by its Secretary,hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said Attorney(s)-in-Fact may do in the premises. This power of attorney is granted pursuant to Article VII,Sections 45 and 46 of By-laws of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY now in full force and effect. "Article VII.Appointment and Authority of Resident Secretaries,Attorneys-in-Fact and Agents to accept Legal Process and Make Appearances. Section 45.Appointment.The Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President, any Vice-President or any other person authorized by the Board of Directors,the Chairman of the Board of Directors,the President or any Vice-President may,from time to time,appoint Resident Assistant Secretaries and Attorneys-In-Fact to represent and act for and on behalf of the Corporation and Agents to accept legal process and make appearances for and on behalf of the Corporation. Section 46.Authority.The authority of such Resident Assistant Secretaries,Attorneys-In-Fact and Agents shall he as prescribed in the iastrument evidencing their appointment.Any such appointment and all authority granted thereby may be revoked at any time by the Board of Directors or by any person empowered to make such appointment." This power of attorney is signed and sealed under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY at a meeting duly called and held on the 31st day of July, 1984,and said Resolution has not been amended or repealed: "RESOLVED, that the signature of any Vice-President, Assistant Secretary, and Resident Assistant Secretary of this Corporation, and the seal of this Corporation may be affixed or printed on any power of attorney,on any revocation of any power of attorney,or on any certificate relating thereto,by facsimile, and any power of attorney,any revocation of any power of attorney,or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Corporation" IN WITNESS WHEREOF,THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its Vice-President,and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 15 t day of June • t9 90 ' THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Gv A \sso By Via-President STATE OF CALIFORNIA' a COUNTY OF MARIN On this 1St day of June 19 90 ,before me personally came R. D. Farnsworth to me known,who,being by me duly sworn,did depose and say:that he is Vice-President of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,the Corporation described in and which executed the above instrument;that he knows the seal of said Corporation;that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal;that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said Corporation and that he signed his name thereto by like order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal,the day and year herein first above written. worn,,,,,,,seertstmlortreeturnitunwestrattrives OFFICIAL SEAL = 1. M. YANDEVORT ;;L72-;:?') NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA Notary Public • Principal Office in Marin County Mr Ceunmission Expires Aug.28,1492 CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA as. COUNTY OF MARIN I,the undersigned,Resident Assistant Secretary of THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,a NEBRASKA Corporation,DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force and has not been revoked;and furthermore that Article VII,Sections 45 and 46 of the By-laws of the Corporation,and the Resolution of the Board of Directors;set forth in the Power of Attorney,are now in force. Signed and scaled at the County of Marin.Dated the 31ST day of OCTOBER , 19 96 Cep Resident Assistant Secretary 360711-TA-6-90(REV)