Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 04/28/2003l _ 1 HEARINGS OFFICER r MONDAY - APRIL 28, 2003 - 7:00 PM Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Hearings Officer meetings by noon on the Friday prior to the meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Fact. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments and qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. To request such services, please notify the City of Tigard of your need(s) by 5:00 p.m., no less than one (1) week prior to the meeting date at the same phone numbers listed above so that we can make the appropriate arrangements. Hearings are held in Town Hall at the City of Tigard at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Staff reports are available to the public 7 days prior to the hearing date CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 C.F. TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00002 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00011 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00012 The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to demolish the existing C.F. Tigard Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 44, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). LOCATION: 12850 SW Grant Avenue; WCT, 2S102CB, Tax Lots 100 and 200. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 2.2 METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00003 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00013 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00014 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00015 VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00016 The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to demolish the existing Metzger Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments and two Variances to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). All Information is Subject to Change Page 1 of 2 0 0 The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 34, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). The Variances are to exceed the maximum building height limit within the zoning district by 5 feet, and to the design standards of TDC Section 18.630.050(A)(5) to allow the parking areas to be located within a front yard. LOCATION: 10255 SW 9& Avenue; WCTM 1S135AB, Tax Lot 100. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.630, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT All Information is Subject to Change Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. -q ° PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name, Address, ip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. E'gie W l ~i M4 vA/ ~ 1~ sw A~a~~ , sir TE W10 2840 5, w. cJi~-TK/ic(s A ('uYZrie~No~ G2 9>aUs (so3~ 22~-Sa~c~ 17;&4"/ 04 ` 923 (61o 3) &39-sC43 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - i Name, Address, Zi Code and Phone No. C, ~N V, cl0 cu s =`r9L Nam e,-Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Xav i Jim [I ►-S 5 sw Noinyt f /p ~IS- Sw Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ,Name, d ress, ip Cod d Phone No. cvyl^a-r- Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name Addre s, i C de and Phone No. ;2)~7 74- A 73 o '5- ~;a s ka/ C0 alb I'll- Name, Address, Zip Code and~Kone &o- 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. i Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I - - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No - - - - - . I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ss. 1 Kathv Snvder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiaard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tiaard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public Hearing/ CUP2003-00002.C.F.Tiaard Elementerv School a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE Successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 10,2003 Subscribed and sworn My Commission Expires: L4A~- U- methi-mint-h 1, 2003 Legal Notice TT 1.0 217 / 1 n bh f O ; ~ OFFICIAL SEAL n08dN A BURGESS I; NOTAR rego 8ry u or c ~ Y PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 344589 (V,y CQ'".;." S~"'• n ?t,;_S N'^Y 13,2G05 AFFIDAVIT The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday April 28, 2003 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. I Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Brad Kilby) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003- 00002/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00011/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00012 > C.F. TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL < REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to demolish the existing C.F. Tigard Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 44, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). LOCATION: 12850 SW Grant Avenue; 2S 102CB, Tax Lots 100 and 200. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. ~ '~'X~J ✓ n_~C~7~ ""Mmv RAP 'l F.v y TT 10217 - Publish April 10, 2003. CUP2003MM2 VAR2003.00011 VAR2003-00012 CF 11GARO ELENEWWO \ SCHOOL ~ N > xt . NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENkbLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. CITY OF TIGARD Community Development S(mpingA Better Community CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. APRIL 28. 2003 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00002 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00011 ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00012 FILE TITLE: C.F. TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPLICANT/ Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J APPLICANT'S Cornerstone Construction Mgmt OWNER: Attn: Stephen Poage REP.: Attn: Brian Radabaugh 6960 SW Sandburg Street 5410 SW Macadam Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Suite 250 Portland, OR 97210 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to demolish the existing C.F. Tigard Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two (2) Adjustments to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 44, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). LOCATION: 12850 SW Grant Avenue; 2S102CB, Tax Lots 100 and 200. ZONE: R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. • ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING. MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25~) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER BRAD KILBY AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL AT bradley@ci.tigard.or.us. CT \ v PARK I MI. / VICINITY MAP CUP2003-00002 VAR2003-00011 VAR2003-00012 CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL to ra orrqw 0 • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding applications by the Tigard-Tualatin School District) F I N A L O R D E R for a conditional use permit for an elementary school and ) CUP 2003-002 adjustments to bicycle parking and block length standards ) VAR 2003-0011 & -0012 at 12850 SW Grant Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (C.F. Tigard Elementary) A. SUMMARY 1. Cornerstone Construction, on behalf of the Tigard-Tualatin School District (the "applicant") proposes to replace the existing 51,660-square foot C.F. Tigard Elementary School with a new 67,400-square foot school and associated parking lots, play areas and sports fields. The school site is a 10.6-acre parcel in the R-12 zone at 12850 SW Grant Avenue; also known as tax lots 100 and 200, WCTM 2S102CB (the "site"). The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit and two adjustments for the proposed school. The conditional use permit is required to comply with the use regulations of the R-12 zone. One adjustment will reduce bicycle parking from the required 168 spaces to the proposed 44 spaces. A second adjustment will waive compliance with the maximum block length. 2. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. At the public hearing, City staff recommended conditional approval of all of the applications. The applicant accepted the findings and recommended conditions in the Staff Report, with certain exceptions, and responded to public testimony. Three persons testified orally with questions and concerns. The principal disputed issue in this case include the following: a. Whether noise from the relocated outdoor play area and play equipment will have an adverse impact on abutting residents; activities; b. Whether the isolated nature of the play area will encourage criminal c. Whether the applicant is required to make improvements to the site's Highway 99 frontage. d. Whether the requested adjustments should be granted; and e. Whether the application complies with the minimum and maximum motor vehicle parking requirements of the Community Development Code (the "CDC"). 3. The hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable CDC standards for a conditional use permit and two adjustments, based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on April 28, 2003. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Brad Kilby summarized the Staff Report to the Hearings Officer dated April 21, 2003 (the "Staff Report"). He noted the applicant proposed to retain the existing multi-purpose building near the southeast corner of the site and the existing administration building on the south end of the site. a. He recommended the hearings officer delete condition of approval 6, which requires the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces proposed on the site. The Staff Report failed to consider parking for the multi-purpose building, which the applicant uses for a variety of activities unrelated to the elementary school. The applicant proposed to provide 70 parking spaces to serve the proposed school and to retain the existing 28 spaces for the multi-purpose building. Therefore the number of parking spaces will be consistent with the minimum and maximum parking requirements of the Code. b. He noted that the existing school provides 60 bicycle parking spaces. However no more than 25 spaces are used during good weather according to the school principal. The applicant proposed to provide 44 bicycle parking spaces at the new school. c. He argued that the site now fronts Pacific Highway. The frontage does not comply with improvement standards, in part, because it is not improved with street trees. ODOT controls access to the highway. Therefore the applicant should be required to plant street trees and obtain access approval from ODOT. If the applicant partitions the site so the school and the administration building are on separate lots, the applicant will be required to plant street trees along this road and to obtain ODOT access approval as a condition of approval of the partition. Therefore he requested the hearings officer modify conditions of approval 2 and 14 to require the applicant to provide street trees and ODOT approval or to record a final partition plat prior to obtaining building permits for the proposed school. d. He noted that schools are exempt from the City noise regulations in the municipal code. However noise is relevant to the CUP standards. 3. Brian Radabaugh testified for the applicant and summarized the proposed development. a. He testified that the applicant intends to partition the site to create separate parcels for the elementary school and the administration building. The school site will not have frontage on Pacific Highway. Therefore the applicant should not be required to plant street trees along that street frontage or to obtain ODOT access approval for access to that street as a condition of the CUP. He agreed to file a final partition plat prior to obtaining building permits for the school. b. He testified that the applicant will post signs on SW Grant Avenue discouraging pedestrian traffic through the site during school hours. The administrative offices are situated at the east corner of the building to allow school staff to monitor pedestrian traffic through the site as well as in the parking lots and student drop-off area. c. He acknowledged that the proposed playground may create a security risk during non-school hours due to its isolated location. The applicant is working with the police department to address police surveillance of the playground behind the school. d. He testified that the applicant will inspect the existing school for asbestos. If the applicant discovers any asbestos, they will hire a certified contractor to remove it prior to demolishing the building. CUP 2003-002 and VAR 2003-0011 and -0012 Hearings Officer Final Order (C.F. Tigard Elementary) Page 2 • 4. Roger Clifton expressed concern with potential noise impacts from the playground. Noise from the playground has a significant impact on his property northwest of the site under existing conditions. The new playground will be situated much closer to his home. He expressed concern that the new playground area will be subject to vandalism and other criminal activities during non-school hours due to its isolated location between the school building and the rear yards of abutting residences. 5. Jim Shae questioned whether the school will provide adequate bicycle parking and whether the existing school contains asbestos. 6. City development engineer Brian Rager testified that School Street is inadequate to accommodate on-street parking. However the applicant should not be required to post signs prohibiting parking along that street as a condition of the CUP, because the school will not generate traffic on that street. The City paved this street last year and should have posted "No Parking" signs at that time. He recommended that residents contact the City Engineer to request that the City install signs. C. DISCUSSION 1. The Staff Report identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The hearings officer concurs that the applicable approval criteria are listed in the Staff Report. The hearings officer also largely concurs in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is, substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards for a CUP and adjustments. Adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and will address potential adverse impacts consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings in the Staff Report as his own, except to the extent inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this final order. 2. The hearings officer is persuaded that the proposed use will not cause excessive noise that cannot be adequately mitigated. This impact can be accommodated considering the size, shape, location, topography and natural features of the site. CDC 18.330.030.A(2). a. Outdoor activities at the existing school generate noise that disturbs residents of adjoining homes, based on Mr. Clifton's testimony. The existing play fields are situated on the north end of the site, close to abutting homes. The applicant proposed to relocate these fields to the south end of the site, on the opposite side of the school building from most surrounding homes. This will reduce the noise impacts from the use of the play fields. However the applicant proposed to relocate the covered play area and playground equipment further north, closer to abutting homes. This will result in increased noise impacts on those homes from playground activities. The net effect may be a wash. U. i iii iii ii cuisj viii ei llllua ulat, aluluuri► uic propvscu ucvcivpiiieuL May not increase the overall noise impacts on surrounding homes, it will change the type and timing of such impacts. Presumably the play fields will generate more noise during evenings and weekends, when the play fields are used for organized games. The covered play area and play structure are likely to generate more noise during school hours, when children are at recess. The hard surface of the building may redirect sound toward the north, although the soft surface of the land north of the building will ameliorate that impact. Nevertheless the location of the site and the specific location of the proposed school and playground on the site may be unsuitable if the resulting noise and visual impacts unreasonably impede the safe, peaceful and private occupancy of adjoining homes. CUP 2003-002 and VAR 2003-0011 and -0012 Hearings Officer Final Order (C.F. Tigard Elementary) Page 3 • • c. Although the CDC does not provide a specific standard for a buffer between a school and adjoining homes, such a buffer may be required pursuant to the CUP and special use regulations. The hearings officer finds the proposed landscaping does not adequately buffer the homes north of the site. The applicant proposed to install a cyclone fence and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer planted with deciduous trees, shrubs and groundcover between the playground and abutting homes north of the site. The fence is not proposed to be sight-obscuring, and the deciduous trees will be bare during much of the school year, providing little or no visual and noise mitigation. The proposed shrubs also do not provide significant visual impact mitigation. d. The hearings officer finds the applicant can adequately buffer the playground north of the school by installing a minimum 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence and at least one row of evergreen trees or of evergreen shrubs capable of providing a continuous 6-foot high screen within two years of planting in a minimum ten-foot wide area on or near the north property line between the playground and abutting lots that contain homes. The applicant can prepare a landscape buffer plan and the City staff can review and approve an appropriate plan that provides the final details for the buffer as part of site design review. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. 3. The proposed playground is in an isolated location, screened from view by the proposed building and existing development on abutting properties. The required landscaping screens this area from abutting homes, resulting in further isolation of this area. This isolation may allow vandalism and other criminal activities in this area when school is not in session, because it will not be readily visible, especially with the required buffer in place. The applicant testified that they are working with the Police Department to improve security in this area of the site. The hearings officer finds that the applicant should be required to make a diligent, good faith effort to work with the Police Department in the design and operation of the school to maximize surveillance opportunities and to enhance the security of the playground after school hours or to employ and use a private security force for that purpose. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. 4. The site currently fronts on Highway 99. Therefore, as conditions of approval, City staff recommend that the hearings officer require the applicant to install street trees along the site's Highway 99 frontage, CDC 18.745.040, and to obtain ODOT access permits for the two access points onto Pacific Highway that do not have ODOT access permits now. If the applicant partitions the site as proposed, the school site will not have frontage on Highway 99, and such conditions would be moot. However a partition of the site will result in imposition of similar conditions of approval for the partition. Therefore the hearings officer finds that conditions 2 and 14 should be modified to waive the requirement that the applicant plant street trees along Pacific Highway and obtain an MOT access permit as a condition of the CUP if the applicant records a final partition plat separating the school site from that portion of the site with frontage on Highway 99. 5. The applicant proposed to reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces to 44. The hearings officer finds that such a reduction is warranted based on the findings at p. 10 of the Staff Report, the testimony of the school principal that fewer than 25 bicycles commonly park at the existing school and CDC 18.765.050.E 6. The hearings officer finds that the proposed development is consistent with the minimum and maximum parking standards of CDC 18.765, based on the applicant's testimony in Exhibit 1 and Mr. Kilby's testimony at the hearing. Therefore recommended condition of approval 6 should be deleted. CUP 2003-002 and VAR 2003-0011 and -0012 Hearings Officer Final Order (C.F. Tigard Elementary) Page 4 • D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit and associated adjustments do or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 2003-002, VAR 2003-0011 and VAR 2003-0012 (C.F. Tigard Elementary), subject to the following conditions of approval : THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Department (Brad Kilby, 639-4171, ext. 2434) for review and approval: Submit a lighting plan for the entire project site for approval. 2. Plant street trees along the frontages of SW Grant Street, SW School Street, and SW Pacific Highway, OR request an adjustment to the standard and meet the criteria in CDC Section 8.370.026(C)(6)(b); provided, the applicant is not required to plant street trees along the Pacific Highway frontage if the applicant files a final partition plat under which the school site does not have frontage on Pacific Highway. 3. Provide staff with a revised landscape plan which includes: a. Parking area landscaping that at maturity will provide the desired canopy affect over all new parking areas. b. A minimum 6-foot high sight-obscuring fence and at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs capable of providing a continuous 6- foot high screen within two years of planting in a minimum ten-foot wide area on or near the north property line between the playground and abutting lots that contain homes. 4. Revise the site plan to provide for screening of the service enclosure to include either a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet high. The revised method shall be accompanied by a detail of the facility. 5. Provide a minimum 311-square foot mixed solid waste collection area, and a letter from the franchise hauler that services the site approving the facility location. 6. Make a diligent, good faith effort to work with the City Police in the design and operation of the school to maximize surveillance opportunities and enhance security on the playground behind the school after school hours or employ a private force for that purpose. CUP 2003-002 and VAR 2003-0011 and -0012 Hearings Officer Final Order (C. F. Tigard Elementary) Page 5 • 0 7. Ensure that 44 bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in CDC Section 18.765.050. 8. Provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 9. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 10. Obtain a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit to cover the street work in Grant Avenue and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and show UoTinclude sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 11. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 46MU an the Federal can Water Act. 13. Dedicate additional right-of-way for the two ends of Grant Avenue to facilitate the construction of the two cul-de-sac bulbs. The descriptions shall be tied to existing centerline monuments for the roadway. 14. Record a final partition plat dividing the school site from that portion of the site with frontage on Highway 99, or obtain access permits from ODOT for the two existing access points onto Pacific Highway. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department (Brad Kilby, 639-4171, ext. 2434) for review and approval: 15. Clearly mark the location of the access drives in accordance with CDC Section 18.765.040(B)(3). 16. Request a City inspection to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the CDC Chapter 18.765. 17. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with CDC Chapter 18.780. CUP 2003-002 and VAR 2003-0011 and -0012 Hearings Officer Final Order (C.F. Tigard Elementary) Page6 0 0 Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 18. Complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 19. Provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. ATED is 5th day Lamy pstein, Es , City of Tigard~Hri) CUP 2003-002 and VAR 2003-0011 and -0012 (C.F. Tigard Elementary) , 2003. Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Page 7 0 0 "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) 2,7. 03 ow 02:22p 14. Muhy 59681674 FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO To: City of Tigard ATTN: Brad Kilby FAX 503-684-7297 DATE: 4/28/03 RE: CF Tigard Elementary School CUP and Maximum Parking MESSAGE: Brad, one area of your staff report that we need to clarify is the relationship of the multi-use building to the new CFT Elementary School. Although the multi-purpose building is shown on the site plan as an existing use, that building is not intended to be part of the elementary school, either as classrooms or as support facilities. The multi-purpose building, constructed about 23 years ago, will be used primarily for District administrative meetings and training purposes, and general community events and programs. These uses are unrelated to the functions of the elementary school. In your staff report, you counted the 28 parking spaces adjacent to the multipurpose building in with the total parking for the new CFT school, but did not the floor space of that building when calculating the parking requirements. Therefore, you concluded that the amount of parking was over the maximum allowed, and recommended to the Hearings Officer that he require the School District to revise the site plan, reducing the number of parking spaces to 70 spaces. Essentially, the District would have to eliminate 28 spaces. At 2.5 spaces per classroom, and 28 classrooms, the maximum parking for the new elementary school would be 70 spaces. The site plan shows 70 spaces for the Elementary School, not counting the 4 disabled accessible spaces. (The four disabled accessible spaces do not count as part of the maximum, as per 18.765.070.E). The Multipurpose Building is a pre-existing use with its own pre-existing parking lot. Calculated as an "office" use, the minimum parking required for this 9925 sf building would be 27 spaces, and p.1 EXHIBIT., Pag of Pages ■Phone 503. 624-4625 ■Fax 503.968.1674 /ejmurphy@ao(.com Rpr 27 03 02:22p Murphy 503 681674 p•2 . ^4W • the maximum allowed would be 34 spaces. There are 28 spaces available adjacent to the multipurpose building. Your report says that the site plan shows 102 spaces for the elementary school. However, that figure includes not only the 70 regular spaces for the new school, but the four disabled parking spaces, and the 28 spaces adjacent to the Multipurpose Building. If the accessible spaces are not included in calculating the maximum parking allowed, and if the 28 spaces adjacent to the multipurpose building are "'assigned" to that building as a separate use, then the proposed parking meets both the minimum and the maximum parking requirements. The multipurpose room is often used during the day when school is in session. To eliminate 28 spaces, as you suggest in condition #6, would create a shortage of parking on the site, and could lead of adverse neighborhood impacts. Therefore, we will be requesting the Hearings Officer to consider the multipurpose room as a separate use, and not part of the new elementary school facility therefore eliminate proposed condition of approval #6. Thanks Brad. J--- CC. Brian Radabaugh ■Phone 503. 624-4625 ■Fax 503.968.1674 ■ejmurphy@aol.com 9 0 i "EXHIBIT C" WRITTEN TESTIMONY (Applicant's materials and pertinent correspondence filed with Hearings Officer prior to Public Hearing.) • • Agenda Item: 2.1 Hearing Date: Aaril 28.2003 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ShgpingABetter Community 120 DAYS = 7/11/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CASE NOS: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2003-00002 Adjustment "VAR VAR2003-00011 Adjustment VAR. VAR2003-00012 OWNER: Tigard-Tualatin School APPLICANT'S Cornerstone Construction District 23J REP.: Attn: Brian Radabaugh Attn: Stephen Poage 5410 SW Macadam Ave. 6960 SW Sandburg Street Suite 250 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking conditional use approval to demolish the existing CF Tigard Elementary School, and replace it with a new school. h Ti d e gar The applicant is also seeking two (2) Adjustments to t f ll i h ow ng Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to t e o standards: An Adjustment to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site. An Adjustment to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). LOCATION: 12850 SW Grant Avenue; WCTM 2S102CB, Tax Lots 100 and 200. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: R- 12, Medium-Density Residential zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit, the requested Bicycle Parking Adjustment, and the proposed Adjustment to the Block Length Standards will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards of the Tigard Development Code. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 1 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: -Submit to the Planning Department ra i y, 6394M, ext. 24T4or review and approval: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the entire project site for approval. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall either provide for street trees along the frontages of SW Grant Street, SW School Street, and SW Pacific Highway, or request an adjustment to the standard and meet the criteria in TDC Section 18.370.020(C)(6)(b). 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide staff with a revised landscape plan for the parking areas that at maturity will provide the desired canopy affect over all new parking areas. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, the applicant shall revise the site plan to provide for screening of the service enclosure to include either a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet high. The revised method shall be accompanied by a detail of the facility. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a 311 square foot mixed solid waste collection area, and a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facility location. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the parking area to show a maximum of 70 spaces on site in compliance with TDC Chapter 18.765. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. 8. Prior to site work, the applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 9. Prior to site work, the applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 10. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the street work in Grant Avenue and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 2 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • 11. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the sate within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 12. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of- way for the two ends of Grant Avenue to facilitate the construction of the two cul-de- sac bulbs. The descriptions shall be tied to existing centerline monuments for the roadway. 14. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain access permits from ODOT for the two existing access points onto Pacific Highway. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Manning Department ( read-R`i1by, 6394M, ext. 243-4"or review and approval: 15. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall clearlyy mark the location of the access drives in accordance with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)(3). 16. Prior to building inspection, the site shall be inspected to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. 17. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 18. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 19. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the Cit with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, waer valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 3 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: According to the applicant, the school was constructed in the late 1940's or early 1950's. The only records that could be found in the City's database was a Site Development Review for a 10,000 square foot expansion (now referred to as the multi-purpose building) in 1979, and a Minor Modification to place a modular classroom on the site in 1996. Other than a few miscellaneous building and electrical updates, there are no other records on file to establish that the property was ever used for anything other than an elementary school. A point of interest in the 1979 decision was a condition by the City to attain a Conditional Use Permit for the school. There is no indication as to whether that condition was ever met. Vicinity Information: The site is zoned R-12 and surrounded on three sides by a mixture of single and multi-family housing types. There are commercial developments on the south side. Pacific Highway borders the south property line of this site. There is an existing school administration building on the site, and an existing right-of-way for SW Grant partially dissecting the property. School Street, a local street with an easement running across the school property to connect to SW Pacific Highway, is adjacent to the southwest corner of the property. The applicant has stated that they intend t'o vacate any right-of-way that they do not use. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is 10.6 acres in size and currently occupied by the existing elementary school, a multi-purpose building, and an administration building. The site is located on gentle slopes ranging from 0 to 5%. The proposal is to demolish the existing 51,660 square foot elementary school and reconstruct with a new 68,000 square foot elementary school and associated parking and infrastructure. The applicant is also requesting two (2) adjustments. One of the adjustments requested is to vary the bicycle parking requirements of the development code. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to the block length standards of the development code. These requests are discussed in more detail in the following discussion. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing elementary school and to replace it with a new 68,000 square foot elementary school. Schools are permitted conditionally within the R-12 zoning district. Summarv Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed use is a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III-HO decision. Staff reviews the adjustments under a Type II process. However, when multiple applications are being reviewed for the same property, the highest authority will oversee all review. In this case, the review is handled by a Type III-HO process and heard by the Tigard Hearings Officer. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 4 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • A. 18.330 Specific Conditional Use Criteria General Approval Criteria) ) Additional Conditions of Approval B. Agmlicable DevelopmentCode Standards 18.360 Site Development Review) 18.370 Variances/Adjustments) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745, Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid-Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Load ng Requirements) 18.780 -Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Street and Utilitv Improvement Standards (18.810) D. !_pact Study (18.3901 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 18.330. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE: SECTION 18.330.030 The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The existing site size is 10.6 acres or 461,736 square feet in size. The proposal calls for a 68,000 square foot elementary school and associated infrastructure. Not included in this square footage is an existing 10,000 square foot building, and an existing administration building. It has been mentioned to staff and indicated in the narrative, that the school district is pursuing a partition that would separate the administration building from the site. This report evaluates the proposal and necessary setbacks, landscaping, etc., and as demonstrated in the application and this report, the site size is adequate for the needs of the proposed use. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; The site is currently developed with an existing elementary school. The site is large enough to accommodate the use. There are no specific limitations to the site with regard to the shape, location, topography or natural features that would hinder the development of the site with the proposed use. However, there is an existing right-of-way that partially dissects the site. The right-of-way is SW Grant Street. A portion of this right-of-way was vacated several years ago. r he applicant has requested an adjustment to the block length standard that would preclude this right-of-way from continuing through the site. There is further discussion of the right-of-way throughout this report. The site is suitable for the proposed development. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and All public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers, and water have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 5 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The proposed site is located within the R-12 zoning district. As indicated earlier, schools are permitted conditionally. The conditional use requirements are more restrictive than the underlying zoning requirements with regard to site size and setback requirements. The applicant has met or exceeded the requirements for the zoning district. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.360, Site Development Review; 18.370, Variances and Adjustments; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; and 18.810, Street and Utility improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350, Planned Development; 18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lof Line Adjustments; 18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.530, Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Desi n Standards; 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Standards, 18.640 Durham uarry Design Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.785, Temporary Uses; and 18.798, Wireless Communications Facilities. These chapters are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE. Section 18.330.030.B states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The applicant has not indicated hours, days, or manner of operation, however, it can be expected that the school would operate during the same hours that it currently operates. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that there is a need to limit the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation for CF Tigard Elementary School. This criterion is satisfied. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 6 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • The proposal would not likely generate any vibration, air pollution, odor, glare, noise, or dust that would be considered out of character for the use. The applicant has sited the facility on the property in a location that will minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: The proposed site is adjacent on three sides to noise sensitive units as defined in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC' Chapter 7.40. As such, the use will be subject to code enforcement if it viola es the chapter. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; The lot is large enough to accommodate the proposed building that is to be constructed, and the remaining buildings that are currently located on the site. The applicant will demolish the existing school once the new one is constructed. The proposed use will exceed the setbacks of the underlying zone as required by this chapter. Dimensional criterion is discussed in more detail further in this discussion. This criterion is satisfied. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; According to the applicant, the building will cover roughly 40% of the site excluding the administration building and its parkin .The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-12 zoning classification is 80%. The applicanT also states that the build in will not exceed 35 feet in height. The maximum allowed height in the R-12 zoning classification is 35 feet. This criterion is satisfied. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The applicant is proposing to have five separate accesses off of the two cul-de-sacs that have been proposed, and there are two existing accesses off of Pacific Highway for the administration building. Four of the accesses off of SW Grant Street will be 30 feet wide with 26 feet of pavement, and the fifth access is 20 feet wide to accommodate a loading space on the west side of the building. The development code requires a minimum of two, 30-foot accesses. Access is discussed in more detail later in this report. The criterion can be satisfied. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; The site has frontage on three separate streets. The applicant has proposed to lace cul-de-sacs at the ends of SW Grant Street which would require dedication of right-ofpwav, and ODOT has requested that the district obtain access permits for the entrances off of SW Pacific Highway. The specifics of the improvements are discussed in more detail in the Street and Utility Section of this report. This criterion is satisfied. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; These items are addressed later in this report. As conditioned, the proposal will meet the prescribed requirements of the TDC. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; Compliance with the sign requirements for the underlying zone will be considered once a esign is reviewed. The applicant will be required to indicate the location and type of sign design' proposed for this site prior to building permit issuance. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant has indicated in the narrative that the parking lot and building entrances will be lighted with lights that will automatically turn off at night; however, the applicant did not provide a complete lighting plan for the site. Staff cannot ensure that the lighting standards are satisfied. This criterion is not satisfied. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 7 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • FINDING: Staff cannot assure that lighting from the site will not produce glare onto neighboring properties or create a safe nighttime environment based on the applicant's description of lighting for the facility. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the entire project site for approval. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; As discussed further in this report, the applicant has proposed a mixture of landscaping to screen the parking areas and use from surrounding properties. The applicant contends that the use is pre-existing, and that much of the landscaping is already in place. This criterion is discussed in more detail later in this report. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The applicant is proposing new chain link fencing around the entire site to control entry. Chain link fencing is an acceptable material provided it adequately screens the use from adjacent single-family homes. Where there are houses in close proximity that are not adequately screened from the parking areas, the applicant has proposed to put slats into the fence. This criterion can be satisfied. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; Only one tree on site is scheduled for removal to accommodate construction. The applicant has provided a tree plan that will be discussed later in this report. As demonstrated later in this report, the applicant meets, or can be conditioned to meet this criterion. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and The property is not adjacent to the floodplain. This criterion is not applicable. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The property is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. This criterion is not applicable. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE TYPES: SECTION 18.330.050 The additional development standards are specific criteria that must be considered at the time of application for a conditional use. The criteria states that there shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is required for the applicable zoning district; That the setbacks shall be as follows: Front Yard setback- 20 feet Corner and through lot setback- 20 feet on any side facing a street Side yard setback- 20 feet Rear yard setback- 30 feet The minimum lot size for the R-12 zoning district is 3,050 square feet. This site is 10.6 acres in size. This criterion is satisfied. With regard to the setbacks, staff considers the frontage along SW Pacific Highway as the front yard which would be required to meet a minimum 20-foot setback. The closest structure to SW Pacific Highway is the administration building, and it is 20 feet back from the front property line. There are no structures closer than 20 feet to any side or front property line, and there are no structures closer than 62 feet from the rear property line. These minimum setbacks have been met. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 8 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (18.360) The Site Development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS (18.370) The applicant has requested two adjustments. One adjustment is requested to the block length standards, while the other adjustment has been requested to the bicycle parking standards. AdJ'ustments for street improvements are permitted pursuant to meeting the review criteria described in 18.370.020 (C)(11). This section states that adjustments to the street standards can be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on findings that the, "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." The applicant is requesting an adjustment to block length standards of the Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.810.040(6) which states that the perimeter of blocks shall not exceed 2,0000 eet measured along the centerline of streets, and when a full vehicular connection is not plausible, a bicycle and pedestrian connection on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided. Spacing between connections shall not be more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or to ographical constraints, existing development standards, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. The applicant argues against making the street connection on the property due to the nature of the use and the existing development patterns. He argues that a full street connection through the site would dissect the property and create an unsafe situation for students at the school. The second consideration to this standard is the need for a pedestrian connection and the spacing of that connection. The standard calls for a maximum spacing of 330 feet between pedestrian connections. The applicant states that the school would provide a pedestrian connection through the site, but access through that connection would be controlled during school hours. The proposed connection has not been clearly identified on the site, so staff is unsure where this connection would be made. However, it would be impractical for the applicant to make a pedestrian connection every 330 feet through out the site due to the surrounding developments. It is practical for the applicant to make a pedestrian connection through the site with a public easement. Staff would support controlling the access during school hours to ensure the safety of the students. FINDING: The proposed adjustment is warranted in that strict adherence to the standard in question is precluded by existing development. The applicant has stated that they would provide a pedestrian connection through the site that would be accessible by the public during off school hours. Staff recommends approval of the adjustment. The Director may approve a reduction of required bicycle parking per Section 18.765.050.E by means of Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 9 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 The applicant has requested an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards that would be imposed on the school as dictated by Table 18.765.2 (Minimum Parking Standards). Under the current requirements, the school would be required. to provide 6 spaces for every classroom because it is an elementary school. Considering that there are 28 classrooms proposed, the facility would be required to provide 168 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 44 spaces on site. The primary argument the applicant makes against providing the required 168 Spaces is that currently there are 60 available spaces and the demand never exceeds This information is based on information provided by the school principal. In a letter submitted with the application, the principal indicates that in seven years, he has never seen more than 25 bikes total at the school in good weather. The applicant has provided a map of the district boundaries for clarification. Based on the information provided, staff recommends approval of the adjustment. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.5101 The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached and detached single- family housing at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Section 18.510.050 states that Development standards in Residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2, however, because the proposed use requires conditional use approval, the stricter standards of the Conditional Use section apply. The only standards that are not specifically regulated by the Conditional Use chapter are lot coverage and building height. The maximum lot coverage has been discussed previously and can be met. The maximum allowable building height in the R-12 zone is 35 feet. The applicant has stated that the building will not exceed 35 feet in height. The dimensional standards of the R-12 zone have been met or exceeded. The criterion has been satisfied. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.7051 No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The applicant is proposing three separate parking areas served by their own access. Access into areas of 100 parking spaces or less is required to be served by a 30 foot access with 24 feet of pavement. The applicant has indicated on the plans that each parking area will be served by a 36 foot wide access and 24 feet of pavement. The access from the west side of Grant is to serve the loading space, and it is 20 feet in width. The accesses off of Pacific Highway are existing, but are required to attain access permits from the Oregon Department of Transportation. This criterion is satisfied. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The site has frontage on SW Grant and SW Pacific Highway. Both streets are public, and the proposed accesses connect directly to these streets. This criterion is satisfied. Required Walkway Location On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 10 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER a • The applicant has indicated that a concrete walkway will be extended from the entrance of the building to both cul-de-sacs. Staff has reviewed the circulation plan and it is evident that all buildings on site with the exception of the administration building are connected. It is anticipated that the district will either partition the administration building from the remaining parcel, or seek approval of a lot line adjustment. This criterion is satisfied. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; This criterion is inapplicable to this proposal. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; The applicant's plans show there is a required walkwayy crossing the vehicular access and parking area on the east side of the site. The applicant fias indicated in the narrative, and on the site plan that this crossing will be marked. All other crossings of the parking areas will be concrete sidewalks over asphalt. No crossing is over 36 feet wide. All sidewalks are concrete, and meet or exceed the minimum width of four feet. This criterion is satisfied. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for safety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant is proposing to construct all sidewalks with concrete materials, and lighting was discussed previously in this report. This criterion is satisfied. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H): Section 18.70 .030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. The replacement of the existing school will not substantially change existing access into the site. There are no sight distance or stacking problems now, and are not anticipated with the new school. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the a plicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frrontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The access to the school is not located within the influence area of a collector or arterial street intersection. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 11 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. Not applicable. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.725: Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial Park fl-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a propel line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-0 5 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. There is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with noise, emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents would result from this specific development. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the use of the property will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, possible fines, and revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement issues associated with the existing use. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING - CHAPTER 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required 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). CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 12 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The project has frontage along SW Grant, SW Pacific Highway, and SW School Street. The applicant has not proposed to plant any street trees on site. When a project has over 100 feet of frontage on any public or private street, street trees are a requirement. The applicant can request an adjustment that would allow the trees not to be planted if they meet the criteria in TDC Section 18.370.020(C)(6)(b). The applicant has not requested the adjustment, and while it may be possible to meet the requirements along the cul-de-sacs, it would be hard to meet the criteria along SW Pacific Highway. This standard is not satisfied. FINDING: The project has 100 feet of frontage along the SW Grant Street, SW School Street, and SW Pacific Highway. The applicant did not propose to plant any street trees as required by TDC Chapter 18.745, nor did they request an adjustment to the standard. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant shall either provide for street trees along the frontages of SW Grant Street, SW School Street, and SW Pacific Highway, or request an adjustment to the standard and meet the criteria in TDC Section 18.370.020(C)(6)(b). Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. The proposed facility is in a residential zone and is adjacent to residential uses on three sides. There are no specifc buffering requirements for schools in residential areas, but the applicant is required to provide a buffer between the parking areas and the other residential properties that varies in width from 6-10 feet. The applicant has stated that the school intends to utilize a mixture of existing and new vegetation to provide some sort of screen from the adjacent uses. The new parking areas meet the 10 foot requirement, but the pre-existing parkin area does not. That parking area is however screened, and it would not be necessary to entirely retrofit that parking area until it is redeveloped. The only other requirement applicable to this development is the screening of the arking areas which is discussed in the next segment of this discussion. This criterion is satisfped. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: 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; The applicant has provided a landscape plan that utilizes a chain link fence, trees and shrubs. At maturity, the proposed landscape plan will provide a screen of the parking areas from the adjacent uses. The applicant has also proposed to place slats in the chain link fence where homes are adjacent. This criterion is satisfied. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and The applicant's plan indicates that there will be trees planted within the interior of the parking area. The applicant has proposed small ornamental trees to the interior of the parking areas. This would not achieve the canopy affect that the Code seeks to provide. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The proposed parking landscaping provides for ornamental trees which at maturity, will not necessarily provide the canopy affect that is called for by the TDC. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide staff with a revised landscape plan for the parking areas that at maturity, will provide the desired canopy affect over all new parking areas. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 13 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The landscape plan shows planting islands within the interior of the parking area that vary between eight and eighteen feet wide and are significant enough to exceed the minimum dimensions. The islands will be protected by curbs. This criterion is satisfied. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement R a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. The applicants' plans show all service facilities on the west-end of the building, however, there is no discussion of screening as required by the TDC. A condition is warranted to meet the criterion. FINDING: The applicant has not addressed screening for service and refuse facilities as required by Chapter 18.745 of the TDC. The site is located in a residential zoning district. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, the applicant shall revise the site plan to provide for screening of the service enclosure to include either a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet high. The revised method shall be accompanied by a detail of the facility. MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE - CHAPTER 18.755: Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan, which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant did not address this section. Under the minimum standard, the development would be required to provide 4 square feet for every thousand feet of building. At 77,925 square feet for the school and the multi-purpose building, the applicant is required to provide a collection area at least 311 square feet in size. The applicant did not address the criteria, but does show a 75 square foot facility on the west side of the new building. The minimum requirement is not met. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has not provided a sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facilit location and compatibility, nor provided sufficient area as required by the TDC Lr the minimum standards method of refuse collection. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a 311 square foot mixed solid waste collection area, and a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facility location. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 14 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER r 0 Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users- Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C-, design standards- The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The site plan shows a trash next to the loading space on the west side of the new building. The location requirements are met. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant has not addressed this criterion, and has been previously conditioned to do so. FINDING: As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the approval criteria for Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage for institutional uses. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.7670. The subject site is located within the Metro Zone A. The maximum number of parking § paces that can be provided by the elementary school is 2.5 spaces per classroom. Therefore, the maximum number of parking spaces for the site based on 28 classrooms would be 70 spaces. The minimum parking standards are as follows: The minimum amount of parking required by the facility is 2.0 spaces per classroom. As such, the minimum parking requirement for the elementary school will be 56 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed 102 spaces in the parking areas that service the new facility and multi-purpose building. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has exceeded the maximum number of allowable parking spaces for the Zone A parking area within the City of Tigard by 32 spaces. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the parking area to show a maximum of 70 spaces on site in compliance with TDC Chapter 18.765. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety. for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access dves shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 15 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 9 0 As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; The applicant has not provided any information to suggest that the access drives will be marked. The applicant can meet the standard by meeting the following condition. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The access drives are not clearly and permanently marked. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall clearly mark the location of the access drives in accordance with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)(3). Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; Vision Clearance is discussed later in this report. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; The applicant has proposed to pave the access and all parking areas. This criterion is satisfied. