Loading...
Hearings Officer Packet - 07/10/2006V • - HEARINGS OFFICER MONDAY - JULY 10, 2006 - 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, Ext. 2438 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dea~. 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 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 "APPEAL" OF SHINMEN OFFICE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00008 SIGN PERMIT (SGN) 2005-00255 ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 19, 2006 the Director issued a decision to deny a request to convert an existing 1,990 square foot residence into an office building and a Sign Permit for one non- illuminated, freestanding sign. The 15,000 square foot site is located within the Tigard Triangle. A denial was issued because the city could not make positive findings for several Tigard Development Code criteria. On June 2, 2006 an appeal was filed by the applicant alleging that the applicant has or can meet the criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code which the city has identified as insufficient. LOCATION: 7315 SW Hermoso Way; WCTM 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300. ZONING DESIGNATION: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 Depending on the number of people wishing to testify, the Tigard Hearing's Officer may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Hearing's Officer may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Hearing's Officer to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2.1 DATE: JULY 10, 2006 PAGE OF FILE NAME: "APPEAL" OF SHINMEN OFFICE CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00008 SIGN PERMIT (SGN) 2005-00255 IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY ON THE ITEM INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS & INCLUDE YOUR ZIP CODE PROPONENT - (Speaking In Favor or Neutral) OPPONENT - (Spealdng Against) Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. ~U`(P W. S,/i 0P (~6~~ I l3q-oa Sub 1 r` ~.e D _ _0 A L?-7a-;,13 (5o3) Pq -0 `x_17 - - - - Name, Address, Zip Lode and Phone o. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. y.~~vs O i0 yoy s~ P~,e~~ooD _1,)I&~%/e lei= ~70~0 ' - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I I -------I-- Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. 1 Name, Address, Zip Code and Phone No. I 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, I.*JHOLDER, VENDOR OR SEI&R. THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER, AT A MEETING ON MONDAY, JULY 10, 2006 AT 7:00 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NOS.: FILE TITLE: APPLICANT/ OWNER: APPELLANT: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00008 SIGN PERMIT (SGN) 2005-00255 "APPEAL" OF SHINMEN OFFICE MM Shinmen, LLC 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, OR 97223 MM Shinmen, LLC 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICANT'S REP.. John W. Shonkwiler 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 19, 2006 the Director issued a decision to deny a request to convert an existing 1,990 square foot residence into an office building and a Sign Permit for one non-illuminated, freestanding sign. The 15,000 square foot site is located within the Tigard Triangle. A denial was issued because the city could not make positive findings for several Tigard Development Code criteria. On June 2, 2006 an appeal was filed by the applicant alleging that the applicant has or can meet the criteria of the Tigard Community Development Code which the city has identified as insufficient. LOCATION: 7315 SW Hermoso Way; WCTM 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300. ZONING DESIGNATION: MUE: Mixed-Use Employment. The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway. (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business /professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. REVIEW CRITERIA BEING APPEALED:Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 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 PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD HEARINGS OFFICER AND CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES A&VAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IM &D 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 OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. 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 THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. 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 AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (256) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEARING, 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 CHERYL CAINES AT (503) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223, OR BY EMAIL TO Cherylc@tigard-or.gov L I ~'IC-1-11-1-11- Pi I-SDR.005-00008 S W N\!EN OFFICE n srrE N IW9f41 nay aet. • BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an appeal of an administrative decision ) FINAL ORDER denying an application for change of use and site plan ) SDR2005-00008 & approval to convert a residence into an office at 7315 ) SGN2005-00255 SW Hermoso Way in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Shinmen Office Building) A. SUMMARY 1. The applicant, M. M. Shinmen, LLC, requests change of use and site plan approval to convert an existing 1,990 square foot residence to an office. (SDR2005- 00008). 0.34-acre site is located at 7315 SW Hermoso Way; also known as Tax Lot 1300, WCTM 2S101AB (the "site"). The site and surrounding properties to the east, west and south are zoned MUE (Mixed Use Employment) within the "Tigard Triangle." Properties to the north are zoned C-G (General Commercial). The applicant also requests approval of a sign permit for one non-illuminated sign. (SGN2005-00255). 2. On May 19, 2006, the Tigard Planning Manager (the "manager") issued a Type II decision denying the application. The applicant's attorney, John Shonkwiler, filed an appeal of the manager's decision on June 2, 2006. 3. Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Joe Turner (the "hearings officer") conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. City staff initially recommended the hearings officer deny the appeal and affirm the manager's decision. See the Memorandum to the Hearings Officer dated July 3, 2006 (the "Memorandum") and the City's responses to the applicant's Grounds for Appeal. However City staff recommended conditional approval of the application based on the new evidence submitted at the appeal hearing. The applicant's attorney testified in support of the application and the appeal. No one else testified orally or in writing other than public agency staff. The principal issues in this case include the following: a. Whether the applicant proposed to provide adequate street improvements; b. Whether it is feasible to comply with the screen and buffer requirements of the Code; and c. Whether it is feasible to accommodate increased stormwater runoff from the site in compliance with City standards. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the testimony and evidence in the public record, the hearings officer grants the appeal and approves the applications as modified by the packet of testimony and evidence Mr. Shonkwiler submitted at the appeal hearing and subject to the conditions of approval in this Final Order. • • B. HEARING AND RECORD HIGHLIGHTS 1. The hearings officer received testimony at the public hearing about the appeal on July 10, 2006. 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 and evidence offered at the hearing. 2. City planner Cheryl Caines summarized the appeal and her response to the applicant's Grounds for Appeal. She testified that the manager denied the application primarily because the proposed street improvements are inadequate, there is no evidence that is feasible to comply with the buffer and screening requirements of the Code and the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater ordinance. The manager concluded that the application did not comply with several other approval criteria. However it is feasible to comply with those criteria and conditions of approval could be imposed to ensure compliance. She offered the following response to the applicant's testimony: a. The revised tree plan is sufficient to comply with the street tree requirements of the Code, provided the trees are listed on the City's approved street tree list and comply with the spacing requirements of the Code. b. The revised sign plan, located outside of the clear vision area, can comply with the code. c. The revised landscape plan is adequate to comply with the parking lot landscaping requirements of the Code. d. The proposed six-foot perimeter fence is adequate to screen the air conditioning unit in the rear of the building. However TDC 18.745.050.E.4 requires additional screening around the solid waste and recycling containers, because they will be visible from the outdoor areas of the site. The screening shown in Exhibit 5 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony is adequate to comply with the Code. e. The letter from Pride Disposal Company is adequate to comply with TDC 18.755.040.A. f. The proposed parking lot complies with the dimensional requirements of the Code. However, as Ms. McMillan noted, the applicant may need to revise the parking lot in order to comply with the perimeter buffer requirements of 18.745.050 and Table 18.745.1. Therefore a condition of approval is warranted to require that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the parking lot dimensional and design requirements of 18.765 if the applicant alters the parking lot location and/or design in order to achieve compliance with the buffer and screening requirements of the Code. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 2 • • g. The proposed bicycle parking plan, Exhibit 7 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony, appears to comply with the requirements of the Code. h. The arborist's report submitted by the applicant, Exhibit 8 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony, appears to be adequate to comply with the Code. The applicant is not required to provide mitigation for removal of the flowering dogwood because it is less than 12-inches in diameter at breast height ("dbh"). The applicant should be required to obtain the City Forester's approval of the final tree protection plan and comply with the additional conditions of approval proposed by the City Forester. i. The applicant should be required to submit the proposed lighting plan to the City Police Department for review and approval. In addition, the applicant should be required to demonstrate that the lights on the site will not cast glare onto adjacent properties. 3. Attorney John Shonkwiler testified on behalf of the applicant and summarized his written testimony entitled "Applicant's Remonstration on Grounds for Appeal" ("Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony"). a. He submitted a revised landscape plan, Exhibit 1 of his testimony, showing street trees along the site's Hermoso Way frontage. All of the proposed trees are listed on the City's approved street tree list. b. He proposed to relocate the sign to the west of the original location, outside of the clear vision area on the site, as shown in Exhibit 2 of his testimony. He proposed two alternative locations for the sign; one to the immediate west of the original location and a second further west, on the west side of the proposed pedestrian walkway. c. He noted that the applicant proposed to utilize "scored concrete" on all sidewalks and walkways within the site. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.705. d. He submitted a sight distance certification report prepared by a professional engineer, Exhibit 3 of his testimony. The report demonstrates that the proposed access complies with TDC 18.705.030.H. e. He argued that the proposed development provides an 8-foot landscape buffer with a solid cedar fence on the east and west boundaries of the site. If necessary the applicant can shift the parking lot to the west in order to provide an 8-foot buffer along the east boundary of the site. He agreed to a condition of approval requiring that the applicant maintain a minimum 8-foot landscape buffer. f. He testified that the applicant will plant an Oregon white oak as a parking lot tree in the original location of the proposed sign as shown in Exhibits 2 and 4 of his testimony. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.745.050.E.10. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 3 • g. He argued that the 6-foot solid wood fence proposed around the perimeter of the site will screen the air conditioning unit located in behind the building and the refuse container east of the building. Additional screening is not necessary to comply with TDC 18.745.050.E.2 and 4. However, if required, the applicant is willing to install an additional 5-foot high solid wood fence around the air condition unit and a 6- foot fence around the refuse containers as shown in Exhibit 5 of his testimony. h. He submitted a "franchise hauler review and sign off' letter from Pride Disposal Company stating that they can provide solid waste disposal