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of two or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. The parking spaces are serviced by two-way access proposed within this project, and there is room for service vehicles to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required. This criterion is satisfied. Loading/unloading driveways: A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. The applicant has identified a loading and unloading area on the site plan along the west side of the new building that will not prevent traffic flow. Additionally, the facility will have a bus loading area, and a pedestrian loading facility. This criterion is satisfied. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The applicant has indicated that the parking lot will be striped but has not indicated direction arrows on the plans, however, the direction of flow within the interior of the site is two-way, and can be expected to operate in the same manner as a roadway. This criterion is satisfied. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 16 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant indicates concrete curbs at the edges of paving adjacent to planting areas on the drawings, but has not indicated within the narrative or site plan the dimension of the curbs. This criterion has not been met. FINDING: The proposal does not address the requirements for curbs and wheel stops as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, the site shall be inspected to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Table 18.765.1. outlines the minimum dimensions for angled parking. The proposal identifies a total of 74 new spaces utilizing 90-degree parking. Staff review of the parking plan illustrates compliance with Figure 18.765.1. This criterion is satisfied. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. Bicycle parking was discussed previously in this report, and staff has recommended approval of an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards. A staff review of the location standards of the bike parking facility indicates that they have been met. However, the design requirements have not been addressed adequately. The bicycle parking design standards are not met. FINDING: The applicant has illustrated and briefly discussed a bicycle-parking scheme for the proposal, however, there is no discussion of the design as required by TDC Section 18.765.050. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. Off-street loading requirements: Off-street loading spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. Off-street loading dimensions: Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 17 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Because of the size of the building, the facility would be required to provide two (2) off-street loading spaces to meet the standard. The applicant has indicated three (3) off street loading spaces on the plan. This criterion is satisfied. SIGNS (18.780): Requires that a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits. FINDING: The applicant has not provided the needed information to issue a sign permit because it is not necessary to do so at this time. CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. TREE REMOVAL - CHAPTER 18.790: Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use 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, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has provided a tree survey and removal plan from Clay Halstead, Certified Arborist. According to the plan, there are 9 trees over 12 inches on site. Of these 9 trees, the applicant is proposing to remove 1 to accommodate construction. Therefore, the retention is equal to 89%. According to the TDC Section 18.790.030(B)(2)(D), the applicant is not required to mitigate for any of the trees removed. However, the chapter still requires that the applicant protect the trees that are to remain on site during construction activities. FINDING: The applicant's arborist proposed tree protection measures that would be necessary in order to ensure the viability of those trees that are in close proximity to the construction areas as required by Section 18.790.030(B)(4). The City's Arborist has reviewed the plan and requested that the following conditions be satisfied. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 18 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS - CHAPTER 18.795: Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.6. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained. Staff will review the areas at the time of final occupancy to ensure compliance with the standards. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS CHAPTER-18.810: Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the TDC. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires an arterial street to have a 64 to 128-foot right-of-way width and varied paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Grant Avenue, which is classified as a local residential street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 40 feet of ROW at both ends of Grant Avenue, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. The applicant is proposing to construct cul-de-sac bulbs at the ends of each terminus of Grant Avenue. The ROW requirements for the bulbs must accommodate a minimum 40-foot curb radius and the public sidewalks. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss how the cul-de-sac bulbs could be constructed to blend in well with the project. The applicant is proposing an extra large bulb at the north end to accommodate a planter island in the center. Staff supports this design as the curb radius is larger than the 40-foot minimum. In addition, the School District proposes to maintain the vegetation that will be planted in the center of the bulb, along with their onsite landscaping program. Part of this site abuts Pacific Highway, an ODOT arterial. ODOT submitted comments to the City indicating that the two access points onto Pacific Highway do not currently have ODOT access permits. The applicant will need to obtain access permits from ODOT as a part of redeveloping this site. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 19 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Cul-de-sacs: 18.810.0301 states that a cul-de-sac shall be no more than 200 feet long, shall not provide access to greater than 20 dwelling units, and shall only be used when environmental or topographical constraints, existing development pattern, or strict adherence to other standards in this code preclude street extension and through circulation: All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a turnaround. Use of turnaround configurations other than circular, shall be approved by the City Engineer; and The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured from the centerline intersection point of the two streets to the radius point of the bulb, and If a cul-de-sac is more than 300 feet long, a lighted direct pathway to an adjacent street may be required to be provided and dedicated to the City. The ends of Grant Avenue are preexisting. The applicant is simply providing bulb ends to facilitate better turnaround for the public and for drop-off activities at the north end. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.B.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. The applicant has requested an adjustment to this standard. Staff has recommended approval of the adjustment previously in this report. This criterion has been previously addressed in this decision. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Sidewalks will be constructed around the bulb ends on Grant Avenue. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. Over-sizing: CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 20 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line that crosses through this site, in line with the ends of Grant Avenue. The applicant plans to connect a new service lateral into the public main. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. No upstream public drainageways affect this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The impervious area of this site will not be increased as a result of this project. Therefore, no additional storm drainage or detention measures are required. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 21 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The power to this site comes from overhead lines along Pacific Highway. These lines are high capacity lines, over 50,000 volts. Therefore, this section does not apply. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY, IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Studv Findinqs The Kittelson letter mentioned previously indicates that since this school project will not increase student capacity, there will not be an increase in overall traffic from this site. Staff concurs, as trip generation for schools is based upon the number of students. Public Water System: This site is served from the City's water system. No additional public water line work is needed. The plan shows some additional onsite water lines to serve the fire suppression system. Any new connections to the public main must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Public Works departments. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services (CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilitie00 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfac s shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 1es. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Since there will not be an increase in impervious area, this section will not apply. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from developcent, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. It appears that over one acre of this site will be disturbed with this project. Therefore, a NPDES permit would be required. D. IMPACT STUDY: Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 22 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. The report substantiates that all services are capable of serving the site. The applicant has proposed to make the necessary improvements, and there is no applicable Transportation Impact Fee associated with this development, because they are not increasing the number of students that would be served by the site. Based on the conditions of approval and findings of fact within this report, there are no unmitigated impacts as a result of this development to any public systems. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and offered no comments. The City of Tigard Engineering Department was sent this proposal for review and the comments have been incorporated into this report. City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections to the development. City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed this application and requested that the applicant provide the exact species of trees that will be used for landscaping and street tree standards. The arborist has also identified trees on adjacent properties that may need to be protected during construction on the site. SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) Access exceeds the 150 feet maximum standard on the Northwest side of the building. Due to the fact the building will be provided with a full fire sprinkler system and complete fire alarm system, the Fire District will accept the current access layout. 2. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FOR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) 3. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.1) Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 23 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (UFC Sec. 902.2.4) 4. PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red or black on yellow background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) The curbs throughout the parking lots shall be painted as fire lanes. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for specific locations. 5. SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all- weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (Design criteria on back) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) 6. TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3) 7. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) 8. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the building and along an approved fire apparatus access roadway. Any hydrants that are left over from the minimum number of hydrant calculations may be full filled by hydrants that are up to 500 feet from any point of the building. The fire Prevention Ordinance has further requirements that need to be used for acceptance and placement of fire hydrants. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) The number and distribution of fire hydrants is acceptable as submitted. The 250 feet maximum distance is exceed on the Northwest side of the school. Due to the fact the building will be provided with a full fire sprinkler system and complete fire alarm system, the Fire District will accept the current hydrant layout. 9. FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4) 10. REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant-locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) 11. FIRE HYDRANT/FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec. 904.1.1) CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 24 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER i r The location for the FDC on the submitted plans is not within 70 feet of a fire hydrant and is not approved. If fire hydrants are plumbed from the fire line serving the building, the FDC shall be connected inside the building on the sprinkler riser, above all control valves. 12. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS: Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected with the exception of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies not over 4 stories in height. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) 13. ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704) 14. KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (UFC Sec. 902.4) Please contact Eric McMullen at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions. The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has requested that the school obtain approach permits for both accesses off of SW Pacific Highway. Tri-Met has reviewed the proposal and has indicated in a letter that although the required bike parking is high given current usage, the applicant should investigate means to promote alternative transportation means. The agency has also requested that the applicant clearly designate the east-west pedestrian connection. Clean Water Services, Portland General Electric, and the Tigard Tualatin School District were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. L PREPARED BY: Brad Kilby Associate Planner April 21, 2003 DATE CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE 25 OF 25 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY of TIGARD GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP v KjNS ~l . - I 0 1 t~ 'Dommunity ievelopment CUP2003-00002 VAR2003-00011 VAR2003-00012 CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6 f a w1x ~ k ti \yUIL iiRD;; 1z eONITA 10 T ~ v_ I h~ p£~(6ENG RD. nUH:!nM RD ((~)j Tigard lvea Map N 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 1"- 323 feet City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and / should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, 97223 (503) 63 639-4171 171 httpJNrwAr.ci.tigard.or.us lot date: Mar 19, 2003; C:lmagic\MAGIC03.APR _m o. none / / / .e lop, P /-/t .FYI f p \ a v~t4 g~L Y i W Z ti A Nkk t 4h'ny' RiT, td~ b rr; O cif 1> ~sfy: / CITY OF TIGARD t CUP2003-00002NAR2003-0001INAR2003-00012 SETS Pu^N C.F. TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (Map is not to scale) N 0 0 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND RELATED ADJUSTMENTS AND VARIANCES C.F. TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PREPARED FOR: TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT PREPARED BY: CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC. FEBRUARY 181, 2003 • • C.F. Tigard Elementary School CUPNduiances CF Tigard Elementary School Errata Sheet March 14, 2003 1. Page 7, middle of the page. The sentence that reads "The new school will be approximately 67,000 square feet in size..." should read "The new school will be approximately 67,400 square feet in size..." 2. Page 12, fourth line from the top. The sentence that reads "There is only one significantly sized tree that will be removed for the new school building and site improvements" should read "There are only two significantly sized trees that will be removed for the new school building and site improvements". 3. Page 20, middle of the page, paragraph on tree removal. The sentence that reads "Of those, one will be removed, which is only 11 % of the total number of trees. Since almost 90% of the trees over 12" in caliper are being retained, no mitigation is required" should read "Of those, two will be removed, which is only 22% of the total number of trees. Since almost 80% of the trees over 12" in caliper are being retained, no mitigation is required." 4. Page 25, middle of page. The sentence that reads "The pedestrian connection is longer than 530 feet in spacing" should read "The pedestrian connection is longer than 330 feet in spacing." 5. Site Development Plan (Sheet 3), Landscape Plan (Sheet 4) and Floor Plan (Sheet 9). The size of the building should be 67,400 square feet, not 68,000 square feet. 6. Site Development Plan (Sheet 3) and Landscape Plan (Sheet 4). Delete the words "W/ Privacy Slats" after "8'- 10' Cyclone Fence" for the two notes describing the fence along School Street and between the old administration building and the elementary school site. 7. Landscape Plan (Sheet 4), Landscape Plan Notes, Note 8. Delete the words "Adjacent uses will be screened with fences". 8. Landscape Plan (Sheet 4), cul-de-sac design. Eliminate the landscaped center island from the Grant Avenue cul-de-sac on the west side of the elementary school site, nearest School Street. edmurphy&associ ates/ttsd/cfti gard/cupapp/errata/3/ 14/03 rn t Ow I y 1 Y., 4 `~J 'T All -193 S- Ali WFIM. CIO 86 + . TV -All 114• f~~i1~'~}.~'Yf1~~• ~T _ f'~ t / ` ~ / ~ • ` r ~ l~`~' Y • • edmurphyiMs&m tzgerlv=ionlVMQ3 edmwphyltcsd/mazgcrlvawion/IIM03 3. Yew looking south from school property at adjacent homes. 1. Looking west from SW 90'h Avenue along Oak Way r/w. 4. View looking south from school property. Oak Way r/w is between fences. 2. Looking south from school property. Oak Way r/w is between fence and home. • 8. Looking east at Lincoln Street at the beginning of Oak Way r/w. edmurphyllisd/metz9erlvucu1i0NI108/03 edmurphylttsdlmetzger/vncmior✓ 1108103 7. Looking east along south side of school property. Oak Way r/w is in treed area. 5. Looking east towards 90'h Avenue. Again, note gap between fences. 6. Looking west along Oak Way r/w towards Lincoln Street and Lincoln Center. I • w1 I I I I I Q SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY I SINGLE FAMILY 0 o+ I. I I 1 1 N ' I : SW LOCUST STREET NEW 6' CHAIN NEW 6' CHAIN LINK FENCING / LINK FENCING t Tlr!- _ -TV _ Ir I}'~I}-/ _ _ _ --~+--p' - _ •Nfl3:3i01 E _ B O i0 UCUE1EC118G1 I y'I I 77.45' U ^ N41RUISFORMEe i. .3 ~p 24.0{' f I i rI ' , I .r Zara- .,J J I SLOPE & UTILITY EASEMENT SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY 1 j R &W PER DEED DOC. NO.ea~39282 R4.5 R4.5 : R4.5 F t IW r ' RECORD D AUG. 23, 1989 = p ..SIt FA rI I I I Fza. R4.5 z I 1 NEW 6' PRIVACY I bW 0 a FENC NG caw I I I J i t V ( I I N89Y4'21-E~ 'ad J I z r: Q so.o7• t 3 m ' I --NEW 6' PR VACY I----------- o PARKING STRUCTURE I^ FENCING I I fir" I I I I I new o I R45LE FA MUE 1 + O M 8 i I EXIS N NG TO BE DEMOUSHED I I g W - 01 I '--NE W 6' C11IAIN I N89.34.00-E 200.01' I Z --1 I U (A + O I NEW LANDSCAPE STRIP LIIIK FENCING 0 _ AND SIDEWALK FULL ~DELTA+uD6'09- LENGTH OF STREET SEE DRAWING 4,5&6 1 I E-86' 0' + 1 120' SETBACK z '-6' CC 86710E ~I I EXISTING BIRUXNC TO BE DEMOL15HE0 I NEW 6 CHAIN N SINGLE FA /Typ `!I 'I LINK FENCING w o~ np ti I I w-------------1 Y R4.5 wEU31EAD-~ i i INSTITUTIONAL USE I i I Q I - ~o FLT ~I j R4.5 I w 1 T- - ~ I 1 I I - - - - FT C' i i i I o I V Y I t I PLAY FIELD 1 kq + I I I 1 I I o - SI FA PARKING LOT OFDC ? I 16. MUE 1 ~FH i 'T---------- I I R4.5 Irs TRASH AND EMSTINC BUIUkN, TO BE DEMOUSHED Oi- I i~ RECYCLING I i -7 P, \ \ I l I rr;' 2w ti04 ?ter. I r -----ZO, N LOADING i ° t~n i i 1_I ¢ - - .00'021 I ? 40 (MAPLELEAF ST.) N- I I I ve, X. o > 9.93'' y~~' 7`. I I 1 -N41' 02"E "AT1N `---------------H - °ti 1 .BY 20'-0 ~Ella" ------------------co SINGLE FA NEW LANDSCAPE STRIP COURT iT d 1 I a I In R4.5 /f = ? R UN F ti WA t n AND SIDEWALK FULL I E EASEMENT 1yr 5,g s>+ i~ PLAY COVERED I L I ~i el i~1 Ia3z~)) I 'E I a. LENGTH OF STREET - I 'P' PER d 5s a' I a I 3 I BOOK DEC. 9A E T 1 F FH I SEE DRAWING 4,5&6 O - r T} (n 1 Y A I I cO PLAY RECORDED i-------- I A E ` ~,1 L ti i oO b06 i ° I - - PARKING LOT uiIhr.atuFOr ~,Il MUE 1 Z o I 4~R `"~,2pa^ 1 a~ N EwsnNC eutnlNC I w I TO BE DEMO'JSHED N PVC; =W ~I.; I I y r~} ? CS~a~ r m I SINGLE FA 0 I w 1 1 1 1<~ k L,.,vw..5~ ."hrP... + 1 I j I I R4.5 I xF I TOSENREMOVEDO _ I183 -3 KES !aT} UR / ho ` - - 34 BI COURT COURT _ - I NEW CONC NEW 6' CHAIN-~ o EXISTING BUILDING I P I r K` II SIDEWALK LINK FENCNG Z - - / I 14 < I 1 { ~ :4 1 f ~M ,I td E F: 1 I 0 Y I TO BE REMOVED 1 C.[ . "f S$ SCE°SS` 1 , } 6 I I 0 7 390' PI' 0~ Lt 9' 1 ) J"'Y r r t.. "sa rr G, 6~1 ~r--____~.____~• G O BUS ADMINIgT T~fi S % LANE I rxr•` a' t ErsaT _ t1r ,r~lty~z 1 (120'2 42-E + za 'I~r ,..I ~ a ~t~ ~+EG~ w1~9a~~. a rvr Y ~ I. \ , ` )K ti~-F>xw~ T8 • t ,r ti r n~ '7~ iY'n. I~grl),ts~n.~ U SINGLE FA s , . r rh a ~F~ G C P`~, F , 4t 1 5 +1 }~2)~QI?Y,x1 CU~SEC dM A`VIINC~ST r m I MUR l ulsFkt I rr w>tuY ft yf>i s, 1*aT >F 1 ri r F h +ql+R#"517jj r''1Tf ~rh+N+'Tr~'r1 5 5"r } 15 J' r 0.. c t r 4 a „3"a i gg~ 44 6b0 aSUI~NTr€t.~1.F,1f r r f. ~',.0: ~ti~ I 1 J.' s~{~= zz1a.¢S t ti b ,4k''s wt. 0 ~i I REOE SYRIAN "~BrC 59RQOM as o - I ACCESS FZgUTE'' 9b y` ~?,r 5`~ is j•,' rT25 I SA. Y L vet rl( Ef A yµ ~~d7~ 0~ l u { t µc Ede 4n 4 I 0 J 30'-0> 1 o i ,r `rf 4t ~Si) i4I(~ , 4~~' 3°u~`?t 12E' . Y.. Ay0~n'tia ~rr'w fa j~i,~'T R11X' a1w . A'1~+'~' ~~?(u.t'F S;~:~s ' Z ft IC I' o f I I < f4 Y v1r fii#.) I c SINGLE FA R f ° I NEW CONC P" -NEW CONC rs 1d z ;Il # T >t r I MUR 1 f' ( P_ o SIDEWALK i ~FH _ I I 20' SETBACK SIDEWALK ~iYr~ 41 _ I _ f22~ __4y _~------_---11-- 6' PRIVACY FENCING ALL t V + + ALONG SOUTH PROP LI E - - T x0 - 1(SW OAKWAY):J + I o + I I d SINGLE `FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY i MUE 1 I MUE 1 I MUE`11 I' MUE 1 \ MUE:-1 k~ PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT I ' PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREAS SEE SHEET 4 FOR STREET TREE AND SCREENED AND BUFFERED 1 I AREAS 31 S TE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Ill= am.e ~J x.s'TE METZGER ELEMENTARY SELIG / LEE / RUEIDA 3 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J A R C H I T E C T S 8t P L A N N E R S FEB 14 03 1025590TH AVE., TIGARD, OREGON 213 S.W. Ash Street, Room 201 - Portland, Oregon 97204 - (503) 224 - 0173 N SELIG LEE RUED. 9 • C. F. Tigard Elementary School Conditional Use Permit Application TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY INFORMATION SUMMARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION RESPONSE TO CUP CRITERIA BICYCLE PARKING ADJUTSTMENT BLOCK LENGTH VARIANCE CONCLUSIONS EXHIBITS Exhibit `A' Tax Assessor's Map Exhibit `B' Aerial Photograph Exhibit `C' Zoning Map Exhibit "D" Site Plan, including: 1 - Vicinity Map - by SLX 2 - Existing Conditions - by SLX 3 - Site Development Plan - by SLX 4 - Landscape Plan - by Anderson Associates 5 - Street Improvement Plan - by HBH 6 - Grading / Erosion control - by HBH 7 - Storm Drainage Plan - by HBH 8 - Utility Plan - by HBH 9 - Building Floor plans - by SLX 10 - Proposed Building Elevations - by SLX Exhibit 'E' Transportation Impact Analysis - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit `F' Service Provider Response - Clean Water Services Agency Exhibit `G' Tree Assessment - Halstead's Arborculture Consultants, Inc. Exhibit `H' Letter from Principal Pierce regarding bicycle parking needs Exhibit 'I' Neighborhood Meeting Documentation Exhibit 'J' Pre-application Conference Notes 1 5 7 11 21 23 27 29 Project Name: Property Description: C.F. Tigard 0'entarY School CUPNariances C.F. Tigard Elementary School replacement 2S102CB-00200 and 2S1 03CB-001 00 Location: 12850 SW Grant Street Parcel size: 10.6 Acres, or 462,000 square feet Zoning: R-12 Applicant: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Stephen Poage Telephone 503-431-4003 Fax: 503-431-4047 Property Owner: Applicants Representatives: Same Project Manager Brian Radabaugh, Senior Project Manager Cornerstone Construction Management Inc. 5410 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 250 Portland, Oregon 97210 Telephone 503-295-0108 Fax 503-295-1896 edniurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 C.F. Tigard Elementary School /Variances • 6 February 2003 CFTIGARD PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Elementary School Address: Critical Dates List: Bid Package 1 Bid Package 2 Bid Package 3 OWNER: TIGARD TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23-J 6960 SW SANDBURG STREET TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PHONE: (503) 431-4003 FAX: (503) 4314047 CONTACTS: STEPHEN POAGE spoage@ttsd112.or.us PRWECT MANAGER: CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5410 SW MACADAM #250 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 PHONE: (503) 295-0108 FAX: (503) 295-1896 CONTACTS: BRIAN RADABAUGH brianr@cornerstonemgi.com .ARCHITECT: SELIG/LEE/RUEDA ARCHITECTS 213 SW ASH ST., SUITE 201 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 PHONE: (503) 2240173 FAX: (503) 2244836 CONTACTS: XAVIER RUEDA x@slxarchitects.com RUDY SCHUVER rudy@slxarchitects.com MECHANICAL ENGINEER: PAE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC 808 S.W. 3`a AVE. PORTLAND, OR. 97204 PHONE: (503) 226-2921 FAX: (503) 226-2930 CONTACS MARK FIRESTONE markf@paemail.com MICHAEL SCUPIEN michaels@paemail.com JONATHAN RICKET jonr@paemail.com 12850 SW Grant Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503-431-4400 Fax: 503-431-4410 Principal: Jim Pierce Monday April 7, 2003 Thursday May 15, 2003 Tuesday July 15, 2003 jpierce@ttsd.kl2.or.us ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: CUNDIFF ENGINEERING, INC 8885 SW CANYON ROAD, #205 PORTLAND, OREGON 97225 PHONE: (503) 297-7738 FAX: (503) 297-6018 CONTt4CT: LEE CUNDIFF lee@cundiffeng.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: NISHKIAN DEAN 319 SW WASHINGTON STREET, #720 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 PHONE: (503) 274-1843 FAX: (503) 273-5696 CONTACT: GERALD GOTCHALL gerald-g@nishkian.com CIVIL ENGINEER HBH CONSULTING ENGINEERS 11535 SW DURHAM ROAD, SUITE C6 TIGARD, OREGON 97224 PHONE: (503) 670-0499 FAX: (503) 670-0540 CONTACTS- ROB HENRY rhenry@hbh-consulting.com ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT ALTERMATT ASSOCIATES, INC 522 SW FIFFH AVE, SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 PHONE: (503) 221-1044 FAX: (503) 221-1445 CONTACT: TODD MATTHIAS tmatthias@altermatt.com FOOD SERVICE CONSULTANT: DENNIS POLLMANN & ASSOCIATES 1228 MAPLE STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 PHONE: (503) 635-5219 FAX: (503) 635-8257 CONTACT: DENNIS POLLMANN doadesienChotmad.com 2 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 LANDSCAM- ANDERSON ASSOCIATES 22181 NW PHILLIPS ROAD HILLSBORO, OREGON 97214 PHONE: (503) 647-7400 FAX: (503) 647-7496 CONTACT: DAVID ANDERSON dander@teleport.com GEO TECHNICAL ENGINEER GEOCON NW 8380 SW NIMBUS AVE. BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008 PHONE: (503) 626-9889 FAX: (503) 626-8611 WESLEY SPANG wes@geoconnw.com C.F. Tigard *ntarv School CUP/Variances SURVEYOR: OTAK 17335 SW BOONES FERRY ROAD LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 PHONE: (503) 635-3618 FAX: (503) 635-5395 CONTACT: DAVE LIDEN dave.liden@otak.com SAND RISE PANNING: ED MURPHY & ASSOCIATES 9875 SW MURDOCK STREET TIGARD, OREGON 97224 PHONE: (503) 62413625 FAX: (503) 968-1674 CbNTACT: ED MURPHY ejmurphy@aol.com TRANSPORTATION PLANNING KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC 610 SW ALDER AVE, SUITE 700 PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 PHONE: (503) 228-5230 FAX: (503) 273-8169 CONT AQ, ERIC WALTMAN ewaltman@kittelson.com edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 3 C.F. Tigard Elementary School Colvariances This page intentionally left blank 0 • • • • 4 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 C.F. Tigard Elementary School CuOriances This page intentionally left blank 0 6 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 0 C.F. Tigard77e nentan, School CUPNariances • The Tigard-Tualatin School District plans to replace the C.F. Tigard Elementary School with a new elementary school on the same site. A Conditional Use Permit is required. • The new school will be approximately the same size as the existing school, designed for a capacity of 600 students. Unlike the existing single-story structure, the new school will be a two-story structure. Once the new school is built, the existing school will be demolished, and the area that the existing school occupied will be used for the ball fields. • Two of the existing buildings will not be removed - the "multipurpose" building, which will be retained for use as a multipurpose facility, and the old administration building. The School District is in the process of partitioning tax lot 100, splitting off the front portion of the property currently occupied by the old administration building and parking lot. • The two ends of SW Grant Avenue will not be connected, but each will end in a cul-de- sac turn-around. Following approval of the CUP, the School District will request that the City initiate vacation of that portion of the street right-of-way of SW Grant Avenue that is no longer needed, and will dedicate additional right-of-way needed for the cul-de-sacs at that time. • There will be virtually no impact to the sewer, water, roads and storm water systems. The number of students and staff will remain virtually the same. The total amount of impervious surface will be slightly reduced from 163,557 square feet to 159,616 square feet once the existing buildings are removed. Drainage will be improved, which will be beneficial to neighbors who have experienced drainage problems in the past. • Concurrent with the CUP application, the School District (hereinafter "District") is applying for a variance to the "connectivity" standards, namely the 1800 foot maximum block length and the 530 foot maximum pedestrian connection spacing standards. Although discouraged from doing so during school hours, pedestrians will be able to traverse the school site between the two cul-de-sacs; however, it would be impractical and hazardous to have a public street bisecting the school property. • Also concurrent with the CUP application, the District is applying for an adjustment to the required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces of six spaces per classroom. edtnurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 5 O C.F. Tigard *entary School CUPIVariances History: The property is made up of two tax lots, comprising a 10.6-acre parcel with frontage on SW Grant Avenue on two sides, and Pacific Highway. (Please refer to the Tax Assessor's map, Exhibit `A'). It is almost flat, sloping slightly from northwest to the southeast. It currently has the C.F. Tigard Elementary School on it, including a modular classroom. The old administration building is also located on the parcel. (Please refer to aerial photograph, Exhibit `13' The school has been in this location since the late 1940's or early 1950's. It was probably built soon after a portion of Grant Avenue crossing the property was vacated in 1948. The most recent modification to the conditional use permit occurred in 1996, when the portable classroom was added near SW School Street. Adjacent uses. The property is zoned R-12, as is the surrounding neighborhood. (Please refer to Zoning Map, Exhibit `C'). The property is bordered by single-family homes on the west, north and east sides, with commercial uses on both sides and across the street from the old administration building. SW Grant Street currently dead-ends on both sides of the school property. There is also a day-care center adjacent to the school property on the west side, near the intersection of SW Grant Avenue and SW School Street. Description of Proposal. The new school will be approximately 67,000 square feet in size, compared to 51,660 square feet for the existing school.' The new school will be a major improvement over the existing school. Not only will it be a two-story building, which is a more efficient use of the land, but also the site itself will be greatly improved. • Trees will be planted along the north property line; • New fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the school property; • Parking lot trees will be planted in the new parking lots; • Drainage will be improved; • A cul-de-sac will be constructed on both ends of SW Grant Avenue so that they will meet city standards for turn-arounds at the end of dead-end streets over 200 feet in length. • The entrance to the elementary school building will be accessible for pedestrians coming from either end of SW Grant Avenue, which will also provide a continuous hard surfaced walkway across the school grounds. (Please refer to Site Development Plan and Landscape Plan, Exhibit `D', Sheets 3 and 4 respectively, and to the Proposed Elevations, Sheet 10). No changes to any of the existing utilities are necessary. The school is already served with adequate sewer, water and storm water lines. The District will install new fire hydrants as necessary to provide adequate fire protection. (See refer to the Utilities Plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 8). The building will also be fully sprinklered. The traffic impact is minimal, since access to the new school is provided in the same manner as access to the existing school. (Please refer to the Traffic Evaluation letter, Exhibit `E'). In both cases, not counting the multipurpose building edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 7 C.F. Tigard F_lementan, School C Variances There are no sensitive lands that will be impacted by the proposed use, i.e. wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, or wildlife habitats. The Washington County Clean Water Services (CWS) Agency has provided a service provider letter. (Please refer to the CWS letter, Exhibit `F'.) Chapter 18.390.040.B.2.e Impact Analysis: This section requires an impact study as part of the Type II procedure. For the most part, no improvements to the transportation, drainage, parks, water, and sewer systems are necessary to meet City standards or to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. The one exception is constructing circular turn-arounds on each end of SW Grant Avenue, which the District will complete as part of this project. Following are comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on public facilities and services. Transportation Svstem: There are no significant impacts to the transportation system as a result of this proposed site development. As the transportation impact analysis completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. concluded "...the associated trip generation of the redevelopment will not have a significant impact on off-site intersection operations." The report further concluded, "...the proposed accesses can provide adequate levels of service and capacity", and "internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation is expected to operate safe and efficiently." (Please refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis, Exhibit `E'). No improvements to the transportation system, other than constructing the cul-de-sacs, is necessary to meet City standards or to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. Drainaae Svstem: The property slopes generally from the northwest to the southeast. Run- off will be directed into the existing storm water line on SW Grant Street, which flows to SW Walnut Street, and then north along SW Walnut Street to Fanno Creek. No improvements to the drainage system in SW Grant Avenue or SW Walnut Street are necessary. Parks Svstem: No impact to the park system will occur as a result of this proposed site development. Once the existing school is removed and the play fields and play equipment are constructed, the new school will have the same type of recreation facilities available as the existing school does currently. Water Svstem: No impact to the water system will occur as a result of this proposed site development. There is a water line within a 20-foot wide easement along the west side of the parking lot for the old administration building. The water line runs from SW Grant Avenue to Pacific Highway, following SW School Street and the easement (it is located right behind Schuck's Auto store.) Nothing is being proposed as a part of this application that would interfere with that water line or easement. Sewer Svstem: No impact to the sewer system will occur as a result of this proposed site development. There is an 8" sewer line crossing the property, which is within a 15' wide utility easement. The easement crosses through the proposed parking lot area, providing continued unobstructed access to the sewer line. 8 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 • C.F. Tigard *eniarY School CUPNariances Noise impacts: Most activities will take place indoors. During recess, the children will use the playground at the northwest corner of the property, as well as the ball fields at the south end of the property. During the evenings, when the neighbors are more likely to be home, the school will generally be closed. The noise impact on the neighbors will be different because the buildings and playgrounds are rearranged, but the overall noise level will be comparable to the noise level of the existing school. For those people living the closest to the playground, between SW Watkins Street and the Elementary School, the week-day noise may increase due to the location of the play structures, but the evening or week-end noise will decrease because of the relocation of the ball fields. The noise levels from the school building and grounds will be well within the City's noise standards. Further, the City's noise ordinance, Title 7, Section 7.40.180, specifically makes an exception for noise coming from normal school activities. It states the following in Section 7.40.180 "Exceptions": The following shall not be considered violations of this article, even if the sound limit specified in Section 7.40.160 is exceeded: A. Non-amplified sounds created by organized athletic or other group activities, when such activities are conducted on property generally used for such purposes, such as stadiums, parks, schools, and athletic fields, during normal hours for such events. Lighting; The school building, school grounds and parking lot will be illuminated. When the building is unoccupied, most exterior lights will be turned off. The lights will be on timers and photocells, which will lessen the amount of energy used, provide better security, and reduce the impact to the neighbors from light intrusion. Police. Fire and other Emeraencv Services: No impact to police, fire or other emergency services will occur as a result of this proposed site development. The new school building will be more safe than the existing school building, as it will have a full sprinkler system installed, and will be built to modern building code standards. Police will be able to see the school from the parking lot easier than they can see the existing school. The property will be fenced on all sides, including between the old administration building and the play fields. edtnurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupappl2/17/03 O C.F. Tigard Elementary School CO/Variances This page intentionally left blank 10 • to r i • edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 • • • • C. F. Tigard Antan! School CUP/Variances Chapter 18.330 of the Tigard Development Code (hereinafter "Code") contains the standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted. Section 18.330j.030 contains the approval standards, which are as follows: 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval A. ADnroval Standards. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. Section 18.330.050 contains additional development standards applicable to schools, which are as follows: 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards for conditional use are as follows 8. Schools: a. There shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is required for the applicable zoning district; b. Setbacks: (1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet; (2) On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet on any side facing a street, plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter 18.795; (3) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; and (4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet. RESPONSE TO CRITERIA 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The site has been functioning as an elementary school site for many years. The replacement school will be essentially the same capacity as the existing school, with similar play equipment and fields. The site is relatively flat, with little existing significant vegetation, edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 11 C.F. Tigard Elementan, School AlVariances • and is rectangular in shape. As can be seen from the site plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 3, the proposed new elementary school fits quite nicely on the site. The total parcel size is about 10.6 acres, including approximately 1.36 acres which is part of the old administration building and related parking lot. There is only one significantly sized tree that will be removed for the new school building and site improvements. The site where the school building is proposed is not an area that is subject to ground slumping or sliding. There is adequate distance between the school building and any surrounding buildings, which provides for adequate light and air circulation, and accessibility to fire-suppression equipment. All the classrooms will have windows, which will provide an abundance of natural light. 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features. The new elementary school will have the same impact on the neighborhood as the existing school does. There is really no significant additional impact to the public facilities and transportation systems. Most of the impacts will result from the relocation of the school building and play areas on the site, and the fact that it will be a two-story structure instead of a single-story structure. However, the impacts are minimized through increased building setbacks and screening and buffering. The school is proposed to be a maximum of 35-feet in height, which will only occur in the gymnasium area. Thirty-five feet is the maximum height allowed in the R-12 zone. Since those properties are on the same elevation, the school will not seem unusually tall or overbearing. It will be very compatible with the neighborhood. The topography is such that the drainage will go east towards SW Grant Avenue, and will be graded so that the neighbors to the north of the school property (between the school property and SW Watkins Street) should see an improvement in their drainage situation. The existing trees and shrubs on and along the edges of the property will help buffer and screen the adjoining properties. In addition, the District is proposing to plant trees all along the north side and a portion of the west side, and will refurbish or replace the chainlink fencing on all sides. Where appropriate, the District will add privacy slats to the fence. In addition, site plan calls for the school building to be set back from the property lines by between 36 and 62 feet, which is considerably more than the minimum setback allowed by the Code. The lighting from the school building and parking lot will be managed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. The District policy is to turn all the lights on the building and grounds off at night. 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. The public sewer, storm water and water systems have adequate capacity for the existing school, and the new school will be essentially the same number of students and teachers/support staff. The transportation system is adequate to support the existing school, and the District will construct street improvements that will provide an easier turn- around at both ends of SW Grant Avenue. The District will add fire hydrants as needed to 12 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 • C.F. Tigard Wntary School CUPNariances provide adequate coverage, and in addition, the building will be fully equipped with a sprinkler system. Visual access to the school from SW Grant Avenue and the parking lots will be better than it is to the existing school, thereby improving security. Other semi-public facilities and services, including electrical, natural gas, cable, and garbage disposal are available, and the construction of the new school will not significantly change the impact on those services and facilities. 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The property is zoned R-12. The proposed elementary school is in compliance with all of the applicable requirements of R-12 zone. Following is a summary of how the proposed school and site comply with the zoning district regulations. Minimum lot size. The requirement is 3050 sq. ft. per unit. There is no minimum lot size requirement for schools. Average lot width: None required. Minimum building setbacks: The setback requirements ordinarily applicable in the R-12 zone are superceded by Section 18.330.050 of the Development Code. The school will meet or exceed those setbacks. (More discussion of this under the next criterion). Maximum Building Height: The maximum allowable building height is 35 feet. The proposed elementary school building will not exceed the maximum building height, and in fact, over 85% of the building will be less than 30 feet high. Maximum percentage of lot coverage: The maximum allowed is 80%. The actual percentage of lot coverage will be about 40%, not counting the old administration building and parking lot. The total lot coverage will be slightly less after the development of the new school and removal of most of the existing structures than it is currently. Streets: SW Grant Avenue will remain the same width on both ends, i.e. from SW Walnut to the school property on the east, and from SW Park Street to the school property on the west side. However, the District will construct new cul-de-sacs at each end of the dead-end streets. This will allow those streets to come into conformance with the maximum length of a dead-end street, which is 200 feet. The new cul-de-sacs will meet city street standards. Pedestrian and handicapped accessibility: Pedestrians will be able to access the school - -1 _c CIIA# n . a Avenue, ♦hhe +h,.,.,., fk- en+ronrc rlnnrc of 4hc crhnnl TrOFT1 UITTICI UnU UI OVV IaICUIt and fJCiUIVVGIy w uIV cl n,w lva a.vvv vuw vv..vv. will meet ADA standards. At the end of SW Grant Avenue, near the entrance into the cul- de-sac bulb on the east side of the school site, the District is proposing cross-striping for children who must cross SW Grant Avenue. Handicapped parking: The proposed site plan calls for 74 new parking spaces, 4 of which will be handicapped accessible, as per the accessibility standards set forth in the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code. edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/0 i 13 CF. Tigard Elementary School 1tvriances Bicycle parking: The Code requires 6 spaces per classroom. Since there are 28 classrooms, that would be 168 bicycle spaces. Based on actual experience, about 25 bicycles parking spaces are all that are needed; the District plans to install 44. The District is applying for an adjustment to the bicycle parking standard concurrently with the CUP application. Utilities: All utilities will meet City standards. All on-site utilities will be undergrounded. Parking lot landscaping. The new parking lots will meet the City standard of one parking lot tree per seven parking spaces. Since the parking lots are not sited next to a public roadway, screening from the street is not required. The northern parking lot will be screened from the adjoining residential properties. Parking lot lighting: The lighting from the parking lot will be directed downward so as not to interfere with the neighbor's properties. The parking lot lights will be turned off at night by an automatic timer, and will be turned on again in the morning, as directed by a light meter. Minimum percentage of site landscaping. The minimum required percentage of landscaping is 20%. Not counting the old administration building, 60% of the site is in landscaping, play fields, and landscaped areas. Buffering and Screening: Buffering and screening is not required in this case, but staff suggested a 6' to 20' wide buffer area adjacent to any homes, with a level C or D landscaping/screening, as per Table 18.745.2 of the Code. The new parking lot on the north side will be screened from the adjoining property owners with vegetation and fencing. (There is already thick and dense vegetation, mostly Laurels, at this location, which provides a practically solid vegetative screen.) 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050. The proposed school building exceeds the required minimum setbacks. Since the school does not really front on a street, the site plan assumes that the front of the school, where the entry will be, is the south side. The front lot line will be the line that separates the old administration building from the school site, which is approximately 400 feet from the proposed new school building. The other yard setbacks will be: • East side yard setback 130 feet (minimum 20 feet required). • West side yard setback 36 feet (minimum 20 feet required) • Rear yard setback 62 feet (minimum 30 feet required). 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, site Development Review, if applicable, are met. The following information addresses the other chapters of the Code. Chapter 18.360 Site Development Review. This proposed use is not subject to the Site Development Review Chapter of the Code. Section 18.360.020.A.5, under "applicability and exemptions", says site development review shall not apply to "any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit application process". However, many of the submission requirements and development standards 14 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2117/03 • C.F. Tigard Wntan! School CUPNariances applicable to a Conditional Use Permit application are the same as for a Site Development Review application. Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation. The most applicable section is 18.705.030.F, "Required walkway location." Walkways or plaza areas extend from both ends of SW Grant Street to the front entrance of the school. Wherever the walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, the crossings are marked with pavement markings or contrasting pavement materials. The walkways will be a minimum of four feet in width, paved with hard surfaced materials, lighted, and in compliance with ADA standards. A walkway to the neighboring development, particularly the area served by SW Watkins Street, is impractical because the neighborhood is already fully developed. Chapter 18.710 Accessory Residential Units. The Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.715 Density Computations. The Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. The Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards. This Chapter applies the federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations to development within the City of Tigard. • Noise. As noted previously in this application, the City's noise ordinance makes an exception to the noise regulations for schools, in Section 7.40.180. • Visible emissions. This applies only to areas zoned commercial or industrial, and is not applicable to schools. • Vibration. There will not be any vibrations emanating from the school property that will be discernible without instruments at the property line. • Odors. There should not be any odorous gases or other matter generated from the school property in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line. The only exception to that may be the school kitchen, which is located on the west side of the building, near the day care center. It is not likely that these odors, if they do cross the property line, will be offensive to the adjoining property owners. • Glare and heat. The will be no direct or sky-reflected glare visible at the property line, or any emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the property line. • Insects and rodents. The materials that might attract rodents will be located near the kitchen and loading area. All wastes will be stored in closed containers, and the grounds will be maintained in a manner that will not attract or aid in the propagation of insects or rodents or create any type of health hazard. Because this is an elementary school, it is extremely important that the waste disposal and recycling area be kept as clean as possible at all times. Chapter 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.740 Historic Overlay. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.742 Home Occupations. This Chapter is not applicable. edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 15 C.F. Tigard Elementary School Alvariances Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening. Even though Site Development Revision provisions do not apply because this application is for a Conditional Use permit rather than a Site Development Review, the standards of this Section provide guidelines to mitigate any impacts on the neighboring property owners. Bufferina and screening. The buffering and screening matrix (Table 18.745.1) does not show a requirement for buffering and screening between existing detached single-family units and institutional uses such as schools. In the pre-application conference, the planning staff encouraged the District to maintain a 6'- to 20'-wide buffer along the north, east and west property lines, and provide site obscuring screening next to parking areas. The staff further suggested providing a C or D level buffer (Table 18.745.2) next to the residential areas. The Code provides several combinations of distance, vegetation, and fences, walls or berms, which are used in different situations. The landscape plan, Exhibit 'D', Sheet 4, illustrates the proposed buffering and screening areas. Along the north side of the property, the distance (over 60 feet) and the trees that will be planted along this property line provide a very good buffer. On the east side, there is very little room for buffering and screening between the proposed parking lot and the property line, although the school building itself is over 130 feet away from the property line. Fortunately, there is dense landscaping already in place along almost all of this property line. A minimum of 10' will be maintained between the parking lot and the property line. The standard will be similar to Level C-2, except with a 4'-high fence instead of a 5'-high fence, and a 10-foot wide setback instead of 8-foot wide setback. It is difficult to maintain a very wide buffer along the west side, adjacent to the day care center. There is less than 10 feet between the paved loading area and the property line, although the building is set 36 feet away from the property line. This area is already fenced with a 6-feet high chainiink fence, which will be replaced with a new fence with privacy slats. Additional trees here are not practical, as they would interfere with any trucks using the loading area. There is also a large cedar tree next to the day care center that provides some screening. The other area where screening is called for, and already provided, is the area between the parking lot used for the existing multipurpose building and the adjacent single-family and multi-family development to the east. The parking lot buts up almost to the property line, leaving room just for the fencing and trees. There is already a 6-feet high wood fence along a portion of this area, and a 5-foot high chainlink fence along the remainder. There are tall arborvitae trees forming an opaque hedge, or solid vegetative screen, between the fence and the parking lot. Street Trees. The School property does not have any frontage on public streets, except for the cul-de- sacs. The plan does not include street trees around the cul-de-sacs in order to maintain good visibility of the school building and grounds. Screenina. Screening and landscaping of parking lots and loading areas is required, but the standards are meant to screen these areas from the view from the street. In this case, the parking lots do not have frontage along a street. The landscape plan does show landscaping around the 16 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 • C.F. Tigard 0"entary School CUPNariances parking lots that will help screen them from view from the two cul-de-sacs. In addition, the northern parking lot will be adjacent to existing homes, and it will be screened with fencing. The parking lots themselves will include parking lot trees, which will provide some screening from view. The service facilities (refuse container and disposal area near the west property line) will be screened from view by a chainlink fence with slats, solid wood fence or masonry wall. Proposed Plant Selections - !derived from soil conditions) All proposed plant material have been selected for their adaptability to local climate conditions and ability to thrive under a range of conditions including heat and cold hardiness, low water needs use after establishment, and tolerance of a range of soil conditions. Current soil conditions are compacted and range from loam to predominately clay. Soil Treatment Topsoil derived from the site during construction will be stockpiled on site and used for proposed landscape areas. Soil amendments (i.e., compost) will be used to improve the soil conditions and create an environment for plants to thrive. Erosion Control Measures An erosion control plan will be submitted by the civil engineer. During landscape construction, erosion control measures will be implemented to prevent degradation of the site and contain landscape materials on site. Chapter 18.750 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.760 Nonconforming Situations. The buildings on the school property conform to the current setback height and other dimensional requirements. The existing parking lot for the old administration building may not conform to current city requirements, but the District is currently in the process of partitioning off that portion of the property, which will be redeveloped. When that occurs, it will be subject to Site Development Review. The existing parking lot next to the multipurpose building may not meet current city requirements for parking lot trees, but it is a pre-existing use. That building is not being enlarged or changed, and is not part of the new elementary school. Chapter 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Vehicular parking. For an elementary school, two parking spaces per classroom are required. The proposed school has 28 classrooms, so 56 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan, Exhibit 'D', Sheet 3, shows 74 parking spaces, not counting the parking for the old administration building or the multipurpose building. The design of the parking lots takes meets the regulations of this Chapter in terms of landscaping, lighting, drainage, pedestrian access, width of access aisles, and disabled-accessible parking. For loading and unloading passengers (18.765.040.C), the plan proposes an elongated driveway where school busses can queue for loading children. Parents picking up or edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 17 • • C.F. Tigard Elementary School CUP/Variances unloading children will be directed to do so using the parking lot to the north to minimize conflict with the bus loading/unloading areas. Also, parents can drop off children on the west side of the school property, using the cul-de-sac bulb at the end of SW Grant Street. Bicvcle oarkinq. The site plan shows 44 bicycle parking stalls on the east side of the building. The Code requires 6 bicycle parking stalls per classroom, which would mean that 168 parking stalls would be required for the 28 classrooms. The District is requesting an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards concurrently with the CUP application. Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands. There are no sensitive lands affected by this proposal. Chapter 18.780 Signs. The District is not proposing any new signs at this time. Chapter 18.785 Temporary uses. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.790 Tree removal. The existing trees over 6" in caliper are shown on the landscape plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 4. Nine trees are over 12" in caliper. Of those, one will be removed, which is only 11 % of the total number of trees. Since almost 90% of the trees over 12" in caliper are being retained, no mitigation is required. (Please refer to Tree Assessment Report, Exhibit `G' Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas. The only area where this applies to this site is where driveways to the parking lots connect to the public streets, i.e. the cul-de-sac'd ends of SW Grant Avenue. Those areas will meet the visual clearance requirements of this Section 18.795.040.8 of this chapter. Care will be taken to balance the street tree and parking lot landscaping requirements with the need to maintain adequate visual clearance. Chapter 18.797 Water Resources (WR) Overlay District. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The site plan shows both ends of SW Grant Avenue ending in a circular cul-de-sac. This improvement brings SW Grant Street into conformance with the Code standard for dead-end streets, in that the streets are over 200 feet long. The District will dedicate the necessary right-of-way to the City, and will also request that the City vacates any existing right-of-way that is no longer needed. The streets that the District constructs as part of this development will meet city standards for street lighting, drainage, street trees, curbs, sidewalks and other requirements. The one area where the District cannot meet the requirements of this Chapter is Section 18.810.040, "Blocks". The Code does not provide an exception for schools or other campus- like facilities. Existing development patterns preclude strict compliance with the Code requirements for maximum block length and bicycle and pedestrian connections. The maximum allowed block length is 1800 feet. The actual block length currently is roughly three times that distance (counting Pacific Highway, Walnut Street, Watkins Avenue, and Park Street as the perimeter streets). There will be internal pedestrian circulation provided via the parking lots and plaza, as children will obviously need to be able to walk to school from both ends of SW Grant 18 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 0 C.F. Tigard IIentary School CUP/Variances Avenue. The District will discourage general pedestrian traffic on or through the school site during school hours, but pedestrians will be able to walk through the school site during non- school hours. Even so, the site will not meet the Code requirements of no more than 330 feet between pedestrian connections. Therefore, the District is applying for a variance to the maximum block length and pedestrian connectivity standards concurrently with the CUP application. ednwrphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 19 C.F. Tigard Elementary School ColVariances 0 This page intentionally left blank 20 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 • C.F. Tigard *,ntan, School CUPNariances Background. Currently there are 60 bicycle parking spaces at CF Tigard Elementary School. According to the Principal, Jim Pierce, only about 25 spaces are used, even on a sunny day. (See Exhibit `H', letter from Jim Peirce). Since this is an elementary school, most children take the bus to and from school. Chapter 18.765 of the Code sets forth the standards for bicycle parking. Specifically, Table 18.765.2 requires six parking spaces per classroom. There are 28 classrooms, counting the special education and Title 1 classrooms. That means the District would have to install 168 bicycle parking spaces to meet the Code requirements. Proposal. The District supports bicycle usage, and plans to install almost twice as many bicycle parking stalls as are currently used at the existing school. For the new school, the District is proposing to install 44 bicycle spaces, which will be more than adequate to accommodate the expected demand. Response to Adjustment Criteria. Section 18.370.020.5.e. allows the Director to approve an adjustment of the required bicycle parking by means of a Type II procedure if the applicant "can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking." A school by its nature is expected to generate bicycle traffic, and therefore a need for parking for the bicycles. However, it is reasonable to expect that the future need for bicycle parking will be similar to the current and past need. Based on his seven years of experience at C.F. Tigard, Mr. Pierce indicates that the new school would not need more than 40-50 slots or spaces to provide for the number of bikes typically ridden to school, even in good weather. Although the Director may approve an adjustment, this application also reviewed the criteria for a variance, found in Chapter 18.370 of the Code. Responses to each of the variance criterion are as follows: a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The "purposes of this title" (18.110.020) include only one purpose statement that is directly relevant, which is #8: "Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City". The School District provides much of the transportation services needed to get children to and from school safely. Children who do not take the bus can walk or ride a bicycle, or their parents drop them off. The number of children bringing a bicycle to school is limited - out of approximately 600 students, only about 25 ride their bicycles to school. The District proposes to install 44 bicycle stalls, or almost twice the number that it expects to be used. If over time, the demand for more bicycle parking increases significantly, the District can relatively easily provide additional bicycle parking spaces. On the other hand, if the District installed 168 bicycle spaces, and only 30 to 40 are actually used, it becomes wasted space and a nuisance. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the provision of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City of Tigard. Nor will it be materially edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 21 C.F. Tigard Elementary School AlVariances 9 detrimental to any other applicable standards or policies, or to any other properties in the R- 12 zone or the vicinity of the school. Most importantly, granting the variance, and requiring 44 instead of 168 bicycle parking spaces, will not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Children will not start leaving their bicycles parked in the street or on someone else's property because they can't find a parking space on the school property. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The special circumstance is that this is an elementary school in the R-12 zone, and that it is a replacement school for a school that has been at this site for more than 50 years. Based on the actual experience in this neighborhood, the requirement of six bicycle spaces per classroom is excessive. How many children ride to school depends on how safe their parents think their children are, how far away from school they live, what type of bicycle facilities exist along the route to school, and even whether or not the child has a bicycle. The School District has no control over these variables. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The proposed use is an elementary school, which is a permitted use, subject to Conditional Use approval. The other city standards will be maintained, except for the maximum block length. Installing 44 bicycle stalls will consume quite a bit of land, but can be reasonably accommodated. Installing 168 stalls is problematic in terms of space availability, as it would consume a substantial amount of land, and more importantly, would not benefit the children, their parents or the teachers and staff. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; Existing physical and natural systems are not affected one way or the other. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is not self-imposed, other than in a very broad sense (i.e. the District did not have to build a new school; instead, they could have remodeled the existing school). The District is not claiming that there is no room on the site for 168 bicycle parking spaces, or that there is some physical reason why it cannot be done. It is claiming that the number of bicycle parking spaces required is much greater than the need, and that installing the required number of spaces takes up valuable space that could be better used for other activities. It creates a hardship on the District because of the amount of space it ties up, and because of the on-going maintenance requirements of these facilities. 22 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 C.F. Tigard mentarp School CUPNariances Background. The SW Grant Street right-of-way apparently at one time connected through the School District property, but a portion of it was vacated in 1948 (recorded October 26, 1948, Book 290, page 320). A sewer line easement was granted in the same area as the vacated right-of-way in 1960. Because of the sewer line, no buildings were ever built where the right-of-way was vacated. Pedestrians can currently walk between the two ends of SW Grant Avenue on a narrow, hard-surfaced walkway. The City adopted connectivity standards in 1998, which established a maximum block length of 1800 feet (Section 18.810.040.13). The regulations were geared to subdivisions, and made no exceptions for school sites. To strictly meet those requirements, a school site could be no larger than 4.6 acres, and have streets on all four sides (450 feet per side equals an 1800 perimeter, which results in a 4.6-acre area). The Code does mention that block lengths need to be "designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated". Further, it mentions that there can be an exception to the 1800-foot perimeter where street location is precluded by pre-existing development. It also allows an exception for "non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. This is not a "non-residential" block, since schools are allowed in the residential zone, but it is non-residential in the sense that it is not a residential subdivision. In this case, the recently adopted standards do not work very well for an established neighborhood, and for a school site that is 9.24 acres in size (not counting the 1.36-acre old administration building and parking lot). In order to provide an adequate building site for the school and related play fields, and to provide the school at this site in this pre-existing neighborhood, a variance to the block length standards is necessary. The alternative of connecting the two ends of SW Grant Avenue with a public street for vehicular traffic would be impractical and unsafe - children would have to cross the street when walking between the ball fields and the school building. On the other hand, a pedestrian connection is feasible, and acceptable during those times of the day when school is not in session. Just as they can today, pedestrians will be able to walk between the two ends of SW Grant Avenue. When the improvements are complete, the area will be hard-surfaced, making walking across the school grounds more convenient than it is currently. While the District is always concerned about security and vandalism, it does not intend to fence the school site completely off from the public. Proposal. The District is proposing the cul-de-sac both ends of SW Grant Avenue, providing no vehicular traffic between the two ends of the street. Further, it is proposing hard surfaced walking areas between the two cul-de-sacs. None school-related pedestrian traffic across the school grounds will be discouraged during normal school hours. However, in the evenings, weekends and much of the summer, this connection will provide a convenient pedestrian connection within the neighborhood. Although this does not meet the standard of 330 feet for pedestrian connections, it will provide a connection roughly halfway between Pacific Highway and SW Watkins Avenue, which are approximately 1250 feet apart. edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 23 C.F. Tigard Elementary School *Variances Response to Variance Approval Criteria a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The variance to the block length standards will not be detrimental to the purposes of the Development Code. The only purpose statement that seems relevant is 18.110.020.A.8, which is to "provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City." The provision for cul-de-sac turn-arounds on each end of SW Grant Avenue, with an informal pedestrian connection between the cul-de-sacs, provides a safe and convenient transportation system. The variance would not be detrimental to other applicable policies or standards. It will not disrupt the established neighborhood or established traffic patterns, as a street connect would. The variance would not set a precedent for other developments within the R-12 zone, as a school site is unique and much different than a residential subdivision or multi- family development. None of the neighbors who attended the neighborhood meeting complained about the length of the block, or even asked for a pedestrian connection. On the other hand, requiring SW Grant Avenue to be connected in order to meet the maximum block length standard would very likely be strongly opposed by the neighbors and the parents of the school children. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; An elementary school takes a certain amount of space, even when the school is built as a two-story school. This particular site is adequate, but barely has enough room for the school and two ball fields. While the parcel itself is not peculiar in terms of size or shape or topography, it is unique in how is sets within the neighborhood context, and in relation to the existing streets. Since no street connection was provided to SW Watkins Avenue, the only way into the school is via SW Grant Avenue. This -street was wisely vacated in 1948, assumedly so the school could be built here. There is no room to expand the school site boundaries, or to design a street going through the property that would not cut right through the middle of the site. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; Most of the other Development Code standards applicable to this lot will be met. The entire site will be improved in ways that bring it more into compliance with current standards. The pedestrian connection will provide a reasonable degree or connectivity. III the land was being developed as a residential subdivision, connecting SW Grant Avenue to provide improved connectivity might be an option. However, it is a school site, and the site cannot provide a vehicle street connection and still be used as a school site. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; The existing physical and natural systems, including traffic, parking, energy systems, environmental systems, would not be adversely affected any more if the variance were 24 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 • C.F. Tigard 0entary School CUPNariances granted than if it were not. The existing traffic patterns in this established neighborhood area do not include a street connection across the school site, and so would not be adversely impacted if no street connection were made. On the other hand, not granting the variance, and requiring a street connection across the property, would affect traffic patterns and adversely impact the School District and the neighbors. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is not self-imposed, as the District's proposal is consistent with existing development patterns. The decision to not require a street connection was made over 50 years ago, enabling the location of CF Tigard Elementary School at this location. It would be a hardship if the City required the School District to extend SW Grant Street through the site, but that is not a hardship that the District imposed upon itself. Rather, it would be the result of the City applying new regulations that are more applicable to subdivision design than to school sites. The District is not requesting an alternative block length, but is essentially requesting that the current block length established for the neighborhood be maintained. That is, the current block length is the minimum block length to alleviate the potential hardship that would come from the strict application of the maximum block length standard in this case. The pedestrian connection is longer than 530 feet in spacing. The north-south distance between SW Watkins Avenue and Pacific Highway is roughly 1200 feet, and the east-west distance between SW Walnut and SW Grant Avenue (at SW Grant Court) is also roughly 1200 feet. There is not a practical way to make a north-south pedestrian connection between SW Watkins and Pacific Highway through the school site, but there is a way to make an east-west pedestrian connection between SW Walnut Street and SW Grant Avenue through the school site. While not strictly meeting the pedestrian connectivity standards, the proposed site design retains the pedestrian connectivity that the neighborhood currently enjoys. In summary, the District should be granted a variance from the requirements of Section 18.810.040 because • The proposed use is an elementary school, which needs a certain size of a building site; • The proposed replacement school is part of an established neighborhood with traffic patterns that are generally acceptable; • There will be internal public pedestrian circulation; • The regulations, when written, apparently did not consider the affect they might have on school sites, which are normally larger than 4.6 acres; • The variance request meets the variance criteria of Chapter 18.370.010.C.2; • The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would cause an undue and unnecessary hardship, and any public benefit would be outweighed by the public harm. edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 25 C.F. Tigard Elementan° School CR/Variances 0 This page intentionally left blank 26 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/ 17/03 0 C.F. Tigard Oentary School CUPNariances The replacement of C.F. Tigard School with a new school is a tremendous benefit to the neighborhood and the entire city. It not only allows the children the opportunity to go to a new and modern school facility, but will also provide improvements to the parking areas, lighting, fencing, landscaping, drainage, pedestrian walkways, and streets. The proposed new elementary school meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, including complying with (almost) all of the applicable development standards. The District is requesting a variance or adjustment to the two standards that pose practical difficulties, one that would require 168 bicycle parking spaces, and another that would require a public street to bisect the property between the school building and the outdoor play area. These two requests are very reasonable, considering the circumstances. edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 27 C.F. Tigard Elementary School CO/Variances This page intentionally left blank 0 28 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 C.F. Tigard Oentar)? School CUPIVariances EXHIBITS I Exhibit `A' Tax assessor's map showing the location and dimensions of the tax lots Exhibit `B' Aerial photograph Exhibit 'C' Zoning Map Exhibit 'D' Site Plan, including: 1 - Vicinity Map - by SLX 2 - Existing Conditions - by SLX 3 - Site Development Plan - by SLX 4 - Landscape Plan - by Anderson Associates 5 - Street Improvement Plan - by HBH 6 - Grading / Erosion control - by HBH 7 - Storm Drainage Plan - by HBH 8 - Utility Plan - by HBH 9 - Building Floor Plans - by SLX 10 -Proposed Elevations -by SLX Exhibit 'E' Transportation Impact Analysis - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 'F' Service provider response - Clean Water Services Agency Exhibit `G' Tree Assessment - Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. Exhibit `H' Letter from Principal Pierce regarding bicycle parking needs Exhibit `I' Neighborhood meeting documentation Exhibit 'J' Pre-application conference notes edmurphy&associates/ttsd/cftigard/cupapp/2/17/03 29 • iit S'vi►~~~+t i0~i 2 72S R I W W.M. • .98Ac. Exhibit `A' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON • SCALE 1"=100' 200 ! \ / 9.20Ac. 4 -MOST WLY 1 LOT 2 SEE MAP \ \ / 2S 126C 3101 " • >s av / a \ .74Ac. . 0 6000 42 a n 4 ~5900,3,~ / go \ \ 000 32Ac. v • 6100 4 ~ ° S 30 4v' F r` • dq'9 V \ 1 1~ 660 89 9~9 1/4 CORNER ,y -3 ~.\\1 5 ryryh 41:79• ` \ f 2900 1~~` INITIAL. T5 sq (`1 f 'eJq C(~ \ f l9Ac..°~ t. POINT JkT 80C 9l• N. w. COR. p 90 ^ I ~S LOT34 ry 2a00 i9gi b\"~ O \6ey.,~ 9' SJ°°~ tiS3/BAc. °•s?F ~y0 N 8 °z 1\/J2 Op BB. a • _ V /5 v~ 6200 5700 0 0 ti t:QQ~ Rc15 rym. ° 700 e 0 43 / k r '6 c. y coo ? q _ . .35Ac. r'1?.0(.. \ a°°a ~J 3 ° S1 k .20A c. cli cl) i Z a 3~2 L ; 9i~ `-Jy~ ~l' ~scti 2700 930 0 \ya 3 6 v r / J h y0 9s \ 9 sT j • n Q ? AN, \ 600x3 .25Ac. SJ3e Qf 6A 0 y . x Bq o" • In I 2624 P ~y c^~y X% ''nn J" 9 '•n ~ b `~"r p rgT\ g 20 yp r .g a My 80.86 n V I / m 3.1i ~_.~O1ry 9y \ ~2°~ °('d'; C 9°~ry a 6300 ry 2 600 r- p6600 25 / r c 74 A c. t' t .3300 m„ \ 4 f a 25Ac.66~- e / r .ti 1~ 1 28.82 N 9 • r y ^ a .22Ac. n r; r = : a 9 T) ~3 / .r " 40 o r 3e4T ° 7 rJ 'c t1 t~ 10 ~g00 \ryry 41 o fJ' a•9I-~ a~• J. y - ~a J' ICS.1269Q1 3 R,-60 6 ~ 17Ac. \ a 2: Ac. a " P~ s • yr a0 ° N r v 40 a 100 a 09 \ Al Z df m 2500 3a s?o p ~Y J 33.29 N89°475VW- 11.07 a 34 e _ • 6 1a .6 .j ~s, 21Ac. . \ \ .1° \ X04 ~O ~0e a ♦ J3 ' Y^ • 6400 650 300 effq o e\\ ~~o9P4 ti~• lj ,27Ac I a 1100 \6 .55Ac. y'+A J~9~ \ P0y °~3 sq 0 9P MAP a g I 800. a~. 24Ac. .iD \ f ^y J 0ryy2400 N3+~ "3091 p m 1 .55 Ac. a:2° y~ a 3400 3DA 0 9 ` I 1200 33~ \ \ \ ;2?4 y 97Ac. 2.97 Ac. m ry ` ~ 6g 9 ° ° ;32 IT 1 e .29Ac. apao x03 c \ '0 s e0 N 89° 50*3T^W I ap \ J~3o S 7 0\0 • S 7 9 1 3 9 8:7 ry`~ 1) ??3 'sf My s 1 yy0 ene ~ .e \ . _ 1 0 \ w.vu 62.98 63.48 + '0 7100 7200 . 1300 °a\~ \ / \ ry aph a b 2 301 '222s \ ' J t 1 \ 1-1 A 6900 . 17AC. .264C. ~ •46 Ac ~ ry 3 3 ~ o0of ~ 1.07 AC. J , L I S L R ? Y , C ,ar `v m a ~ r c N \ \ ~ O Dry ~ de ~ F u' ea \ ~ zs3J 7 \ 302 " so ry a\ 70 TO 1 13'. / 63.00 63.06 28.42 N S89°40E 1.02Ac.. / /ryp Q v k\ a£ c 91.41500 1600' 1700 ~o` 'y m y ,0 ` ~p~ISa.a7 22Ac ZfA~ 30 Ac N 23-74 °~o \ 5 6801 n A R mJ 0 p 39 Ac 1 g c 8 o d n 9 9 \ ►A ' 1J~~-~JJ?- 99, V 4° 1 o \ N /~~S' 4 tit aNa o. S.No.q 6) SB: 13W '11~ /y ry P o ~ 1 l t .48 N89°4031 33• 70 TO o 198.78 2300 < 19 n~ 3401 0 - - 67 3504 ° 17Ac. ryry° o` ~ 6 0 CV • µ , l vdAcxov- 13 I64.03 7300 ~s40 j~ a ~y 600 " > , \v V i :OC' 9 , y 9;. / s oti ~9 ~-1 • lBAc. o o, ..iGAr'. 3 I ~ -r 5800 a s v y^ 1803 131 ° r~0 .30 A!:. /o C`! 7 r ul••.r c"•yw? ? o° y M 9J 0 r R/ r3~ xy a>r, Jv, l6AC. J 1600 130 0 Jo0 J i n i y f \ / .25Ac. N A Ac. , ( l / , 01~ 5900 ?1 7200 • J r 1 Js : 15AC ~'y a > `o ° yy / ~3 1 d1 b ` 6.4 C-4 4e y9 A $ 7400 ~'g9 2 0 ecJ o`' y' ~9 . 1200 700 F Ah 7500 75 AC. 0 JJB 0 .14i7C. J4 9 7 e° y Jeti /9 J 2 " 100 ° a ~tiy J.s~ ti .l7AC. 1702 800 v 9200 17Ac. . / . G \?,.•r ,"w. , °J:: 1 ?s, ! 33Ac. 9 a 64 ~6 e)) NJ> o° °y' ..SEE MAP .0 c a0\ t<Y:.. .i ,J..T~i f{r IiO~)S S8, At 8C ~S I 2 10 ~ ' • J .n S4 C ~~J / ~ C, ~..ti .If AC. '310 0 Sg ')y •1 lip 1, r 2J 10. 'S))0 f' 9e~~ q~.~ / ; \ `Cry. ' 6200 J o / l 2r Ys c' 3 ~~20 1701 Ss° °700 y 1101 \ ^ 0 y9 24GG /~J J A ~J 392T / tiJ 4AAc. J°; ( o` 2iAC. .17AC. cy 1Z r 73A C: , g J9 c'p9 Aj~J >J 902 69 3732 II J`° y / a 1102 ° e .24Ac. _ 8000 6e 6 `^J \ S ,\y. yok `pMryP NJ i s 62 .~g y . 29 v a '0 1.27Qc. 0 JV 8300, > .W 22 Jo\J? / / \ 0 S / I. > 300 S oro) / I .1. ~ 'o r~ N, _ 1110 -o, 12°°°\~ "?500- - W :1 a1 y ti. r 7 y A . I.15Ac. 8400 9 • ti J I ` , "T ~ti 4100 J0 J°°~~ 46Ac 850U~ss°. so 9 0) 0' ` 000 1`1 IZ) ,4000 s 26 °Q°c 29/ Ac. / 2o .4'45,4c. °s4 0.9 SJ9o9 Jy3' I Y~0 2 b f•.8~':,~ Gic .21 F y * 3900 h (20 x°" 45~c. ey 10. 4 t0 r yy 3800 j' 00 r e6 .1P e 45A 800 ;N' 7,:A-LOTTED ON s y ~9 ss>o • a.A~., > ~ / MAP 2:; ' 1 2 C e / 90 !'c RR .y' ~y~ti0~ . Z 2 'Jq9 2> 4 NJ)J99 y / 3700 i °v^'ck rr o ° o .44Ac. 7,, ~"+s r'\'w 0 ti yh 3702 ti"/ ) 00 34 A C. 31 I / 4400 121.99) M 3600 s qs y " • , t ti J / \ I ° M I 'ti / 8 a 4,, P'9) yy n° 14303 u .33Ac. / 9: N 79° 29'W 3 '2,J. ya~s9, rp 3 10.`i 3701 1/j~ ~f\~ - I yA@~ .3OAc. 00 99J I 0pyti / •.1;:~+~ P` 4r+ / r- 4305 °oJ32o SEE MAP rrr34 1 I )ro46 I by 4300 .23Ac: 2$ I 2C8 7 W J ea - 3500 sa.s9 Ida t, 23Ac. / \ ~9~ i rv ~ ati BS c7. 3200 R:. III r r r~\°y 4305 Y J `ria u I 2 f~ / / y . / J ) N AI° 9 0 43'j2 by , 0 v?0 7. \ .2 ~ 4)h\ ' / / . • v ` 14860 20, W 5 .W 193.34, 4304 1 S.-10 r~ : 3400 a•'. a if?Ac. ,9° 3300 roi zn - 4%; 4301 m 1 i i m i '1 y~ 39 .26 c. ry . LL 114 _ b93.i9 1V y • I \ 4C FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OTHER USE 'J "~1j7"1 BARD 2S I 28 C 00000 000 !!!ii 000000 P y `,`t ~ t i' a fir' L` ~ r a • 1t ~ ~ * ~'JY M1 ~ 71 lip p OF 11 14 '1l r f q ` * , .t r. .,'•Ol . ~ i - of ~ ' l; t•_, ire+,; sr.r : t'~:" F `~E , ~ i - r ~ z , > ~r•^` ~ ~ ~-~_-y"y" printed 2-~a'2a t m ri Aeria1 MaP WATKINS ,",11,7 I CT_ s ks I! {{1 - - ; r ~K ST I Li CF TIigard Elementary - Zoning map • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••W. P~ ;~f fiaa by `IPJr n• 4 1 k>yr'!, . P 4 f rS Y .t * 7i i r 1r lr~,;F>; ~k ,t~ ,rrrr w,~ r 14 firiy > t P' `raI )f h V. ~v . r?~ k 4 L,,J,la?ik t ' auo P ~ raq ' rr31e ~ ~ Ile w MIS lot. w mill TOM Wes 0 • law e •~"r' I am - am no • w yeti O"WO w 310 , w . 131» wgnarv~ 3131 " • am Van '14b F. Jame law RD 1 ,ire rem G TARY ~1 Y p1a t CT new t p CT w 4t a.. .30 1 s • - - uw - ae - + 310 ~ um aw 0 am J,P • x310 ~;i' • ~ ~ s P i c3 ST IT I ~ ~ ~ t a~ awe • A gar _ _ _ _ low . va am v 'Ath 00 air CO_QKJLN- ten. /,b ar • am :I . .o.r ,31e ' ,o. • •'Qe ,3131 ~ e I PLACA am ue0 ep 31.31 s" SAM. awe • `4e~ / i 1310 fy O .4br 04 AIP 310, w am x3131 4 0. ,VW r KE LANE Js ROUTE ~A ~A MER P 1 w so w EVVEFt SS ss ip-vicinity CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY 1 - TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J :gib 14.04 -1J07A iA/nonnrre-r Tlnnon nocn-mi' VICINITY MAP NTS .01 SELIG / LEE / RUEDA A R C H I T E C T S & P L A N N E R S 213 &W. Asb Street, Room 201 - Portland. Oregon 97204 - !3031 224 . 0173 rn C7 4 fIxE/3RJEDA I SINGLE FAMILY 1 1 1 1 ' SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY - 113p>s3'OOY ~ Vr r w. ' wo N'wr~ 'ten) ~ 11'- i,.. . ~ . SINGLE FAMILY . '1~••~'!' •',i:...;,',' VACANT ~ ..nrr ! tf 'wia 1 } ~ j ~ 1 1 ' 21 ! r • 1 ID SINGLE FAMLY ' . E i . VACANT r- •R Y M C eauxc roa 3 L t was, 1 _-1 I ` L I DAY GORE ' j ` SINGLE FAMILY I I ~W W CKM mCC :!l . M IOi1 R sw ~ r- ~ Ar Y • V I1~'TS~---- _ti. n v - BI( 1,70. vC 623 ~M Tin SA r ~ Ica \,Y~ r ( wi -.W. LYl1 L4~1 AVL t lu v~vn _ rti ~ I / MMEw-~ 4\-W filet n L 5 wow nFr in m SINGLE FAMILY He EXISTING ARKING ze SWLS MULTI FAMILY It (L1 1 bM = MUIn-FAMILY 1 . E7. COMMERCIAL UTILITIES LEGEND SS SANITARY SEWER UNE SO STORM DRAINAGE LINE G GAS LINE W WATER LINE T TELEPHONE LINE -OHL OVERHEAD POWER - PP EXISTING POWER POLE (3) DIGIT NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE TREES REFERENCES NUMBER DESIGNATION SHOWN IN ARBORISTS REPORT cup-&-X,et CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY 2 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J Fe-k) 14 0)3 170GAQ%A1I•`-DAKITQT Tlf•-ADP►0 /1Df=l~/1A1 2 I EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 1' = ao'-0' I SEW/I8S,IRDEDA SELIG / LEE / RUEDA A R C H I T E C T S & P E A N N E R. S 213 S.W. Asb Stroot. Room 201 - Portland. Oroaon 97204 - !5031 124 - 0171 t"I+ r I ~f. Arp `r i. t t3 < ry °'T n I SINGLE FAMILY I ' I I }r a j SINGLE FAMILY 11 SINGLE FAMILY 1 SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY ?r.~', . - - . 1 a+4~o W?S3'~0'E - - • ,per o- • - ~o r. - . - - lts:x•; . ~(E) e' 011nnE rrHa IN.41 10 LANDSCAPE SCREEN SEE SHEET 4 -------------------X-KWCK M. ` SINGLE FAMILY VACN'IT ~~;5• ~ 1 I,ji:I ,lI:NJ41:IIlIIIIII~~~!I'I''iM':~~ G L~ - . - _ . ~ , ...II!'lF!Muql{.fllll!I~~ii'2illllh,liii!III A 5," I,' llhi , r:: 1 f; • i' _ n.;~ a Ii~!I~i;I!!!v;~l l~ei~ fil: l;h~ :ya;l~9' Itiill!I ! L Illliiiul!!' Ina;!,, I,ili!lilll'III. IIII ~ I lyl!j III. YI~i~ ~ II ' I Ir! fl'I : !'L II all I~!I,' ~I;11 I~m~~I:! If ~I'IF I' . , '~•l . II I~~Rili! (i'' ail ! t: yllt'i~! al": w MY GROUND ,Mil Illll :til l!'I!'INLII ! ! I! t !!r it III!'ia? II''; likhl"'II II:I!i ,l"Nhi~~ l„'1!~~II! ~I I EQUIPMENT hlrhilj..,,II. it Ij'ia 'i !IIII!ai ~'Ij!Ii,'•.ii;Rl~q:~ ~`I~I'if'' ! 1 I 'I•!ii; 1 I' .I I;~ ;I Ii F I I I; 9pI~~.. TYPE C LANDSCAPE 6UFFER + In,lll"ill II I P '!li, qil.. fG SEE SHEET 4 • !..li: f . 111 I,N 1, M~~' l i1~ 111llili ! . Mr-~ i !I'~ IIp, Ill Nil :l ! Iii!A I y-: I' I, r~I ; I : I 'I'I I I~ , f . IIi~I~ill l~ I I11illllllll!jl illlll !'I lll,il;ll !IiI~'WI~! IN!I I4 III I! hlpla llilii I I I I ' 111 I ' I~ i f"' "'ll II li ill ll I ':I'l l! III I d l!j I j!IIII.. i III .I I'^i Ip•::lu : SINGLE FAMILY l f I I~ I i I I ~IN I f :.1 I I 1 III ll kII I I f; l I II 111!!'11 I :IMA',I~i I al III lI ~i I II VACANT i 1 i f n ~ IIII ~'i 111'11 11 IIII It 'IIII I if II 'il~ h!!ryI ! : III, ill I ,III ;.i,f+'ll !il IIII I II I fl I IINII iI ,Ilf C EII IIII III n I dl I II II I I f I I I r ..llvl f If 11 I''. 'r 9III I) II II'~III il'f{i 11IIIiI 4 hill II j~rll 11111ii~1 Ihl ~I Ii I I III II I ll I fl u III 11 I I , fr 111 , LIP III p Ilj ill it III III! i I I III ! Nli f, NI~IIPI Ir i~ Mil ills I ~ N!I .1 1 '~r;rl~r LrICGVERED PLAT ! I ~ Ilf IIII ,II 4 I I,!Ihdlll 6 i lif ~ I LI w III I: i, I l Lf Il~iill I'I idyl !'I+ IIIIII1,!IIjI~I VIII Illdlli Illllll ~f 41U ~Ili~~d Illllihp' . J9'li'!111~i1 Il,,!II[I II!11 I11'll~;y1, t N~ 'll....!I 'I'I l ii,ll i,ii,l l' +^ry~Q +~u 1'LI ll l , r. III ,lull f II, „f! I IfI, FBI I11 f n~lyl I;'I' I,II !'~~~I. 1 Inn lu PI. I'li.I,y LLI If'..l.,l;lfli u;; l'i lial ,!''fafPy f..ll (Q C G1L1A1[ fTNa I H. ,'RI!j.::. fla!; I I,iII "!I!!!!ICU I;i' t I -w -0 RACE pl.!RI: Mlha n IIiIL I . ji!l!I it Iuiifihl i. .:r!!! M .-T !i! !I'!l!NMI!',!r7;lia!!'i'4N"1!!I';~p~'. I iI►H~!f,R¢Y7/8L J 117 flrfilei y~ ~f4,f Il'All. l!!II'll I IIMes1[PS ~ (III I il'ill!II'Iry~ hyul!IIi;IL'hi~; li'i!IGIII ` ~ ` Ifa ~ I MULTN-PLRPOSE ' 'I'41i f ll l~il' Itl'i i4'il°I ~Illii fj x1'41, 1 ~ 1 ' 1; ; I I „li i ,~I II df III,II ~Ililll ~ I .Il'~ ~I p. I 1 11 DAY CARE I f .:I d I I,dllll' ' I! It ' 1 .'rI5-~ I I I'II I i' l I I I~ i 1 Ior I i ~~i~illyl r I iII~I~ lllll I Iih ;I ll j h~I l~~ I i.!.I; hill l1 j11h ilil~Ill( Ili II ill fl B SINGLE FAMILY Pli I , i II i l ll l : 15Ac I j ll yf l III III Iif I'I I~VI II; GY4 uc uM I„ I !,lI!°I II ~Iil.!III; (E) e' CKLM cola Ii , u lllali 1 HE 9 1 ADC TIME C TI" 1 a.lE S.W. WAR - ~[ME _ (n S w _ S.W. cRANT. or ~T mum eu,On Ia3si'~ rT artLrR~ yyl r NJISJ$4~_ _ u' skwmv Y\\ 110.!6 / j ~f EX 4A PP /Ii06 Mu PP /1191 IlEll Q•A ~O w' I 3•yppp 11FI m py 'i d yao9 m "WK, SINGLE FAMILY s 1 1 1 1 (quw 1 1 I I I ~ ~ (4 fAro oelr , ~ I I cw-arf~r• I I ~ I J IN . 1 1 I j/ I r, 1 m MULTI FAMILY I 1 1 I I ,Net g 1 , ~ I 8 , BASE BALL (IEID BASE BALL FIELD 1 - - - J r 1 M umw~~ n9„ - O --i' I - - FAMILY r I / L -1 i Ml t iv`.:! r~ 11+1Yi ~ • 'E- - N Pgnn4Y R11Ct R }4t 10.1 I 1 i t0 04 f FUAAPE Lp~ ^ ➢ . C.-... y~ Tj I - _ fffLLL _t• r 1 ,y FASO1Drt FOR (E) ELECTRICAL FEED Q..- Ill Mw . MUM OVERHEAD LINE 11111 1204 L - - - - J o ON 955. P9 951 rw= unuTY l I I o ' I (E) 6' CIRDME iDICE ~ 333L~ OP WATUt ILK ~a9nro4 TIEXISTINO OA90- JALA IN I COMMERCIAL I T1N7N COMMERCIAL C I SITE AREA., 402.502 SO. Fr. I I I I I 9.24 ACRES I ADMIN. SITE AREA: 59,498 SO. Fr. I L91S11NG PARK NG 1:36 ACRES PACIFIC HIGHWAY ,;rr PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS SITE LIGHT FIXTURES 10OW HPS TYPE 3 DISTRIBUTION 16 FOOT POLE NOTE: SEE SHEET 4 FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN SEE SHEETS :5, 6, 7, & 8 FOR CIVIL PLANS wp-develoo CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY 3 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J Faah IA 0)4 4#%0rn01A1r10AArr0T T1l-%AOn nOC~±nr,r PROPOSED LANDSCAPE : / LAWN AREAS SEE SHEET 4 FOR 'LANDSCAPE' PLAN 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN' 1' C W'-0' SELIG /LEE / RUED A R C H I T E C T S 8t P Y- A N N E R S 213 S.W. Amb Street, Room 201 - Portland.' Oregon 97204 - (5031 224 - 0173 a "L"ANDSCAPE PLAN NOT*S Cgdltlc,41 Use Permit Application . tsp. ' t Location of tram to be :I There is one heaWg tree greeter then 12' cal" Oats will t o r . .1 lmj There are no hazwdo, s tram greater than n' caliper slat will be L ' Saw plan and logo d-for trees to be preserved and trees to be ..1 clow to constriction. 2. Location Nan, and species of oxutmg plant material, are noted on the plan per arverj and arborlat report 3. General Locatiort:tm and spades of proposed plant matwlah General location of plant material to shown on Ow plan 8120 and general species of plant material is noted in the plant legend. l Landscape ns rstly Re, soil conditions, plea material aelectrort loll treatment, and erosion control messes, Saw Cadnlonal use Penmen Application e. Location end dmaryxton of irrigation ayatem Twe will be a mssml erleatlon system fa Ws project. The htent to for all proposed plant material will be watered 2.3 years, tenth the plants are established sGeeing: 6. Location or fences, burrs eress, and The Location or fences, burfer areas and screening to shown on the plat 1. Location of teraces. dada, "two. play areas. and cannon open spaces, the location of rences, burrs sees and screening to shown on the plan 8. Cuffereg and Screening. The Mast is to create landscape burfere of tram and low slnbs and grm J.. . . 16ok sYLI. Tall, dense shlA * will not be used dq to aearlty Naps. s • EGEND 0 I i I \ w I I \ EXISTING HEDGE TO: REMAIN/---,, m c a s \ SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Large Deciduous Tree (50.801 - 2" caliper WIV Le., Red Oak, Honeylocusl, Ash • 0 Proposed Street Tree - Per City of Tigard Recommended Street Tree List • (2' Caliper, 40' on center) Le., Tulip Tree, Red Oak, Sugar Maple • Medium Deciduous Tree (20.401 - 1.5" caliper • Le., Flowering Pear, Eastern Redbud, Red Sunset Maple •T - t . Small/Medlum Evergreen Tree 120.40') - 8'-8' tall ~fyt Le., Austrian Pine, Shore Pine, Leyland Cypress • 0 Small Tree (15.25') - 1.5" caliper Le., Vine Maple, Flame Maple, Hollywood Juniper • Groundcover/Shrub Bed: Shrubs - 5 and 3 gallon; Groundcover - 1 gal and 4' pot • Le, Native and hardy ornamental shrubs and groundcover - Y////~ Kinnlcklnnlck, Winter Currant, Saint, Oregon Grape, Snowberry, etc. • )'/IA Additional Landscape Areas: Pervious surface • . Lawn Trees to be removed during construction . 2n W Trees to be raimoved duft construction grastar. titan 12" balk*.. -1 Z1 sf'~ xsx rv r $ R 1 I ~o 1 0 u~ m' 0 n. 0 U) V J 0 E 3 n~ t ~I II r r Q i■ Z li 31 Vi I I fI 1 I I , I I ' uT40'00'E 40255 1 I a~'a I~ ~:t~tl►~►IIII(~ i ,r 133a1S 100HOS B § 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 reemr-ma 9L•S tae 5 n*W 3.0,1o616 0 0 • I It II OF p1T10N~ 5 10 D~ylypGE u-,nVI0VDE F E STOVZM 10 i ACCOMOpA MATCH jxISTINC ASPHAI ETCH T ".5piw- f1 ry~~ z E5T NT gTA SW G~ 5 aD' ~,RpD• CUl- DE ~ 1 ? L Mgq o7'M ~ _l~i f \ ti I ' pt~ S~E5 p~pN sw 5 I V1 n r} J o r~l N W r+ A^ y n H o h a N J r a~ 0 as W 6 ' a N M~ H N ~H o vv N u 'a m U` [1~ ~ 3 V1 ~ N V ~ rc ~Wc 1 WI C ~a • 1 M•r i#lr+M►il±~i~►•il+~i+N•l+~li~r+~r•rilri•!••!!••!a 4 r I 53*54~E ~'t ' ~ 116.68 Tom: r kn srau - • n per` 1 I PLAY GROUND EQUIPMENT I UL ~-lam z~ M0 z C*j z 01- s4soD,3o*w _ J rw wa f11111RE LOT UNE- 10.04 n -u I J z ~i c I I PACM HO WAY a p AOMMMATM PADM r - ~~sw. Avg. vr. 8.ss`'c"na 13 no 0`0 D mm n Q n io - = ~ z o rn m r ;u 0 CD --I z --I z D D z z rrl ~ ~ X D - 0 r m CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY 6 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J ■ CC•R 1A. f1~ • • ,nnrn t,~n, /~nnF~7 nT ^~~nnn ~nr~~ni SELIG / LEE / RUEDA SELIG /LEE / RUEDA A F. C H I T E C T S 8c P I. A N N E R S 213 R.W. Aah Street. Room 2A1 - Portlae A. n-00- G79O4 - OMAN 994 - At9•i M \1 ,,-m-AG S(OR►' STEM gt'68l 3,ot,64yr5 I `R ~,pti,t0515 i ~iNAGE p1-pN >R~- r nl N _A a W N r y ~ ' Ny N N a o N M ~ Z 1 0 r 064 o G W 1 ttl H a V n a UNo N~ Hx~ a V ~ d, n i {Q, r r W t1J a C I 00*000000000000000000oooooooooooooooo,oooooo AI - C h br i o . r z PANIC HOMY UTILITY CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY S TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J rl-n IA 4 nn cn C11 A I f~ n A K IT OT TI(lA nM nr)ChrlKl SELIG / LEE / RUEDA A R C H I T E C T S & P L A N N E R S 213 S.W. Ash Street, Room 201 - Portland, Oregon 97204 - (503) 224 - 0173 y S t sy y. . Y ' k Classroom Classroom ,t:.:,:4.. • Classroom Classroom RR RR IMUTL Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom IY i jf s ppp O/C 11 ti • z r . Classroom C S-RR Classroom 1 RR RR "sl: s Classroom -J L- Classroom a Classroom Classroom . - r. Classroom Classroom 7a Storage z BUILDING FLOOR PLAN, - UPPER I-------------~ Covered Ploy Cust. Storage Stage •t;..;. Kitchen Multi-purpose/Gym RR ST 0 Gymnasium FLOOR AREA - MAIN: FLOOR AREA UPPER FLOOR AREA - TOTAL: Classroom Classroom RR RR RR ~iF~,~ay3 yP ~ }A Y. • 0 Title 1 Classroom K Classroom -1 Classroom O/C O/C Head Start C S-RR Classroom s RR RR K Classroom J t~ Classroom CLASSROOM SP ED Music 3E. Custodial RR RR Entry j 47,000 SO. FT. 21.000 SO. FT. 68,000 SO. FT. Media Center C0 g 0 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN - MAIN V a 4m'-0' cup-Floor CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY sEL,IG / LEE / RUEDA i 9 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J A R C H I T E C T S & P L A N N E R S teh U TA . . 17oCAC1A/r`-0AAITt?T TI/2AOn ACICP-MKI 213 S.W. Ar6 Street, Room 201 - Portland, Oregon 97204 - (303) 224 - 0173 Entry Administration T, ,ItIY ~ 1^ I O i N N r r be + ADMIN EAST ELEVATION O 1 N M !~tr't4 ~ 4 m SOUTH ELEVATION t• . ,m._m. c- I - 0 I 0IV4WEST ELEVATION 1' ..m^-m• CUP-ELEV CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY 10 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J Coln Id /1111 •nnnnnul~~..TnT ~~..w.. ~.+..i..... •i• . ` y s s. O O • 1 I o in in N M to O I O I O i M n M O _ O 1 O 1 O M N M N 0 I N M • • PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 1~ 1' • 40'-0' . /tom/7A SELIG /LEE / RUEDA A R C H I T E C T S P L A N N E R S' 2II C W A.% Co.w.♦ Owww. 1111 _ Ow..1.-• n--.--- nwwn• i. n.• ww. ..ww 0 0 Exhibit `E' KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. I ML TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 • (503) 228-5230 • FAX(503)273-8169 February 12, 2003 Project 5745 Brian Radabaugh Cornerstone Construction Management, Inc. 5410 SW Macadam Ste 250 Portland OR 97201 RE: Transportation Impact Analysis for the Proposed Charles F. Tigard Elementary School Redevelopment Dear Brian, Per your request, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has prepared a transportation impact analysis for the proposed redevelopment of the Charles. F. Tigard Elementary School located in Tigard, Oregon. This letter provides an assessment of the transportation impacts of the proposed Charles F. Tigard Elementary School redevelopment on the surrounding transportation system, a summary of site- access operations, and a review of on-site circulation issues. The results of this analysis indicate that safe and acceptable traffic operations can be maintained with the proposed redevelopment. BACKGROUND The existing Charles F. Tigard Elementary School site is located in the southwest quadrant of the Pacific Highway (Highway 99W)/SW Walnut Street intersection in Tigard, Oregon. A site vicinity map is illustrated in Figure 1. Vehicle access to the school facility is provided via the SW Grant Avenue cul-de-sac along the site's northerly boundary. Pedestrian access to the site is provided via sidewalk connections along SW Grant Avenue and Highway 99W. The existing school facility has an enrollment capacity of approximately 600 students. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT As per the proposed site plan (see Figure 2), the existing Charles F. Tigard Elementary School facility would be demolished and reconstructed in the westerly/northerly portion of the site (the current ball field area). The existing vehicle and pedestrian access to the site will be maintained and serve as the primary access points to the site. In addition, a secondary site-access will be developed at the termination of SW Grant Avenue along the site's southerly boundary. This access will be used as a service access and is not expected to accommodate student related trips. The student enrollment capacity of the new facility is projected to be approximately 600 students. OFF-SITE TRAFFIC IMPACTS Given that the proposed redevelopment will not increase the student enrollment capacity of the school, the associated site-generated trips of the new facility will not result in a significant impact to the surrounding transportation system. The peak hour operations of the nearby SW Walnut Street/SW Grant Avenue intersection were observed during a site visit conducted in January 2003 and no existing deficiencies were identified. H:\projfi Ie\5745\report\5745 let 1. doc Charles F Tigard Redevelopment WA 0 j February 2003 (NO SCALE) SITE VICINITY MAP TIGARD, OREGON a ~ WA KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. , TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CHARLES F. TIGARD REDEVELOPMENT* FEBRUARY 2003 0 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) 3 0 N Z dW 1- y 3 9 v ~u J M KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROPOSED SITE PLAN TIGARD, OREGON cc a a C3 Charles F. Tigard Elementary Of ool Redevelopment 40 Project 5745 January 16, 2003 Page 4 ACCESS OPERATIONS Vehicle access to the site will occur at the SW Grant Avenue terminations along site's the northerly and southerly boundaries. City of Tigard standards require the construction of a cul-de-sac bulb at the both terminations of SW Grant Avenue. As proposed, the main (northerly) cul-de-sac will serve as a turn-around for the public street and will provide access to three parking fields. The secondary (southerly) cul-de-sac will serve as a turn-around for the public street and will provide access to the service entrance. Observations of the existing access operations reveal that the cul-de-sac design can provide adequate levels of service and capacity to accommodate site-generated traffic. Given the multiple site-driveways that connect to the main cul-de-sac, we recommend placement of a non-traversable center island within the cul-de-sac to develop a one-way circulation pattern. The island should be of sufficient diameter to accommodate the turning movement of buses while minimizing the circulatory roadway width to discourage two-way traffic. Maintenance of landscaping and signing near all access driveways is recommended to provide adequate lines of sight for vehicles entering and existing the school facilities. INTERNAL CIRCULATION The proposed site plan was reviewed to ensure that the site could be redeveloped while maintaining safe and efficient on-site circulation. As proposed, bus traffic and parent traffic will be separated into two parking fields. This configuration is advantageous as it reduces the potential for passenger car/bus conflicts. Adequate on-site pedestrian facilities are provided and include: sidewalk connections to SW Grant Avenue, sidewalks around the cul-de-sacs, and the loading areas along the sides of the school fronting the parking fields. Given the proposed site layout, internal circulation is expected to operate safe and efficiently. K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERII Charles F. Tigard Elementary #00, Redevelopment 40 Project 5745 January 16, 2003 Page 5 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis described in this letter, safe and acceptable traffic operations can be maintained with the proposed Charles F. Tigard Elementary School redevelopment. Findings: • The proposed redevelopment of the Charles F. Tigard Elementary School will not increase the student enrollment capacity of the facility. As such, the associated trip generation of the redevelopment will not have a significant impact on off-site intersection operations. • Access to the site will be via two SW Grant Avenue cul-de-sacs. Based on existing access operations, the proposed accesses can provide adequate levels of service and capacity. • Internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation is expected to operate safe and efficiently. Recommendations: • Constructing a non-traversable center island within the cul-de-sac of the main site access to develop a one-way circulation pattern. • Maintenance of landscaping and signing near all access driveways to provide adequate lines of sight for vehicles entering and existing the school facilities. We trust this letter addresses the transportation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of the Charles. F. Tigard Elementary School located in Tigard, Oregon. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this analysis. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Eric Waltman Engineering Associate arc Butorac, Principal Engineer Ft4061I p PRO N.;6'. 57986 .,9 cc - OREGON C.) ✓~~Y21,-1g4~QP Cq~CFN 6v~0 Expires: K ~03 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. AI TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGlTRAFFIC ENGINEERII Cornerstone Exhibit F F E B 0 4 2003 File Number ~ -7 38 F ~ J lJ;rater Service- Our commitment is clear. By a Pre-Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction --Vt w-c~ Map & Tax Lot Site Address k2gQ Sn &W Lj ,k A~ Ay4 \4arc` i ~Z a7~a~.~ Proposed Activity .fir e~ Qs-~ C1 ~,M trr t Y N NA Date 1~L4I 01 Owner T,por 1 -T~~.\ I Is} V Contact 6KUA ~r plutl. Address (S t zSp W r~ 4~~ , d1~ °tZ2 Phone w~auy Y N NA ® ❑ ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map Map # ;2,S / tt)h ❑ ❑ Ri Stormwater Infrastructure maps y3 Iiq QS # ❑ ❑ ® Locally adopted studies or maps ® ❑ ❑ Other Specify Specify a,ov ae 'aTr, Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 00-7: ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. (4 Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: &Lml o., ri-v..w r A/Q& a.r.~ .Conn r• r`C ,Arg 0 rd 701 rbe- Rot <r+.•;.:,._ n..~,r >b.. / v N wa,i r,[ & % ;'re . Reviewed By: Date: 2/6/a ? If If Returned to Applicant Mail Faxes Counter Date ~/j? By 414 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 - Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: (503) 846-8621 9 Fax: (503) 846-3525 - www.cleanwaterservices.ore 0 HALSTEAD'S ARBORICULTURE A CONSULTANTS, INC. David Halstead, Consultant, B.S. Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant 6107 SW Murray Blvd. #158 • Beaverton, OR 97008 (503) 245-1383 10 91 February 3, 2003 ATTN.: Tigard/Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard, OR 97223 Exhibit `G' "Specialists in the care and preservation of trees" y Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development • Location: Tigard Elementary School, 12850 SW Grant Street, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report With your approval, I have inspected the site, site plan and the trees for the proposed project located at 12850 SW Grant, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this inspection was to identify and evaluate the preservation potential of all trees t l i h i t k di t we ve nc es n run ame er (measured at four feet above ground) and larger . under the forthcoming construction in accordance with the City of Tigard's Tree Ordinance Chapter 18.150. 0 ` 1 have tagged and numbered all trees, both in the field and in this report that will 0 be affected by construction development using JK93270 through JK93285 series tags for easy identification. For this report, only the last three digits will be used. 0~ The first numbered tree starts in the southeast comer of the property. ' TREE ASSESSMENT 0 There are a total of sixteen (16) trees located within the project boundaries. There are seven (7) trees within the hardscape area that are less than twelve inches in trunk diameter measured at four feet above ground and are not required to be part of the City of Tigard's "Tree Mitigation Identification Program." This leaves a residual of nine (9) trees within proposed hardscape boundaries that are tw l i h i k di t t d l ve nc n e es run ame er an arger that are required to be part of the City of Tigard's "Tree Mitigation/Identification Program". ~ r r • OEmail: hac@spiritone.com www. halsteadsarboriculture.com ~ccB# 0068646 0 0 0 Page 2 February 3, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Tigard Elementary School, 12850 SW Grant Street, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report TREE ASSESSMENT CONTINUED: Zero (0) of the sixteen (16) trees are hazardous. Eight (8) trees will be preserved and will not be mitigated. One tree will be removed. Trees that will be preserved are as follows: Preservable tree within the proposed hardscape over 12" in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground are numbered: Tree 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, and 283. These trees will require a "Tree Care and Preservation Program". Preservable trees to be removed within the proposed hardscape over 12" in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground are numbered: Tree 272. Amount of Preservable Trees Retained = 90%. "Retained percentage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation" according to City Ordinance 18.150.025 - 2b. Tree Care and Preservation Guidelines Neighboring trees: Two Cedars located at 12975 SW Grant Avenue, and one Laurel hedge located at 10160 SW Walnut street, Tigard Oregon. Before construction begins, preserved tree root zones will need to be protected by the installation of orange colored Tree Protection Fencing out to the canopy dripline of preserved tree. 0 0 Page 3 February 3, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Tigard Elementary School, 12850 SW Grant Street, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report Fencing needs to be attached to 7-foot tall steel fence posts placed eight feet apart on center forming a protective line around the preserved trees and fence posts need to be securely anchored in the soil to a depth of two feet. A small diameter cable and/or heavy wire should be weaved and sewn through the protective fencing two feet above ground to secure the fencing. The fencing, as described, will need to be maintained throughout the entirety of the project. Before any work is done within the protected area and/or if the fencing needs to be adjusted due to hardscape construction, it will first require the approval of the consulting arborist and then be supervised on-site. Structural and deadwood tree pruning will also need to be completed during construction site preparation/site clearing in order to make these trees safe for surrounding persons and property. The arboriculture technicians working within the trees will also need to inspect the tree/s very carefully to make sure that preserved trees are well prepared for the forthcoming construction. After project completion, therapeutic fertilization will be necessary for all preserved trees to help stimulate new root growth from roots damaged during construction and replenish any loss of soil nutrients for optimum tree growth. Hazardous tree removal within project boundaries needs to be completed in a careful manner as to not damage any preserved tree. Tree Care and Preservation Guidelines Continued: Any tree or existing stump removed within 15 feet of a preserved tree needs to have the stump groundout rather than excavated to reduce overall root trauma. If 1 can be of further assistance and/or if more technical information is needed, please contact me immediately. Sincerely, `v David Halstead BS, CA, ASCA James Lowery CA (Field consultant) • 79gard - Tbalatin School District 231 Charles F. Tigard Elementary 12850 SW Grant Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-431-4400 • fax 503-431-4410 www.ttsd.k12.or.uS/frarne-Cft.htmI City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223 February 4, 2003 To: City of Tigard Planning Division Exhibit `H' Cornerstone FEB 0 5 2003 I am the Principal at Charles F. Tigard Elementary in Tigard. We are planning for the building our new school to open in September, 2004. At present, I have a 60 slot bike rack on my campus which is more than enough for all the bikes that are rode during the year even in good weather. Our new school would not need more than 40-50 slots based on the use I have observed over the past 7 years as Principal at CFT. We typically have fewer than 25 bikes total being rode to school in good weather. Jim Pier e, Principal, CFT 0 0 Exhibit `I' ierstone struction 5410 SW Macadam #250 - Portland, Oregon 97201 503-295-0108 FAX 503-295-1896 nc. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE Conditional Use Permit application for CF Tigard Elementary School Replacement The Tigard-Tualatin School District intends to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the replacement of the CF Tigard Elementary School. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for CUP approval, representatives of the School District would like to discuss the proposal with the surrounding property owners and residents, and any other interested citizens. You are invited to attend an informational meeting on: THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2003 @ 7:00 P.M. CF TIGARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - LIBRARY 12850 SW GRANT AVENUE, TIGARD Explanation The Tigard-Tualatin School District proposes to replace the existing CF Tigard Elementary School with a new school on the same property. The new school will be built where the play fields are now, and the old school will then be removed and replaced with new play fields. The new school will be a two-story structure in order to utilize the property more efficiently. Vehicular access to the new school will be primarily off SW Grant Avenue, as it is currently. A preliminary site plan is attached. Before submitting the CUP application to the City of Tigard, the School District is required by the City to hold a neighborhood meeting to explain the proposal to interested citizens and solicit their comments. (Later, you will receive a notice from the City informing you about the public hearing on this application.) Please note that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. If you have any questions or comments, please come to the informational meeting, or contact me at one of the places listed below. Contact: Brian Radabaugh, Senior Project Manager Cornerstone Construction Management, Inc. Address: 5410 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 250, Portland, OR 97239 Phone Number: (503)295-0108 Fax Number: (503)295-1896 E-Mail: brianr@cornerstonemgi.com I- OEOORAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM AREA NOTIFIED (500') i UI I ` wA (NS FF t F'~~ mrneaa. DELL FOR: Ed Murphy RE: C.F. Ti and Elementary 2S 10ZCB, 200 & 2S102CB, 100 _ 40 Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. 0 N PARK ST _PARK Q ~W&Ioe*,W*•i009iee**&*0*000~`OO& 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 1- 330 feet y City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and / should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard. 9 171 503) 639-4771 / (503) 63 I http://w .ci.tigard.or.us is 0 1 i ~ 1 i 1 1 1 i ► , ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ` 1 1 i 1 ► 4 ~ 1 i 1 1 1 ` ` R 1 { ► 1' 1 ~ ► ~ 1 DO { Ave-_ ► 1 t 1 ► i ` • M • • i • 8 • • ~r 1 1 ~ t 1 i i ► i 1 ► f' ► 1 1 i R „yam _y__J 1 1 PACM ► -(IGARD ELEME►~ARY SCHoOL c• F t NO_2W i 1 i ' z1 1 i i o 1 _ DA I~4 E . r S ELIG ~--b- zts s.w. ++a s«+~ . • • SIGN-IN SHEET • C.F. Tigard Elementary School Conditional Use Permit Neighborhood Meeting January 29, 2003 • NAME ADDRESS PHONE • ~S r~ /2840 S w /~LQ-TX'1~~,~ :,~03 -G3 9 -SGQ3 • • t- ~d~ l UPS % S J Gr_a.r c so -Co "~Y u 7 • l2 Zc~ SW10-alJf AU~~ X03-~1G - /Z"" f 'p-16 t ~>7,~. ~i~„J i l o 1 l vu ~r sZ3 - Z-/ - I-5-V2- fP ,/✓Il>!~ ~L6}'6~~„/ (~iar~C ~Y~ .~/~-,~v= 9~i9 • r ~ S`i- -ssv.~ !J n- `-1 ~ S r ~ 0 ~ S ~C.~, l L ►'L ~3 ~ 2 5 S . Pa C ~ r C 1~ • \ ~ 1-`. r e r I.~ Q v~.~ r• ~ ~D ~ ~.J iC~i r 1 ~ '7 ~ n ~ C,J Wct,~ ~ ~ ti S Y~- V P ~n 3 ~ ' S y~ z • • '34 ~FjT~rC-lam ~o~r_n2/s- l"~~f= rc~T ' ~ j''~:f ~ t--r r~S C,/IUr pJ c' ~ ' • r 60~IY CANDY f/jc2 1x.015 ~w avmt 6zo-07v1 • 1003 s~ wc,~~Nt s U 360 • e F/Y iW"Ir ~ VTAI l 1 [i J ,J Ii:/ IAL~J X~IiLJNC f} (T V ,V G ~ i i . _ l~~ Sw ~w~ rh S03-S~)y-sue-~.~ M ~ I~£'~~ ~-15~-1 ~,~i ti`s >aL 5c;3 -SRS' • ~L-N~J t edmutphy&associates/ttsd!cft/neighbormtg-sip -in/1/29/03 • • • MINUTES CF Tigard Elementary School Replacement CUP Neighborhood Meeting January 30, 2003 The meeting started at 7:00 P.M. at the CF Tigard Elementary School library. Representing the Tigard-Tualatin School District were Brian Radabaugh (Cornerstone), Xavier Rueda and Rudy Schuver (SLX), and Ed Murphy (Ed Murphy & Associates). Approximately 20 neighbors attended. A sign-in sheet is attached. Summary of issues discussed: • Capital bond issue funds versus operational funds. ■ Construction budget. ■ Replacing the school instead of upgrading existing school. • Size of new school compared to existing school. ■ Keeping the multipurpose building and parking lot next to it. ■ Preventing mold in new school. ■ Open access or closed access campus, and security issues. • Fencing, particularly along the north property line; providing vegetative screen and buffer. ■ Height of new building. ■ Access to the old Administration Building. Concern about pedestrian access from 99W. Height of fence between old administration building site and ball fields. Desire for a fence higher than 6', and with slats, or a solid fence. ■ Storm water run-off. New school should improve drainage, reduce run-off onto neighbors' yards. ■ Parking - number of existing spaces versus proposed (50 now, 73 proposed. The 50 does not include parking at old administration building.) • Improvements to Grant Avenue, and particularly the Grant Avenue and Walnut Street intersection. Questions about whether there should there be a signal at Grant Avenue and Walnut Street, or pedestrian crossing improvements and signs like at Fowler Middle School. ■ Concern about having a dark spot behind building in northwest corner of the site, hard to see at night. Discussion about whether playground should be moved to next to the ball f ields. ■ Questions about how bright the lights will be, and what impact the lighting will have on the neighbors. Discussion about having the school all dark in the evenings. (Proposal is that the lights will be on automatic timers and photocells.) ■ Parking on School Street. Discussion about whether School Street was a public right- of-way or easement, whether is extended to 99W, and whether it could become a private edmurphy&associateslttsd/cft/neighbortntg/minutes/ 1/30/0-3 1 0 0 street. Neighbors concerned about parking on School Street, blocking their driveways. Want City to post "no parking" signs. • Discussion of the service access driveway behind the school, and how for north it would extend. • Discussion about the orientation of the ball fields. Concerned about fly balls coming into yard across School Street. May be able to re- orient the ball fields to reduce the chances of that happening. ■ Discussion of traffic impact on Grant Avenue if teachers no longer park at the old administration building once it is redeveloped. ■ Questions on construction access, and security fence during construction. ■ Discussion of screening along east side, and keeping existing vegetation. ■ Questions on type of building materials used, and what the school will look like, including the location of windows. ■ Recycling the materials from the existing school buildings. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 P.M. edmurphy&associates/tL;d/cfVneighbormtg/minutes/1/30/03 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • aEAP NIG oUE I 1&10 3 WgRE ak : r~ Notes ~are♦ Valid for S NON-RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: T a-Apw I S00`c-',„ Sc-~ cot sir; C, Phone: ( ) • AGENT: S+e pE_0 ~oa ~j2 Phone: ( ) . PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: ALx5 SUJ P TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): f)S k Ga Ci~ - OO a oo NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: COP PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: ~nP nn~AL c, ! )qmn~ rnc~ rr.r'r7r,S>r~c~ ~1F.J £'_~a,,,P.rc~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: u Y. DE rSS u ~~st flE ~7; L ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: L- 17 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: CE P7, Rfl ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. S ~ 0 1 13sa g~Ca jS MINIMUM LOT SIZE: sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: - ft. Max. building height: *Alt ft. Setbacks: Front 30 ft. Side -10 ft. Rear -36 ft. Corner ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 8o % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: DO [NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting NandouO THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (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 vour application or the application will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a flans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section Exhibit `J' (f NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) 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. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. dACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18305 and 183651 Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: 30 Minimum pavement width: r) 4 ' All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18305.0301 WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. ❑ SPECIAL ACKS [Refer to Code Chapter 183301 ➢ ST EETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ LO R INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG OT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. (SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.130.010.BJ BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; ➢ All actual building setbacks will be at least half ('h) of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. 12/BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.1451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential AppticationlPlanning Division Section The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS apDlicable to vour Dror)osal area are: Ca -Jo feet along north boundary. to - ao' feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: Re ' ( LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 18.7051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised • planters. lYJ RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 18355) M Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. PARKING [Refer to Code Section 18365.0401 REQUIRED parking for this type of use: 'D aFa C1r~ss vcon- Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: . Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED • AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: • ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x 16 feet, 6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. . Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can • be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. • 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. ~ LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18365.0801 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. • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NON-Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Section (BICYCLE BACKS [Refer to CollSection 183651 0 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. ❑ SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR DS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS (THIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will atte pt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the Are- application conference based on ava' ble information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identlfv sensitive land areas. and eir boundaries. is the resDonsibility of the aDDlicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitiv lands must be clearlv indicated on Dlans submitted with the develoDment aDDlication. / Chapter 18.775 also provides 4lations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.715. .Cl When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the a roval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The repo shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendati s for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. d~CLEAMATER SERVICES (CWSI BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96,44/9SA Regulations -Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Desiqn Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 J t't s t 3+a a. o ~ r tw L K'im`=. ~ 't' . s.'. - • . . t SLOPE ADJACENT i +=r ;WIOT I OF;VEGETATED SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION yT0 SENSITIVE AREA ' CORRIDOR PER;SIDE- v r.,r. . , _ , , _ _ • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 0 10 to < 50 acres ► > 50 to < 100 acres <25% 15 feet 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre • Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 0 10 to < 50 acres 0 > 50 to < 100 acres • Existing or created wetlands • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds - 25 feet <25% 50 feet > 25% 30 feet 50 feet > 25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure in 25-foot increments from the starting point to the top of ravine (break in <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' 4Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section Restrictions in the Vegeta*Corridor: • NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of Veaetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. 2 /SIGNS [Refer to Code Chapter 183801 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 Director's review. [TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18390.030.CJ A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size and species -of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; 0 Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; 0 Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; 0 Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. MITIGATION [Refer to Code Section 18390.060.EJ REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Residenfial Apptioation/Planning Division Section ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonablv available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: 0 The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. (CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 183951 The Cit requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT 8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'/2 TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (Conditional use) 18.340 (Director's Interpretation) 18.350 (Planned Development) ::/18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.370 (VariancestAdjustments) 18.380 (Zoning Maprrext Amendments) / 18.385 (Miscellaneous permits) ~L 18.390 (Decision making Pnoceduresllmpaa study) 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.430 (Subdivisions) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) / 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) _...1~ 18.705 (AcoessEgressfcircuiation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.715 (Density Computations) / 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.750 (ManufacturedNobil Home Regulations) 18.755 (Mixed solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) ZL 18.765 (Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) - 18.775 (sensitive lands Review) 18.780 (signs) - 18.785 (Temporary use Permits) -Z 18.790 (Tree Removal) --vfl 8.795 (visual Clearance Areas) _18.798 (Wireless communication Faa6ties) -je r / 8.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) Page 6 of 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: rr.,cor-_c~ A ei~* kc-siot~ + 1; C`onr} r4l i1 (D-7 Weeks n rJ.e a ~~c•~1.1(.- - SENO ;:"A0.' . J RF a;;rES COS SF~JiCe Dm.t' c~P!' ~~+E r - L1~:'h f,c-c tiEi Dl E. -No c~c~c~GrrS~ ht>'e~;na f~~ c_cr~k ~nc~pOC~ SEG lc 6,,, 15 .33 0 . 0 PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. held by the City Council. with the Commission making a An additional public hearing shall be 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 Planninq Division acceptance may be returned. The Plannina counter closes at 4:00 PM. Mans submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8 2 'x 17 map of a proposed proiect should be submittecFtor attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section Page 7 of 8 The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occurapproximately 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-day public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard ('Coors, 1 . A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. 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. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the Ci 's olicv is to apply those svstem development credits to the first building Dermit issued in the develor)ment (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE WM: The conterence and notes cannot cover A Code requirements and aspects rela e o site planning that should appl to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required b ( the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended tha a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application.. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: ReMW V<sLu CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PUAKIC: [CAI) 620 A171 EAY. IC01 AtlA_77o7 IFVI`L 1.ivi J/ -To II IRA VIIJI vvT IL/I E-MAIL. (sins first na*@d.tigard.or.us Q R+a C~:F 41- TITLE I8([ITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (ODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: wwwxii.tigard.Or.us H:lpattylmasters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 3-Oct-02 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential AppticatiorManning Division section PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES w PUBLIC FACILITIES 0 ENGINEERING SECTION Q COV of Tlgard, Omoon Community Devefopment SFraping, 4 'Better COMMMity Tax WON]: 2S10200 Tax LOKSI: 100 a 200 Use Type: OF Tigard Elem. Replacemen The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applica will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concern • commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment the application. The following comments are a rLo'ection of public improvement related requiremen that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. • Riaht-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 as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. • Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: . ® SW Grant Avenue to 42 to 54 feet (local residential street) • ® SW Grant Avenue.to 51 feet culdesac bulb (Grant Street should be terminated with a bulb). ® SW School Street to 42 to 54 feet (local residential street) • ® SW School Street to 51 feet culdesac bulb (this roadway should also end with a bulb). Street improvements: • ® Full street improvements will be necessary along SW Grant Avenue, to include: ® 24 to 32 feet of pavement curb to curb (der)ends upon ADT) ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk w/ planter strips. ® street trees spaced per TDC standards. ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. • ® Other: Construct culdesac bulb at the end of the roadway per City standards. Curb radiv$ must be 40 feet. 41 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes 00910eering Department secuon 0 Page 1 0 • ® Full street improvements will be necessary along SW School Street, to include: ® 24 to 32 feet of pavement curb to curb (depends upon ADT). ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk w/ planter strip. ® street trees spaced per TDC standards. ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ® Other: Construct a culdesac bulb at the end of the roadway per Citv standards radius must be 40 feet. ® Partial street improvements will be necessary along SW 99W (if ODOT directs), to include ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ® Other: ADDlicant should contact ODOT. Christian Snuffin. 731-8259. for more informati street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: street improvements will be necessary along SW ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ . -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees , to include: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-APPIieatlon Conference NOW Page 2 Englaeerlog Department Seotlon • • ❑ street signs, traf ontrol devices, streetlights and a t~year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not curren practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approv may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarante The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements m be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utilitv Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lin adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, • fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lin • are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW Grah} • Avenue and School Street (NOTE: Rule only applies to the frontage from where service taken. If service is taken from 99W. those hiqh capacity lines are exempt from the rule Prior to final buildina inspection, the applicant shall either place these utilities undergroun or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitarv Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in the ROW of bo Grant Avenue and School Street. This line cuts across the property. The proposed developme must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to provide addition • laterals to the site if needed. The applicant has asked if an open-side building can be placed over the sewer line. The City would have to see a specific proposal for consideration. The Public Works Department will play a role in the decision. • Water Supply: The Citv of Tigard (Phone:(503) 639-4171) provides public water service in the area of this site. Th • service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your propos • development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-701 • provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted • CITY OF Tl6ARO Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 Engineering Department Section • information regarding the&equacy of circulation systems, need for fire hydrants, or oth • questions related to fire pr ction. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is convey to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed sto drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensu that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. r Provided the impervious surfaces of the site do not increase, this section will not apply. Storm Water Qualitv: • The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by t Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphor contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surface The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructi an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining wheth or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of ne impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210 Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with t development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: . ❑ Construction of an on-site water quality facility. • ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Again, if the impervious area does not increase, there will be no requirement for water quality. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that C maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenan access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise read accessible. A traffic impact report is required. This report will likely need to be formatted to ODOT standards a submitted also for their review. Contact Christian Snuffin (see above) for information as to whether not ODOT will require a review by their agency. The City will require the report regardless. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traf Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's project impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based up . the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based f CITY OF TIGARD 11"Plicatlon Conference Notes Page 4 . Engineering Department Section • • • category. The TIF shae calculated at the time of bynna permit issuance. In limit circumstances, payment o Me TIF may be allowed to be deferre until the issuance of an occupan permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater th $5,000.00. • • TIF will be assessed based upon the net increase in student capacity. This information is required be submitted with the land use application. • • • PERMITS Public Facilitv Improvement (PFI) Permit: • Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineeri Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Ha • For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted • review and approval. • The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of t • permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cas where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. The Permittee will also be required to post performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans a required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the desi . engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The P permit fee structure is as follows: • NOTE: If an PH Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that • permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Buildina Division Permits: • The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a mo detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter • 503-639-4171, ext. 304. • Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commerci • industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, gradi • and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundati . excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. • Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issu after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). Th permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantia .CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 .Engineering Department Section 0 r complete and a myWopy of the recorded plat has beeraturned by the applicant to the Ci For a land partition, , e applicant must obtain an Engine ring Permit, if required, and return mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbi that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. T engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engine will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, ea homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan sh include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder sh also indicate the proposed elevations at the four comers of the building. _ a 3 PREPARED BY. ENGI HM DEPARTMENT STAFF ' DATE Phone: 15031639,4111 Fax: 150316240152 iAeng\brianr\templates\preap notes - eng.dot Revised: March 21, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD Pr Placation Conference Notes Page 6 EnDlneerlne Department Sectlon AGENDA ITEM NO. -Z O~ - J FILE NAME: METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.2 FILE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00003 DATE: APRIL 28.2003 (VAR) 2003-00013 (PAGE _I OF I VARI ) (VAR) 2003-00014 ADIIUSTMENT (VAR 2003-00015 VARIANCE (VAR) %03-00016 PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ; Name, Address, Zip Code and Phon No. e~el G ww_TMA CA0 CC-) AI aker, S+e.?oa i D Q 004- } -e-zS -sz3 d I ' ~f//1✓ _ _ zZ~ Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No _ _ _ . I Name, Address, Zip ode and Phon"No. -Ed 19 61 ce" -7 S Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. i Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. cam- s Name, Address, Zip Co a an IT h-o n-e No. - T Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1agcjssw °l~Tk 4119- I`*ylua o/ ~ Cl / -2VZ -1166 o~~~ i Name, Addr es s, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code an'd PhoS f •-1, -s- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Name, Add? ress, ip Code and Phone No. _ _ Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Jlqo40 t4l, P&15,r ' 9I (fd _5, W, 1-0 C-4 sfi I 'j2(rl~~J off- '-f 72- 23 I - - •Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. i Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I - ~ - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No - - - - - - - . , Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I • • COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) 1, Kathy nyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTf gar -T ua1 a in Ti-mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public Hearing/ CUP2003-00003.1,letzaer ElementervSchool a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 10,2003 Kzl'_A~ 1\-L L 12,- Legal Notice TT 10 216 Subscribed and sworn tobefore me thisl 0th day of Anr i 1 , 2 0 0 3 OFFICIAL SEAL _ ROBIN A BURGESS ary Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON 4 COMMISSION NO. 344589 My Commission Expires: MY Ca, X'can,: C"=1^_S i'W ?o, 2005 AFFIDAVIT 0 The following will be considered by the Tigard Hearings Officer on Monday April 28, 2003 at 7:00 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the Tigard Municipal Code and the rules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.390. Testimony may be submitted in writing prior to or at the public hearing or verbally at the public hearing only. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeal based on that issue. Failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. A copy of the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing, and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Brad Kilby) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003- 00003/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00013/ VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00014/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003- 00015NARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00016 > METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL < REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to demolish the existing Metzger Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments and two Variances to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 34, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). The Variances are to exceed the maximum building height limit within the zoning district by 5 feet, and to the design standards of TDC Section 18.630.050(A)(5) to allow the parking areas to be located within a front yard. LOCATION: 10255 SW 90th Avenue; 1S135AB, Tax Lot 100. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.630, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. I`7 TT 10216 - Publish April 10, 2003. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER CITY OF TIGARD Community Development CITY OF TIGARD ShV*A43etterCommunity PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY. APRIL 28. 2003 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00003 VARIUANCE NTAR 2003- V 000 4 13 ARI'U A RR ANCE (VA ) 2) 003 000 6 5 FILE TITLE: METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL APPLICANT/ Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J APPLICANT'S Cornerstone Construction Mgmt OWNER: Attn: Stephen Poage REP.: Attn: Brian Radabaugh 6960 SW Sandburg Street 5410 SW Macadam Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Suite 250 Portland, OR 97210 REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval to demolish the existing Metzger Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments and two Variances to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 34, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b). The Variances are to exceed the maximum building height limit within the zonin district by 5 feet, and to the design standards of TDC Section 18.630.050(A)(5? to allow the parking areas to be located within a front yard. LOCATION: 10255 SW 90th Avenue; 1S135AB, Tax Lot 100. ' ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and APPLICABLE institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.630, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT., 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. • ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. 'THE HEARINGS OFFICER MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION LESS THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING- MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE HEARINGS OFFICER WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AN OPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25G) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25G) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER BRAD KILBY AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY E-MAIL AT bradley@ci.tigard.or.us. __jq J SN DY~ v \ ITI • • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding applications by the Tigard-Tualatin School ) FINAL ORDER District for a conditional use permit for an elementary ) CUP 2003-003 school and related adjustments and variances at 10255 ) VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 SW 90th Avenue in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Metzger Elementary) A. SUMMARY 1. Cornerstone Construction, on behalf of the Tigard-Tualatin School District (the "applicant"), proposes to replace the existing 55,181-square foot Metzger Elementary School with a new 67,400-square foot school and associated parking lots, play areas and sports fields. The school site is a 6.47-acre parcel in the R-4.5 zone at 10255 SW 90th Avenue; also known as tax lot 100, WCTM 1S135AB (the "site"). The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit, two variances and two adjustments for the proposed school. The conditional use permit is required to comply with the use regulations of the R- 4.5 zone. One variance would allow gymnasium and classroom buildings on the site to exceed the maximum 30-foot building height limit of the R-4.5 zone. A second variance would allow parking within the front yard setback area. One adjustment would reduce bicycle parking from the required 168 spaces to the proposed 34 spaces. A second adjustment would waive compliance with the maximum block length standard. 2. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Larry Epstein (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive testimony and evidence in the matter. At the public hearing, City staff recommended the hearings officer approve the conditional use permit, the parking variance and the bicycle parking adjustment applications. Staff recommended the hearings officer deny the building height variance and the block length adjustment. The applicant accepted the findings and recommended conditions in the Staff Report, with certain exceptions, and responded to public testimony. Four persons testified orally with questions and concerns. Other persons testified in writing. The principal disputed issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the applicant can build a pedestrian path through the site to comply with the block length standard, and, if so, where should it be; c. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the requested height variances comply with the approval criteria, particularly the criterion requiring the applicant to show the variance is warranted by "special circumstances"; d. Whether the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the requested bike parking adjustment should be granted; and a. Whether noise from outdoor bells/buzzers or public address systems will have an adverse impact on abutting residents, and, if so, how to mitigate such impacts. 3. The hearings officer concludes the applicant sustained the burden of proof for the proposed conditional use permit, parking variance and bicycle parking adjustment and a marginal variance to the building height standard. The applicant failed to sustain the burden of proof for a greater building height variance. The building height variance for the gymnasium is unnecessary, because the proposed sloped roof will comply. The block length adjustment is not needed, because the applicant can provide a public pathway situated in the middle of the site to comply. The foregoing is based on the findings and conclusions included and incorporated herein and subject to conditions at the end of this final order. • • B. HEARING AND RECORD 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about this application on April 28, 2003. All exhibits and records of testimony are filed with the Tigard Department of Community Development. At the beginning of the hearing, the hearings officer made the declaration required by ORS 197.763. The hearings officer disclaimed any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interest. The following is a summary by the hearings officer of selected testimony offered at the public hearing in this matter. 2. City planner Brad Kilby summarized the Staff Report dated April 18, 2003 (the "Staff Report"). He noted that the undeveloped Mapleleaf Street right of way bisects the site and is built on, and an undeveloped right of way for Oak Street is the south edge of the site. He noted that the city police department commented that a pedestrian pathway within or near the Oak Street right of way may create a hazard due to its isolated location between the rear of the school and the rear yards of abutting homes. Therefore he recommended the hearings officer require that the applicant provide a pedestrian path through the site within the Maple Street right of way, between the school and the proposed playfields. He argued that cost is not relevant to the standards for a variance. 3. Planner Brian Radabaugh, traffic engineer Eric Waltman and architect Xavier Rueda testified for the applicant. a. Mr. Radabaugh summarized the proposed development. He agreed to dedicate right of way or to grant an easement for and to construct a pedestrian path through the middle of the site as recommended by Mr. Kilby. The applicant will continue to seek vacation of the Maple and Oak Street rights of way through the site. i. He argued that the building height variance is necessary to allow adequate space in the gymnasium for volleyball and other sports. The roof over the proposed two-story classrooms also will exceed the 30-foot height limit. High groundwater in the area may preclude the recessing the building below ground level as staff suggested. Recessing the building would be very costly. ii. He testified that the applicant will eliminate the outdoor buzzers when they demolish the existing school. The new school buildings will buffer abutting residents south of the site from noise generated by outdoor activities on the site. b. Mr. Waltman testified that all affected intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The applicant can modify the access to comply with the 200-foot minimum spacing requirements of TDC 18.705.030.H.3, as required by condition of approval 12. c. Mr. Rueda introduced a cross-section drawing of the proposed buildings. The gymnasium building will have a shed roof with an average height of 29 feet 4 inches, consistent with the 30-foot height limit of the R-4.5 zone. The proposed two-story classroom wing is 31 feet high with a flat roof, one foot over the 30-foot height limit. However the applicant would like a greater variance to allow construction of a sloped roof with an average height of 35 to 36 feet. The school board is opposed to flat roofs, because they experienced problems in the past. The school could construct a sloping metal roof with a 50-year warranty. He noted that the site loses 30 feet in elevation from north to south. The new school is proposed in the lower, southern end of the site. Therefore the additional building height will be less noticeable from the north. Viewed from the south, the pitched roof will not be visible above the roof parapet or eave. It will appear as a flat- roofed building. CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 2 • • 4. Kim Kilgore expressed concern that the path location the city originally recommended behind the school will pose a hazard for pedestrians because it is isolated from view. 5. Mindy Sheldon also expressed concern with a walkway on the south edge of the site. She testified that outdoor buzzers at the school are clearly audible in her home abutting the school 24-hours a day, seven days a week under existing conditions. 6. Duane Sheldon testified about problems with vandalism and criminal behavior in the vicinity of the school. 7. Kristin Prince argued that a height variance will have a greater impact on residents south of the site, because properties to the south are lower than the site. 8. The applicant waived the right to submit a closing written argument. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record and announced his intention to approve the application, taking under advisement the issue of the building height variances. C. DISCUSSION 1. The Staff Report identified the applicable approval criteria for the application and applied them to the record in the case. The hearings officer concurs that the applicable approval criteria are listed in the Staff Report. The hearings officer also largely concurs in the analysis and conclusions of City staff in that report. That is, substantial evidence in the record shows that the proposed use does or can comply with the applicable approval standards for a CUP, an adjustment to the bicycle parking requirements and a variance to the parking location standard. With a little artful interpretation of the CDC and reliance on common knowledge, substantial evidence in the record supports a marginal variance to the building height standard for the classroom building, but no more. Adoption of recommended conditions of approval as amended will ensure final plans are submitted and implemented as approved consistent with those criteria and will address potential adverse impacts consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The hearings officer adopts the findings in the Staff Report as his own, except to the extent inconsistent with the findings and conclusions in this final order. 2. The issue related to the proposed school that generated the most public concern involves the proposed adjustment to the block length standard that would have been required for a pathway to be situated within the alignment of the Oak Street right of way at the south edge of the site. At the hearing, the applicant proposed to provide a pedestrian connection between SW 90th Street and SW Lincoln Street between the north side of the new school building and the playfields. This pedestrian path location complies with the block length standards of CDC 18.810.040.B. Therefore an adjustment to this standard is not required. A condition is warranted requiring the applicant to dedicate a right of way or grant an easement over the area occupied by the path and such additional area on either or both sides as may be needed by the city in relation to the pathway, if any. The pathwav along the south edge of the site is no longer proposed and is not approved by this decision. 3. The issue that generated the most concern by the applicant was the building height variance for the classroom wing, which city staff recommended the hearings officer deny. The hearings officer observes that the building height variance requests are problematic, because the applicant's arguments and evidence responded well to some of the variance approval criteria (e.g., CDC 18.370.020.C.2(a) and (d)) but not to others CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Ogicer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 3 • • (particularly CDC 18.370.020.C.2(b) and (e)).1 Unless there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that must be made to approve a variance, the variance cannot be approved as a matter of law. Although the hearings officer will apply the burden of proof standard as a sliding scale, so the evidence needed to sustain a small variance is not as much as to sustain a large one, the hearings officer cannot ignore a clearly applicable standard, particularly as the extent of the variance increases. The applicant should have understood that an application for a variance must contain evidence showing that the application complies with all of the variance standards, not just the ones the applicant chooses. 4. At the hearing, the applicant proposed that the average height of the gymnasium comply with the building height standard, although the shed roof will slope down from a maximum height of 35 feet. The hearings officer finds that, because it achieves an average building height that complies with the 30-foot limit, the gymnasium roof design as shown in drawing 1.3 offered by the applicant at the hearing complies with the maximum building height standard.2 Therefore the height variance for the gymnasium is not needed. 5. The applicant originally proposed that the classroom building have a flat roof with an average height of 30 feet and a maximum height of 31 feet; changes in grade result in the different building height rather than changes in roof pitch. The hearings officer finds that a one-foot variance is relatively small; therefore the burden of proof for that variance also is small. However, at the hearing, the applicant proposed a greater variance for the classroom building so as to accommodate a pitched or hip roof design preferred by the school district board. The applicant estimated the average height of a pitched or hip roof I CDC 18.370.020.C.2 provides as follows: The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. (emphasis added) 2 CDC 18.120030.A.33 defines" building height" as follows: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof (See Figure 18.120.1). The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building: a. The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five-foot horizontal distance of exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than 10 feet above lowest grade; b. An elevation ten feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in subdivision (A) of this subsection is more than 10 feet above lowest grade. The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 4 • • would be 35 to 36 feet. The peak of the roof would be higher. This is a more significant variance, and requires the applicant to meet a correspondingly greater burden of proof. 6. The hearings officer finds that the term "special circumstances" in CDC 18.370.020.C.2(b) is ambiguous, because it is capable of more than one meaning. That section provides special circumstances are those over which the applicant has no control. The hearings officer relies on common knowledge to find that schools have different building needs than uses in other structures in the R-4.5 zone. To some extent the applicant cannot control those requirements; they are inherent in the nature of the use. For instance schools need to be able to provide space for learning typically in classrooms. Meeting classroom needs may require a minimum floor-to-ceiling and floor-to-floor height that, when stacked to create two stories, exceeds 30 feet.3 The hearings officer finds those needs may amount to special circumstances. But the record does not contain substantial evidence about the need for a building of such height. a. Given the low burden of proof necessary for a one-foot variance to the height standard, the hearings officer is willing to accept on the basis of common knowledge that the inherent needs of a classroom (e.g., to accommodate fire safety, utilities and HVAC equipment and to provide for the sort of structural flexibility needed for a school over time) are a special circumstance sufficient to sustain such a variance. Also the length of the building and the change in elevation partly are responsible for the need for a one-foot variance. This length and elevation change is not common in the zone, given the large size of the site and buildings. Keeping the roof flat minimizes the extent of the variance. Thus the two-story classroom building can be built with a flat roof as proposed. b. However the hearings officer cannot find, based on substantial evidence in the record, that a six-foot variance is warranted. There is no evidence in the record about special circumstances that apply to the site or the proposed use that warrant such a variance, at least none that is sufficiently specific and supported. Increased construction costs are not a special circumstances peculiar to the site. Neither is the school district's preference for a sloped roof. The applicant failed to provide evidence about the design of the proposed two- story classroom wing that shows the need for the greater classroom building height (i.e., for a roof) is the result of some special circumstance that relates to the school and not to other uses. The hearings officer finds that the need for maintenance is not unique to a school. Flat roofs are permitted and used commonly. Given that the cost of maintaining structures is not a special circumstance and is an economic issue, the applicant failed to explain how the greater height variance is warranted by a special circumstance. Therefore, on the basis of the existing record, the classroom building cannot exceed a height of 31 feet. c. It may be possible to approve a greater variance to the building height limit if the applicant provides additional information in response to CDC 18.370.010.C.2(b) and (e); i.e., if the applicant (1) identifies special circumstances peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances (e.g., circumstances related to the unique needs of the use which are not applicable to other properties in the same zone) over which the applicant has no control, (2) shows the greater height will not adversely affect residents of nearby homes, and (3) shows the proposed height is the minimum necessary to address those special circumstances. Therefore the hearings officer finds the applicant should be allowed to apply for a new variance to increase the height of the classroom building. 3 The hearings officer assumes owners of property in the district have a right to build a two-story structure on them, because the R-4.5 zone allows it. It could be argued that the applicant could avoid the need for a variance by building only one-story structures. However the hearings officer understands that would change fundamentally the proposed development, and it could not be accommodated on the site as proposed. Therefore it is not within the applicant's control. CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 5 0 • 7. The remaining issues were not contested significantly. a. The hearings officer is persuaded that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed use will not cause excessive noise that cannot be adequately mitigated. This impact can be accommodated considering the size, shape, location, topography and natural features of the site. CDC 18.330.030.A(2). Use of the outdoor bells, buzzers, public address systems or similar audible non-emergency signals should be subject to the noise limits of the Tigard Municipal Code (the "TMC") in order to limit adverse noise impacts on surrounding residents.4 The hearings officer further finds that the use of such audible outdoor signals is unnecessary and should be prohibited on weekends, holidays and other non-school hours. However the hearings officer finds that, on rare occasions, a louder signal or PA system may be necessary to inform students of actual emergencies. The hearings officer finds that in such emergency situations, the potential impact to surrounding properties is outweighed by the need to protect student safety. A condition of approval is warranted to this effect. b. The hearings officer also is persuaded that the applicant met the burden of proof for a variance to allow a parking lot between SW Lincoln Street and the proposed school, based on the findings at p. 12 of the Staff Report c. The hearings officer also is persuaded that the applicant met the burden of proof to reduce the number of required bicycle parking spaces to 34 based on the findings at p. 15 of the Staff Report, the testimony of the principal that fewer than 12 bicycles commonly park at the existing school (Exhibit H of the application) and CDC 18.765.050.E A CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings and discussion provided or incorporated in this final order, the hearings officer concludes that the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed conditional use permit, parking location variance, bicycle parking adjustment and one-foot building height variance do or will comply with the applicable criteria and standards of the Community Development Code, provided development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state, and federal laws and with conditions of approval warranted to ensure such compliance occurs in fact. The hearings officer further finds that the applicant failed to bear the burden of proof that a building height variance more than one foot complies with the applicable approval criteria. The proposed block ,length adjustment is not needed, based on the pathway location proposed by the applicant. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the Staff Report and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the hearings officer hereby approves CUP 2003-003, VAR 2003-0013, VAR 2003-0014, VAR 2003- 0015 and VAR 2003-0016 (Metzger Elementary), subject to the following conditions of approval: 4 TMC Section 7.40.160.A prohibits noise in excess of 50 decibels, measured at the boundaries of the site, between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. and 40 dB between 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Even if schools are exempt generally, compliance is warranted pursuant to the CUP regulations to ensure the site is suitable considering its size and location adjoining single family homes and lack of effective buffers to sound. CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 6 • • _ THE FOLLOWING_ CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS THE APPLICANT SHALL: Submit to the Planning Department (Brad Kilby, 639-4171, ext. 2434) for review and approval: 1. Obtain approval from the Tigard City Council for the vacation of the Mapleleaf right-of-way, or submit revised plans demonstrating compliance with the 20 foot setback that is required should the right-of-way remain. 2. A revised site plan showing a pedestrian connection between SW 90th Street and SW Lincoln Street, between the north side of the proposed school and the playfields. The connection shall be no further than 330 feet from the south right-of-way line for SW Locust. The plan shall show the physical limits of a right of way the applicant will dedicate or public easement the applicant will grant, which shall include the area of the pathway and adjoining area the city determines is needed (if any) in conjunction with the pathway. 3. A lighting plan for the entire project site for approval. 4. A set of building plans that demonstrates compliance with the 30-foot maximum height requirement of the R-4.5 zoning classification, with the exception of the two-story classroom wing which may be constructed to a maximum 31 feet in height; provided the applicant may file a new application for a greater building height which, after the effective date of a decision approving such an application, shall control the height of the classroom wing. 5. A revised landscape plan that demonstrates full compliance with Section 18.630.090(A)(2) and Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code (TDC). 6. A revised landscappe pplan that includes screenin for all parking areas in compliance with TDC Section 18.745.050(E)(1)(a). 7. Revise the plan for screening the service enclosure to include either a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet high. The revised method shall be accompanied by a detail of the facility. 8. Provide a 269 square foot mixed solid waste collection area, and a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facility location. 9. Ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. 10. Provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. 11. Notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 7 • • Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 12. Either eliminate an access or revise the access drives to meet the 200 foot minimum spacing requirement. 13. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the street improvements on 90th Avenue, Lincoln Avenue and any work in the public riht-of-way. Six/Eight (6/8) sets of detailed public improvement pEms shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only tnclu a sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit lans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design tandards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 14. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact le&al name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 15. Submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 90th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a local residential street from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. replacement of the existing 8-inch storm line with a new 12-inch line; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip, F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; I. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 90th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 16. Submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Lincoln Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a collector street from curb to centerline equal to 17 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 8 • 0 C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 8 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip, F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City En& neer; I. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. drive way apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Lincoln Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 17. The applicant's construction plans shall include the reconstruction of the curb returns and wheelchair ramps at the corners of Lincoln Avenue/Locust Street and 90th Avenue/Locust Street. 18. A profile of 90th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 19. Obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. 20. Obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468-.72ru an the Federal-mean Water Act. 21. If the new design of 90th Avenue, near the south end of the school site, requires additional right-of-way (ROW) from the site to accommodate an appropriate horizontal curve, the applicant shall dedicate that ROW prior to issuance of the building permit. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION THE APPLICANT SHALL: Submit to the Planning Department (Brad Kilby, 639-4171, ext. 2434) for review and approval: 22. Clearly mark the location of the access drive in accordance with TDC Section 18.765.040(B)(3). 23. Request a site inspection to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. 24A. Apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780 prior to placement of any signs on site. 2413. Provide proof of filing of the dedication or easement provided for in condition 2 above. The dedication or grant may authorize the school district to closely monitor and supervise use of the right of way or easement during school hours and school-related or -sponsored events. CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 9 i 0 Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 25. Complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 26. Provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features) in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced to NAD 83 (91). 27. Either place the existing overhead utility lines along one or all of the streets that front this site underground, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. The provision will only apply to the frontage(s) where service to the site will be taken. If the fee option is chosen, the amount for the three frontages will be: Locust Street 190 LF $5,225.00 Lincoln Avenue 730 LF $20,075.00 90th Avenue 650 LF $17,875.00. The following condition applies at all times: 28. Use of the outdoor bells, buzzers, public address systems or similar audible non-emergency signals is prohibited during non-school hours (evenings, weekends, holidays etc.). During school hours such devices shall not generate noise in excess of 50 dBA measured at the boundaries of the site. This limitation shall not apply to use of such signals during actual emergencies which pose an imminent threat to student safety. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. , 2003. Use Hearings Officer CUP 2003-003 and VAR 2003-0013 014, 015, & 016 Hearings Officer Final Order (Metzger Elementary) Page 10 • • "EXHIBIT A" PARTIES OF RECORD (Written Public Testimony received at the hearing) • 0 in M EXHIBIT Lof L-PageX DASHED LINE INDICATES ORIGINAL PROPOSED DESIGN EQ. L 1 :t i aN EQ. GYMNASIUM/COMMONS DIAGRAM Slz-- 0 M 0 a, N 4 ' CLASSROOM DIAGRAM ELEVATION DIAGRAMS METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REPLACEMENT -IdWg% 0 tigard-tualatin school district no. 23j 224 SW RRST AVENUE PORRAND. OREGON 97204 T1503.224.0173 F1503.224.4836 not to scale 0321-elev om 3 28 april 2003 f • AGENDA ITEM NO. AA 0 • Agenda Item: 2.2 Hearing Date: April 28. 2003 Time: 7:00 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER CITY OFTIGARD Community Development FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 7/11/2003 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CASE NOS: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) CUP2003-00003 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2003-00013 Variance (VAR) VAR2003-00014 Adjustment (VAR) VAR2003-00015 Variance (VAR) VAR2003-00016 OWNER: Tigard-Tualatin School APPLICANT'S Cornerstone Construction District 23J REP.: Attn: Brian Radabaugh Attn: Stephen Poage 5410 SW Macadam Ave. 6960 SW Sandburg Street Suite 250 Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97210 PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking conditional use approval to demolish the existing Metzger elementary school, and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments and two Variances to the Tigard Development Code (TDC) as follows: An adjustment to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site. A variance to the maximum height limit within the zoning district. An adjustment to the maximum block length standards of TDC section 18.810.040(b). A variance to the design standards of TDC section 18.630.050(A)(5) to allow the parking areas to be located within a front yard. LOCATION: 10255 SW 90`h Avenue; WCTM 1S135AB, Tax Lot 100. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION: R- 4.5, Low-Density Residential zoning district. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters: 18.330, 18.360, 18.370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.630, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 1 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Hearings Officer find that the proposed Conditional Use Permit, the requested bicycle parking ad1ustment, and the proposed variance to the location of the parking area will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and meets the Approval Standards of the Tigard Development Code. Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL, subject to the following recommended Conditions of Approval: Staff also recommends that the Hearings Officer DENY the proposed adjustment to the block length standard, and the proposed variance to the building height requirement because the standards as imposed can be feasibly met. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS: -Submit to the Planning Department ra y, 639-4Tn, ext. 24Wfor review and approval: 1. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Tigard City Council for the vacation of the Mapleleaf right-of-way, or submit revised plans demonstrating compliance with the 20 foot setback that is required should the right-of-way remain. 2. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing a pedestrian connection between SW 90 h Street and SW Locust Street. The connection shall be no further than 330 feet from the south right-of-way line for SW Locust. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the entire project site for approval. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a set of building plans that demonstrates compliance with the 30-foot maximum height requirement of the R-4.5 zoning classification. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates full compliance with Section 18.630.090(A)(2) and Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code (TDC). 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that includes screening for all parking areas in compliance with TDC Section 18.745.050(E)(1)(a). 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, the applicant shall revise the plan for screening the service enclosure to include either a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet high. The revised method shall be accompanied by a detail of the facility. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a 269 square foot mixed solid waste collection area, and a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facility location. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. 10. The applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence. including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 2 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 11. The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 12. Prior to the site work, the applicant shall either eliminate an access or revise the access drives to meet the 200 foot minimum spacing requirement. 13. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover the street improvements on 90th Avenue, Lincoln Avenue and any other work in the public right-of-way. Six/Eight "6/8) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to tie Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. ublic Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 14. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be designated as the "Permittee", and who will provide the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 15. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of 90th Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a local residential street from curb to centerline equal to 16 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. replacement of the existing 8-inch storm line with a new 12-inch line; E. 5 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW 90th Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 16. The applicant shall submit construction plans to the Engineering Department as a part of the Public Facility Improvement permit, which indicate that they will construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of Lincoln Avenue. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a collector street from curb to centerline equal to y7 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 8 foot concrete sidewalk with a planter strip; METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 3 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • F. street trees in the planter strip spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Lincoln Avenue in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department. 17. The applicant's construction plans shall include the reconstruction of the curb returns and wheelchair ramps at the corners of Lincoln Avenue/Locust Street and 90th Avenue/Locust Street. 18. A profile of 90th Avenue shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. 19. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Tualatin Valley Water District for the proposed water connections prior to issuance of the City's Public Facility Improvement permit. 20. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 21. If the new design of 90th Avenue, near the south end of the school site, requires additional right-oT-way (ROW) from the site to accommodate an appropriate horizontal curve, the applicant shall dedicate that ROW prior to issuance of the building permit. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Department ( read-Rilby, 6394M, ext. 2434Tfor review and approval: 22. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall clear) mark the location of the access drive in accordance with TDC Section 18.765.040(6)(3). 23. Prior to final building inspection, the site shall be inspected to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. 24. Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. Submit to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 25. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete the required public improvements, obtain conditional acceptance from the City, and provide a one-year maintenance assurance for said improvements. 26. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built drawings of the public improvements as follows: 1) 3 mil mylar, 2) a diskette of the as-builts in "DWG" format, if available; otherwise "DXF" will be acceptable, and 3) the as-built drawings shall be tied to the City's GPS network. The applicants engineer shall provide the City with an electronic file with points for each structure (manholes, catch basins, water valves, hydrants and other water system features in the development, and their respective X and Y State Plane Coordinates, referenced) to NAD 83 (91). METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 4 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 27. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along one or all of the streets that front this site underground, or they shall pay the fee in-lieu of undergrounding. The fee shall be calculated by the frontage of, the site that is parallel to the utility lines and will be $27.50 per lineal foot. The provision will only apply to the frontage(s) where service to the site will be taken. If the fee option is chosen, the amount for the three frontages will be: Locust Street 190 LF $ 5,225.00 Lincoln Avenue 730 LF $20,075.00 90th Avenue 650 LF $17,875.00. FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION SHALL RENDER THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION VOID. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Historv: A search of City records indicates that there have been only minor modifications to the site plan for Metzger Elementary to allow the addition of modular classrooms. The current school was approved as a conditional use in 1972 by the Washington County Board of County Commissioners. There are no other records on file to establish that the property was ever used for anything other than an elementary school. Vicinitv Information: The site is zoned R-4.5 and surrounded on three sides by single-family homes, and commercial development on the fourth side. The site is located within the Washington Square Regional Center planning district. There are specific design and density guidelines for other types of development within this district. The surrounding areas may be developed by a combination of homes and businesses, as the majority of that district is zoned to accommodate mixed uses with medium to high density developments. Site Information and Proposal Description: The site is 6.47 acres in size and currently occupied by the existing elementary school. The site is located on gentle slopes ranging from 0 to 5%. The proposal is for a 67,400 square foot elementary school with associated parking and infrastructure. The applicant is also requesting approval of variances to the height requirement of the underlying zone, and the design standards of the Washington Square Regional Center. The applicant is also requesting two adjustments. One of the adjustments requested is to vary the bicycle parking requirements of the development code. The applicant is also requesting an adjustment to the block length standards of the development code. These requests are discussed in more detail in the following discussion. SECTION IV. DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES. PERMITS AND USE Use Classification: Section 18.130.020 Lists the Use Categories. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing elementary school and to replace it with new 67,400 square foot elementary school. Schools are permitted conditionally within the R-4 zoning district. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 5 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • Summarv Land Use Permits: Chapter 18.310 Defines the decision-making type to which the land-use application is assigned. The proposed use is a Conditional Use permit which is a Type III-HO decision. Staff reviews the adjustments and variances as they are considered under a Type II process. However, when multiple applications are being reviewed for the same property, the highest authority will oversee all review. In this case, the review is handled by a Type III-HO process and heard by the Tigard Hearings Officer. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE CRITERIA A summary of the applicable criteria in this case in the Chapter order in which they are addressed in this report are as follows: A. 18.330 Specific Conditional Use Criteria General Approval Criteria) Additional Conditions of Approval) B. pplicable Development Code Standards 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.370 Variances/Adjustments) 18.510 Residential Zoning Districts) 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center) 18.705 Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 'Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Load ng Requirements) 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree emoval) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Street and Utilitv Improvement Standards (18.810) D. !_pact StudV(18.3901 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 18.330.010.A states that the purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted, enlarged or altered if the site is appropriate and if other appropriate conditions of approval can be met. There are certain uses which due to the nature of the impacts on surrounding land uses and public facilities require a case-by-case review and analysis. Section 18.330.020.A states that a request for approval for a new conditional use shall be processed as a Type III-HO procedure, as regulated by Chapter 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.330.030A and subject to other requirements in Chapter 18.330. GENERAL APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE: SECTION 18.330.030 The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The existing site size is 6.47 acres or 281,833 square feet in size. The proposal requests approval for a 67,400 square foot elementary school and associated infrastructure. A large portion of the site will be used for play fields. This report evaluates the proposal and necessary setbacks, landscaping, etc., and as demonstrated in the application and this report, the site size is adequate for the needs of the proposed use. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 6 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The site is currently developed with an existing elementary school. The site is large enough to accommodate the use. There are no specific limitations to the site with regard to the shape, location, topograph or natural features that would hinder the development of the site with the proposed use. Hyowever, there is an existing right-of-way that dissects the site. The right-of-way is SW Mapleleaf Street, and the Tigard City Council has initiated the process necessary to vacate the right-of-way. The current building was constructed over the top of the right-of-way. There is further discussion of the right-of-way throughout this report. The site can be suitable for the proposed development if the right-of-way is vacated. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; and All public facilities including streets, storm and sanitary sewers, and water have adequate capacity to serve the site as discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The proposed site is located within the R-4.5 zoning district. As indicated earlier, schools are permitted conditionally. As conditioned later in this report, the project can meet the applicable requirements of the zoning district. The conditional use requirements are more restrictive than the underlying zoning requirements with regard to site size and setback requirements. The applicant has met or exceeded the requirements with the exception of the setback to the SW Mapleleaf right-of-way. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this Code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met or can be conditioned to be satisfied. The applicable review criteria in this case include the following chapters of the Community Development Code: 18.330, Conditional Use; 18.360, Site Development Review; 18.370, Variances and Adjustments; 18.390 Decision Making Procedures; 18.510, Residential Zoning Districts, 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Standards, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; 18.725, Environmental Performance Standards; 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage; 18.765, Off-Street Parking; 18.780, Signs; 18.790, Tree Removal; 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas; and 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The development standards and requirements of these chapters are addressed further in this report. The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following chapters: 18.350, Planned Development; 18.380, Zoning Map/Text Amendments; 18.410, Lot Line Adjustments; 18.420, Land Partitions; 18.430, Subdivisions; 18.520, Commercial Zoning Districts; 18.530, Industrial Zoning Districts; 18.620, Tigard Triangle Design Standards; 18.640 Durham Quarry Design Standards; 18.710, Accessory Residential Units; 18.715, Density Computations; 18.720, Design Compatibility Standards; 18.730, Exceptions to Development Standards; 18.740, Historic Overlay; 18.742, Home Occupations; 18.750, Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations; 18.760, Nonconforming Situations; 18.775, Sensitive Lands; 18.785, Temporary I lease- and 1 R 7CA 1Ahraiaee ('nmmi miratinne Pnrilitiac Thaca rhantarc ara tharafnra fni inri to be inapplicable as approval standards. The use will comply with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is implemented by the Community Development Code. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies are, therefore, assured by satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the development code as addressed within this report. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the General Approval Criteria for a Conditional Use are satisfied. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 7 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE. Section 18.330.030.6 states that the Hearings Authority may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use, which are found necessary to ensure the use is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, and that the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized. These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following: Limiting the hours, days, place and/or manner of operation; The applicant has not indicated hours, days, or manner of operation, however, it can be expected that the school would operate during the same hours that it currently operates. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that there is a need to limit the hours, days, place and or manner of operation for the elementary school. This criterion is satisfied. Requiring design features which minimize environmental impacts such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, odor and/or dust; The proposal would not likely generate any vibration, air pollution, odor, glare, noise, or dust that would be considered out of character for the use. The applicant has sited the facility on the property in a location that will minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: The proposed site is adjacent on three sides to noise sensitive units as defined in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 7.40. Requiring additional setback areas, lot area, and/or lot depth or width; The lot is large enough to accommodate the proposed building that is to be constructed. The proposed use will exceed the setbacks of the underlying zone as required by this chapter unless the right-of-way for SW Mapleleaf is not vacated. The Tigard City Council initiated the vacation of right-of-way on the site on April 8, 2003. Dimensional criterion is discussed in more detail further in this discussion. This criterion is satisfied. Limiting the building height, size or lot coverage, and/or location on the site; According to the applicant, the building will cover roughly 40% of the site. There are no lot coverage requirements in the R-4.5 zoning classification. As indicated earlier, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot height limitation imposed on developments within the R-4.5 zoning district. The variance is discussed in more detail later in this decision. This criterion is satisfied. Designating the size, number, location and/or design of vehicle access points; The applicant is proposing to create three accesses off of SW Lincoln. The development code requires a minimum of one 30-foot access. Access is discussed in more detail later in this report. The criterion can be satisfied. Requiring street right-of-way to be dedicated and street(s) to be improved; The site has frontage on three separate streets. The applicant has proposed to complete half-street improvements along SW 90th Avenue, SW Locust Street, and SW Lincoln Street. The only dedication of right-of-way that may be needed is at the curb returns. This cannot be adequately determined until construction plans are submitted for the half-street improvements that have been required later in this report. The specifics of the improvements are discussed in more detail in the street and utility section of this report. This criterion is satisfied. Requiring landscaping, screening, drainage and/or surfacing of parking and loading areas; METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 8 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • These items are addressed later in this report. As conditioned, the proposal will meet the prescribed requirements of the TDC. Limiting the number, size, location, height and/or lighting of signs; Compliance with the sign requirements for the underlying zone will be considered once a design is reviewed. The applicant will be required to indicate the location and type of sign proposed for this site prior to building permit issuance. Limiting or setting standards for the location and/or intensity of outdoor lighting; The applicant has indicated in the narrative that the parking lot and building entrances will be lighted with lights that will automatically turn off at night; however, the applicant did not provide a lighting plan as required. Staff cannot ensure that the lighting standards are satisfied. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: Staff cannot assure that lighting from the site will not produce glare onto neighboring properties or create a safe nighttime environment based on the applicant's description of lighting for the facility. CONDITION: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the entire project site for approval. Requiring berms, screening or landscaping and the establishment of standards for their installation and maintenance; As discussed further in this report, the applicant has proposed a mixture of landscaping to screen the parking areas and use from surrounding properties. This criterion is discussed in more detail later in this report. Requiring and designating the size, height, location and/or materials for fences; The applicant is proposing new chain link fencing with slats along the rear property lines of three houses that are located along SW Locust. Chain link fencing is an acceptable material provided it adequately screens the use from adjacent single-family homes. This criterion can be satisfied. Requiring the protection and preservation of existing trees, soils, vegetation, watercourses, habitat areas and/or drainage areas; Some of the trees on site are scheduled for removal to accommodate construction. The applicant has provided a tree plan that will be discussed later in this report. As demonstrated later in this report, the applicant meets, or can be conditioned to meet this criterion. Requiring the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain when land form alterations and development are allowed within the 100-year floodplain; and The property is not adjacent to the floodplain. This criterion is not applicable. Requiring the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. The property is not adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. This criterion is not applicable. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE TYPES: SECTION 18.330.050 The additional development standards are specific criteria that must be considered at the time of application for a conditional use. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 9 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 011 • The criteria states that there shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is required for the applicable zoning district; That the setbacks shall be as follows: Front Yard setback- 20 feet Corner and through lot setback- 20 feet on any side facing a street Side yard setback- 20 feet Rear yard setback- 30 feet The minimum lot size for the R-4.5 zoning district is 7,500 square feet. This site is 6.47 acres. This criterion is satisfied. With regard to the setbacks, the site is a corner and through lot. Staff considers the frontage along SW Lincoln Street as the front yard which would be required to meet a minimum 20-foot setback. The closest structure to SW Lincoln is 95 feet. SW 90th Avenue would be considered a rear yard. It is also a yard adjacent to a public street. The requirement calls for a minimum of 30 feet. The closest structure to SW 90 Avenue is 88.6 feet. The southern property line is a side yard setback. The minimum setback is 20 feet. The closest structure to the southern property line is 20 feet. The northern propert y line is dynamic in that there is an existing right-of-way referred to as SW Mapleleaf Street that dissects the property. The applicant has requested that the City Council vacate the right-of-way, and the Council initiated the discussion on April 8, 2003. If the right-of-way is vacated, then the northern property line would be SW Locust. If the right-of-way is not vacated, then SW Mapleleaf will be the northern property line. In any event, the setback to the northern propertline is required to be 20 feet. The applicant has indicated that there is a 200 foot setback shown from SW Locust St. FINDING: If the City Council was to not vacate the SW Mapleleaf right-of-way across this property, the, proposal would not meet the applicable setbacks. The City Council has nitiated the vacation meaning that they have set a hearing to consider the vacation. Because of the uncertainty with that process, the following condition is recommended. CONDITION: Prior to any site work, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Tigard City Council for the vacation of the Mapleleaf right-of-way, or submit revised plans demonstrating compliance with the 20 foot setback that is required should the right-of-way remain. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (18.360) The Site Development Review approval standards require that a 'development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Community Development Code. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS (18.370). The applicant has requested a variance to the Washington Square Regional Center design standards related to parking lot placement, and a variance to the building height requirement of the R-4.5 zoning classification. Staff has discussed each variance request in detail in the following discussion. In order to vary from the applicable standards in the Development Code, either a variance or an adjustment to the standard is required. Adjustments are for specific provisions of the Code with clear and ob''ective decision criteria. If the standard to be varied from is not addressed by one of the available adjustments, then approval of a variance is required. The criteria for a variance are as follows: A. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 10 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER B. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; D. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and E. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. PARKING LOCATION VARIANCE The applicant's proposal will result in a pparkin lot that is laced between SW Lincoln and the building. The TDC section 18.360.050(A)(5) states that, "Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights of way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings... When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary streets shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access favors another street." Both SW Locust Street, and SW Lincoln Street are identified as collectors on the Tigard Transportation System plan, but because of the shape of the lot, SW Lincoln is the most ap ropdate street to deem primary. This particular piece of property is surrounded on three SIT es by public streets. The difference between the three is that SW Lincoln is the street that would have the least impact on neighborhood traffic. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The proposed location of the parking area would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the title, it would not affect any other a pIicable policies and standards, and it would be more conducive to protecting the quality of IIfe to the other properties in the R-4.5 zoning classification and surrounding uses. The majority of the design standards apply to the MUC, MUE, and MUR zoning classifications. This particular area of the Washington Square Regional Center is zoned R-4.5. This proposal would minimize the impacts to the surrounding single-family residences. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The shape of the property and the circumstances surrounding the decision to locate the parking area in its proposed location are specific to this site and would not necessarily apply to other developments within the R-4.5 unless they were commercial or institutional in nature. This site is unique in that it is surrounded on three sides by residential uses and streets and a very intense commercial development on the fourth. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The proposal for an elementary school is permitted in this district subject to Conditional Use approval. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 11 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • Existing physical and natural systems will not be affected by the proposed variance. The proposal only relates to location of the parking facility. These standards were developed for aesthetic and pedestrian access reasons, and do not specifically serve to protect physical or natural systems. The proposal, as conditioned in this decision, complies with all other relevant aspects of the development code. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. As stated previously, the frontage along three streets, and the desire to minimize impacts to the existing neighborhood are the two primary elements of the hardship. Both of these elements are outside the applicant's control, and are therefore not self imposed. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE The applicant is also requesting a 5-foot variance to the height requirement of the R-4.5 zoning classification. The R-4.5 zoning classification calls for a 30-foot height requirement on all structures. There are specific exceptions to the building height requirements allowed by the development code in section 18.730.020. These exceptions are for architectural projections, and for buildings located in non-residential zones. The applicant raises three arguments to allow the variance in the application. The first argument is that the topography would be conducive to a variance, and that it would have little if any impact to the surrounding neighborhood. The second reason is that the site is non-residential in nature and adjacent to a zoning classification that allows a maximum height of 200 feet. The third argument pertains to the requirement by the fire district to sprinkle buildings under 25 feet in height. The applicant adds that only 14% of the overall building would require the needed variance and that without the variance, the gymnasium would not be conducive to sports such as volleyball. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; A variance to the height requirement for the building would not necessarily be detrimental to the purposes of the Development Code, or to any other applicable policies and standards. There have been no objections raised to the requested variance by the surrounding neighbors, and because of the increased setbacks imposed on the use, it is unlikely that the variance would harm other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. The setbacks and proposed landscaping could mitigate any potential impacts. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; Although the lot size is large enough to accommodate the use, there are really no special circumstances that are outside of the control of the applicant that would prohibit the gymnasium from meeting the standard. In fact, the applicant does have control over the building size, and unfortunately, the standard must be applied uniformly to all development within the zone. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; As discussed previously, this use is a conditional use in the R-4.5. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; and METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 12 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 0 It is unlikely that any physical or natural systems would be adversely affected by the proposed variance, but as discussed in the following segment, it is possible for the development to comply with the standards of the title. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Even though staff sees no harm in allowing the variance, findings are impossible to make when there are other alternatives that the applicant could pursue. For example, the building could be recessed into the ground an additional five feet and still have a 35 foot high ceiling, or an amendment to the zoning code could be pursued that would allow buildings that are not residential in nature to have increased maximum heights. However, it can be anticipate that such an amendment would be difficult to achieve. The hardship can be overcome by design. As indicated earlier in this discussion, there are specific exceptions to the height requirements, and as proposed, the development does not meet the approval criteria for the exception. Staff recommends denial of this variance. FINDING: The hardship alleged by the applicant to allow the height of the building to be varied by five feet can be overcome by design. The applicant has not made the findings necessary to approve a variance to the building height requirement. Adjustments for street improvements are permitted pursuant to meeting the review criteria described in 18.370.020 (C)(11). This section states that adjustments to the street standards can be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on findings that the, "Strict application of the standards will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on existing development, on the proposed development, or on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes or. existing mature trees. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the director shall determine that the potential adverse impacts exceed the public benefits of strict application of the standards." The applicant is requesting an adjustment to block length standards of the Tigard Development Code (TDC) Section 18.810.040(B) which essentially states that the perimeter of blocks shall not exceed 2,000 feet measured along the centerline of streets, and when a full vehicular connection is not plausible, a bicycle and pedestrian connection on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided. Spacing between connections shall not be more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development standards, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. Also, the Washington Square Regional Center calls for a maximum street spacing standard of 530 feet. The applicant argues against making the street connection on the property due to the nature of the use and the existing development patterns. In fact, the current school is partially built over the Mapleleaf Street right-of-way. It is anticipated that staff will recommend partial approval of the vacation of that right-of-way in an upcoming Council hearing. The connection that Mapleleaf would create would not serve any public benefit, and would create an unsafe situation at the school. Staff would not expect that a full street connection would be made. The second consideration to this standard is the need for a pedestrian connection and the spacing of that connection. The standard calls for a maximum spacing of 330 feet between pedestrian connections. The applicant argues that the school would provide a pedestrian connection through the site, but access through that connection would be controlled during school hours. The proposed connection lies about 480 feet south of SW Locust Street. The other dynamic to this situation is that there is an existing variable 14 foot right-of-way that lies adjacent to the southern property line of the school. The school district has also petitioned the Tigard City Council for the vacation of this right-of-way (AKA SW Oak Street . The City Council has determined that it will consider the vacation of this right-of-way as wel. This was mentioned to the applicant as a possible location to provide a pedestrian connection so that it would not cross the school district and would be able to provide full time pedestrian connectivity. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 13 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The argument that the applicant makes against this connection is two fold. The first objection is that it would create an unsafe corridor without exits, as the school district would likely place a chain link fence along the corridor, and the property owners to the south of the corridor have already encroached in some cases and placed fences along the southern end of the corridor. This connection is not popular with either party. However, it could be argued that the proposed connection location could create a similar unsafe situation, and promote the same type of activity that the applicant contends would take place along the southern portion of the property. Staff is not convinced that the proposed location is the most prudent location for the connection. Staff recommends that the connection be placed in a more central location to minimize the potential for unwanted activity. The Tigard Police Department has supported the applicant's consultants' analysis of the SW Oak right-of way location, and recommends that the applicant consider a connection at the southern end of the playing fields. This would place the location of the pedestrian connection 325 feet from the northern property line, and would subsequently meet the standard. Staff recommends denial of the adjustment as proposed. FINDING: The applicant can feasibly make the pedestrian connection within 330 feet of SW Locust Street. CONDITION: Prior to any site work, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing a pedestrian connection between SW 90th Street and SW Locust Street. The connection shall be no further than 330 feet from the south right-of-way line for SW Locust. The Director may approve a reduction of required bicycle parkin per Section 18.765.050.E by means of Type II procedure, as governed by Section 1890.040, if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking. The applicant has requested an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards that would be imposed on the school as dictated by Table 18.765.2 (Minimum Parking Standards). Under the current requirements, the school would be required to provide 6 spaces for every classroom because it is an elementary school. Considering that there are 28 classrooms proposed, the facility would be required to provide 168 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 34 spaces on site. The primary argument the applicant makes against providing the required 168 spaces is that currently there are 16 available spaces and the demand never exceeds if. This information is based on information provided by the school principal. In a letter submitted with the application, the principal indicates that a large number of the students that attend the school live on the east side of SW Hall, and safety concerns preclude a lot of students from riding their bikes, so they are either bussed or delivered by parents. The applicant has provided a map of the district boundaries for clarification. Based on the information provided- staff would Support the adjustment. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (18.510) The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family housing at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Section 18.510.050 states that Development standards in Residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2, however, because the proposed use requires conditional use approval, the stricter standards of the conditional use section apply. The only standards that are not specifically regulated by the Conditional Use chapter are lot coverage and building height. There is no maximum lot coverage within the R-4.5 zoning district, and the maximum height requirement is 30 feet. The remaining standards are exceeded by the conditional use requirements. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 14 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development standards are met or exceeded with the exception of the building height. FINDING: A portion of the building exceeds the 30-foot maximum height requirement, and staff cannot support a variance to the standards due to the absence of positive findings. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a set of building plans that demonstrates compliance with the 30-foot maximum height requirement of the R-4.5 zoning classification. WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS /18.6301 The Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards were adopted in 2002. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in new non-single family residential uses, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards and other development standards required by the Developmen{ and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Washington Square Regional Center. The applicable sections to this development are 18.630.040, 050, and 090. The remaining sections are found to be inapplicable as they relate to the mixed use zoning designations. Compliance with these standards are evaluated in the following discussion. Section 18.630.040 deals with street connectivity and states two options to demonstrate compliance. The applicant chose the design option. The design option states that, "Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 530 feet; and bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more that 330 feet. In this case, the street spacing is already achieved between SW Lincoln, and SW Locust streets. Staff has recommended denial of the block length adjustment that has been pro osed by the applicant, however a condition has been recommended that would satisi~y the requirement for a pedestrian connection within 330 feet of SW Locust. This standard is satisfied. Section 18.630.050 relates to site design standards. Specifically the standards that relate to building placement on major and minor arterials, building setback, front yard setback design, walkway connection to building entrances, and parking location and landscape design. The standards relating to building placement on major and minor arterials is not applicable as there are no major or minor arterials abutting the site. The standard related to the building setback is only applicable to the mixed use zones. Front yard setback design is also applicable to the mixed use zones. The applicant has proposed a six-foot-wide sidewalk connecting SW Lincoln Street to the building thereby meeting the standard. Finally, the parking location has been discussed previously in this decision, and staff has recommended approval of a variance to allow the current location. The applicant has indicated in the narrative that the parking areas will be landscaped to the L-1 landscape requirement as required and has provided a landscape plan to demonstrate compliance. The plan is discussed in more detail under Chapter 18.745 landscaping and screening. The applicant has demonstrated compliance or been conditioned to comply with the standards of 18.630.050 where applicable. These criterion are satisfied. Section 18.630.090 speaks to the requirements for landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, and along local collectors and local streets. Specific to this project, the standards of 18.745 would apply in addition to a requirement that trees shall be provided at a minimum of 2 1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 15 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • 9 The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the site and has proposed to plant street trees at a 2 inch caliper spaced 40 feet on center. The proposed shrubbery consists of 3 and 5 gallon shrubs, and 1 gallon groundcover plants. If the shrubs are planted and maintained the standard for the screening could be satisfied. However, the street tree size and placement does not meet the standard as required. FINDINGS: The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the site that would meet the screening requirements, however the street tree size and spacing does not meet the additional requirements imposed by this section. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates full compliance with Section 18.630.090(A)(2) and Chapter 18.745 of the Tigard Development Code. ACCESS, EGRESS AND CIRCULATION (18.705) No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. Because the parking requirement is less than 100 spaces, the TDC requires a minimum of one 30-foot access with 24 feet of pavement. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and on the plans that there will be two 30 foot accesses with at least 24 feet of pavement, and one 20 foot access off of SW Lincoln. The applicant is also proposing to maintain an existing access off of SW 90th into an existing parking area that they are proposing to keep at this time. This criterion is satisfied. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The site has frontage on SW Lincoln, SW 90th, and SW Locust. All three are public streets, and the proposed accesses connect directly with the site. This criterion is satisfied. Required Walkway Location On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landingg of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; The applicant has indicated that a concrete walkway will be extended from the entrance of the buildings to SW Lincoln Street and SW 90th Avenue. The completion of the street improvements will ensure walkways along all three frontages. This criterion is satisfied. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities; This criterion is in applicable to this proposal. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 16 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER The applicant's plans show there are no required walkways crossing the vehicular access or parking area. The plans do indicate four crossings of the accesses into the parking areas. With the completion of half street improvements these crossings will consist of concrete aprons that will designate the crossings. All sidewalks are concrete, and meet or exceed the minimum width of four feet. Required walkways shall be paved with hard surfaced materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone brick, etc. Walkways may be required to be lighted and/or signed as needed for saYety purposes. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The applicant is proposing to construct all sidewalks with concrete materials, and lighting was discussed previously in this report. This criterion is satisfied. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H): Section 18.70-5.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. Kittelson & Associates issued a letter, dated February 12, 2003, indicating that all points of access into this site will have acceptable sight distance. Section 18.705.030.H.2 states that driveways shall not be permitted to be placed in the influence area of collector or arterial street intersections. Influence area of intersections is that area where queues of traffic commonly form on approach to an intersection. The minimum driveway setback from a collector or arterial street intersection shall be150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line of the intersecting street to the throat of the proposed driveway. The setback may be greater depending upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impact report submitted by the a plicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frrontage, the applicant must explore any option for shared access with the adjacent parcel. If shared access is not possible or practical, the driveway shall be placed as far from the intersection as possible. The closest proposed driveway on Lincoln Avenue to Locust Street is approximately 210 feet from the intersection, which meets this criterion. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets along a collector shall be 200 feet. The minimum spacing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. There are no proposed driveways along SW Locust, however, SW Lincoln is also designated a collector. Therefore the three accesses proposed along that street are required to be spaced a minimum of 200 feet apart. The two southerly accesses meet the standard, but the third proposed driveway is only 1p60 feet from the middle driveway. This standard is not met. FINDING: As proposed, there are two driveways within 160 feet of each other. The standard calls for a minimum spacing of 200 feet. CONDITION: Prior to the site work, the applicant shall either eliminate an access or revise the access drives to meet the 200 foot minimum spacing requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.725: Requires that federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations be applied to development within the City of Tigard. Section 18.725.030 Performance Standards regulates: Noise, visible emissions, vibration and odors. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 17 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER 0 • Noise. For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.41.130 through 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the Commercial zoning districts and the Industrial. Park (I-P) zoning district, there shall be no use, operation or activity which results in a stack or other point- source emission, other than an emission from space heating, or the emission of pure uncombined water (steam) which is visible from a property line. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules for visible emissions (340-21-015 and 340-28-070) apply. Vibration. No vibration other than that caused by highway vehicles, trains and aircraft is permitted in any given zoning district, which is discernible without instruments at the property line of the use concerned. Odors. The emissions of odorous gases or other matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-028-090) apply. Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, which is visible at the lot line shall be permitted, and; 1) there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and 2) these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or construction equipment at the time of construction or excavation work otherwise permitted by this title. Insects and rodents. All materials including wastes shall be stored and all grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid the propagation of insects or rodents or create a health hazard. There is no evidence in the record that would suggest that any problems associated with noise, emissions, vibrations, odors, glare and heat, or insects and rodents would result from this specific development. FINDING: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the use of the propert y will conform to the above requirements. If for some reason the above standards were in question, and it was subsequently found that the use was out of compliance with any of the above standards, the property owner would be subject to code enforcement, court review, possible fines, and revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. A search of City records does not indicate any code enforcement issues associated with the existing use. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING - CHAPTER 18.745: Street trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street shall be required to plant street trees in accorcance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C required 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 project has frontage along three streets that require the placement of street trees. The applicant has proposed to plant street trees along all three frontages. The spacing does not meet the requirements of the Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards, and staff has conditioned the applicant to revise the tree plan earlier in this report. This standard can be satisfied. Land Use Buffering and Screening: Buffering and Screening is required between different types of land uses. The proposed facility is in a residential zone and is adjacent to residential uses on three sides. The uses are separated by rights-of-way; therefore, there is no buffer requirement along those property lines. The applicant has requested the vacation of the SW Oak right-of-way, and has proposed a landscape buffer along the south property line to mitigate impacts to the adjacent METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 18 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • residential properties. The only requirement applicable to this development is the screening of the parking areas which is discussed in the next segment of this discussion. This criterion is satisfied. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features, which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These des'ggn features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls and raised planfers; The applicant has provided a landscape plan that utilizes a variety of native trees and shrubs. At maturity, the proposed landscape plan will provide a good screen of the parking areas that front SW Lincoln Street.; however, the parking area at the intersection of SW Locust and SW 90t that is pre-existing is not screened. The applicant is proposing to retain the parking area, and should be required to comp) with the standards as much as possible without tearing out pavement. This criterion is not fully satisfied. FINDING: The proposed landscape plan fails to include screening for the parking area at the intersection of SW Locust and SW 90th CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that includes screening for all parking areas in compliance with TDC Section 18.745.050(E)(1)(a). Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and The applicant's plan indicates that there will be trees planted within the interior of the parking area. The trees are proposed in a location that, at maturity would meet the standards of the development code by providing a canopy effect over the parking area. This criterion is satisfied. The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The landscape plan shows lanting islands within the interior of the parking area that vary between five and fourteen feet wide and are significant enough to exceed the minimum dimensions. The islands will be protected by six-inch curb. This criterion is satisfied. Screening of service facilities. Except for one-family and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or disposal area and service facilities such as gas meters and air conditioners which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area any public facility or any residential area shall be screened from view by placement o a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; Screening of refuse containers. Except for one- and two-family dwellings, any refuse container or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. The applicants' plans show all service facilities on the north-end of the building, however, the proposed screening is chain link fence with slats. The chain link fencing does not meet this standard. Therefore, a condition is warranted to meet the criterion. FINDING: The screening that is proposed for the service enclosure is constructed of chain link which does not meet the standard. The site is located in a residential zoning district. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 19 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building, the applicant shall revise the plan for screening the service enclosure to include either a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet high. The revised method shall be accompanied by a detail of the facility. MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STORAGE - CHAPTER 18.755: ' Chapter 18.755 requires that new construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated Recyclables prior to pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant must choose one (1) of the following four (4) methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-Off. The applicant will have to submit evidence or a plan, which indicates compliance with this section. Regardless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant did not address this section. Under the minimum standard, the development would be required to provide 4 square feet for every thousand feet of building. At 67,400 square feet, the applicant is required to provide a collection area at least 269 square feet in size. The applicant did not address this criteria, but does show a 240 square foot facility on the north side of the building. The minimum requirement is not met. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The applicant has not provided a sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility, nor provided sufficient area as required by the TDC for the minimum standards method of refuse collection. CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the facility, the applicant shall provide a 269 square foot mixed solid waste collection area, and a sign-off letter from the franchise hauler that services the site with a letter approving the facility location. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The site plan shows a trash next to the loading space in a parking area. The location requirements are met. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 20 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The applicant has indicated in the narrative that all service facilities will be screened as required. The dimensions of the refuse facilities and the illustrations indicate that the applicant can construct a 10-foot-wide opening. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the approval criteria for Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage for institutional uses. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING (18.765) At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. The subject site is located within the Metro Zone B. The maximum number of parking paces that can be provided by the elementary school is 3.5 spaces per classroom. Therefore, the maximum number of parking spaces for the site based on 28 classrooms would be 98 spaces. The minimum parking standards are as follows: The minimum amount of parking required by the facility is 2.0 spaces per classroom. As such, the minimum parking requirement for the elementary school will be 56 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed 67 spaces in the parking area adjacent to SW Lincoln, and there are 19 existing spaces in the parking area at the intersection of SW Locust Street and SW 90th Avenue. The total amount of parking proposed is 86. This criterion is satisfied. With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: Access drives from the street to off-street parking or loading areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site; The number and size of access drives shall be in accordance with the requirements of Chapter, 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation; As discussed earlier in this report, this criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers on frontage not occupied by service drives; The applicant has not provided any information to suggest that the access drive will be marked. The applicant can meet the standard by meeting the following condition. This criterion is not satisfied. FINDING: The access drive is not clearly and permanently marked. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall clearly mark the location of the access drive in accordance with TDC Section 18.765.040(6)(3). Access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; Vision Clearance is discussed later in this report. This criterion is satisfied. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; The applicant has proposed to pave the access and all parking areas. This criterion is satisfied. Excluding single-family. and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030P, groups of wo or more parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way will be required. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 21 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • The parking spaces are serviced by two-way access proposed within this project, and there is room for service vehicles to turn around and enter the street so that no backing movement will be required. This criterion is satisfied. Loading/unloading driveways: A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more than 25 people at one time. The applicant has identified a loading and unloading area on the site plan along the north side of the new building that will not prevent traffic flow. Additionally, the facility will have a bus loading area, and a pedestrian loading facility. This criterion is satisfied. Parking Lot Striping: Except for single-family and duplex residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this Chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked; and all interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The applicant has indicated that the parking lot will be striped but has not indicated direction arrows on the plans, however, the direction of flow within the interior of the site is two-way, and can be expected to operate in the same manner as a roadway. This criterion is satisfied. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces along the boundaries of a parkin lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel l stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant indicates concrete curbs at the edges of paving adjacent to planting areas on the drawings, but has not indicated within the narrative or site plan the dimension of the curbs. This criterion has not been met. FINDING: The proposal does not address the requirements for curbs and wheel stops as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, the site shall be inspected to ensure that curbs or wheel stops are provided as required by the TDC Chapter 18.765. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Table 18.765.1. outlines the minimum dimensions for angled parking. The proposal identifies a total of 67 new spaces utilizing 90-degree parking. Staff review of the parking plan illustrates compliance with Figure 18.765.1. This criterion is satisfied. Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements: The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use is specified in Table 18.765.2 in Section 18.765.070.H. Bicycle parking was discussed previously in this report, and staff has recommended approval of an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards. A staff review of the location standards of the bike parking facility indicates that they have been met. However, the design requirements have not been addressed adequately. The bicycle parking design standards are not met. FINDING: The applicant has illustrated and briefly discussed a bicycle-parking scheme for the proposal, however, there is no discussion of the design as required by TDC Section 18.765.050. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 22 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • CONDITION: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall ensure that all bicycle parking spaces are designed and constructed to the standards that are identified in TDC Section 18.765.050. Off-street loading requirements: Off-street loading spaces: Commercial, industrial and institutional buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: A minimum of one loading space is required for buildings with 10,000 gross square feet or more; A minimum of two loading spaces for buildings with 40,000 gross square feet or more. Off-street loading dimensions: Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to design and location; Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the facility site; Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.710; Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.745. Because of the size of the building, the facility would be required to provide two (2) off-street loading spaces to meet the standard. The applicant has indicated two loading spaces on the plan. This criterion is satisfied. SIGNS (18.780): Requires that a permit be issued for any sign that is erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered, or relocated within the City Limits. FINDING: The applicant has not provided the needed information to issue a sign permit because it is not necessary to do so at this time. CONDITION: Prior to placement of any signs on site, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit and supply staff with the appropriate plans to verify compliance with TDC Chapter 18.780. TREE REMOVAL - CHAPTER 18.790: Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist be provided for a conditional use 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, identification of which trees are proposed to be removed, and a protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant has provided a tree survey and removal plan from Clay Halstead, Certified Arborist. According to the plan, there are y3 trees over 12 inches on site. Of these 23 trees, the applicant is proposing to remove 3 to accommodate construction. Therefore, the retention is equal to 87%. According to the TDC Section 18.790.030(B)(2)(D), the applicant is not required to mitigate for any of the trees removed. However, the chapter still requires that the applicant protect the trees that are to remain on site during construction activities. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 23 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • FINDING: The applicant's arborist proposed tree protection measures that would be necessary in order to ensure the viability of those trees that are in close proximity to the construction areas as required by Section 18.790.030'B)(4). The City's Arborist has reviewed the plan and requested that the fol owing conditions be satisfied. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall provide the City Arborist with a construction sequence including installation and removal of tree protection devices, clearing, grading, and paving. The applicant shall notify the City Arborist when tree protection measures are in place so that he may verify that the measures will function properly prior to construction. VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS - CHAPTER 18.795: Section 18.795.020.A. states that the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. Section 18.795.030.13. states that a clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measure from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center fine grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. The applicant has indicated in the narrative and the site plan that a clear vision area will be maintained. Staff will review the areas at the time of final occupancy to ensure compliance with the standards. This criterion is satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the vision clearance standards have been met. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS CHAPTER-18.810: Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. The applicable standards are addressed below: Streets: Improvements: Section 18.810.030.A.1 states that streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with the TDC standards. Section 18.810.030.A.2 states that any new street or additional street width planned as T ~Crtion of an existing street shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with the Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires an arterial street to have a 64 to 128-foot right-of-way width and varied paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. This site lies adjacent to SW Lincoln Avenue, which is classified as a two-lane collector with bike lanes on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 60 feet of ROW on this street, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. No further dedications are necessary. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 24 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER SW Lincoln Avenue is partially improved and lacks adequate pavement width, sidewalk and street trees. In order to mitigate the impact from this development, the applicant should construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of the school site. The applicant's plans show they will provide this improvement. The improvement will include the curb return at Locust Street. The site is also adjacent to SW 90th Avenue, a local residential street. There is 50 feet of ROW along this street which is adequate for this classification. A street improvement is needed along the frontage of the school and the applicant's plans show that this will be provided as a part of the project, including the curb return at Locust Street. At the south end of the site frontage, the roadway begins a horizontal curve to the west. It will be necessary for the applicants engineer to provide a roadway design that will ensure that an adequate horizontal curve can be achieved. The School Districts improvements will need to include a portion of the curve, built to ultimate design. The new design may require additional ROW from the school site; this ROW dedication would need to be completed prior to construction. The school site also has partial frontage along Locust Street, a two-lane collector with bike lanes west of Lincoln Avenue. This roadway is presently fully improved along the frontage, except for street trees and the curb returns. This protect will need to include the planting of street trees and the construction of the curb returns at both 90th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue to current City standards. Block Designs - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to rov*ding adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.810.040.8.1 states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. Section 18.810.040.B.2 also states that bicycle and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-ways shall be provided when full street connection is not possible. Spacing between connections shall be no more than 330 feet, except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns, or strict adherence to other standards in the code. The applicant has requested an adjustment to this standard. Staff has recommended denial of the adjustment because it is plausible to satisfy this standard. This criterion has been previously addressed in this decision. Sidewalks: Section 18.810.070.A requires that sidewalks be constructed to meet City design standards and be located on both sides of arterial, collector and local residential streets. Sidewalk improvements will be completed along both the 90th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue frontages. Sanitary Sewers: Sewers Required: Section 18.810.090.A requires that sanitary sewer be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 1996 and including any future revisions or amendments) and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 25 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER • • Over-sizing: Section 18.810.090.C states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing 8-inch public sewer line located in 90th Avenue that presently serves this site. The applicant's plans show a new service lateral will be added to serve the new building. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. No upstream public drainageways affect this site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). The net result of this project is that the impervious area will be decreased. Therefore, there will be no additional storm drainage detention requirements. The drainage from the new design will enter onsite pi fin? along the southern boundary and will be conveyed easterly to a new 12-inch storm line that will replace the existing 8-inch line in 90 Avenue. Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. Lincoln Avenue is a collector with bike lanes. Since the entire frontage of the' school will be improved, the bike lane on the east side of the roadway could be striped with construction. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.13 states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. The applicant should include the bike lane striping in their construction plans. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.C states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. The minimum width of the new bike lane shall be six feet. Utilities: Section 18.810.120 states that all utility lines, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 26 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER temporary utility service facilities during construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: The developer shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the developer, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. Exception to Under-Grounding Requirement: Section 18.810.120.C states that a developer shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs when the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing utilities which are not undergroundpwill serve the development and the approval authority determines that the cost and technical difficulty of under-grounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of under-grounding in conjunction with the development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for which under-grounding would result in the placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above-ground utilities facilities. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontages of SW Locust Street, Lincoln Avenue and 90`h• Avenue. However, this code provision only applies to the frontage from where utility service is taken. So, prior to construction, the applicant will need to determine where the onsite service will be taken. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The frontages and resulting fees for the three streets are as follows: Locust Street 190 LF $ 5,225.00 Lincoln Avenue 730 LF $20,075.00 90th Avenue 650 LF $17,875.00 ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Studv Findings The traffic impact letter from Kittelson & Associates confirms that the new school building will not result in an increase in student capacity. Since trip generation for schools is based upon the number of students, it follows that there will not be a significant net increase in trip generation from this site. No additional offsite improvements, other than the frontage improvements mentioned previously, are warranted. Public Water System: This site is located within the Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) service area. The plans show that the school will need three new service laterals to serve the project. The applicant will need to coordinate with TVWD for these new services. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by Clean Water Services CWS) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan shall be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 27 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER There will be no net increase in impervious surface areas on the site, so no water quality improvements are required. Grading and Erosion Control: CWS Design and Construction Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. It appears that this project may disturb more than one acre of the site. Therefore, a NPDES permit would be required. D. IMPACT STUDY: Section 18.390.040.B.2.e states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. The applicant has submitted an impact study addressing the required elements above. The report substantiates that all services are capable of serving the site. The applicant has proposed to make the necessary improvements, and there is no applicable Transportation Impact Fee associated with this development, because they are not increasing the number of students that would be served by the site. Based on the conditions of approval and findings of fact within this decision, there are no unmitigated impacts as a result of this development to any public systems. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and offered no comments. The City of Tigard Engineering Department was sent this proposal for review and the comments have been incorporated into this report. City of Tigard Property Manager has reviewed this application and offered no comments or objections. City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this application and offered comments regarding the location of the proposed pedestrian walkway. Those comments were Incorporated into the adjustment discussion previously in this decision. City of Tigard Arborist has reviewed this application and requested that the applicant provide the exact species of trees that will be used for landscaping and street tree standards. METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 28 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this application and offered the following comments: 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1) Access exceeds the 150 feet maximum standard on the South side of the building. Due to the fact the building will be provided with a full fire sprinkler system and complete fire alarm system, the Fire District will accept the current access layout. 2) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD EXCEPTION FR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER PROTECTION: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the requirements for fire apparatus access may be modified as approved by the Chief. (UFC Sec. 902.2.1 Exception 1) 3) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (15 feet for one or two dwelling units and out buildings), and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (UFC Sec. 90.2.2.1) Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 28 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (UFC Sec. 902.2. 4) PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted yellow and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at each 25 feet. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red or black on yellow background. (UFC Sec. 901.4.5.2) 5) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all- weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 50,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. Documentation from a registered engineer that the finished construction is in accordance with the approved plans or the requirements of the Fire Code may be requested. (Design criteria on back) (UFC Sec. 902.2.2) 6) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 25 feet and 45 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (UFC Sec. 902.2.2.3 7) COMME CIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (UFC Sec. 903.3) 8) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - FIRE HYDRANTS: No portion of the exterior of a commercial building shall be located more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant when measured in an approved manner around the outside of the building and along an approved fire apparatus access roadway. Any hydrants that are left over from the minimum number of hydrant calculations may be full filled by hydrants that are up to 500 feet from any point of the building. The fire Prevention Ordinance has further requirements that need to be used for acceptance and placement of fire hydrants. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.1) The number and distribution of fire hydrants is acceptable as submitted. 9) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.4 io) REFLEC IVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant _locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located METZGER ELEMENTARY PAGE 29 OF 30 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (UFC Sec. 901.4.3) FIRE HYDRANT/FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: A fire hydrant shall be located within 70 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDC's shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadyway. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5) FDC locations shall be approved by the Chief. (1996 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Sec. 904.1.1 The submit ed plans show two locations for the FDC, one at the parent drop-off area and one at the bus lane area. Either location is within 70 feet of a fire hydrant and is approved. If fire hydrants are plumbed from the fire line serving the building, the FDC shall be connected inside the building on the sprinkler riser, above all control valves. 12) FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS ON BUILDINGS: Fire department connections shall not be located on the building that is being protected with the exception of Group R, Division 1 Occupancies not over 4 stories in height. (UFC Sec. 903.4.2.5 13) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any other construction on the site or subdivision. (UFC Sec. 8704 14) KNOX BO : A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (UFC Sec. 902.4) Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions. Washington County has reviewed the proposal and has indicated that they will not be submitting comments on the matter. Tri-Met has reviewed the proposal and has indicated in a letter that although the required bike parking is high given current usage, the applicant should investigate means to promote alternative transportation means. The agency has also requested that the applicant clearly designate the east-west pedestrian connection. The Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has indicated that the applicant needs to verify fire hydrant location. They also indicated that the applicant will need to install a double check detector assembly (DCDA) from TVWD, and there are questions as to the proximity of the water line to the sewer line. If they are new, they need a minimum 10 foot separation. Clean Water Services, Portland General Electric, and Verizon were given the opportunity to review this proposal and submitted no comments or objections. PREPARED BY: Brad Kilby Associate Planner .S/ orff APPROVED BY: Richard B gnaSqer Planning METZGER ELEMENTARY 4/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING April 18. 2003 DATE April 18, 2003 DATE PAGE 30 OF 30 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARINGS OFFICER I ~I I LEHMANN -TA CORAL ST 0 H H LOCUST `i H4j-L h ST H H 4 .7 H ST I - //t 1 ~m r Lu u / a 9 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP CUP2003-00003 VAR2003-00013 VAR2003-00014 VAR2003-000IS VAR2003-00016 METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Ir aEif BEN Ic Tigard Area Map i J J ST/ c~aK ( N H 0 200 400 600 Feet 1'- 404 feet i PINE ST 4m II`f I City. of Tigard I I I I t t "formation on this map is for general location only and _ Illl JI should be verified with the Development Services Division. SPRUCE ST 13125 SW Hall Blvd I 1 Tigard, 97223 (503) 63 639.4171 171 http:/twww.ci.tigard.or.us Plot date: Mar 19, 2003; C:Vnagic\MAGIC03.APR ;ommunity Development W SINGLE fAMQY I SINGLE iAA11LY I ANGLE FA44Y I - SINGLE FAMLY I O 3 1 - - _ - - - NEW GIWN- -SW LOCUST STREET - - NEW C14VN - - - - I - LINK iENCING UNN FENCING „ rt I I ~5 I• H Lu T- VT !W J SINGLE FALIQY SNGLE FAMILY ANGLE F"LY a° =0 I I k <.3 I RA.S I RA,S_ W Y SINGLE iNLll ' R<.5 Z I ; I FIE PRNAOr~ I SSp I ` I _ J iE NG lYCYB G I J L ° 01 < Z fa --TIFF 1 MG PR' i i R € S'. fi 6 y PARKING STRUCTURE , r, - ; 6„•~ o R4.5 I rm AA a MUE 1 =j 0 -6 -NI N 6• CHAIN ~ - N I^ NEW LANDSCAPE STRIP I U' K f G ! I I _ - ANO SIDEWALK FULL H \mujuvVE - o I _ / 3j11-Pg I NEW g• G NG VN-+ ✓J% SINGLE i vsn ` , r+asN-R"sK m a amo , LENGTH OF STREET 20• SETBACK 1-1 LANK FEIN( g•-~ O` R..3 h dKU~ OI I WST!TUIIONAL USE F ; R<.3 I I o~ o MAY FIELD (MAPUELW S1.) SEE 011G I'SE.6 t 1 1 SINGLE F. /f<•J oiDC O I a II1 R4.3 .UE I G LOT TRASH 1 1 rn-c M ooowae 01 F 1 'T t a& o LOADING -blY,a I a o b SINGLE NEW LANDSCAPE STRIP GUM R<.5 AND SIDEWALK fUU COVERED Lp ~m~r 1 LENGTH OF STREET PLAY I wY ; al SCE DRAWING A,Sk ,.1: ~~OP , i - A ;PLAY AREA r-~ ~-m <yj~ 3 / I •I ---`-----r ,.Lt,Y'•Y,`°V I o PARKING LOT ! / a__ - yq < I _ - WE 1 aq ` 1 ` J2 ; q w {1- y SINGLE FA I R4.5 SING \ I r 5 I a °i°n° # .J< gIKE~ COURT __GWRi _ I NEW CONC- NEW g' C1gqqAAA~'IIIN--{ 1y' lei I I Ira------; SIDEWALK LINK fE1I.O I Na eC I Q Bus ~~~111 44:~ a I SINGLE fAL g`O Bus - SINGLE dS. ti j I SIINR t llu0 •4 ~ dz. 0 w !C o 1 NEw LONG 'r '1"y4• --MEw CONG Bg•-6 I uUR iA4 R25 P' 'I ~'qi SIDEWALK 6FH 1 20• SETBACK SIDEWALK - 114 a - _ . e vwVAZ4 ALl ..Ay, U_• OO ASr--/ _ I ANGLE iAMll SINGLE FA41Lr MUE 1 I 4UE 1 I MUE T _ I 4UE 1 WE 1 / =I PROPCSED DJLDM FOOTPRINT -1 MM", PROMISED LANDSCAPED AREAS. SEE SHEET 4 FOR STREET TREE AND SCREENED AND BUFFERED AREAS CITY of TIGARD T SITE PLAN (Map is not to scale) N Z 0 ~w, I 0 0 Z Z Z J ~N 4iV III- UL 0 U CUP2003-00003NAR2003-00013, 14, 15, & 16 METZGER.ELEMENTARY SCHOOL `,~1~0. Ley 7.1 QO~~~ I~i:nl. ~ CU,pol003,000003 XGEIAC#' & itES~~ENT COMMENTS '?4I. ~v 7t ~ - T4 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 20.2003 TO: Jim Wolf. Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer FROM: CW of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Brad 101liv. Associate Planner [x24341 Phone: (5031639-4171/Fax. (5031684-1291 CITY OF TIGARD Community (Development ShapingA Better Community CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2003-00003/ADJUSTMENT [VAR] 2003-00013/ VARIANCE (VAR) 2003-00014/ADJUSTMENT (VAR) 2003-00015/VARIANCE [VAR) 2003-00016 ➢ METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Q REQUEST: The applicant is seeking Conditional Use approval. to demolish the existing Metzger Elementary School and replace it with a new school. The applicant is also seeking two Adjustments and two Variances to the Tigard Development Code (TDC). The Adjustments are to reduce the required number of bicycle stalls on site from 168 to 34, and to the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b)). The Variances are to exceed the maximum buildin height limit within the zoning district by 5 feet, and to the design standards of TDC Section 8.630.050 A 5) to allow the parking areas to be located within a front yard. LOCATION: 10255 SW 90 Avenue; 35AB, Tax Lot 100. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.330, 18.360, 18370, 18.390, 18.510, 18.630, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. Attached are the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Statement/Plans 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-BYE APRIL 3;20037 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. ? Written comments provided below: Gteo,~ rno1 de~ex ~b\e, sg0r_ jL comck ba, ok&\e>J ed~ w %A\ \ccoAi nq ok p\~o\jc Qed\%k(\aA ~DcAM opt boNn knit. GAQa OMN G* OakWay ( QOOW q vacdhon) ahd Foy\ow,~A kw& Ve%"e-teK- of 4,_ GcVk . Q~tteX c.QTEO 9A%gr,_vP\e5 0,(q- T4k by p\o~~rq A. QC0610kan wwv~ Way -ka Sa>Y~n of fit, "Ploy ~~1d~ 1W5 \ocot~\on %usvs) bcArfien( QQo~ \`1 ~(o'rt` oA~ J,ewQav\~5. also wo\Ad p(o~de) `Ovlv~~~~ o~ ~a1 ~ VSGgL aM+,- Gyea~ ~ A~/acfi Name & Number of Person(s) Commenting: 3 ;M NA 0\' x 2b__ZP I 10425 SW 90`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 RECEIVED PLANNING APR 17 2003 April 14, 2003 m CITY OF TIGARD Brad Kilby City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Reducing the maximum block length standards of TDC Section 18.810.040(b) Dear Brad: Our family lives directly behind the Metzger School, where our son goes to school. We are looking forward to having a new school here at Metzger. We understand that to reduce the maximum block length a recommendation is being made to build a sidewalk behind the new school, which would put that sidewalk right between our backyard and the back of the school. I truly believe this sidewalk will create an unwanted/unsafe corridor right in our backyard. We have always supported our school and neighborhood by informing police of any incidences/vandalism that has occurred. We feel incidences/vandalism could increase if an unwanted/unsafe corridor is built between local residences' backyards and the back of the school. On one occasion we have had people shoot BB's into our side fence, which to get these shots you have to be in the school field. This had occurred even with an open field, lights and view from the street. Can you imagine what could, and will, happen if this corridor is created. We are very much afraid of what might/will happen! This sidewalk could create access to the school, to our children, by predators who could now jump over the fence into the schoolyard without being seen. There are 42 sex offenders listed on the supervised list and 45 sex offenders on the off supervision list, several within minutes from our school/children and all are residing in the 97223 zip code area. We also, have a concern of potential trees that could be sacrificed at the expense of a concrete sidewalk. This sidewalk would dead-end into our neighborhood, into a street with no existing sidewalks. Since the City of Tigard has already vacated their rights to the to the property on either end of the proposed sidewalk. We are totally against the City putting in an unwanted/unsafe corridor in our backyard. We hope that you will think twice about creating an unsafe environment for the residents and their children of Tigard. Sincerely, Mindy"& Duane Sheldon Tigard Residents & Concerned Tax Payers y-aa o~ r • • Brad Kilby City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 I am writing this letter in regards to the pathway the City of Tigard/School district wishes to lay behind the building of the new Metzger Elementary School. I feel this pathway behind the school would allow a place for predators to hide and spy into the privacy of my backyard where my 4 year old daughter plays. In the fall of 2001, myself and 3 other neighbors on my block where all victims of theft and vandalism. I myself choose to prosecute to the fullest extent, and am now receiving restituition payments. However my neighbors where afraid of retaliation since after-the fact of the crime the Tigard Police Department would not help us evict this drug house that literally was right across the street from my house. I could not believe the police department wouldn't help since this house is located 1 block from the elementary school. I personally had to work with the owners of this rental property to get rid of the getto in my neighborhood. As a home owner I have worked hard to keep my neighborhood safe and crime free because the police department has no man power to do so. Now there is another suspected drug house and the police will do nothing. Here is what we face in Metzger. You yourself may not see the problems but we live here and we are all against this pathway and will appeal if this is passed. Sincerely, Keith & Kristin Prince 10455 SW 90`h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 892-9154 w CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND RELATED ADJUSTMENTS AND VARIANCES METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PREPARED FOR:, TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT PREPARED BY: Cornerstone Construction Management Inc. FEBRUARY 18, 2003 0 . • Metzger Elementary School CUP/Variances Metzger Elementary School Errata Sheet March 14, 2003 1. Page 7, third paragraph. The sentence that reads "The new school will be approximately 67,000 square feet in size..." should read "The new school will be approximately 67,400 square feet in size". 2. Page 28, third line from the top. The sentence that reads "The pedestrian connection is longer than 530 feet in spacing" should read "The pedestrian connection is longer than 330 feet in spacing". 3. Site Development Plan (Sheet 3), Landscape Plan (Sheet 4) and Floor Plan (Sheet 10). The size of the building should be 67,400 square feet, not 68,000 square feet. 4. Landscape Plan (Sheet 4), Landscape Plan Notes, Note 8. Delete the words "Adjacent uses will be screened with fences". edmurphy&associateslitsd/metzgerlcupapple7ratal3/14103 • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Metzger Elementary School Conditional Use Application TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY INFORMATION SUMMARY BACKGROUND INFORMATION RESPONSE TO CUP CRITERIA MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING ADJUSTMENT MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH VARIANCE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE PARKING LOCATION VARIANCE CONCLUSIONS EXHIBITS Exhibit 'A' Tax assessor's map Exhibit `B' Aerial photograph Exhibit `C' Zoning Map Exhibit 'D' Site Plan, including: 1 - Vicinity Map - by SLX 2 - Existing Conditions - by SLX 3 - Site Development Plan - by SLX 4 - Landscape Plan - by Anderson Associates 5 - Public Improvements / SW Lincoln street plan - by HBH .6 - Public Improvements / SW 901h street plan - by HBH 7 - Grading / Erosion control - by HBH 8 - Storm Drainage Plan - by HBH 9 - Utility Plan - by HBH 10 - Building Floor plans - by SLX 11 - Proposed Elevations by SLX Exhibit 'E' Service provider response - Clean Water Services Agency Exhibit `F' Traffic Evaluation Report- Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit `G' Tree Assessment - Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. Exhibit `H' Letter from Principal regarding bicycle parking needs Exhibit `I' School Attendance Boundaries Map Exhibit 'J' Map showing previous right-of-way vacations Exhibit 'K' Letter from Security Expert Exhibit `L' Map illustrating connectivity Exhibit 'M' Neighborhood meeting documentation Exhibit `N' Pre-application conference notes 1 5 7 11 21 25 29 31 35 37 Metzgetementanv School CUPNariances Project Name: Metzger Elementary School replacement Property Description: 1 S135AB00100 Location: 10255 SW 90th Avenue Parcel size: 6.47 acres Zoning: R-4.5 Applicant: Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: Stephen Poage Telephone 503-431-4003 Fax: 503-431-4047 Property Owner: Same Applicants Representatives: Project Manager Brian Radabaugh, Senior Project Manager Cornerstone Construction Management Inc. 5410 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 250 Portland, Oregon 97210 Telephone 503-295-0108 Fax 503-295-1896 ednuu phY&, associates/nsd/inet;ger/cupapp/2/! 9/03 1 Metzger Elementary School CUP riances 6 February 2003 METZGER PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Elementary School Address: Critical Dates List: Bid Package 1 Bid Package 2 Bid Package 3 OWNER: TIGARD TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23-J 6960 SW SANDBURG STREET TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PHONE: (503) 431-4003 FAX: (503) 431-4047 CONTACTS: STEPHEN POAGE spoage@ttsd.k12.or.us PROJECT N4NAGt CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5410 SW MACADAM #250 PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 PHONE: (503) 295-0108 FAX: (503) 295-1896 CONTACTS: BRIAN RADABAUGH brianr@comerstonemgi.com ARCHITECT: SELIG/LEFJRUEDA ARCHITECTS 213 SW ASH ST., SUITE 201 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 PHONE: (503) 2240173 FAX: (503) 2244836 CONTACTS: XAVIER RUEDA x@slxarchitects.com BRIAN ELLIOTT brian@slxarchitects.com MECHANICAL ENGINEER: PAE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC 808 S.W. 3rd AVE. PORTLAND, OR. 97204 PHONE: (503) 226-2921 FAX: (503)'-126-2930 CONTACTS- MARK FIRESTONE markf@paemail.com MICHAEL SCUPIEN michaels@paemaii.com JONATHAN RICKET jonr@paemail.com 10255 SW 90TH AVE. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Phone: 503-431-4600 Fax: 503-431-4610 Principal: JAN ALTIG Monday April 7, 2003 Thursday May 15, 2003 Tuesday July 15, 2003 jaltig@ttsd.kl2.or.us ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: CUNDIFF ENGINEERING, INC 8885 SW CANYON ROAD, #205 PORTLAND, OREGON 97225 PHONE: (503) 297-7738 FAX: (503) 297-6018 CONTACT: LEE CUNDIFF lee@cundiffeng.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: NISHKIAN DEAN 319 SW WASHINGTON STREET, #720 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 PHONE: (503) 274-1843 FAX: (503) 273-5696 CONTACT- GERALD GOTCHALL gerald-g@nishkian.com CIVIL ENGINEER HBH CONSULTING ENGINEERS 11535 SW DURHAM ROAD, SUITE C6 TIGARD, OREGON 97224 PHONE: (503) 670-0499 FAX: (503) 670-0540 CONTACTS: ROB HENRY rhenry@hbh-consulting.com ,4000STICAL CONSULTANT ALTERMATT ASSOCIATES, INC 522 SW FIFTH AVE, SUITE 1200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 PHONE: (503) 221-1044 FAX: (503) 221-1445 CON 1 AC:1 : TODD MATTHIAS tmatthias@altermatt.com FOOD SERVICE CONSULTANT: DENNIS POLLMANN & ASSOCIATES 1228 MAPLE STREET LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 PHONE: (503) 635-5219 FAX: (503) 635-8257 CONTACT: DENNIS POLLMANN doadesien Cf hotmail.com 2 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/16/03 0 LANDSCAPE: ANDERSON ASSOCIATES 22181 NW PHILLIPS ROAD HILLSBORO, OREGON 97214 PHONE: (503) 647-7400 FAX: (503) 647-7496 CONTACT: DAVID ANDERSON KiEO TEQ-INICA ENGINEER GEOCON NW 8380 SW NIMBUS AVE. BEAVERTON, OREGON 97008 dander@teleport.com PHONE: (503) 626-9889 FAX: (503) 626-8611 CONTACT: WESLEY SPANG wes@geoconnw.com Metzgeronentan! School CUP/Variances SURVEYOR: WRG 5415 SW WESTGATE DR. PORTLAND, OREGON 97221 PHONE: (503) 419-2500 FAX: (503) 419-2600 CONTACT- TERRY GOODMAN tlg@wrg.com LAND USE PLANNING: ED MURPHY & ASSOCIATES 9875 SW MURDOCK STREET' TIGARD, OREGON 97224 PHONE: (503) 624-4625 FAY: (503) 968-1674 CONTAC'TlD MURPHY ejmurphy@aol.com TRANSPORTATION PLANNING KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC 610 SW ALDER AVE, SUITE 700 PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 PHONE: (503) 228-5230 FAY: (503) 273-8169 CONTACL ERIC WALTMAN ewaltman@ldttelson.com edtnut-ph)•&associate,cIttsdhnetzget/cupappl2ll6/03 3 Metzger Elementary School CUPNariances This page intentionally left blank • 4 edmurphv&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • Metzger Elementary School CUPNariances ♦ The Tigard-Tualatin School District plans to replace the Metzger Elementary School with a new elementary school on the same site. A Conditional Use Permit is required. ♦ The new school will be approximately the same size as the existing school, designed for a capacity of 600 students. Unlike the existing single-story structure, the new school will be a two-story structure. Once the new school is built, the existing school will be demolished and the area that the existing school occupied will be used for playgrounds and ball fields. ♦ The new school will take primary access off of SW Lincoln Street, rather than SW go 'h Avenue. This street is bordered by commercial, rather than residential, development. ♦ There will be virtually no impact to the sewer, water, roads and storm water systems. The number of students and staff will remain virtually the same. The amount of total impervious surface will be slightly reduced, once the older buildings are removed. Drainage will be improved, which will be beneficial to some of the neighbors who have experienced drainage problems in the past. ♦ Related to this CUP application (but going through a separate process) the School District will ask the City Council to initiate a right-of-way vacation process for unused and unnecessary rights-of-way. There are two such rights-of-way SW Mapleleaf Street, which cuts through the center of the property, and SW Oak Way, a narrow remnant strip of right-of-way along the south border of the property. ♦ Concurrent with the CUP application, the School District (hereinafter "District") is applying for a variance to the "connectivity" standards, namely the 1800 foot maximum block length (or 530 foot street spacing) and the 330 foot maximum pedestrian connection spacing standards. ♦ Also concurrent with the CUP application, the District is applying for an adjustment to the required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces of 6 spaces per classroom, and a 5-foot variance to the 30-foot height standard. ♦ During the construction year, the modular classrooms will be re-located to the north of where they are currently located. ed,aurpii%,&assuciate.r/ttsd/tnetz et/cupapp/I/l9/03 5 Metzger Elementary School CUP/V• nces This page intentionally left blank 0 6 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/ 19/03 • Metzger ementary School CUPNariances BACKGROUND INFORMATION I History: The property is made up of one 6.47-acre tax lot with street frontage on three sides, north, east and west. (Please refer to the Tax Assessor's map, Exhibit 'A'). It is almost flat in the area where the new school is proposed. The site slopes from north to the south, with the southeast corner being the lowest point. It currently has the Metzger Elementary School on it, including three modular classrooms. (Please refer to aerial photograph, Exhibit 'B'). A school has been in this location since the early 1900's. The existing school was built in 1966. The Washington County Commissioners formally approved it as a Conditional Use in July of 1972. The most recent modification to the conditional use permit occurred in June of 2000, when the third portable classroom was added. Adjacent uses. The property is zoned R-4.5, as is the surrounding neighborhood to the north and east. (Please refer to Zoning Map, Exhibit 'C'). The property is bordered by single-family homes on the north, east and south sides, with commercial/office uses on the west side. The property to the south is zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE-1), which allows high intensity mixed commercial and office uses. The area across SW Locust Street is residential and a church, and is outside the City limits. SW Lincoln Street currently dead- ends at the southwest corner of the school property, but it is shown in the City's Transportation System Plan as extending through to SW Oak Street. Description of Proposal. The new school will be approximately 67,000 square feet in size, compared to 55,181' square feet for the existing school. The new school will be a major improvement over the existing school. Not only will it be a two-story building, which is a more efficient use of the land, but also the site itself will be greatly improved. ♦ Street trees will be planted along SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Streets; ♦ New fencing will be installed where needed around the perimeter of the school property; ♦ Parking lot trees will be planted in the new parking lots; ♦ Drainage will be improved; ♦ The entrance to the elementary school building will be accessible for pedestrians coming from either SW Lincoln Street or SW 90th Avenue, which will also provide a continuous hard surfaced walkway across the school grounds. (Please refer to Site Development Plan and Landscape Plan, Exhibit 'D', sheet 3 and 4 respectively, and to the Building Elevations, Sheet 11). There are.no sensitive lands that will be impacted by the proposed use, i.e. wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, or wildlife habitats. The Washington County Clean Water Services (CWS) Agency has provided a service provider letter. (Please refer to the CWS letter, Exhibit `E'.) Chapter 18.390.040.B.2.e Impact Analysis: This section requires an impact study as part of the Type II procedure. This is the size of the footprint of the existing school. including the three modular buildings. It does not include any square footage for the second story space. edautrpln,&associates/nsd/inet;gei/cupapp/2/19103 7 • • Metzger Elementan! School CUPNariances For the most part, no improvements to the drainage, parks, water, and sewer systems are necessary to meet City standards or to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. The District plans on improving SW Lincoln Street and SW 90th Avenue, adding pavement, sidewalks, street trees, and lighting as necessary to bring these street up to current city standards. It also plans on replacing a storm water pipe on SW 90th with a larger pipe. The school is already served with adequate sewer and water lines. The District will install new fire hydrants as necessary to provide adequate fire protection. (See refer to the Utilities Plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 9). The building will also be fully sprinklered. Following are comments regarding the impact of the proposed development on public facilities and services. Transportation Svstem: The traffic impact is minimal because access to the new school is provided from the same street, SW Locust Street, as it is for the existing school. However, the main access street will be SW Lincoln Street, instead of SW 90th Avenue. (Please refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis, Exhibit `F'). This will greatly reduce the impact of school-related traffic on the people who live on SW 90th Avenue. There are no significant impacts to the transportation system as a result of this proposed site development. As the traffic review completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. concluded, "the associated trip generation of the redevelopment will not have a significant impact on off- site intersection operations". Further, the analysis found that "the reassignment of site- generated trips from SW 90th Avenue to SW Lincoln Street will not significantly impact the operations of the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection", and that "the proposed accesses can provide adequate levels of service and capacity." No improvements to the transportation system, other than completing half-street improvements to SW Lincoln Street and SW 90th Avenue, is necessary to meet City standards or to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. Drainaae Svstem: The property slopes generally from the north to the south, and slightly to the east. Run-off will be directed into the storm water pipe on SW 90th Avenue. The storm water then crosses SW Oak Street, and flows south into a wetland area. The District will upgrade a portion of the existing storm water pipe in SW 90th Avenue, replacing the 8" line with a 12" line. Parks Svstem: No impact to the park system will occur as a result of this proposed site development. Once the existing school is removed and the play fields and play equipment are constructed, the new school will have the same type of recreation facilities available as the existing school does currently. Water Svstem: No impact to the water system will occur as a result of this proposed site development. There are water lines in SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Street. Sewer Svstem: No impact to the sewer system will occur as a result of this proposed site development. There is a sewer line in SW 90th Avenue that can serve the school. 8 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • Metzger tentan, School CUPNariances Noise impacts: Most activities will take place indoors. During recess, the children will use the playground on the east side of the school, as well as the ball fields at the north end of the property. During the evenings, when the neighbors are more likely to be home, the school will generally be closed. The noise impact on the neighbors will be different than it is now because the buildings and playgrounds are rearranged, but the overall noise level will be comparable to the noise level of the existing school. The noise levels from the school building and grounds will be well within the City's noise standards. Further, the City's noise ordinance, Title 7, Section 7.40.180, specifically makes an exception for noise coming from normal school activities. It states the following in Section 7.40.180 "Exceptions": The following shall not be considered violations of this article, even if the sound limit specified in Section 7.40.160 is exceeded: A. Non-amplified sounds created by organized athletic or other group activities, when such activities are conducted on property generally used for such purposes, such as stadiums, parks, schools, and athletic fields, during normal hours for such events. Liahtina_ The school building, school grounds and parking lot will be illuminated. When the building is unoccupied, most exterior lights will be turned off. The lights will be on timers and photocells, which will lessen the amount of energy used, provide better security, and reduce the impact to the neighbors from light intrusion. Police. Fire and other Emeroencv Services: No impact to police, fire or other emergency services will occur as a result of this proposed site development. The new school building will be more safe than the existing school building, as it will have a full sprinkler system installed, and will be built to modern building code standards. Police will be able to see the school from the parking lot and SW 90`h Avenue better than they can see the existing school. The property will be fenced on all sides, including the play fields. edmurpli. &associates/ttsdbtnetzgei/cupapp/1/19/03 Metzger Elementan, School CUP®iances This page intentionally left blank 10 0 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/ 19/03 0 ' Metzger P mentan! School CUPNariances Chapter 18.330 of the Tigard Development Code contains the standards and procedures under which a conditional use may be permitted. Section 18.330j.030 contains the approval standards, which are as follows: 18.330.030 Approval Standards and Conditions of Approval A. ADnroval Standards. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a conditional use or to enlarge or alter a conditional use based on findings of fact with respect to each of the following criteria: ♦ The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; ♦ The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features; ♦ All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal; ♦ The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter; ♦ The applicable requirements of 18.330.050; and ♦ The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. Section 18.330.050 contains additional development standards applicable to schools, which are as follows: 18.330.050 Additional Development Standards for Conditional Use Types B. Additional development standards. The additional dimensional requirements and approval standards for conditional use are as follows 8. Schools: a. There shall be no minimum lot size requirements for schools other than what is required for the applicable zoning district; b. Setbacks: (1) The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet; (2) On corner lots and through lots, the setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet on any side facing a street, plus meet visual clearance areas, Chapter 18.795; (3) The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; and (4) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 30 feet. The school is also subject to the recently adopted Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards, Chapter 18.630. ednutrplhy&associates/ttsdb)ierget/cupapp12119103 11 Metzger Elementary School CUPNariances RESPONSE TO CRITERIA 1. The site size and dimensions provide adequate area for the needs of the proposed use; The site has been functioning as an elementary school site for many years. The replacement school will be essentially the same capacity as the existing school, with similar play equipment and fields. The site slops to the south, and is rectangular in shape. As can be seen from the site plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 3, the proposed new elementary school fits quite nicely on the site. The total parcel size is about 6.47 acres. There are several significantly sized trees, most of which will be retained and incorporated into the site plan. The site where the school building is proposed is not an area that is subject to ground slumping or sliding. There is plenty of distance between the school building and any surrounding buildings to provide for adequate light and air circulation, and accessibility to fire-suppression equipment. All the classrooms will have windows, which will provide an abundance of natural light. 2. The impacts of the proposed use of the site can be accommodated considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features. The new elementary school will have the same type of impact on the neighborhood as the existing school does. There are really no significant additional impacts to the public facilities and transportation systems. Most of the impacts will result from the relocation of the school building and play areas on the site, and the fact that it will be a two-story structure instead of a single-story structure. However, the impacts are minimized through increased building setbacks and screening and buffering. The school is proposed to be a maximum of 35-feet in height, which will only occur in the gymnasium area. Thirty feet is the maximum height allowed in the R-4.5 zone. The building will be very compatible with the neighborhood. To the surrounding properties, especially the residential properties to the north and east, the school will not seem unusually tall or overbearing since the site is lower in elevation to begin with. The height limit for the properties to the south is 200 feet; these properties will most likely eventually be redeveloped with buildings taller than the proposed school building. Concurrent with the CUP application, the District is requesting a variance to the 30-foot height limitation. The topography is such that the drainage will go east towards SW 90th Avenue, and will be graded so that the neighbors to the south of the school property (between the school property and SW Oak Street) should see a significant improvement in their drainage situation. The existing trees and shrubs on and along the south edges of the property will help buffer and screen the adjoining properties. The Site Plan shows additional screening along a portion of the south property line, next to the existing homes. In addition, the District is proposing to plant street trees along the east and west sides, and to install new chainlink fencing with slats around the three homes that front onto SW Locust Street. In addition, site plan calls for the school building to be set back from the property lines by approximately 88 feet on both the east and west sides, which is considerably more than the minimum setback allowed by the Code. 12 edmutphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 0 Metzger ementary School CUPNariances The lighting from the school building and parking lot will be managed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. The District policy is to turn all the lights on the building and grounds off at night. 3. All required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. The public sewer, storm sewer and water systems have adequate capacity for the existing school, and the new school will be essentially the same number of students and teachers/support staff. (The one exception is that the existing 8" storm drainage pipe on SW 901h will be upgraded to a 12" pipe.) The transportation system is adequate to support the existing school, and the District will construct street improvements to both abutting streets. SW Locust Street is already fully improved. The District will add fire hydrants as needed to provide adequate coverage, and in addition, the building will be fully equipped with a sprinkler system. Visual access to the school from SW 90th Avenue and the parking lot off SW Lincoln Street will be better than it is to the existing school, thereby improving security. Other semi-public facilities and services, including electrical, natural gas, cable, and garbage disposal are available, and the construction of the new school will not significantly change the impact on those services and facilities. 4. The applicable requirements of the zoning district are met except as modified by this chapter. The property is zoned R-4.5. The proposed elementary school is in compliance with all of the applicable requirements of R-4 zone, with a couple exceptions. Following is a summary of how the proposed school and site comply with the zoning district regulations. Minimum lot size. The requirement is 7000 sq. ft. per unit. There is no minimum lot size requirement for schools. Average lot width. None required. Minimum building setbacks. The setback requirements ordinarily applicable in the R-4.5 zone are superceded by Section 18.330.050 of the Development Code. The school will meet or exceed those setbacks. (More discussion of this under the next criterion). Maximum Building Height. Thirty feet is the maximum allowable building height established in Section 18.510.050, Table 18.510.2 of the Development Code. If the request for a variance to the height standard is approved, the proposed elementary school building will exceed the maximum building height by five feet, and that will only be for 14% of the building. Maximum percentage of lot coverage. There is no maximum lot coverage limit. The actual percentage of lot coverage is about 40%. The total lot coverage will be slightly less after the completion of the new school and removal of most of the existing structures than it is currently. Streets. SW Lincoln Street is designated as a collector street, and SW 90th Avenue is a local street. Both will be improved, and brought up to current city standards. SW Locust Street is also a collector street, and is already fully improved. edmurphy&associatesktsd/metcgerlcupapp/L/19/03 13 • 0 Metzger ElementarY School CUPNari aces Pedestrian and handicapped accessibility. Pedestrians will be able to access the school from either SW 90th Avenue or SW Lincoln Street, and the pathway to the entrance doors of the school will meet ADA standards. Handicapped parking. The proposed site plan calls for 67 parking spaces, 3 of which will be handicapped accessible, as per the accessibility standards set forth in the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code. Bicycle parking. The Code requires 6 spaces per classroom. Since there are 28 classrooms, that would be 168 bicycle spaces. Based on actual experience, about 25 bicycles parking spaces are all that are needed; the District plans to install 34. The District is applying for an adjustment to the bicycle parking standard concurrently with the CUP application. Utilities. All utilities will meet City standards. All on-site utilities will be undergrounded. Parking lot landscaping. The new parking lots will meet the City standard of one parking lot tree per seven parking spaces. Since the parking lots are not sited next to a public roadway, screening from the street is required. The District is proposing a level and type of screening that will partially block the view of the vehicles, while still providing visual access to the parking lot for security reasons. The existing parking lot at the corner of SW Locust Street and SW 90th Avenue will be kept at this time, although it may eventually be removed. That parking lot does not meet the current standard for parking lot trees (and probably other standards), but it is a pre-existing situation. Parking lot lighting. The lighting from the parking lot will be directed downward so as not to interfere with the neighbor's properties. The parking lot lights will be turned off at night by an automatic timer, and will be turned on again in the morning, as directed by a light meter. Minimum percentage of sites landscaping. No minimum percentage of landscaping is required, but about 60% of the site is in landscaping, play fields, and landscaped areas. Buffering and Screening. Buffering and screening is not required in this case, but staff suggested a 6' to 20' wide buffer area adjacent to any homes, with a level C or D landscaping/screening, as per Table 18.745.2 of the Code. The new parking lot will be screened from the adjoining property owners with the existing vegetation and fencing. There is already thick and dense vegetation at this location (on the south side of the proposed parking lot), which provides a practically solid vegetative screen between the school property and what is now vacant land. The site plan also calls for screening next to the three existing homes that front onto SW Locust Street. Those properties are approximately 200 feet from the proposed school building, and are approximately 20 feet higher in elevation than the school will be, so the distance and difference in elevation provide a very good buffer. In addition, the District will keep many of the existing trees next to those properties, install new fencing with slats along the south property line of those properties, and install landscaping next to the proposed new fence. 14 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/ 19/03 • Metzger ementary School CUPNariances 5. The applicable requirements of 18.330.050. The proposed school building exceeds the required minimum setbacks. Since the school fronts on SW Lincoln Street, and that is where the parking lot and main entrance will be, SW Lincoln Street is the front yard. ♦ West yard setback - 88 feet (minimum 30 feet required for front yard) ♦ East yard setback 88 feet (minimum 30 feet required for rear yard). ♦ South yard setback 20 feet (minimum 20 feet required for side yard). ♦ North yard setback - 200 feet (minimum 20 feet required for side yard). 6. The supplementary requirements set forth in other chapters of this code including but not limited to Chapter 18.780, Signs, and Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review, if applicable, are met. The following information addresses the other chapters of the Code. Chapter 18.360 Site Development Review. This proposed use is not subject to the Site Development Review Chapter of the Development Code (hereinafter "Code"). Section 18.360.020.A.5, under "applicability and exemptions", says site development review shall not apply to "any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the conditional use permit application process". However, many of the submission requirements and development standards applicable to a Conditional Use Permit application are the same as for a Site Development Review application. Chapter 18.630 Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards Many of the standards set by this Chapter do not apply to the proposed school, for one reason or another. For instance, 18.630.050 Site Design Standards, item 1 does not apply because the building is not located on a major or minor arterial street. Item 2 does not apply and because Table 18.520.2 does not include the R-4.5 zone, and further, because the setbacks for schools are established in the Conditional Use section of the Code, Similarly, Section 18.630.060 Building Design Standards because the building is not in the UC, MUE or MUR zone. The following describes how the proposed development complies with the applicable sections of this Chapter. 18.630.040 Street Connectivity B. Demonstration of standards. All development must demonstrate how one of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Section 18.370.010 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. 1. Design Option. a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 530 feet. b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. 2. Performance Option. edmurphv&associates/ttsd/inetzger/capapp/2/19103 15 Metzger Elementan' School CUP ariances • a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight street intersections per mile. b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance. c. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a major building entrance to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. The District is applying for a variance to this standard. 18.630.050, Subsection 3, Front yard setback design. The Site Plan meets these standards. Hard surfaced walkways connect the school building with both SW Lincoln Street and SW 90th Avenue. 18.630.050, Subsection 4, Walkway connection to building entrances. The Site Plan meets these standards. A walkway connection at least six feet wide connects the building's entrance and the adjoining public streets. 18.630.050, Subsection 5, Parking location and landscape design. There are two distinct standards in subsection 5, one dealing with parking between the building and the street, and the other with the landscaping standards along streets. Concurrently with the CUP application, the District is applying for a variance to the parking lot location standard, which does not allow parking for buildings adjacent to public street rights-of-way to be located to the front of the such buildings. The school site has frontage on three streets. The District is proposing to get bus and other school-related traffic off SW 901h Avenue, which is more residential in character, and onto SW Lincoln Street, which is adjacent to commercial development. Therefore, the best placement for the parking lot is on SW Lincoln Street but placing the parking on SW Lincoln in front of the new school is not allowed under this subsection. The landscaping requirements of this subsection is addressed in the following Section. 18.630.090 Landscaping and Screening. The following section applies to the proposed elementary school. A. Applicable levels. Two levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable. The locations were the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. 1. L i-1 t i Low Screen. Flor ..1l landscaping of landascoped and car- A nn-ac within narlrina ' general v1 lai~uJur~.u cuiu JV. <.V1lVU ___1 i...........b lots and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening shall apply. In addition the L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials, and where parking lots abut public streets. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a street, trees shall be planted at 3-1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and 90% opacity within one year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two years. 16 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • Metzger Elementary School CUPIVariances 2. L-2 General Landscaping. For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, and along local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening shall apply. In addition, trees shall be provided at a minimum 2-1/2-inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the required landscaping or screening effect within two years. The District will meet the L-1 landscaping standard (Section 18.630.080) along the west side of the school site where the parking lots abut SW Lincoln Street. That is, trees within the planter strip next to the parking lots will be planted at 3-1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum of 28 feet on center. In addition, shrubs will be of a variety that will provide a 3-foot high screen and a 90% opacity within one year. For the rest of the frontage along SW Lincoln Street and SW 901h Avenue, the landscaping will meet the L-2 standard, meaning that trees will be planted at a minimum 2-1/2 inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 28 feet. Chapter 18.705 Access, Egress and Circulation. The most applicable section is 18.705.030.F, "Required walkway location." Walkways or plaza areas extend from both sides of the school to the front entrance. Wherever the walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, the crossings are marked with pavement markings or contrasting pavement materials. The walkways will be a minimum of four feet in width, paved with hard surfaced materials, lighted, and in compliance with ADA standards. Chapter 18.710 Accessory Residential Units. The Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.715 Density Computations. The Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. The Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards. This Chapter applies the federal and state environmental laws, rules and regulations to development within the City of Tigard. ♦ Noise. As noted previously in this application, the City's noise ordinance makes an exception to the noise regulations for schools, in Section 7.40.180. ♦ Visible emissions. This applies only to areas zoned commercial or industrial, and is not applicable to schools. ♦ Vibration. There will not be any vibrations emanating from the school property that will be discernible without instruments at the property line. ♦ Odors. There should not be any odorous gases or other matter generated from the school property in such quantities as to be readily detectable at any point beyond the property line. The only exception to that may be the school kitchen, but it is located at the northwest corner of the school, far away from any residential uses (or any other uses, for that matter). It is not likely that these kitchen odors, even if they do cross the property line, will be offensive to any nearby property owners. ♦ Glare and heat. The will be no direct or sky-reflected glare visible at the property line, or any emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the property line. ♦ Insects and rodents. The materials that might attract rodents will be located near the kitchen and loading area. All wastes will be stored in closed containers, and the grounds will be maintained in a manner that will not attract or aid in the propagation of insects or ednutrph.v&associate51ttsdAnetzget/cupapp/I/19103 17 • Metzger Elementary School CUPNariances • rodents or create any type of health hazard. Because this is an elementary school, it is extremely important that the waste disposal and recycling area be kept as clean as possible at all times. Chapter 18.730 Exceptions to Development Standards. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.740 Historic Overlay. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.742 Home Occupations. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening. Even though Site Development Revision provisions do not apply because this application is for a Conditional Use permit rather than a Site Development Review, the standards of this Section provide guidelines to mitigate any impacts on the neighboring property owners. Bufferina_ and screenina. The buffering and screening matrix (Table 18.745.1) does not show a requirement for buffering and screening between existing detached single-family units and institutional uses such as schools. In the pre-application conference, the planning staff encouraged the District to propose buffering adjacent to residential areas. The Code provides several combinations of distance, vegetation, and fences, walls or berms in Table 18.745.2, which are used in different situations. The landscape plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 4, illustrates the proposed buffering and screening areas. Along the north side of the property, the distance, (200 feet), elevation change (20 Feet) and the trees that will be planted along this property line will provide a very good buffer. On the east side, the school building is 88 feet away from the property line. Street trees added along SW 90th Avenue will provide screening. On the south side, there is dense vegetation already in place along most of this property line. In addition to keeping the existing vegetation, the District will maintain the existing or install a new chainlink fence along this side, and will provide privacy slats in the fence where it is next to the two existing homes. (That is, there will be slats in the fence for about 330 feet, next to tax lots 3203 and 3201). A minimum of 10' will be maintained between the parking lot and the property line, and 20' between the building and the property line. (Note that there is also the 14.8'-wide right-of-way in this location, providing a total of at least 34.8' of separation between the north property line of the adjoining properties and the new proposed school building. Street Trees. The School property has frontage on three public streets. The site plan proposes street trees on SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Street. SW Locust is already fully developed, and adding street trees there would be problematic. Screenina. Screening and landscaping of parking lots and loading areas is required. The landscape plan shows landscaping around the parking lot that will help screen it from view from the street. The parking lot will include parking lot trees, which will provide screening from view, especially from the surrounding higher elevations. The service facilities (refuse container and disposal area near the west property line) will be screened from view by a chainlink fence with slats, solid wood fence or masonry wall. 18 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19103 • Metzger ementan, School CUP/Variances Proposed Plant Selections - (derived from soil conditions) All proposed plant material have been selected for their adaptability to local climate conditions and ability to thrive under a range of conditions including heat and cold hardiness, low water needs use after establishment, and tolerance of a range of soil conditions. Current soil conditions are compacted and range from loam to predominately clay. Soil Treatment Topsoil derived from the site during construction will be stockpiled on site and used for proposed landscape areas. Soil amendments (i.e., compost) will be used to improve the soil conditions and create an environment for plants to thrive. Erosion Control Measures An erosion control plan will be submitted by the civil engineer. During landscape construction, erosion control measures will be implemented to prevent degradation of the site and contain landscape materials on site. Chapter 18.750 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.760 Nonconforming Situations. The buildings on the school property conform to the current setback height and other dimensional requirements. The existing parking lot for the existing school (at SW Locust and SW 90th Avenue) may not conform to current city requirements, but it is a pre-existing situation. Chapter 18.765 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Vehicular oarkina.. For an elementary school, two parking spaces per classroom are required. The proposed school has 28 classrooms, so 56 parking spaces are required. The proposed Site Development Plan, Exhibit `D', Sheet 3, shows 67 parking spaces. The design of the parking lots takes meets the regulations of this Chapter in terms of landscaping, lighting, drainage, pedestrian access, width of access aisles, and disabled- accessible parking. For loading and unloading passengers (18.765.040.C), the plan proposes an elongated driveway where school busses can queue for loading children. Parents picking up or unloading children will be directed to do so using the smaller parking lot, which will help minimize conflict with the bus loading/unloading areas. Also, some parents may choose to drop off children on the east side of the school property, from SW 90th Avenue. Bicvcle oarkinq. The site plan shows 34 bicycle parking stalls on the west side of the building. The Code requires 6 bicycle parking stalls per classroom, which would mean that 168 parking stalls would be required for the 28 classrooms. The District is requesting an adjustment to the bicycle parking standards concurrently with the CUP application. Chapter 18.775 Sensitive Lands. There are no sensitive lands affected by this proposal. edniu phY&associates/nsd/metzger1cupapp/2/19/03 19 Metzger Elementary School CUP friances • Chapter 18.780 Signs. The District is not proposing any new signs at this time. Chapter 18.785 Temporary uses. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.790 Tree removal. The existing trees over 6" in caliper are shown on the Landscape Plan, Exhibit 'D', Sheet 4. There are 23 healthy trees are over 12" in caliper. Of those, three will be removed. Since almost 88% of the trees over 12" in caliper are being retained, no mitigation is required. (Please refer to Tree Assessment Report, Exhibit `G'). Chapter 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas. The only area where this applies to this site is where a driveway to the parking lots connects to SW Lincoln Avenue. Those driveways will meet the visual clearance requirements of this Section 18.795.040.B of this chapter. Care will be taken to balance the street tree and parking lot landscaping requirements with the need to maintain adequate visual clearance. Chapter 18.797 Water Resources (WR) Overlay District. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities. This Chapter is not applicable. Chapter 18.810 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. The site plan shows both SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Street improved to City standards. The improvements to SW Lincoln Street will bring it up to current City standards, including separated sidewalks with street trees in a planter strip. SW 90th Avenue will have curb-tight sidewalks, with no planter strip, and street trees installed behind the sidewalk. The District proposes to leave the north end of SW 90th Avenue, roughly north of the south Mapleleaf right-of-way line, as it is currently. The one area where the District cannot meet the requirements of this Chapter is Section 18.810.040, Blocks and the related Chapter, the Washington Square Regional Center Design Standards, Chapter 18.630. The Code does not provide an exception for schools or other campus-like facilities. The maximum allowed block length is 1800 feet, or in the new Washington Square regulations, 530 feet for street spacing. The actual block length, once SW Lincoln Street is connected through to Oak Street, will be 3870 feet (with Locust Street, 90th Avenue, Oak Street and Lincoln Street as the perimeter streets). There will be internal pedestrian circulation provided via the parking lots and plaza, as children will obviously need to be able to walk to school from both side streets. The District will discourage general pedestrian traffic on or through the school site during school hours, but pedestrians will be able to walk through the school site during non-school hours. Even so, the site will not meet the requirement of no more than 330 feet between connections. Therefore, the District is applying for a variance to the maximum block length and street spacing standards, and pedestrian connectivity standards, concurrently with the CUP application. 20 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 0 MetzgerZfeinentan, School CUPNariances Background. Currently there are 16 bicycle parking spaces at Metzger Elementary School. According to the Principal, Janis Altig, (who has been the Principal at Metzger for five years), no more than 12 spaces are ever used. (Please refer to Exhibit `H', letter from Janis Altig). Since this is an elementary school, most of the children take the bus to and from school ...there are almost no walkers, according to Ms. Altig, since there are so few homes on the west side of SW Hall Blvd. In fact, this school uses eleven busses, and transports children even within the one-mile radius where they are not required by the State to do so. Ninety of the children are kindergarten age. The fact that SW Hall Boulevard separates the school site from most of the homes in the attendance boundaries has a major influence bicycle ridership. (Please refer to the attendance boundary map, Exhibit `I'). Chapter 18.765 of the Code sets forth the standards for bicycle parking. Specifically, Table 18.765.2 requires six parking spaces per classroom. There are 28 classrooms, counting the special education and Title 1 classrooms. That means the District would have to install 168 bicycle parking spaces to meet the Code requirements. Proposal. The District supports bicycle usage, and plans to install almost three times as many bicycle parking stalls at the new school than are ever used at the existing school. For the new school, the District is proposing to install 34 bicycle spaces, which will be more than adequate to accommodate the expected demand. Response to Adjustment Criteria. Section 18.370.020.5.e. allows the Director to approve an adjustment of the required bicycle parking by means of a Type II procedure if the applicant "can demonstrate that the proposed use by its nature would be reasonably anticipated to generate a lesser need for bicycle parking." A school by its nature is expected to generate bicycle traffic, and a need to provide parking for the bicycles. However, it is reasonable to expect that the future need for bicycle parking will be similar to the current and past need. Based on her five years of experience at Metzger Elementary School, Ms. Altig indicates that the new school would not need more than 12 slots or spaces to provide for the maximum number of bikes ever ridden to school, even in good weather. Although the Director may approve an adjustment, this application also reviewed the criteria for a variance, found in Chapter 18.370 of the Code. Responses to each of the variance criterion are as follows: a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The "purposes of this title" (18.110.020) include only one purpose statement that is directly relevant, which is #8: "Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City". The School District provides much of the transportation services needed to get children to and from school safely. Children who do not take the bus can walk or ride a bicycle, or their parents drop them off. The number of ednuanhy&associates/nsdbnetzgei/ciq)app/1/19103 21 • 0 Metzger Elementan! School CUPNariances children bringing a bicycle to school is limited - out of approximately 600 students, only about 25 ride their bicycles to school. The District proposes to install 34 bicycle stalls, or almost twice the number that it expects to be used. If over time, the demand for more bicycle parking increases significantly, the District can relatively easily provide additional bicycle parking spaces. On the other hand, if the District installed 168 bicycle spaces, and only 30 to 40 are actually used, it becomes wasted space and a nuisance. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the provision of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City of Tigard. Nor will it be materially detrimental to any other applicable standards or policies, or to any other properties in the R- 12 zone or the vicinity of the school. Most importantly, granting the variance, and requiring 34 instead of 168 bicycle parking spaces, will not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Children will not start leaving their bicycles parked in the street or on someone else's property because they cannot find a parking space on the school property. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The special circumstance is that this is an elementary school in the R-4.5 zone, and that it is a replacement school for a school that has been at this site for more than 36 years (or 90 years since the first school was built in 1912). Based on the actual experience in this neighborhood, the requirement of six bicycle spaces per classroom is excessive. How many children ride to school depends on how safe their parents think their children are, how far away from school they live, what type of bicycle facilities exist along the route to school, and even whether or not the child has a bicycle. The School District has no control over these variables. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The proposed use is an elementary school, which is a permitted use, subject to Conditional Use approval. The other city standards will be maintained, except for the maximum block length. Installing 34 bicycle stalls will consume quite a bit of land, but can be reasonable accommodated. Installing 168 stalls is problematic in terms of space availability, as it would consume a substantial amount of land, and more importantly, would not benefit the children, their parents or the teachers and staff. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatir Land fnrmc or narks will not be adverselv affected anv more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; Existing physical and natural systems are not affected one way or the other. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is not self-imposed, other than in a very broad sense (i.e. the District did not have to build a new school; instead, they could have remodeled the existing school). The District is not claiming that there is no room on the site for 168 bicycle parking spaces, or that there is some physical reason why it cannot be done. It is claiming that the number of 22 edmurphv&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/ 19/03 • Metzger elementary School CUPNariances bicycle parking spaces required is much greater than the need, and that installing the required number of spaces takes up valuable space that could be better used for other activities. It creates a hardship on the District because of the amount of space it ties up, and because of the on-going maintenance requirements of these seldom or never-used facilities. ednuurphy&associates/ttsd/inetzgei/cupapp/2/19/03 23 Metzger Elementary School CUPNariances This page intentionally left blank • 24 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • MetzgerPlementarv School CUPNariances MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH VARIANCE I i Background. The SW Mapleleaf Street right-of-way runs through the School District property, and in fact, right through the school building. The 14.8'-wide right-of-way for Oak Way runs along the south boundary of the school property, between the school property and the properties to the south. These rights-of-way should have been vacated when the school was first officially approved as a Conditional Use in 1972 (or anytime since), but for some reason they were not. Other "paper streets" in the area were vacated over the years, but neither SW Mapleleaf Street nor SW Oak Way was ever vacated. (Please refer to the street vacation map, Exhibit `J'). The City adopted connectivity standards in 1998, which established a maximum block length of 1800 feet (Section 18.810.040.6). The regulations were geared to subdivisions, and made no exceptions for school sites. To strictly meet those requirements, a school site could be no larger than 4.6 acres, and have streets on all four sides (450 feet per side equals an 1800 perimeter, which results in a 4.6-acre area). The Code does mention that block lengths need to be "designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated". Further, it mentions that there can be an exception to the 1800-foot perimeter where street location is precluded by pre-existing development. It also allows an exception for "non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. This is not a "non-residential" block, since schools are allowed in the residential zone, but it is non-residential in the sense that it is not a residential subdivision. In this case, the recently adopted standards do not work very well for an established neighborhood and for a school site that is 6.47 acres in size. In order to provide an adequate building site for the school and related play fields, and to provide the school at this site in this pre-existing neighborhood, a variance to the block length standards is necessary. The alternative of building a public street for vehicular traffic within the Mapleleaf right-of- way, connecting SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Street, would be impractical and unsafe - children would have to cross the street when walking between the ball fields and the school .building. On the other hand, an informal pedestrian connection is feasible, and acceptable during those times of the day when school is not in session. Just as they can today, pedestrians will be able to walk between SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Street across school property. While the District will discourage non-school pedestrians crossing the school grounds when school is in session, at any other time it will be available. When the improvements are complete, the area will be hard-surfaced, making walking across the school grounds more convenient than it is today. While the District is always concerned about security and vandalism, it does not intend to fence the school site completely off from the public. There are two sections of the Development Code that set standards for connectivity. One is Section 18.810.040.13, which establishes a maximum block length of 1800 feet, and also a pedestrian connection spacing standard of 330 feet. The other is Section 18.630.040, which sets a maximum street spacing standard of 530 feet, and again a pedestrian connectivity standard of 330 feet. The District is requesting a variance to these standards. ednuunlnl&a.rsaciates/ttsd/inerget/cupapp/2//9103 25 Metzger Elementary School CUPN•nces • Proposal. The District is proposing that no vehicular or formal public pedestrian way cross the school property, or adjacent to the school property in the SW Oak Way right-of-way. Instead, the District proposes creating an informal connection by constructing a hard surfaced walking area across the school grounds between SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Street, along the south side of the school. This connection will be open to the general public during non- school hours. Non-school-related pedestrian traffic across the school grounds would be discouraged during normal school hours. However, in the evenings, weekends and much of the summer, this connection will provide a pedestrian connection within the neighborhood. Although this does not meet the standard of 330 feet for pedestrian connections, it will provide a connection roughly two-thirds of the distance between SW Locust Street and SW Oak Street, which are approximately 970 feet apart. At the pre-application conference, staff indicated that they might recommend requiring the District to construct an 8'-wide pedestrian trial along the Oak Way right-of-way. The District has serious concerns about safety and security with a pathway adjacent to the school in a separate public right-of-way. (Please refer to Exhibit `K', letter from Patrick Donalson, President of Forbes & Associates, Inc.). Instead of constructing a pathway in the Oak Way remnant right-of-way, the District instead proposes a 6'-wide sidewalk around the southern side of the new school building and parking lot. This sidewalk will provide a pedestrian connection between SW Lincoln Street and SW 90" Avenue that will be close to the building, indirect (not a straight shot through the campus), and on School District property where activities can be monitored and managed. This proposal meets the intent of the pedestrian connectivity standards, and is a better option in many ways than constructing a trail in the Oak Way right-of-way. Response to Variance Approval Criteria a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The variance to the block length and street spacing standards will not be detrimental to the purposes of the Development Code. The only purpose statement that seems relevant is 18.110.020.A.8, which is to "provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City." The provision for improvements to the two adjoining streets, with an informal pedestrian connection between those streets, provides a safe and convenient transportation system. The variance would not be detrimental to other applicable policies or standards. It will not disrupt the established neighborhood or established traffic patterns, as a street connect would. The variance would not set a precedent for other developments within the R-4.5 zone, as a school site is unique and much different than a residential subdivision or multi- family development. None of the neighbors who attended the neighborhood meeting complained about the length of the block or asked for a vehicular or pedestrian connection through the school site. Requiring SW Mapleleaf Street to be constructed through the school site in order to meet the maximum block length standard would very likely be strongly opposed by the neighbors and the parents of the school children. (Similarly, the abutting 26 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/ 19/03 • Metzger Pementan~ School CUPNariances property owners, as evidenced by their comments at a neighborhood meeting, would adamantly oppose the idea of a pedestrian trail within the Oak Street right-of-way.) b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; An elementary school takes a certain amount of space, even when the school is built as a two-story school. This particular site is adequate, but barely has enough room for the school and the one ball field. While the parcel itself is not peculiar in terms of size or shape or topography, it is unique in how is sets within the neighborhood context, and in relation to the existing streets. There is no room to expand the school site boundaries, or to design a street going through the property that would not cut right through the middle of the site. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; Most of the other Development Code standards applicable to this lot will be met. The entire site will be improved in ways that bring it more into compliance with current standards. The informal pedestrian connection will provide a reasonable degree of connectivity. If the land was being developed as a residential subdivision, connecting SW Mapleleaf Street to provide improved connectivity might be an option. However, it is a school site, and the site cannot provide a vehicle street connection and still be used as a school site. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; The existing physical and natural systems, including traffic, parking, energy systems, environmental systems, would not be adversely affected any more if the variance were granted than if it were not. The existing traffic patterns in this established neighborhood area do not include a street connection across the school site, and so would not be adversely impacted if no street connection were made. On the other hand, not granting the variance, and requiring a street connection across the property would affect traffic patterns, and adversely impact the School District and the neighbors. Connectivity in this area will be improved when SW Lincoln Street is extended through to SW Oak Street. The District supports the City's plans to extend this street. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is not self-imposed, as the District's proposal is consistent with existing development patterns. The decision to not require a street connection was made over 36 years ago, enabling the continued location of Metzger Elementary School at this location. It would be a hardship if the City required the School District to construct SW Mapleleaf Street through the site, but that is not a hardship that the District imposed upon itself. Rather, it would be the result of the City applying new regulations that are apply more to subdivision design than to school sites. The District is not requesting an alternative block length, but is essentially requesting that the current block length of 3870 feet, assuming SW Lincoln is connected be maintained. That is, the current block length is the minimum block length to alleviate the potential edinu phY&assuciares/nsd/iner<ger/cupapp/1/19/03 27 Metzger Elemen►an, School CUPNartances • hardship that would come from the strict application of the block length standard in this case. The pedestrian connection is longer than 530 feet in spacing. Counting the east-west informal connection between SW 90th Avenue and SW Lincoln Streets, there would be an east-west pedestrian spacing of approximately 330' and 640', and a north-south spacing of 430' and 310' (See Exhibit `L'). While not strictly meeting the pedestrian connectivity standards, the proposed site design improves the pedestrian connectivity beyond what the neighborhood currently enjoys. In summary, the District should be granted a variance from the requirements of Section 18.810.040 because ♦ The proposed use is an elementary school, which needs a certain size of a building site; ♦ The proposed replacement school is part of an established neighborhood with traffic patterns that are generally acceptable; ♦ There will be internal public pedestrian circulation; ♦ The regulations, when written, apparently did not consider the affect they might have on school sites, which are normally larger than 4.6 acres; The variance request meets the variance criteria of Chapter 18.370.010.C.2; ♦ The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would cause an unnecessary hardship, and any public benefit would be outweighed by the public harm. 28 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • Metzger ..entan, School CUP/Variances MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE Background. The R-4.5 zone sets a maximum building height of thirty feet. The adjacent properties both to the south and to the west of the school site is zoned Mixed Use Employment - 1, which has a maximum building height of two hundred feet. The site of the new proposed school is on the lower portion of the school property, which is about 20-feet lower in elevation than the homes along SW Locust Street. Currently there are only two developed residential properties that abut the school site on the south side. Proposal. Most of the school building, 86%, will be at or under the 30-foot maximum height limit. The main exception is the gymnasium. The recommended clearance heights to the bottom of the structure, i.e. the ceiling, for competition volleyball is 22' to 25'. This leaves potentially only 5' for both structure, roof slope and parapets (if applicable), which may not be enough. Also, the code allows for unprotected structure when above 25' (not fireproofed) which eliminates some of the costs for fireproofing and ceilings, etc. The gym itself comprises approximately 7% of the buildings' floor area. The building may also have enclosed mechanical penthouses in the classroom pods that could exceed the 30-foot height limit, but they will be inboard of the exterior walls. Response to Variance Approval Criteria a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; The proposed height variance will not materially detrimental to the purposes of the Development Code, recited in Section 18.110.020. The variance is needed to build to a slightly greater height than the Code would otherwise allow in this zone, but by doing so, the building and site will be more efficient in the use of land. This is consistent with purpose statement #5 "Conserve all forms of energy through sound economical use of land and land uses developed on the land". b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; As stated above, the school site is adjacent to a much more intense zoning district. As the area to the south redevelops, it is very likely that the elementary school will be shorter than the adjacent office or mixed-use buildings. Also, the school site is at the low side of the property, and will be lower in elevation than many of the surrounding homes. There are no homes on the west. The homes to the north are over 200' away and higher in elevation by 20 feet. The homes on the east are a considerable distance away - 88 feet to the school's east property line, plus the 50-foot wide right-of-way of SW 90th Street, plus their own front yard setbacks. On the south side, two homes are close to the property line, and will be the property owners most impacted by any increase in the height of the elementary school. In that area, the 20-foot setback, plus the 14.8-foot Oak Way right-of-way provides a buffer. Additionally, the site plans shows trees planted along their fence line, which will help buffer the building. In addition, most of the south elevation of the school is at or below the 30-feet edinurphy&associates/ttsd/metz,ger/ct4pappl2/19/03 29 Metzger Elementar- School CUP4 riances • height limit, with only a portion of it higher than 30 feet. Further, the portion that will be higher than 30 feet is setback from the edge of the building, and should not be visible to the neighbors to the south. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; An elementary school is allowed in the R-4.5 zoning district. City standards for height will be met as much as possible, with the only about 14% of the building exceeding the maximum height limit. The yard setbacks will be much larger than required on the east, west and north sides. On the south side, the yard setback coupled with the remnant right-of-way strip provides an adequate setback. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; The height variance would not adversely impact or affect either physical or natural systems. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is one of not designing a building that will meet the needs of the school children and the community. While it would be possible to design the school within the height limits, it would mean reducing the ceiling height in the gymnasium, which would impact volleyball and other sports. It would also mean lowering the ceilings in some of the classrooms to accommodate the mechanical equipment. Finally, it would increase the cost of building the school as additional fire protection measures are required for ceilings under 25 feet in height. 30 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • Metzger ementary School CUPNariances PARKING LOCATION VARIANCE Background. The Metzger Elementary School is on a parcel (tax lot 100) that is surrounded on three sides by streets - SW Locust Street, SW Lincoln Street and SW 90th Avenue. The narrowest side of the parcel is on SW Locust Street. If this were a typical subdivision lot, or even a typical commercial lot, SW Locust would probably be the "front lot line", and the building would be oriented towards that street. However, the parcel only has about 200 feet of frontage on SW Locust Street, and there are three residential lots in between the two corners of tax lot 100 that front on SW Locust Street. (Please refer to the Tax Assessor's map, Exhibit 'A'). The elementary school currently "fronts" on SW 90th Avenue, which is where the busses drop off the children and where the main entrance to the school is located. Parking is available along SW 90th Avenue, as well as the parking lot located off SW Lincoln Street. There were several factors that influenced the proposed design. One was moving most of the bus and automobile traffic off of SW 90th Avenue and onto SW Lincoln Street. SW 90th Avenue is a local residential street, with houses all along the east side of the street. It is zoned R-4.5. SW Lincoln Street, on the other hand, is bordered by commercial development along the west side, and is zone MUE-1, which allows up to 200-foot tall buildings. SW Lincoln Street is classified as a collector street, and is planned to extend through to SW Oak Street. SW Lincoln Street is the higher classification of road, and when extended through to SW Oak Street will allow busses and other vehicles to exit either to Oak or to SW Locust Street. It makes sense to place the parking lot on the SW Lincoln Street side of the parcel. Another factor that influence the design was trying to keep vehicular traffic and parking lots out from between the school and the ball fields. It would be hazardous to have the children cross a parking lot aisle, or walk through a parking lot, to reach the playground and ball fields. A third factor in the design was supervision, which included making sure that the administration office had a clear view of the children loading onto and off the busses or coming in from the parent drop off area. The proposed location of the school buildings and parking lot on the site would successfully separate bus and car traffic, and of all the schemes analyzed it was the only one that accomplished this requirement. The design also made the most efficient use of the off- shaped portion of the parcel created by the offset alignment or jog on SW Lincoln Street. However, the layout does not meet one of the standards adopted as part of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. According to Section 18.690.050.A.5 of the Code, there is not supposed to be any parking lots between the building and the street. The Code does not distinguish between an elementary school site and a commercial site, or development that occurs in the R-4.5 zone versus development that occurs in the MUE-1 or MUE-2 zones. It simply states that "parking for buildings adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings", and further, is a building is edmurplry&associates/ttsd/inetz ei/cupapp/1/l 9103 31 Metzger Elementary School CUPN• aces adjacent to more than one public street, the primary street shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies". As discussed with the planning staff, since SW 90th Avenue is a local street, and SW Lincoln Street and SW Locust Street are collectors, the primary street would normally be one of the two latter streets. There is not enough frontage on SW Locust place the new school at that location, and besides, the existing school must continue to operate while the new school is being built. So SW Lincoln Street would be considered the "primary street". That subsection of the Code is quoted below: Section 18.630.050.A.5 Parking location and landscape design. a. Purpose. The emphasis on pedestrian access and a high quality streetscape experience requires that private parking lots that abut public streets should not be the predominant street feature. Where parking does abut public streets, high quality landscaping should screen parking from adjacent pedestrian areas. b. Standard. Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. When buildings or phases are adjacent to more than one public street, primary street(s) shall be identified by the City where this requirement applies. In general, streets with higher functional classification will be identified as primary streets unless specific design or access factors favor another street. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the primary street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 landscape standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or is equal to the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to a L-2 landscape standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 landscape standard. Proposal. The Site Development Plan shows the elementary school set back from SW Lincoln Street by approximately 85 feet at its closest point, with parking between the school and the street. The parking lots are very visible to the administration office, and are designed to accommodate several busses at once in the lower (more southerly) parking lot, and quick parent drop off and short term parking in the upper parking lot. The parking area placed where it is proposed does not conflict with the rest of the campus, or present an obstacle between the school building and the play fields. It directs vehicular traffic away from SW 901h Avenue, where the existing homes are (although some parents may still choose to drop their children off from SW 90th). The parking consumes less than 50% of the school's frontage along SW Lincoln Street. The parking area will be screened to an L-1 level (as per Section 18.630.050.A.5), and the remainder of SW Lincoln Street will be landscaped to an L-2 level (as per Section 18.630.080.A.2), with street trees within a planting strip between the sidewalk and the curb. This will provide the pedestrian on SW Lincoln a "high quality streetscape experience", and meets the intent of the regulations. Response to Variance Criteria. a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 32 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 0 Metzgertmentan' School CUPNariances The proposed site plan, with parking between the building and the primary street, will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Code. That is, it ♦ uses land economically; ♦ is an efficient and orderly arrangement of public facilities; ♦ conserves open space (by not having a• parking lot break up the outdoor area behind and to the north of the school building); and • protects the public safety by providing bus parking and drop off parking at the main entrance to the school. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; The primary special circumstance is that the proposed development is an elementary school, with eleven busses taking 600 children to and from school. The Washington Square Regional Center Design standards appear to have been written with mixed-use, multifamily, office or commercial development in mind, within the higher intensity zones such as MUE and MUR. These circumstances would not apply to other properties in the Washington Square Regional Center, except for other schools (and there are no other public schools within the regional center area). The District has no control over the site itself, since it has been a school site since 1912, and since there are no other suitable sites for a school in the Metzger attendance boundary area. Further, because 1). the existing school has to remain open during the year when the new school is being built; 2). there is a 20-foot difference in elevation between the upper part of the site and the lower part; 3). the parcel is relatively small; and 4). the parking lot has to be designed for school busses to queue up on the site, choices on exactly how to arrange the school and the parking are very limited. Finally, although the property has frontage on three streets, it is more of a through lot, with primary frontage on, two parallel streets. These are all circumstances that would not apply to other properties in the regional center. c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The proposed use, an elementary school, is permitted under the Code in the R-4.5 zone as a conditional use. The development will, as much as it reasonably can, meet the applicable city standards, such as minimum setbacks, minimum parking, and landscaping. The school proposed layout fits in very well with the mixed-use neighborhood it is in. The rear yard of the site, adjacent to the residences, is designed with ball fields, playgrounds and landscaping. The front yard of the site, adjacent to the commercial areas, is designed with parking and landscaping. It is a reasonable layout, given the circumstances, and allows the District to use the site to its fullest extent as a school site. The building itself is very suitable for this particular area - it is a two-story structure, in keeping with the higher intensity of existing and probable future land uses in the area. Yet it is only two-story, in keeping with the residential nature of the particular area and the residential nature of an elementary school itself. ednntrpln•&assuciatec/ttsdhnet;ger/cupapp2119103 33 Metzger Elementan' School CUP/V•nces The primary purpose of the regulations creating a desirable livable community, providing a convenient, safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience, and providing an attractive streetscape that is not dominated by parking lots - are met with the proposed site development plan. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; There is no greater impact to the traffic, drainage, or other physical systems if the variance is granted than if it is not. Parks will not be affected one way or the other (except the school grounds serves like a park in many ways, and the variance will ensure that the open space behind the proposed school will not be impacted by a parking lot extending into that space). There are not dramatic landforms, trees, environmentally sensitive areas, or other natural features that would be adversely impacted if the variance were granted. (As mentioned before, there is a physical constraint posed by the change in elevation across the site, in that the parking is in the lower, flatter area of the site. Moving the parking more to the north would result in more cut and fill and use of retaining walls than if the parking were located as proposed). e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship. The hardship is not self-imposed. It is imposed by the constraints of the site and by the needs of an elementary school. The hardship is also the result of the location of the school site itself, which is within a regional center area. New regulations apply in the Washington Square Regional Center that do not apply to any other school within the Tigard-Tualatin School District boundaries. Remodeling the existing school built in 1966 is not a good option. It would leave much of the traffic on SW 90th Avenue, it would cost as much or more than replacing the school, and it would result in a school design that would not function nearly as well for school programs. The elementary school needs to be replaced. Moving the school to another location within the Metzger attendance boundaries is not an option because there are no other sites available that could reasonably accommodate an elementary school. Replacing Metzger Elementary School on the same site as the existing school, while keeping the existing school open during construction, is the most practical option. Designing the site with the parking and bus loading in front of the school, with open fields behind the school, is the most appropriate design response to the objectives of the District, the characteristics of the neighborhood, and the features of the site. 34 ednturphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 • Metzger Pementary School CUP/Variances CONCLUSIONS The replacement of Metzger Elementary School with a new school is a huge benefit to the neighborhood and the entire city. It not only allows the children the opportunity to go to a new and modern school facility, but will also provide improvements to the parking areas, lighting, fencing, landscaping, drainage, pedestrian walkways, and streets. The proposed new elementary school meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, including complying with (almost) all of the applicable development standards. The District is requesting variances or adjustments to four standards that pose serious practical difficulties for the development: ♦ one that would require 168 bicycle parking spaces, which is fourteen times the number of bicycles currently ridden to school; ♦ one that would require a public street to bisect the property between the school building and the outdoor play area; ♦ one that would limit the building to a height of thirty feet, which is not high enough to accommodate a gymnasium (an this in an area where immediately adjacent to the proposed school the height limit is 200 feet); and ♦ one that would not allow parking between the street and the elementary school building. These four requests are very reasonable and warranted, considering the circumstances. edmarphsl&associates/ttsd/ntet; ger/cttpapp/2/l9103 35 • Metzger Elementary School CUPNariances This page intentionally left blank • 36 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 0 Metzger p"entary School CUPNariances EXHIBITS Exhibit 'A' Tax assessor's map showing the location and dimensions of the tax lots Exhibit 'B' Aerial photograph Exhibit `C' Zoning Map Exhibit `D' Site Plan, including: 1 - Vicinity Map - by SLX 2 - Existing Conditions - by SLX 3 - Site Development Plan - by SLX 4 - Landscape Plan - by Anderson Associates 5 - Public Improvements / SW Lincoln street plan - by HBH 6 - Public Improvements / SW 901h street plan - by HBH 7 - Grading / Erosion control - by HBH 8 - Storm Drainage Plan - by HBH 9 - Utility Plan - by HBH 10 - Building Floor plans - by SLX 11 - Proposed Elevations by SLX Exhibit `E' Service provider response - Clean Water Services Agency Exhibit `F' Traffic Evaluation Report - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 'G' Tree Assessment - Halstead's Arboriculture Consultants, Inc. Exhibit 'H' Letter from Principal Altig regarding bicycle parking needs Exhibit `I' School Attendance Boundaries Map Exhibit 'J' Map showing previous right-of-way vacations Exhibit `K' Letter from Security Expert Patrick Donaldson Exhibit `L' Map illustrating connectivity Exhibit 'M' Neighborhood meeting documentation Exhibit 'N' Pre-application conference notes ednutrpln,&assaciates/ttsd/inet<get/cupappl2/19103 37 Metzger Elementary School CUP/V• aces This page intentionally left blank is 38 edmurphy&associates/ttsd/metzger/cupapp/2/19/03 lisp' Q T Exhibit `A' ';%1/?.^'.^.':~~174/isz7i~/i/........,z✓iuiunniinini ion ni iuiiAicva:: viiimn~/.i/i:n,oi2iiia iii,ouniiir/iiiuiaii:: LOG'T'111iaoioiia:'>/,rga71/ai/iuul///1/1/111/ .......:.............%//1/////////////o////Ul//////1/////////1/L:'1.i:i::7,//1/i • BEGIN. CR. 753 (CR. 753-50' WIDTH) ►t~"►~~~\~?\\\\\\\\\\l\\\lti 50 Y 50 t 50 Y 50 T 50 50 50 T 50 t N 89 30E 50 1 50 T 50 '`30 r 25 S0 7 50 f ? /1130 a 1 50 I 50 1 50 1 SO 50 T 50' 9 rz 38262 T I I 50 50 SO 327.98 339.42 4 1204 4400 900 I3' -8:25 I. I 700 I I I 100 202 .2203 1.74 Ac. 67A c. 0 1 2.04 Ac, o I o \ o - 6 56 AC. .22 A6: 24 AC. " .35 AC. A. 4 3 2 I°-I 1222 4 3 1 2 i ml I °4~1 3-I 21 o"I4 3 2 181 "1g4 3° 2 I o Z " Uj a Io • c -b Q , b v b " 1 _o0 Sa m , W ao~ -4- °w - - 50 _ Q > N N 1 I 10 50 ► " I O I ,c a 81.56 ~I J 12 hl\:.1 n 5 „N 12• OI 1 0 12 Q U O Q " 9 h »t.. IT 1 I " 5 71 5 12 „I a" qn 5 12 0 . N N 1.3.9 IDD I ~ „ , b•- ,o. L _O- (62.50) 37.501 (31) (19) SO + - 00 N 89828'E 222.50`) o i•:• ~1 I I a (iod):-~ 90600 50.00 172.50 fi II in in 6C) _1 II 01 I o„ 6 11 30 30 6 1 11 01 : I$ 6 II $ 02Ac. ~ j b- 211.59 T 44 f - - ti.t T l ~ 129.31 1 N I ~ ^ CJ 400 X10 • J 1.53 Ac. o$ ~i~ r os / I I 0 L 1 ~J 00 8 ; 0 Im `s l 272.02 00 7 0 n O I~ 01 to 0 . 3 W l 7 8 9 10 -1 7 8 I 9 44.70 i 1 a' M r 2 7 9 1 M ~1 8 10 2 7 8 9 10° W o M 79.14 f002 1 I 10 7 8 9 f / I' I I cr c o F n 1.77AC. I G Im 3 1 I 1 m ~z F.: • N 01 C 50 50 50 L 50 50 ! 50 SO QI 50 SO 0 SO 1 SO 1 SO 1 SO f SO f (350) 1 50 I SO 1. 50 90 -7- ^ 156.93 29\J J ,J'Q 2 VACATED RIO 78-232 100.0-1;- ~ - - - L . S.W. MAPLFLEAF C.R. 1508 STREET o .s+ n SO -r 50 50 50 50 y5~ ~J3 P' fs SJ~o?9g N J~0 IIB 8B. 8 36 O '5, 1 50 1 SO 1 50 50 T 50 T 50 7 50 T 50 T SO Z • Js' 174.50 I 1 N 8931'21"E* 98 31' 21"E 1 a l 3 G I I 2r f o 0' 34.36 808 48' E 10 3 V 1 `5t / I 1 O 4 3 ~L I 81 4 3. 2 t o a l ti I I 0001 10 4 3 2 I 2001 loo _ 4 3 2 I 0° 9 ^~p' ti m' a 1001 N o_ I dui > 1 4 10~? \ I~l .7 . 4 s • yBj51 ?as~r" 4,eE ` °^ry 3.21Ac. 1 ( I 2 I I ' 1 METZGER ELEMENTdRY I I C-i R 34,60 • 12 nl N I$ 5 43 7k - I$ 5 12 n1 F 10 5 nl 15 I 12 01 SCN 9 C DISTRICT 123) 01 ~10 15 00 112 oti~ 13 R=134.60 1~4 a % 5 12 0! 6 17 M L"~ 18 " N . 4- • t'a'0 0.- - _ N89030'57" >K°•62' hfV ~ .~w~ 01^ P) to O r ! Of 6 II „I:. 1„ 6 2so'I1 ~~$I•=•~" 6 II 6 1 II „ol t"~:al$ to 6 II Y°,1 0 6 m 0 • ~fi..a m } . 0 aI II " 1 W + N i~ 6~~ y pl+, r`' 'i' 1 > ~••t' a ~ a • 212.7 2 01 10 ' „°1 51 n 7 10 n1 F C1- I 7 10 1p 7 10 of 7 10 01 10 7 10 of 10 3400 7 10 $ . 1 9 nl !n 8 9 $I 0) ~ min 8 284.96 9 10. 1 7.893 9788' of 8 1 9 .01 1$ 8 9 0 1$ 8 9 n (6001 100 - :5 LS - 100 - - 100 SO 100 100 5 25' 100 100 b 100 1 100 1 50 1 100 100 VACATED BO-21653 'ICY e(TJ 203.05 - - 60 1 1 SO 100 T 100 1 50 i~f~ff/i//~yi/~~~/~/r~//.%/,///. , ////./~l/f//J' rrrv~ arrir<rrm/.;rrra;rlr/c1 ~,J« • ~•11~, •1„ ~~1/~~!' 1u~,,;,;,. : ; : ,11 1 / 1 • - rrlttlfLl,/,..L flf.`rsl;1.~rcf~i~lfl:'rr;rr~f!f;!llrlrirr~;elf%/' 1 / I o0 1.0 ~50 loD 100 750 $J 750 „ 300 loo loo` • .4.22 CHS /y 4.22 CHS 0 E 4.22 CHS. 1741 232'42 I I 151.4e 3300 8201 3203 9.4e cHS, 70 • (c.s. 23,627) o 0 1 3401 3200 I l8 AC\ 0 a~ AC 95 69 / S 0. I ~ I I r) r~ r ~ I 1 ( I I .BrC' r .43 Ac. .71 AC. Ir\ H, J t % J J l 1 - - - - - - I r r~ rR JM 3202 3205 J h-- - 1` 178' I Ts T 75 N .36 AC. 06 AC. \Q~~\ • ICI I = 3 w e 0. 03 oCO m ~t, bJ 01`~ 6 NI 7 ^ I I 8 e 1 g Q IO 69ti~~ Q o y 6p 09 p ON 6 o a I ( I I M L- BS -996 300 Z r c' = a 75 75 75 75 100 s °1 3302 3303 3304 3403 0 ! 1 I Q' ~ I N' N .22 AC. .22 AC. .22 AC. .29 AC. o • I I I N 1 1 0 5 p6\ D. 9 N 0~ I I 1 TQ i n I OP• QO • 100' E 1~ ~OAr ` I o I I S 89I- N 890 34- E 0.4g 2.11 1 341.65 N 4.22 2CH1S. I I 4.22 C CH 1 ° HIS S 4898 34' W 00 S J 1' 0 .22 CHS. 19.30 jI 0 .1 84-42437 96.56482 175 75 75 100 100~1~ / 1 S. 9 V- 1 1 in A W -I- ~ 1 1 1 J---L n T n r-r-~- W 4P 000 000 ~yyl~ ~1 ` ` J 1 ` D O T 1 13 ~fl l~ I"s } 1 , - "I f -r i i ~~y ~f, f' + ~ ~ " t.~---- ~ - M~ ■ e ~ ~ ~ - ~ tom- } c.. I-AV Awn lip F t 219s~ 3 s L ~r Princed: Aerial MaP - Metzger Elementary LOCUST \-1 ST s is ~ ~ ,r') ,LfF art L Metzger Elementary - Zoning Map `I O U) OAK --t IQ F ~ r S L 00 ~.m a n Hnn,ed: 2--i-9-2G663 0000900000.00000000000000000000000000000000• . Awl" '-61 1 2 1 ` • 8,83 U Y,80 8900 S. Sias $ S „ • 9370 WAS 976o p ST fi am S ~ 2f e ~ s 9750 °'S 9330 Dees °t w" 5179 9We7 CEWD EST ST ~ am `0595 PH Z , '~DARCRE ~ . Dues azss > i?° 9330 am 9270 °sa° H 9310 8 ~ / a r • (A 1 8313 R ea6 9070 LL 1 3 s3e6 I 9115 5109 y osee I---'--r• . ~ 9 aas 9uo d e153 BNS e6I3 \ 9600 8.578 I_ - 9310 I ~ ~ ~ Saw ~ I I 9SOW 860 91ST m,5 a Bus „ S ~6S P75 I Q 9670 ° ( 9573 ° S ` Q6a5 O tV ° SOW O O .9650 ° ° ° I 9670 $ 0 BORDERS ST _ 9660 9663 $ R R a 19e83 9680 $ R 87W 9^ 9510 g a 87015 9799 s a 9715 9780 $ 10 lL 7so „ w 9799 8 9745 I 9760 ~ ~ d 8 x 977+ 9ms 9769 ( ~ LEHMANN ~ ST 9759 9170. $ 9ez3 9eso P ae3s Sea 8 ~ 8 o SS ~ ~ $ o O • ~ g ➢8Q3 9860 8867 9873 ~ ~ $ ~ -Ji a a p n 0 9906 y~ Z 90~ 9805 • i~M gg 0940 w gg g g 9910 d S wl a I o a 8 $ $ 9915 9e10 00000 • I g pCORAL g_^~g _ g ST g 1 3 3 s & 8 g~8 t ° a 10016 1070.1 wlxo m 8 a a/s too • • • LOCWSIr • • • • • • • • • ~0 ar Tt x a • S s ,o,a , 101e1 • i • • • • • • .moo k/1 ~ . w fo17e ,ct 2 law • Iola, w 7 . ` / , tmro I wore -p.: ~ _ . torso low laws m I Io:,:. ,a»o /nxea 1 ,moo ,amo Imm III= ,meo METZGER ~ • too I VAC LEMENTY low l,aaee a,7.. tmm /ItAe r ~ Wxee C HO V co IW:.. IOYe gyp 1015 10900 / Ism I / t~ A nMar I ( ,J 12 am low _ ~i faNO i t0►SO I aa 1 or,J; ' IOfeO ~ • ~ I G 111 vrt•.. 1000 PINE STO III yea ,Dee. e $ as ~ ('j e„e wa1 ~ loos Ioss9 ,am r1r 11 ~ slr low lom LEGEND DEDICATED BIKE LANES SHARED ROADWAY WITH BIKES & a TRANSIT PATTERN r TRANSIT STOPS 0 r NOTE: ALL UTILITIES WILL BE ACCESSED FROM 90TH STREET. THERE IS AN EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER AND VAULT ON THE CORNER OF SW LOCUST ST. AND SW LINCOLN AVE. 1►. ~I. n v N 1 0 VCNTY MAP V= 400- S'TE.V'C'N'TY METZGER ELEMENTARY SEEIC / LEE / RUEDA LIG LEE RUEDA 1 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J A R C H I T E C T S Ift . P L A N N E R S ¢Cta IA-4^A .....~.....-n....r +....nn ..n.-...... 213 S.W. Ash Street. Room 201 - Portland. Oreson 9,7204 - (303) 224 - 0173 + may! r t r h { x" '~;r 4 tf mrryr xa Ylc. +~m~~ 1 pSt~, c i I I ! 4 ~ a+ ~ t P X ~wfk L ~ti ~ ~ J4' y G4 ? 'c t w Ifhr a r T. ~ rya Q 4 C.45~'#~,C^ryll ~,Y b` ~ ~ Y. 471 -EXISTING \ 'EXISTING SING ~~5 r , 4 }s I I OFF-SITE i~ i _ DRIVEWAY _ OFF-SITE EWAY :r DR IV DF F~WAY aHw - - :po 1 + _ to t~ f! z` i 8 Q SW LOCUST STREET J'o alb w_ SDI- - - - - a= + 'I 1 N44'33'03'E mg - TRwrrolaot 24.03' .,p Ind alac uRn1t low 7 c + m t 257 ti 254 N NB9.44'2 ~ I v1 - 7 256 SLOPE ' N- EXISTING 2 2 CNAIN LINK FENCE \ N I r ~I \ 59.8 1'i yl,, ~ i I'P / Comm `V7 ow-srm 221 DRIVEWAY \ ✓ ' - "I ~ oare I ~ 1 STnI 6' LINK - OB'SO-. Sara. .28- 1.69' 220 -N26' 21 1187.533E FEET - `y0 06' 4. ACRES EXISTING 6' I CHAIN LINK E ' EXISTING 6' D >A CHAIN LINK FENCE .O, O O ~ r 2 285 64 4 A 81 ` 242 241 240 267 t + + 2 262 26 - \ O + - - + + + 0 W .-yes I.~a UTILITIES LEGEND r SS .1MRAR1 EWER UK fti1 SD STORM,.ORApIAM UNE r; ( G GAS LINE 1 W WATER: L NE': + T TELEPHONE LINE 1 -OF1W OVERHEAD WIRE o PP EXISM POWER POLE 1 I (3) DIGR NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE TREES REFERENCES NUMBER DESIGNATION SHOWN IN ARBORISIS REPORT N EX ST NG COND TONS PLAN 2 1' SITE.EXIST ' METZGER ELEMENTARY SELIG / LEE / RUEDA 2 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J A R C H I T E C T S & P L A N N E R S FEB 14 03 1 ngsA nnTN AVF TnApn OPF:rnN 213 saw. Aan Street, Room 201 - Portland, Oregon 97204 - (503) 224 - 0173 : 1 I 1 1 A~*, YV, I 1 a I SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY 1 SING``FAMILY.~''. Ft SW LOCUST STREET NEW 6' CHAIN NEW 6' CHAIN LINK FENCING LINK FENCING N44'JJ'nV•r 1R.Yr?GRMYR r g$ •I I 60'-0- 24.0 P I I I -x'$I PII •.J•U SC I O. SLOPE a UnUTY EASEMENT SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY • - PER OEM Doc. No.B?-392a2 SINGLE FAMILY "I! R W RECORgD we s3, 1989 R4.5 R4.5 R4.5 F 11W 4 ~ I I I k I I 1 R4.5 NEW 6' PRIVACY I tl~ I 1, 1 o 1 1e FENC NG M 50.07* ~~4'. N *,--NEW 6' PR JACY r_ II--___ -I----__-I-- Iq. o PARKING STRUCTURE FENCING 1 I .)y 1 FN 1 SINGLE FAMILY MUE 1 M ; A 1 EMS NO TO BE DEMOLISHED R4.5 1 -NEW 6' CI~AIN Ne994•oo•E 2.00.01- ----------------I--1 I Z cn 1 LINK FENCTING d / I o NEW LANDSCAPE STRIP I 1 AND SIDEWALK FULL DELTA uve'09• I v - - - - LENGTH OF STREET 20' SETBACK I z FR.. SEE DRAWING 4,5&6 S{_-B°D~ ~i X1 LA CN-N Y1S'10•E 1 COSTING BUgpINO TO BE OEMOU9IED F / -6 m,r• 1 NEW 6' C:1NGj SINGLE FAMILY P -6'_ 01 1 1 I t-- FEN( NG w "ADS Oi i INSTITUTIONAL USE p + R4.5 - - - 61 ~ 1 I 1 I N C' (D i i I o I PLAY FIELD / 1 f c / Y k/T OFDC OI I 1 I I SINGLE FAMILY 1 PARKING LOT I MUE 1 / ~FH f+ i i K---------- _ t-- TRASH AND j j En9T1NC BUI DIN To BE DEMOUSNED 011 REQUIN \ 4.. • Pv WC 1 P 1 L-----g I!iY -s.:---- L_) a 1 - - / Zip ° LOADING -1 1 I C3 09021 • 00 L! a PLELEAF ST.) X i i 1 0 .9 MA - o n. t ~ 41 3' 071 .eY . 20 0 r--t--S------------------N -~j- 1 IEW LANDSCAPE STRIP °'S• ` / COURT ------r -'v ° SINGLE FAMILY IND. SIDEWALK FULL F - i COVERED i I ~11o R4.5 .ENGTH OF STREET - ` 1 PLAY i acR'~ BODac"E1wE Pa"cET1 .EE DRAWING 4,5&6 p I RECORDED DEC 9, 1940 1 0 1 (PLAY AREA I-------- 3 'ARKINC LOT d' I ` oo f 1 °y.1 1 WE, 1 7 / !4111 1 8 1 Ill~lwi:. I EI gTINO BU DNG 41 Nf . b T _ I To BE DowUSHED y µ111~''NI V~ ° 1 1 - I„ ~ r m I SINGLE FAMILY 1 1 I o: i u f! i 1 ST I'* 16'-9 L- 1 I 1 R4.5 1 1 TO REMOVED 1 4 ,BI Z~ ~S COURT COURT NEW CONC- NEW 6' 0 BE REMOVED G 1 SIDEWALK LINK FENING BUS 1 LANE 1 c~ in SINGLE FAMILY Olr 2~~ 6\O i-- O 1 by I;1!il,ilii ? ,L I Dili(' 1 :n, I If lii 301-C p, 1 c: z I 1 SINGLE FAMILY 1 NEW CONC w NEW CONC 88'-6- i I MUR 1 0 1 p_ 'cP I 91DEWALK (y FH _ 1 I 20 SETBACK SIDEWALK _ ------_--41~-----_------ - 6 PR(VZT FENCING ALL + LIB E - - - ~ - + ALONG SOUTH PROP - vSS~L _ 1z__,i_ 5<- 0 (SW OAKWAY) - - - U o O I I I I SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY i MUE 1 I MILE 1 I MUE 1 I MUE 1 \ MILE 1 / .1 PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT ,I 1 • PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREAS 0.i 11 I,;,Ira, , SEE SHEET 4 FOR STREET TREE AND SCREENED AND BUFFERED I, AREAS N 3 STE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I,= av-0. x.sITE METZGER ELEMENTARY Gw RU SELIG /LEE /RUED-A 3 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 231 A R C H I T E C T S 8t P L A N N E R S. FEB 14 m3 1110GF OnTFd AVF TI(:ARf1 (1RFr.()N 213 S. w. Ash Street, Room 201 - Portland, Oregon 97204 - (303) 224 - 0173 - LANDSCAPE PLAN NOT*S Condition l use 1!iiimlt. Application .a t ! l LezatIm or trace to be .h The are Ursa MaNy trees greater than lt.' unpe Thal will be r .1, fR607a3~3-.J rh" are it haTardow bees greater than 0' Callpef that sill be , L(1241;56,259) 6" plan and 1 a0ed ror trees to be pr7ses and tress to be , clue to carwetlon . Jac` t f 7, Lora b b4 bid species or axis ng plain riatrtsh an noted on" Pion per vxvoj and arbalst report • S. General beatbrt aue and apaches or proposed plant Material, General location or plant motor'"., b shown on the plan • ate and general species or plant notarial is noted In the plant legend • I, Landscape narratr m Rm eon conolworo, plan, materiel selection eon treatMrs, end eroslon control sroewes, See Condltioml Use parmit application • e. Location and description or irrigation "tam, Thore win be a mabel arlgation syslas for thb project. • The Intara la ra all propped plant eaterUl will be watered 2-3 Veers, unn the plants are established 6. Location tin farces, buffer or"*. and ac , the button or races, buffer areas and t . _ _ a is shown on the plan . T. Location of terraces, doW.;niters, play areas, and coraan open spacaw The location or rerCM. burrar areas and sc J is shown on the plan . 6. 9uffor" and • The Inhere is to create landscape buffers or trees and low sWJD* and groundcover. A d4- &W Ten, dense shrubs will not be used des to sc my issues. • LEGEND • SYMBOL DESCRIPTION Large Deciduous Tree 150-807 - 2' capper • Le., Red Oak, Honeylocust, Aah • 0 Proposed Street Tree - Per City of Tigard Recommended Street Tree List (2' Caliper, 40' on center) Le., Tulip Tree, Red Oak, Sugar Maple . Medium Deciduous Tree 120-401 - 1.5" caliper le., Flowering Pear, Eastern Redbud, Red Sunset Maple • • 7 _ Small/Medium Evergreen Tree (20-40') - 8'-B' tab . 7 Le., Austrian Pine, Shore Pine, Leyland Cypress • ® Small Tree (15.25'1 - 1.5' caliper • Le., Vine Maple, Flame Maple, Hollywood Juniper • Groundcover/Shrub Bed: Shrubs - 5 an, 3 gallon; Groundcover - 1 gal and 4' pot • Le„ Native and hardy ornamental shrubs and groundcover - • Kbmickinnk k, Winter Currant, Smmal, Oregon Grape, Snowberry, etc. Additional Landscape Areas: Pervious surface I: :I Lawn 1 . • Trees to be removed during construction • 243 110 Trees to be removed during construction greater then 12" caliper. sat pQ Hazardous trees to be removed during construction greater than 12' caliper. , + r Yy+(Si Y 'S t !E. v' jam,.' 7 ~ 1Z Zt7 0z IGLU I Z IZ7 I I I n ~ J I ~ I t~ Hj L(b ~g 4 I 13021NOW) 3Ad N100 MS r u to zd N K 9 O o Z r_ F- ji 01 I ~l J Z Z~ ~ N NK Ck > J d O iD Z U ~ Z z~ Zi i I 0 c : . I. IN I V IN. \ IN IN. IN IN N~$ ~ $a N'o X IN \N a N Ld tea }2 \ t, ,`aj/~\\ 1 U D `,"1.\\ 1 Q \J:IC\ IN,~ r= Z pg $ tZ o i \ U Z \ tfi ~V) N \ O ° N-5OO ~Cn v mN~ e WU F 1: Z O C Z Z 5 tY O in in 0 U IaOU I~Z U \ C~ t Po SL !1 IIZ7 ( _J 1 i I I I I I i .l,91. l1S 80-.AVI) jnv uNC) m5 d, ~ \ O Z p y_©1 ~ Cl \ ~ ~ w \ D ? w .~X O ; \ U pZZ \ \ 6 C \\N z p m U 00\\,\0 . .~1 rA • C~ O J Zj N2 J Zj N~ 1~ r w is w M,`, w D n 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN d 1 aeemr-m' I h~`~, I ~ ;...-1.. .art. 77 ~ / ING~E SIQEWALK / n ~ y 1 • j i 1 Ic' -vtovem-F-w- W I.~N~p ~B~ 9 0 0 W w J J W N A w a • NEW 12" SD (REPLACE EXIST. 8") / IMPROVE STREET TO 07 T PROVID UTI ITY EASEMENT 16 FT CL TO CURB 3 f y .MHO 3 i, l JHO cn, Age ffJ~ ~j-- jv, N ^ - 5S • y 'SSW 90TH%AVE/ M, 55 l - T JI/ r~ / I e t ! 5' S'I,DE LK t_ 5 SIDEWA\L~11, I~ i I ii 1 \ ,ice F3~ c ~n EXIST. ~d EDGE OF PAVEMENT C - ~Vi \ T FUTURE 166'R CURVE AT CENTERLINE OF STREET f, ttl ~ ~ IL FUTURE ROW o \ , ti DEDICATION ~i II II SW 90TH ST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NIJI/ w w a a w m W W W W N W 2 N C L n' J ~IJ1 fy^t': & IMF , s$ ~S 1 t 1 SD 77 S* LOCUST -:S` - `pEGlftCN ~ 1 h \ ~I UGUV tRAN~ 1}~~l`~ I ` ,y z o I y- _ ; n ~tn ' . I ,~s 1l - mn 1'i - r .rl )1 -UktEAQ + 1 Q l n~ 01 mm ° 7o )o vm o n-+ - o m~ m o0 _ z~ z -o m z z E z 1 r 1 ~ 1 R ELEMENTARY GRADE I I METZGE, , A► n.YtN S.D. 23-1 t , f y ~l 0 S, ~m,.J too r~ 1 n . SELIG / As LEE >E I P S L C S & 9~zoa - (s0 ) 224 - C H 1 m 20L ~YOTSiand. nrOB°n A} R S.W. Auh Street, Ro *09ggqe r- - LIP ..•fL.~"' r 1~ +i Itf v Y_ `t+ -TG 44 ca l r r r -r- 1 ` 1 ~f~ ~,f- i ~'e r~q IM) Y ! J f' f / 'ter'" ' SEllt )-1204N(50) 224 ai~3 NTARY' K = T Port,and~ ]FL r c^l"1~2~1 I 1 i~JiETZGER ~ Ms.a 23-J , t 13 S-W' Aeh Stteet. RpO. 2pl - 1 -s* y~TM1 A4E / E 'ISTih1~ µYDR 4 v S i 1 , , 4t LT W~ METED vw ~ W DEVIGE;pN gP`GKQEpTARMENT'~ FwRF-. , f, r,,oN X1 1 i G FIRE i E)(ISTI NT ; HYDE v \ NEW FQGEVAU►NT I ~I 7't pND 1 ti- l r.\ N 1'~ N A` ° J nx ~x N a A ao t ` p W P N M, 0 Hw U~ ~Wo 1 H A H A V ✓ Hxn ~U4 N V1 Q~ F' C W~ Lu :oj uJ cc u c I Y••••••••••••••••••••••••••••~••~•'0,.*0000 Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom ti } RR RR RR t ,~t ~Ir i t c'. Classroom Classroom Classroom t- Classroom = 0/C 0/C :4 CC RR `a;? Classroom Classroom _ i RR RR 1 s Classroom Classroom r"4f ;:e Classroom ,y Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom RR RR RR • `0`2~ 2ND FLOOR PLAN V. `Q r a 0%_0r Y ST I Storage I Kitchen Gymnasium Multi-purpose Title 1 Classroom K Classroom --I f- Classroom Z _ 0/C 0/C ST 'Storage Office RR RR RR Music Storage Stara a Stage ST 9 Storage ~ 1ST FLOOR PLAN .gym Head Start CC RR RR RR K Classroom --y ESL X RR Staff Classroom Classroom SP ED RR Workroom VYorW.oom RR Workroom Staff Office RR Office Health ,jteception Office Office Media LCD- .i;7.: 1ST FLOOR - 48,000 SQUARE FEET 2ND FLOOR - 20,000 SQUARE FEET. TOTAL - 68,000 SQUARE FEET RU < XFLRPLAN METZGER ELEMENTARY SELIG /LEE / RUEDA 10 TIGARD - TUALATIN S.D. 23-J A R C H I T E C T S 8t P L A N N E R S FES 14 03 in9FFanTI-1 AVF -nr.apn r ognr)m 213 S.W. Aoh Street, Room 201 - Portland; Oregon 97204 - (303) 224 - 0173 _ t, •.X90•.•0....!i•got* ••*•Mo•*•••••00o.-,00.,-o:Nri• J i , a rr l 4 I. ~ >J F I M1. ran 19.}`x._;'• _ 1 : ~t'.,;a . ~ i+4 • N I G N; N N M y a i~NWEST ELEVAT ON = 40-0` I =1 '2-'~ NORTH ELEVAT ON V 40' s:. I o.. N N a a - '3 'EAST ELEVAT ON 'I I M ~ SOUTH ELEVAT ON a V,,m.m a c o I I ~ N N , LI 0 I r ,I M, IG E RUEDA "~'-E~' METZGER ELEMENTARY SELIG /LEE /RUEDA 1 1 TI~ADr% - TI IAI ATINI 0 n '4.1 A R el. H T T F. T C Ar P T. A N N R A Q • NN-C CleanWate Services Our commitment is clear. Jurisdiction r A'4 a ~ 7,\ ~W-~ FEB 0 4 2003 By Map & Tax Lot 1,51, 35,40 00/00 Site Address ~c~~ SAS IR UJ 9th Proposed Activity *r _01Hno-IAZ_D~ Exhibit `E' File Number' Z.703 I Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment Date l q 0 3 Owner 411 S'Ll'l Contact Address Phone Official use only below this line Y N NA Y N 0 ❑ ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map ❑ ❑ Map # /51 &J0 r lli~ f~J ,laccx~nwt, tae Z$z .012 q7 13c1 w~UhC7 NA OC Stormwater Infrastructure maps QS # y/ZO Y N NA Y N NA ❑ ❑ Locally adopted studies or maps ® ❑ ❑ Other Specify Specify 2oo0 Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 00-7: ❑ Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. ® Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: A qd..d e~ Yey: -w ti .S r! ~Pa. a..~ 2 o&o I/s.4eI ► rii~~ Krf t: qw: d..'A~-I/v l•►ad.eP rAw ~r1er+.a Ju l/y t~j.~: r: dre._, ~a....~ Reviewed By: 155 N First Avenue, Suite 270 - Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone: (503) 846-8621 - Fax: (503) 846-3525 www.clean waterservices.urL, Date: 2 Z Returned to Applicant Mail Faxes Counter Date x/6/o7 By oo-c • Exhibit `F' P Af< KL KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 • (503) 228-5230 • FAX(503)273-8169 February 12, 2003 Project 5746 Brian Radabaugh Cornerstone Construction Management, Inc. 5410 SW Macadam Ste 250 Portland OR 97201 RE: Transportation Impact Analysis for the Proposed Metzger Elementary School Redevelopment Dear Brian, Per your request, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. has prepared a transportation impact analysis for the proposed redevelopment of the Metzger Elementary School located in Tigard, Oregon. This letter provides an assessment of the transportation impacts of the proposed Metzger Elementary School redevelopment on the surrounding transportation system, a summary of site-access operations, and a review of on-site circulation issues. The results of this analysis indicate that safe and acceptable traffic operations can be maintained with the proposed redevelopment. BACKGROUND The existing Metzger Elementary School site is located along SW Locust Street between SW Lincoln Street and SW 90`h Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. A site vicinity map is illustrated in Figure 1. Vehicle access to the school facility is provided via a driveway on SW Lincoln Street and two driveways on SW 901h Avenue. Currently, buses queue along the southbound SW 90`h Avenue frontage to load/unload students. Pedestrian access to the site is provided via sidewalk connections along SW Locust Street and SW 90`h Avenue. The existing school facility has an enrollment capacity of approximately 600 students. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT As per the proposed site plan (see Figure 2), the existing Metzger Elementary School facility would be demolished and reconstructed in the westerly portion of the site. Vehicular access to the site would be via three driveways along SW Lincoln Street (one full-access serving the north parking lot, and one exit-only access and one entrance-only access serving the south parking lot). Parents would utilize the north lot to drop-off and pick-up students while the south lot would accommodate bus loading and unloading. The existing on-site pedestrian infrastructure is to be maintained in addition to the provision of half- street improvements along SW Lincoln Street and the construction of a new sidewalk along the site's southerly boundary. The student enrollment capacity of the new facility is projected to be approximately 600 students. H:\projfi Ie\5746\report\5746 I et 1. doc Metzger Elementary Redevelopment i~ WASHIA V KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / TRAFFIC ENGINEERING February 2003 • i 0 / (NO SCALE) • 0 SW ORDERS • B N ST O! • U i SW LOCUST ST / '/7 Q ?a _ //SITE ° o . J/ J ffl co SW OAK ST • J J Q • 217 in • A 1 • • / i / r / SITE VICINITY MAP ^ . TIGARD, OREGON METZGER ELEMENTARY REDEVELOP* ~r • • • • • FEBRUARY 2003 0 NORTH (NOT TO SCALE) • -i r------------~ o5n • I I I ' I • ~ I I~ • ~ j • • • • • • • • • • j • j • ~ II • ICI • • • K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING / TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SW LOQ!5, STREET - - - - - - - - r s - ~'2 - F IIl I~ I I I ~ I I I I l I I I I j Z J J ~ y W PROPOSED SITE PLAN 11 g o TIGARD, OREGON r z 0 • Metzger Elementary School Redevelopment Project 5746 February 12, 2003 Page 4 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC IMPACTS Given that the proposed redevelopment does not increase the student enrollment capacity of the school, off-site traffic impacts will be limited to the affects of the reassignment of site traffic from SW 90`h Avenue to SW locust Street. As such, the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection was analyzed to determine forecast intersection operations. Peak hour level of service analyses were conducted for the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection under the existing conditions and forecast traffic conditions (proposed redevelopment scenario). Manual turning movement counts were obtained for the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection on a mid-week day in February 2003. These counts were conducted during the weekday morning (7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) and afternoon (2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.) hours. Appendix "A" contains the traffic count sheets used in this study. All level-of-service analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. To ensure that this analysis was based on a reasonable worst-case scenario, the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours was used in the evaluation of intersection levels of service. For this reason, the analyses reflect conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average peak hour. Traffic conditions during all other weekday hours will likely operate under better conditions than those described in this report. Table 1 summarizes the peak hour operations of the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection under the existing and forecast traffic conditions. Note that the results presented in Table 1 for both scenarios reflect a shared, single-lane approach on all legs of the intersection. Appendix "B" contains the level of service worksheets for both analysis scenarios. _Table 1 - SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street Intersection Operations 2003 Existing Traffic Conditions F~2003 Forecast Traffic Conditions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak LOS I V/C LOS I V/C I LOS I V/C LOS I V/C A _ 0.02 I A 0.04 _I B I 0.22 I B I 0.19 LOS: level of service v/C: volume to capacity ratio of critical movement As shown in Table 1, the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection will operate acceptably under the forecast development scenario. No capacity enhancement mitigation is required. ACCESS OPERATIONS Vehicular access to the site will occur along SW Lincoln Street. As proposed, on-site parking will be divided into two parking lots served by a total of three access driveways. The north parking lot is designated for use by parents to drop-off/pick-up students and will accommodate minimal parking. A single, full-access driveway services this parking lot. The south parking lot is designated for bus use and will also accommodate the majority of on-site parking. Access to the south lot is provided via a single entrance-only driveway and a single exit-only driveway. A K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERII Metzger Elementary School Redevelopment Project 5746 February 12, 2003 Page 5 The alignment of site-access driveways with regard to the existing driveways of the office complex on the west side of SW Lincoln Street was considered and determined to be acceptable. The site's north parking lot access aligns across from the office complex's parking structure driveway. The site's south parking lot driveways are offset by approximately 150 feet north and south of the office complex's surface parking lot driveway. While the offset alignment is not ideal, the potential for a southbound left-turn into the site conflicting with a northbound left-turn into the office complex is negligible as SW Lincoln Street dead ends at the southerly boundary of the school site. Based on a review of existing site-generated traffic, the existing traffic volumes along SW Lincoln Street, and the character of SW Lincoln Street, the proposed access configuration will provide acceptable intersection operations. In the event that SW Lincoln Street is extended to the south and connected to SW Oak Street (as discussed in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan), then need for a southbound left-turn lane at the site accesses should be evaluated. Inspection of the proposed site plan indicates that more than 250 feet of sight distance is available at each of the access locations. This is sufficient for the low-speed environment of SW Lincoln Street. Maintenance of landscaping and signing near all access driveways is recommended to provide adequate lines of sight for vehicles entering and existing the school facilities. INTERNAL CIRCULATION The proposed site plan was reviewed to ensure that the site could be redeveloped while maintaining safe and efficient on-site circulation. As proposed, bus traffic and parent traffic will be separated into two parking fields. This configuration is advantageous as it reduces the potential for passenger car/bus conflicts. Adequate on-site pedestrian facilities are provided and include: sidewalk connections to SW Lincoln Street, half-street improvements along SW Lincoln Street and SW 90`h Avenue, and a new sidewalk along the site's southerly boundary. Given the proposed site layout, internal circulation is expected to operate safe and efficiently. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the transportation impact analysis described in this letter, safe and acceptable traffic operations can be maintained with the proposed Metzger Elementary School redevelopment. Findings: • The proposed redevelopment of the Metzger Elementary School will not increase the student enrollment capacity of the facility. As such, the associated trip generation of the redevelopment will not have a significant impact on off-site intersection operations. • The reassignment of site-generated trips from SW 90`s Avenue to SW Lincoln Street will not significantly impact the operations of the SW Locust Street/SW Lincoln Street intersection. A K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES. INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGlTRAFFIC ENGINEERII • • Metzger Elementary School Redevelopment Project 5746 February 12, 2003 Page 6 Access to the site will be via three access driveways along SW Lincoln Street. Based on existing access operations, the proposed accesses can provide adequate levels of service and capacity. • Internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation is expected to operate safe and efficiently Recommendations: • Maintenance of landscaping and signing near all access driveways to provide adequate lines of sight for vehicles entering and existing the school facilities. We trust this letter addresses the transportation impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of the Metzger Elementary School located in Tigard, Oregon. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this analysis. Sincerely, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Eric Waltman Engineering Associate Marc Butorac, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachment "A" - Traffic Count Data Attachment "B" - 2003 Level-of-Service Worksheets ,D PRA FFS IN FF so 5 986 :9 y w~ OREGON 21, ~gq~OQQ' Cq~LEN Expires: iZ K KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERII Attachment A Traffic Count Data • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • INTERSECTION: 82nd-From NortNLocust-From East CONDITIONS: Clear CLIENTS PROJECT ID: 6.55E+02 Peak Hour Turning Movements 92nd--From North 0 0 0 Locust--From West t 0 J L 0 PHF 53 0.88 141 27 40 * I t ► I Locust--From East m o a Lincoln--From South 0 TIME: 7:00 AM to 8 :55 AM DATE: 21612003 QUALITY COUNTS JOB 1Sol Peak Hour Link Volumes %HV = #N/A I0 i0 i I 147 181 TOTAL %HV = #WA 271 %HV = #WA 80 I i 57 i I ~ o %HV = #N/A 16285 SW 85th Avenue, Ste. 105 Tigard, OR 97224 Phone: 503.620-4242 Fax: 503 620.4545 email: JrwQqualitycounts.net www.quaittycounts.net Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossings 5 I< ~ 0 0 PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM PEAK 15 MINUTES: 7:45 AM _ to no AM 92nd-From North Loeust-From Fast Lincoln-From South Locust-From West Crosswalk Usage(Peds) y 5-Minute Count Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound By Approach Totals Period Beginning Right Thru Lett Right Thru Lett Right Thru Left Right Thru _ Left West East North South veh Peds 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 14 1 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 19 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 17 6 0 0 1 3 6 0 0 0 1 0 33 1 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 13 5 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 10 3 1 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 11 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 20 1 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 17 2 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 15 3 1 0 2 5 5 0 0 0 2 0 31 2 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 14 1 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 14 1 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 14 2 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 I Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Pedestrians By Approach HOURLY TOTALS Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left West East North South Totals 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 128 33 1 0 2 19 40 0 0 0 2 0 223 2 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 130 35 3 0 4 23 50 0 0 0 2 0 245 2 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 141 40 4 0 6 27 53 0 0 0 5 1 271 6 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 136 39 4 0 5 22 52 0 0 0 7 1 258 8 vww-zo 9 INTERS ECTION: 92nd-Fro m North/ -Fr om Fast TIM E: 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM CONDITIONS: Clear DATE: 2162003 CLIENTS PROJECT ID: 6.55E+02 Q UALITY COUNTS JOB q: 1802 Peak Hour Turning Movements Peak Hour Link Vol umes QUALI 92nd--From North %HV = 0.0% -C 11 AN, 0 0 0 0 1 6285 SW 85th Avenue, Ste. 105 ♦ Tigard, OR 97224 Locust--From West . L I . Phone: 503-620-4242 t J L Fax: 503 620.4545 2 1 110 4 101 email: )rw®qualitycounts.net PHF TOTAL www.qualitycounts.net 115 0.87 t- 100 %HV = 1.7% 251 %HV = 4.0% Peak Hour Pedestrian Crossings 1 r i 0 118 137 e 2 IN ~-t 1 f r► 1 I Locust--From East 1 A L ° o N r N f`1 0 0 Unccln--From South %HV = 3.1% PEAK HOUR: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM 0 PEAK 15 M INUTES: 3:30 PM to 3:45 PM 92nd-From North Locust-From East Lincoln-From South Locust-From West Crosswalk Usage (Peds) 5-Minute Count Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Totals By Approach Period Beginning Right Thru Lett Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left West East North South Veh Peda 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 2:05 PM 0 0 0 0 13 1 2 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 1 2 26 3 2:10 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 19 0 2:20 PM 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 14 1 2:25 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 20 1 2:35 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 2:40 PM 0 0 0 0 7 1 4 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 21 1 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 16 1 2:50 PM 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 2:55 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 18 1 3:00 PM 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 3:05 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 3:10 PM 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 1 28 1 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 3:20 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 1s 1 3:25 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 16 1 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 2 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 27 1 3:35 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 2 0 25 2 3:40 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 3 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 26 2 3:50 PM 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 3:55 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 7 1 0 0 0 19 0 Southbound l Northbound Eastbound I Pedestrians By Approach HOURLY TOTALS Right Thru Lett Right Right Thru Left Right Thru Lett Right Thru Lett West East North South Totals 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 102 6 15 0 11 3 92 1 0 0 4 4 230 8 2:15 PM 0 0 0 1 87 5 14 0 10 1 99 2 0 0 3 5 219 8 2:30 PM 0 0 0 1 92 3 14 0 9 0 94 1 0 0 3 6 214 9 2:45 PM 0 0 0 1 91 1 16 0 6 1 113 1 0 0 4 7 230 11 3:00 PM 0 0 0 1 100 0 22 0 10 1 115 2 0 0 2 251 2 v..W- zo Attachment B Year 2003 Traffic Conditions Level-of- Service Worksheets AM Thu Feb 13, 2003 14:40:34 Page 3-1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project 5746 Metzger Elementary School redevelopment - Tigard, OR 2003 Existing Conditions - AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Locust / Lincoln Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------:-----II---------------I~--------------- Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include .Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 b, i i--------------- i i--------------- i Volume Module: 7:30 AM - 8:3 AM Base Vol: 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 53 27 40 141 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 53 27 40 141 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 60 31 45 160 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 60 31 45 160 0 1 1--------------- Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx ~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 327 xxxx 76 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 91 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 661 xxxx 977 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1485 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 646 xxxx 977 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1485 xxxx xxxxx Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx LOS gy Move: * * * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 747 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 9.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * A * * * * * * * A ApproachDel: 9.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. EXAM.OUT 2-13-103 2:40p - - - - - - - - • • S r n Page 2 of 2 - - - - - - - ~ PM Thu Feb 13, 2003 14:40:34 Page 3-1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project 574 6 Metzger Elementary School redevelopment - Tigard, OR 2003 Existing Conditions - PM Peak - Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternati ve) Intersection #1 Locust / Lincoln Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L- T- R II---------------~ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled I---------------~ Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1' 0 0 0 - - II Volume Module: 3:00 PM - 4:0 PM II I I--I Base Vol: 10 0 22 0 0 0 0 117 1 1 101 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 0 22 0 0 0 0 117 1 1 101 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 11 0 25 0 0 0 0 134 1 1 116 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 11 0 25 0 0 0 0 134 1 1 116 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: ~ Cnflict Vol: 253 xxxx 135 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 136 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 729 xxxx 906 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1430 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 728 xxxx 906 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1430 xxxx xxxxx - Level of Service Module: Stoppped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 842 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 9.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * A * * * * * * * A ApproachDel: 9.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. EXPM.OUT 2-13-103 2:40p - - - -Page 2 of 2 AM Thu Feb 13, 2003 14:49:11 Page 3-1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project 5746 Metzger Elementary School redevelopment - Tigard, OR 2003 Total Conditions - AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Locust / Lincoln Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- ---------------~I---------------II---------------~ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 ---------------b i i i Volume Module: 7:30 AM - 8:3 AM Base Vol: 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 53 27 40 141 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 53 27 40 141 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re-Routed S: 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 60 65 0 0 Initial Fut: 61 0 59 0 0 0 0 53 87 105 141 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 70 0 68 0 0 0 0 61 100 121 162 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 70 0 68 0 0 0 0 61 100 121 162 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 514 xxxx 111 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 161 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 515 xxxx 934 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1400 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 479 xxxx 934 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1400 xxxx xxxxx I--------------- Level Of Service Module: Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx LOS py Move: * * * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 630 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 12.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * A Approach0el: 12.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. • is YSAM.OUT 2-13-103 2:49p Page 2 of 2 PM Thu Feb 13, 2003 14:49:12 Page 3-1 Kittelson 8 Associates, Inc. Project 5746 Metzger Elementary School redevelopment - Tigard, OR 2003 Total Conditions - PM Peak Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 Locust / Lincoln Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R I---------------I~---------------~I---------------~I---------------~ Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 0 22 0 0 0 0 117 1 1 101 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 0 22 0 0 0 0 117 1 1 101 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re-Routed S: 45 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 30 35 0 0 Initial Fut: 55 0 67 0 0 0 0 117 31 36 101 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 63 0 77 0 0 0 0 134 36 41 116 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 63 0 77 0 0 0 0 134 36 41 116 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 351 xxxx 152 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 170 xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 640 xxxx 886 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1389 xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 625 xxxx 886 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1389 xxxx xxxxx I--------------- Level Of Service Module: Stoppped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * A Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx 746 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx 10.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * B * * * * * * * A ApproachDel: 10.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to DOWLING ASSOCIATES, INC. WSPM.OUT 2-13-103 2:49p - - - Page 2 of 2 - - - • • • • • • • • •eaaai a :1 7-= 000 N1/w- NNOO Wyr I!i W..UU • C m • O • z • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 sy~/ LocuS i ST 1,5,V LM&OL-o-l ST A~ 3 • FM yj~!K 41` .0 ~to Z2. %,12, .114 If kll Go . A ~ 6s r S5 Ss 4.1 3 0 A'°° 3S f- S1M.a5,V ,472'D -MIS t37/tii}~ GWNC Ei'f/'E,~/SAC AM C'GUcZ7'E2> kT T PWAw &J& v7W- . Fos It ► . 4 3G A HALSTEAD'S w ARBORICULTURE 0 CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 David Halstead, Consultant, B.S. • Phillip Whitcomb, Consultant 0 ♦ 6107 SW Murray Blvd. #158 • Beaverton, OR 97008 (503) 245-1383 January 23, 2003 ATTN.: Tigard/Tualatin School District 6960 SW Sandburg Street Tigard, OR 97223 • Exhibit `G' "Specialists in the care and preservation of trees" Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Metzger School, Tigard, Oregon • Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report w With your approval, I have inspected the site, site plan and the trees for the proposed project located at Metzger School, Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of this inspection was to identify and evaluate the preservation potential of all trees twelve inches in trunk diameter (measured at four feet above ground) and larger under the forthc mi t ti i d ' o ng cons ruc on n accor ance with the City of Tigard s Tree ' Ordinance Chapter 18.150. All of the trees have been tagged and numbered, both in the field and in this ` report that will be affected by construction development using JK93220 including JK93261A and B through JK93226 series tags for easy identification. For this report, only the last three digits will be used. The first numbered tree starts in the 490# t southeast corner of the property. ' TREE ASSESSMENT There are a total of fifty, (50) trees located within the project boundaries. Six of the trees are hazardous. {Three (3) trees over 12 and three trees (3) under 12 inches in diameter)). This leaves a total of forty four (44) preservable trees. Twenty (20) of the trees are less than twelve inches in trunk diameter measured at four feet above ground and are not required to be part of the City of Tigard's " " Tree Mitigation Identification Program. Please note that One (1) tree numbered 258 is in the City of Tigard easement ' " and is not required to be a part of the City of Tigard s Tree Mitigation Identification Program". 1 0 9 *Email: hac@spiritone.com www.halsteadsarboriculture.com OCCBrt 0068646 9 • Page 2 January 23, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Metzger School, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report TREE ASSESSMENT CONTINUED: This leaves a residual of twenty three, (23) trees that are twelve inches in trunk diameter and larger and are required to be part of the City of Tigard's "Tree Mitigation/Identification Program°. Of the twenty-three (23) trees that are in good condition both health and structure, three (3) will be removed due to the proposed hardscape construction. This leaves twenty (20) trees to be preserved. Hazardous trees are as follows: Hazardous tree within the proposed hardscape over 12" in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground are numbered: Tree 247, 256 and 259. Trees that will be preserved are as follows: Preservable tree over 12" in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground are numbered: Tree 220, 221, 225, 226, 235, 238, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 257, 261, and 263. Total diameter inches: 404 Preservable trees that will be removed are as follows: Tree 239, 243, and 260. Total diameter inches: 73 Page 3 January 23, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Metzger School, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report Amount of Preservable Trees Retained = 88%. "Retained percentage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation" according to City Ordinance 18.150.025 - 2b. Tree Care and Preservation Guidelines Neighboring trees: There are two (2) maple tree located at 10245 SW Oak Way, and one (1) hazelnut at 10445 SW Oak Way, Tigard Oregon. Before construction begins, preserved tree root zones will need to be protected by the installation of orange colored Tree Protection Fencing out to the canopy dripline of the preserved trees as well as the neighboring trees. Fencing needs to be attached to 7-foot tall steel fence posts placed eight feet apart on center forming a protective line around the preserved trees and fence posts need to be securely anchored in the soil to a depth of two feet. A small diameter cable and/or heavy wire should be weaved and sewn through the protective fencing two feet above ground to secure the fencing. The fencing, as described, will need to be maintained throughout the entirety of the project. Before any work is done within the protected area and/or if the fencing needs to be adjusted due to hardscape construction, it will first require the approval of the- consulting arborist and then be supervised on-site. Structural and deadwood tree pruning will also need to be completed during construction site preparation/site clearing in order to make these trees safe for surrounding persons and property. The arboriculture technicians working within the trees will also need to inspect the tree/s very carefully to make sure that preserved trees are well prepared for the forthcoming construction. After project completion, therapeutic fertilization will be necessary for all preserved trees to help stimulate new root growth from roots damaged during construction and replenish any loss of soil nutrients for optimum tree growth. • • Page 4 January 23, 2003 Reference: Tree Assessment for Proposed Development Location: Metzger School, Tigard, Oregon Subject: Tree Survey/Mitigation Report Tree Care and Preservation Guidelines Continued: Hazardous tree removal within project boundaries needs to be completed in a careful manner as to not damage any preserved tree. Any tree or existing stump removed within 15 feet of a preserved tree needs to have the stump groundout rather than excavated to reduce overall root trauma If I can be of further assistance and/or if more technical information is needed, please contact me immediately. Sincerely, David Halstead BS, CA, ASCA James Lowery CA (Field Consultant) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . Tigard - TUalabn School District 23J t:letnettta M t ry e zger 10255 SW 90th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-431-4600 • fax 503-431.4610 www.tW.k12.Cr.USATarr-met.tmnl February 11, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: • This letter is to inform you that the number of students who ride a bicycle to Metzger Elementary School has never exceeded twelve in a single day. A large number of our students live on the other side of Hall Blvd., which is a very busy street. This requires that they be delivered to school and home by bus or a parent. Sincerely, Janis Altig G Principal Exhibit `H' TOTAL P.02 Ezhibftl' • Bot[li-dar!les Attejidajice • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • AMdV zd d TTY M WA cT cT 19IMM91 5T cT , Z SIAWa1CRE57 R - J IT •rdj "'M Nip -'f CT C` CICIID Y CD 1iDG R u a -14 sr aroi sr 3 IT n WN IR I ST g ~ ~ GDMPA P! < PS` dje Ci e 3 ' EiMAOGDIST ~ WaSL~tlnpfmP6Vl1 CT Myl DR Si %WMW F d , I.bGTaNR Mw sr _ I ~ 210 i a <E C s~l ~I ~ ~ MetLgeri CT * MpRl REM c ffi N 2 School ffi Corderd 81* %p c School I I OAK ST I <I CT wD Cr 9 aucs ;T - i A~ s ~ 99 <a T -_11- IT I SPRUE ST ~I w ~ ,ate , "1 ~4uo~v 1N ~ ~ I A91ElT(~~ k T8 R/\~\~' n ~ (/\!\J~ \y a 1@~ l~l ` 7 AKQTa sr al I NOn,x mmrA sr i ,~y C/ IT d d d g1 P ~ g ffi d a ~I 11GNp Si y P -1 cx - . W ' i ~ CT lY.l~ a V GXA ® Fowler Middle School pp~p~ WALNUT ST 5i ~I ETCmE IS S A SL,y{ ~./d WATpM' Y ,D C~ s i 4 DEnrvDEU n g 11 i; Mitch Charter School / ",T- N~z Eprdµtpe Sr WY gg mwc 2PAa1P GT gg D Mecn+ECr W ~ iYUVFw cr 1R -1 I MCD,NUO d Li CIE d x E~ I t LI V ci ~_7 ~L~i~ 7 1! I xa~FFM'.+l(IGTIf F,VAO C4yr TER N TER q 41Li VFW rE g CI INE2 ST TR rhu ] w sT u w I Twalit Middlg p®99 / Ery PENBRW1 ST 1kSchoY C7 < '2- cc-- Eamoorx I 8l I James G gt ST r. Mme" IT 06 Templeton 'Nom" st Sr 1 7 ROOM I -IM In- ®Tigard-Tualati jsfricf TECH QNTFA DR \ D \\1's' Center lP1NAVNtl( W R Y R °s a • SECT G*J • 35 ,T'St SCALE: I"= 200 L ~ H 6 7 2 5 4 • 3 U •/f.73J 4 f •~/J C.R.2688 term. I \o \ 1/620`\ \o \a ! \0 4 32 1 4 • ~ 3 " 312 " I I 10 4 . N all 3 t 7 so {o T P. P. 19 t ~ s •1 I C.R. 1508(56" • 25 12: 3 \ \p • 42 1 \ 4~ 3,2 1 b 4 • !q 2 6 12 /t; N 13 _ • I oel ) } ele cr " Q cr 12 •a 710 4 a e 7 10 I 6 • ~A 4 • 2 F6 W W. M. M A Al A C H E T R A C ;r S S.W. CORAL ST. ® I O 8(D9 4 n5 6 u 41 ~2J 3 6 3 2 01 3 2 1 3 4 5 6~1 a Q 1~1 I'!~ o~t•, T/J (753) eC 2344 S.W. LOCUST I STREET B2 j " / F NQ ~ ~ \fl\ A 4 32 I / 4 32 I.4 32 1\o\ 4 32 1 O 4 32 I / 4 32 1 6 It / 3 It ; 3 It 6 It 01 onr__ I! 7 6 ~5 4 3 N~ o It u)• got lI -r _ to 41 7 e9 7 at 10 09 \ 10 `'_t of 10 r T o/ to 7 ea n s r 10 & . W z ati,J 11 C.R.2s T, )J MAPLELEAF N ~ T ~ iu/sss /10 ~a 4 32 32 I 4 32 I "p 20 4 32 I 6 It 2 0 I2 \~y 'T Ti ;z. p. s Imo- y '--3 12 -'N' 3 e 16 \N\ I7 \YN 18 W 19 'Q Q o n' .p z .Z oil \0; oil 0 161 ~ 7 all to 9 T ' J -j i 15 o 419 I 8 9 10 pA 11 12 • er-tfrm.92s e4/4z437 G.R.2686 TAU V 0323) T/J eziuaee y o ti • 8 C 2344 GD O • 3 • ro co N • or • ~ • / Z 17 S.W. v~ 5 w ►wn 7x1-4 Z W n~ 6 22 ,sc 3924 TN 13 0 o \ e' i7 4 41/1165 C.R. 749 B C 2344 W l 4 w Q t r 137 . - m 2 i 5366. r 33 o ?9/125 a PL L ao; Co ~ ~ W 6 38 ~ 39 6 N V 3 < E efio.loeo " ilf ST TC.R.1000(60' OAK BC 3594 N I(j 3 U M M/ORD J I 53 9 d s U J 0 ~~4 Q PINE ST. cc p y~ E- N Exhibit `J' ' 26 MMETZGEI PARK CONDO. 35 U I 23 W A 2 .p 2 f99 C.R. 02: 2 /11 0 0 Exhibit `K' Tigard-Tualatin School District Metzger Elementary School January 27, 2003 Mr. Brian Radabaugh Senior Project Manager Cornerstone Construction Management, Inc. 5410 SW Macadam Suite #250 Portland OR 97201 Re: Tigard-Tualatin School District Meztger Elementary School Brian: It is my understanding that the City of Tigard, Oregon has determined that a walking path will be required to run the entire southern boundary of the Metzger Elementary School campus from SW Lincoln Street to SW 90th Street. This walking path will help achieve the 'connectivity' requirement of the City of Tigard, Oregon code. You have asked for our professional opinion as to whether the proposed walking path will create safety and security vulnerabilities for the school, its students and its programs. As you are aware our firm conducts security assessments for both secondary and higher education campuses throughout North America. Our firm receives regular invitations to present education seminars for gatherings of educators and staff on safe schools. The legal community has retained our firm on several occasions to appear as an expert in school security cases. In short, Forbes & Associates, Inc. is well prepared to offer commentary on this matter. At your request I have joined you for a visit to the Metzger Elementary School site and reviewed a one (1) page proposed site plan for the replacement facilities. The initial review of the facts leads me to conclude that: The presence of a walking path running the length of the southern boundary of the Metzger Elementary School will provide an unnecessary and burdensome vulnerability to students, staff, the Tigard-Tualatin School District, neighbors and legitimate users of school property. • 0 I make the following observations and analysis to reach that conclusion for the following reasons: • The proposed walking path will bring new pedestrians onto and through the campus. • Currently, a perimeter fence surrounds the entire campus. A six-foot high cyclone fence currently runs the length of the southern property line of the school. It separates the private property to the south from the playgrounds of the school. In order to isolate and control access of those who enter the campus without purpose or authorization the Tigard-Tualatin School District will need to install a second comparable fence along the entire walking path. • The installation of this fence coupled with the existing perimeter fence will create a fenced tunnel - similar to a dog run. This tunnel will have no other access or egress points other than the primary locations at the east and west ends. • Visual access to this fence tunnel is limited. A minor portion of the adjoining southern property line is occupied. Residents will bear the greatest twenty-four hour burden of observing and reporting activity in this area. The remaining property is not developed and is overgrown. This lengthy portion of the southern property line is not occupied and thus is unable to provide visual surveillance of the fence tunnel. The proposed campus redevelopment orients visual access and surveillance to the west and north. The building 'backs up' to the southern property line, limiting visual surveillance along the proposed walking path. • There is currently no illumination, other than natural lighting and some limited residential lighting, along the proposed walking path. • The proposed walking path is expected to be at least eight feet in width, not including accommodation for an expected additional fence on its north side. This will place the walking path and fence in greater proximity to the southern side of the proposed classrooms. Persons would be able to gain visual, audible and physical access to the classrooms, students and staff. It would not be appropriate or fiscally responsible to make the fence taller, place barbed wire on its top or place slats in it. Schools face innumerable challenges in their mission to provide a quality education in a safe environment. The headlines of crime, security and violence at schools are reminders of the inherent vulnerability that a school faces. The issues of non-custodial parents, custodial interference and workplace violence all manifest themselves at all schools. The 'state of art' in American school design demands the creation of a campus that is capable of complete access control by pedestrians and vehicles while protection students and staff while they are either inside or outside on the campus. The concept of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) developed by C. Ray Jeffery, Ph.D. and Oscar Newman, AIA would be seriously challenged by this proposed walking path. 2 0 0 I am afraid that this walking path would create an attractive nuisance to individuals looking to access the campus with little risk of being seen. This walking path would provide an isolated area in which person(s) could engage in inappropriate or illegal behavior. Legitimate users of the walking path would find their means to egress the walking path limited thus making them vulnerable. In short, although the commitment to create 'connectivity' is an important element of the urban environment this walking path creates more adverse impact then positive benefits. Patrick F. Donaldson President 0 11 SW LOCUST. STREET - INFORMAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION g • )~~Jr;6j (600) 100 I100 1 100 1 50 1 100 1 100 ' 5 SW OAK WAYr f/!!/!!!, i 1~ .ifi l,!(((l!!!/(1~ :~~f//l( . ri//l!l!//f!,!!ff!/./!./,~~fi/!/l.!!/ f :dCLL!««!,<(« ..too' 100' 232.42 4.22 CHS 3203 9.48 CHS. . ' 25 1 50 1 I 339.42 50 1 50 50 100 202 2031 1204 :D • I I 0 - 6.56 AC. .22 AC: .24 AC. n • 35 AC. 0 gl ' 1g o 1° I 0 4~~ 9 1 3 2221 2 0 { - 0 4 cur t~ 2 4 3 2 I ~ 430'v ui • i I ~ m w 1a W to Lv O \G. am n _ 2 50 / Q 0 1 5. I - `-c Wy 4 F 100 1 50 12 _ LL. ((0 5 { of 1o n 5 12 o X W) in I n 5 7I 100 l /n V 6 > 5 (62.501` 37.50 (30 (191; 50 • N II 30 30 6 II hl 6 II 0 6 10 S I I ° 7 8 9 10 ° S z7z.oz °7 9 9 10 W 01 IN' 7 8 8 I 1 I 1 A, ca CID rn 1 -b' 50 J 5( f 50 ) 50 1 SO { (350) , 50 j SO { SO ~aI ~I ao - 5o ~ [_R.1sos 5_W, ~A"PLELEAF STREET 2 (TO BE VACATED) ~ ( 50 1 50 t 5( 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 i 30 T 50 to W f6m 1- 1 1 3 I ~O I 1 I 1 0 Q I 4 I ~v"I I 1 001 10 4 3 2 I of 10 4 3 2 1 0 . > 2 I METZGE.7 ELEMENrs!RY -b - 0 b •t'~ loo + 100 ` - 100 10 • 5 loo SCHQOL D/STRJCT 123,/ 01 10 5 1L 5 0~,6 12 „1 In 17 1 ..w `.w • 6 1 ll nl = 10 6 li nl alv°~ 6 U.~..• .••r a + ' 7 10 nl 1100 7 10 r1 I n 7 10 n c, t 60 6. E 31 l 5302 F 22 AC. r f~' 9 3200 \.18 AC.~ .7/ AC. 3202- .J6 AC. y ; w :c W- r V Ap (p <M to N w e~ ' 7 M O C) O N 10o 3403 .29 AC. o c/ a 6\~ 5 ~ 0 - a Exhibit `L' W . '0 AC. w w f- S 0 Ic Ld 0 LC 0 rn 50 3205 of ./6 AC. 0 0 d OJ \ 6q~~, a ' ~ ~ Op~A 3401 .43 AC. r IM 75 75 5303 3304 22 AC. .22 AC. 175 823-40' WIDTH ;I e9' 34 w 311Y ~i 0° 90/ 4.22 7 HS. 100 79.30 1 SW OAK STREET TOTAL BLOCK LENGTH= 3870 FEET ( • 0 Exhibit `M" erstone ►-uctlon 5410 SW Macadam #250 - Portland, Oregon 97201 503-295-0108 FAX 503-29.5-1896 Inc. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE Conditional Use Permit application for Metzger Elementary School Replacement The Tigard-Tualatin School District intends to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the replacement of the Metzger Elementary School. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for CUP approval, representatives of the School District would like to discuss the proposal with the surrounding property owners and residents, and any other interested citizens. You are invited to attend an informational meeting on: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2003 @ 7:00 P.M. METZGER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - LIBRARY 10255 SW 90TH AVENUE, TIGARD Explanation The Tigard-Tualatin School District proposes to replace the existing Metzger Elementary School with a new school on the same property. The new school will be built where the play fields are now, and the old school will then be removed and replaced with new play fields. The new school will be a two-story structure in order to utilize the property more efficiently. Vehicular access to the new school will be primarily off SW Lincoln Avenue. A preliminary site plan is attached. Before submitting the CUP application to the City of Tigard, the School District is required by the City to hold a neighborhood meeting to explain the proposal to interested citizens and solicit their comments. (Later, you will receive a notice from the City informing you about the public hearing on this application.) Please note that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. If you have any questions or comments, please come to the informational meeting, or contact me at one of the places listed below. Contact: Brian Radabaugh, Senior Project Manager Cornerstone Construction Management Inc. Address: 5410 SW Macadam Ave., Suite250, Portland, OR 97239 Phone Number: (503)295-0108 Fax Number: (503)295-1896 E-Mail: brianr@cornerstonemgi.com 0900 *0000 CITY of O GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM r I 0' Z I - AREA NOTIFIED N = ° ,4..., I (5001) CORAL ST / , Nina" I 1 I J FOR: Ed Murphy `f - RE: Metz er Elementary LOCUST ST 1 S135AB, 100 tit1SWMM 777 ` ~ 1 tQi>i.YM6 I CO "dMI PLELEAF ST f t Ir ~ " ~S . ~ tiY5AAt111MT L] ' ` , 1. ts75A~lUtt ' tt17YpAN _ t[OiMtl1O 111; ISO I r..~ J Property owner information m is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. Q 00 J ST OK--~~ PINE ST A N 0 100 200 300 400 Feel rl r 1'= 330 feet City of Tigard T_ Information on this map is for general location only and \ should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard. OR 97223 _ (503) 639-4171 htlp-//. .ci.tigard.or,us Plot date: Jan 9, 2003; CAmagic\MAGIC03.APR ;ommunity Development 6 ' HIMN O ~ . -O. ; ..rt T 1 ~ / 777 77 e rF L 1= --a ~ I I I • • 0 0 SIGN-IN SHEET - • Metzger Elementary School Conditional Use Permit • Neighborhood Meeting - February 4, 2003 - NAME ADDRESS PHONE - ls2i~ s.w, q0~~ 5°3 ec?2-cr 1,3f7? aeel)k. s-1 M ~ s So 7n 9 S Z? 7.. y~ `77 ~3 s Inn ~ ~ _ 1 ~ r1~ 1 v \.~►~t_.H J VSO \~f~ `I Z~ s\vj ~ 3 ~ z3 • (1~1,f /v 5~a O~r6 C.Q_ L~ v colvi av4Cr- 5D3.99a ~t~t.~:S Gc-a,✓ p /W zoS /L.9 ,~t✓At'i/C el_ y ✓a~...sOj- -Z 2~• g7avf ~J , 7 il.vol./C n ( 40 all s - r i°-s0 '7q J fc.~f?~~b -4. `i 0 edmurphv&associ atesittsd/cft/neighbormtg/sign-in/2/4/03 • MINUTES Metzger Elementary School Replacement CUP Neighborhood Meeting February 4, 2003 The meeting started at 7:00 P.M. at the Metzger Elementary School library. Representing the Tigard-Tualatin School District were Brian Radabaugh (Cornerstone), Xavier Rueda (SLX), and Ed Murphy (Ed Murphy & Associates). Approximately 16 neighbors attended. A sign-in sheet is attached. Summary of issues discussed: ■ Trees - how many may be removed, and which ones. ■ Construction budget and schedule, and where the modulars will be moved to make room for the new school; hours of operation during construction, and dust and noise when demolishing the existing school. ■ Size of new school compared to existing school, number of students expected. Discussion of maximum size for elementary schools. • Fencing and screening, particularly along the south property line of the three homes on Locust, and maintaining the fence and landscaping. • Discussion the possibility of the city requiring a pedestrian trail within the Oak Way right-of-way. (No support was expressed for that idea, and some adamantly opposed). • Fencing and street trees proposed along 90th Avenue. • Height of new building. Some people thought it should be taller - three stories or more. ■ Storm water run-off. New school should improve drainage, reduce run-off onto neighbors' yards. • Parking - number of existing spaces versus proposed spaces. ■ Improvements to Lincoln St. and 90th Ave., whether there should be a signal at the Lincoln/Locust St. intersection, and when Lincoln St. might be extended to Oak St. ■ Questions about how bright the lights will be, and what impact the lighting will have on the neighbors. Discussion about having the school all dark in the evenings. (Proposal is that the lights will be on automatic timers and photocells.) ■ Discussion of reduced traffic impact on 90th Ave. if the parking lots are on Lincoln St. ■ Questions on construction access, and security fencing during construction. ■ Questions on type of building materials used, and what the school will look like. ■ Questions about the School District possibly buying the homes on Locust, if all three owners were interested in selling. ■ Discussion about playground, and setting up an interim playground during construction. • Concern about speeding on Oak Street, and possible need for better speed controls. ■ Questions about the parking lot at Locust and 90th, and long-term plan for that area. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 P.M. edmurphy&.associates/ttsd/metzger/nei ghbonntg/minutes/?/4/03 • • • r a:, xfx ryf~ Exhibit `N' °ITY OF, r _wIGA~RD !{D ORC c Intl N FE RN ,.c . _ t YL'gililRIITtir~t.CVP.~O t S~pingASBetterCommsrttty Lion Meeting -Notes are Valid for Six `(0) Months) NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE/W Mc oW I I 0 - sVIT ArFWAR - 1 ScS o^.1 L);=4 Phone: (se - ) y , i Lf 000 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: IODSI 51) TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): 151 35,RG 06i66 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: CUB'. dA k AGENT: ~iL,E:nr Phone: ( ) 4Ar,4- PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: An COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Lo ~C..?~~ R~- s c,r= >.tT; ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R 4 .S CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA:_FAr- ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18. S1 0 ) '3&)U(," --0 MINIMUM LOT SIZE: - sq. ft. Setbacks: Front 30 ft. Side MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: - 12/1 Average Min. lot width: - ft. Max. building height: - ft. -)n ft. Rear 3 O ft. Corner - ft. from street. % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: IGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout) THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, THE MEMBERS OF ANY LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE(S), AND THE CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout conceming site posting and the meeting notice. Meetina is to be held prior to submittina vour application or the aDDlication will not be accepted. * NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of 'a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON-Residential ApplicaGon/Planning Division Section NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 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. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. 1;2/,MPACT STUDY [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.39110501 As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. [ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18305 and 18365) Minimum number of accesses: 1 Minimum access width: 34 Minimum pavement width: ay` All driveways and parking areas, except for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: [WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18305.0301 WALKWAYS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCES OR FROM THE GROUND FLOOR LANDING OF STAIRS, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways should be constructed between a new development and neighboring developments. ❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS [Refer to Code Chapter ➢ STREETS: feet frodthe centerline of ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES-, feet, along the site's boundary ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SI ARD SETBACK. [SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18330.010.BJ BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS - Buildings located in a non-residential zone may be built to a height of 75 feet provided that: A maximum building floor area to site area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 to 1 will exist; ➢ All actual building setbacks will be at least half ('/z) of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. [ BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division Section 0 • The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to vour proposal area are: • I., 2 L " feet along north boundary. 6 feet along east boundary. • ; o - ao' feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: [g/LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18365 and 183051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must • be placed either within the public -right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4~ feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the • branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. dRECYCLING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such ~i as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. [,PARKING [Refer to Code Section 18365.0401 REQUIRED parking for this type of use: aF kZ C _k c-ss *R CC m Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): t SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: • ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet, 6 inches x 16 feet, 6 inches. Note: Parking space width includes the width of a stripe that separates the parking space from an adjoining space. Note: A maximum of three (3) feet of the vehicle overhang area in front of a wheel stop or curb can be included as part of required parking space depth. This area cannot be included as landscaping for meeting the minimum percentage requirements. 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 ICI DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and La In convenient locations. R'LOADING AREA REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18365.0801 • 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. • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 8 NON-Residenfial ApplicatioruPlanning Division Section • 1 'BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Cope Section 183651 • 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. ❑ SENSITIVE LANDS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LAND WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WIT IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, O SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt o preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on availab information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identlfv sensitive land areas. and their boundaries. is the responsibility of the aDDlicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive I ds must be clearlv indicated on Dlans submitted with the develoDment aaDlication. Chapter 18.775 also provides re ations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP ENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.715.180.C When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to is ance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approv standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.0. The report sha be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for chieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. CLEANWATER SERVICES 1CWS1 BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R a 0 96.44/USA Regulations - Chapter 31 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Desiqn Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 ` , `4 5 ^A t s,.. y, a t t,~ ~ ~ ti z, w-a_ y 1 } 3 ~ ' . - } . y `sfiSEN$ITIVE°AREA DEFINITION SLO`PEADJACENT 4 1 ;~KWIDTH OFVEGETATED TO SENSITIVE~AREA R CORRIDORPER: SIDE: r_. m __.p ~..a.. , .,....,7 . , • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 10 to <50 acres 1 > 50 to < 100 acres <25% 15 feet 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre • Existing or created wetlands > 0.5 acre • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: 1 10 to < 50 acres / > 50 to < 100 acres • Existing or created wetlands • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds 25 feet <25% 50 feet > 25% 30 feet 50 feet > 25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure in 25-foot increments from the starting point to the top of ravine (break in <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine" 4Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. 5Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section . I • Restrictions in the Veqeta Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. [2/SIGNS [Refer to Code Chapter 183801 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 Director's review. [TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18390.030.CJ A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. THE TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the City; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: 0 Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; 0 Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; 0 Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; 0 Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. LITIGATION [Refer to Code Section 18390.060.EJ REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. )0- If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section ld t k l • • or wou mar e of the size cut is not reasonably available on the loca ➢ If a replacement t not bviable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: 0 The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated • caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably located on the viabl t b f t b y e rees canno er o available replacement trees. If this num subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. 0 ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to 0 allow growth to maturity. • IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree • replacement. CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 183951 0 The Cit requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND The size d intersections d/ d il d d/ ~ i . roa roa , an roa ra 8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, roa EIGHT of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. ❑ ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet u Lots created as part of a partition must 15-foot wide access easement. / Ir to Code Section 18.810.0601 lot is created through the minor land partition process. • a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum • The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SH*( NOT EXCEED 2%Z TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the • parcel is less than 1 Y2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. d) CODE CHAPTERS / 18.330 (Conditional Use) 18.340 (Director's Interpretation) 18.350 (Planned Development) 18.360 (Site Development Review) 18.370 (variances/Adjustments) 18.380 (Zoning Maprrext Amendments) 18.385 (Misoemneous Permits) 18.390 (Decision Making Prooeduresllmpact Study) 18.410 (Lot Lime Adjustments) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.430 (Subdivisions) 8.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) ,zll 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes NON-Residential Apprication/Planning Division Section 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) ~L/ 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) 18.705 (AcoesslEgresslcircuiation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.715 (Density computations) 18.720 (Design compatibility standards) 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.755 (Mixed Solid WastelRecycling Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) X 765 (OftStreet ParkNA-oading Requirements) V 1 8 . • 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 0 18.780 (Signs) _ 18.785 (Temporary use Permits) 0 -Z 18.790 (Tree Removal) • -Z 18.795 (visual clearance Areas) 18.798 (wireless Communication Facilities) / 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) x • 0 0 0 41 0 • • • • 0 Page 6 of 8 is ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: • f 1F~. i~f,1 +sk~,s nocC -7+tE PIAr L A:,L,c;r {~,c bFe..~ r ,~Fn ro "s F ~5~ Baca • 1 U • lir Z PIC :T C v,~ ~ ~c>... SE.. J 'c- h>C`6,J 1 A,-z ~L16 • 1 +o {ZF_S~;~E N ►RG►=~S- ~~1cc 11 1 U J w ~~P ~U F,~4,• ~C~ ~J ~C ~1 Cry 1~r-_G ; c7~, f~c _ r • r ; is: COP A~c:~ nv 1 Cr~~C>r,c: In Ib • 4-K V Ril (1 (q1 11 l A tlk-,D (F~H V-0- Q\ e r\ 1 1 . 1. rc~ei rclc YncL, vrc ~:rQ ~ u • • • • PROCEDURE ~ocresS i Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. • Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a • recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. . APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications . submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planninq Division acceptance may be returned. The Planninq counter closes at 4:00 PM. Maps submitted with an apElication shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One 8T2' x if' map of a proposed project should be submittecFtor, attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with untolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department 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. 0 • CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section • Page 7 of 8 The administrative decisiotn or public hearing will typically occur Jar roximately 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-day public appeal pgriod follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would a heard by the Tigard CC~r F, ,c.; l A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. 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. BUILDING PERM PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City,s aolicv is to aqly those svstem development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE RiM: >•he conterence and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects re alaFecTo site planning that should appl to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY. h. t'b CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DliISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING D11nkic: IM11 A10 A171 KAY- KA21 ARA_7707 nvnL kiw) v»-„II 1r 1ivil v- E-MAIL (:tars first name)@dtigard.or.us TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (ODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: wwwxi.tigard.Or.us H:lpattylmasters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 3-Oct-02 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential ApplicationSanning Division Section • PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES • • ➢ ENGINEERING SECTION Q • *PUBLIC FACILITIES ! Call of TIgaM Oregon CommunityDevefopme t SkapiVA Better Community Tax Map(s): 1S135AR Tax Lot[sl: 100 Use Type: Meager Elem. School Replac • The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applica will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concern • commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment • the application. The following comments area projection of public improvement related requiremen that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Riaht-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 as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. • Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: • ❑ SW to feet • • ❑ SW to feet • ❑ SW to feet • ❑ SW to feet Street improvements: • ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW Lincoln Avenue, to include: ® 18 feet of pavement from centerline to curb (2-lane collector w/ bike lane) ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 6-foot concrete sidewalk w/ planter strip. ® street trees spaced per TDC standards. • ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. • ❑ Other: *CITY OF TIGARD Pre-AppNcadon Conference Notes 0Engineering DepartmentSectlon • Page 1 ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW 90 Avenue, to include: ® 16 feet of pavement from centerline to curb (local residential street) ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk w/ planter strip. ® street trees spaced per TDC standards. ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ® Partial street improvements will be necessary along SW Locust Street, to include: ® At least 18 feet of pavement from centerline to curb. ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 6-foot concrete sidewalk ® street trees spaced per TDC standards. ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CITY OF TIGARD Pre Plicadon Conference Notes Page 2 Engineering Department Section ❑ Other: Aareement for Future Street Improvements: • In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not curren practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approv may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarante The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements 'm be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utilitv Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lin adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, • fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lin are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. • There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW Locu Street, Lincoln Avenue and 90th Avenue (NOTE: the rule only applies to the frontaae fro where power service is taken). Prior to final buildina inspection, the applicant shall eith place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitarv Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in 90t' Avenue. T proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the develope responsibility to provide new laterals to the site if needed. Water Supply: • The Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) (Phone:(503) 642-1511) provides public water service the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supp for your proposed development. Fire Protection: • Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-701 provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or oth questions related to fire protection. 0 Storm Sewer Improvements: 0 .CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 .Engineering Deportment section • Ail' proposed development ,in the City shall be designed suc at storm water runoff is convey to an approved public draiOge system. The applicant will be r~uired to submit a proposed sto drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensu that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. As long as the impervious area of the site will not increase, there will be no additional storm draina requirements. All new plumbing must meet current standards. Storm Water Qualitv: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by t Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphor contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surface The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructi an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining wheth or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of ne impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $21 Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with t development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ❑ Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. No requirement if impervious area does not increase. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that C maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenan access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise read accessible. A traffic impact report is required to be submitted with the land use application. The intersections th should be studied in particular include Lincoln/Locust, Locust/90th and Locust/Hall. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traf Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's project impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based up the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based f category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limit circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupan permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater th $5,000.00. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 Engineering nepartment Section • • TIF will be assessed base*on the student capacity of the buil* This information is needed as • part of the land use applicati n.. • PERMITS • Public Facilitv Improvement (PFI) Permit: . Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineeri Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Ha • For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted • review and approval. • The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of t • permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cas where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. The Permittee will also be required to post . performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans a required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the desi engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The P permit fee structure is as follows: • NOTE: If an PH Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. • • • Buildina Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued 'by the Building Division. For a mo detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter 503-639-4171, ext. 304. • Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commerci industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where . grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, gradi • and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundati excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. • Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issu after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. • Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers • work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). Th • permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantia complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the Ci For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return • mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbi • that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-AppNcanon Conference Notes Page 5 Welneerlne Depanment Section 0 GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. T engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engine will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, ea homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan sh include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder sh also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY:~`~, emu/ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: [5031639-4171 Fax: [5031624-0752 iAeng\brianAtemptatestpreap notes • eng.dot Revised: March 21. 2002 CITY OF TIURD Pre4pplication Conference Notes Page 6 Enoineering Department section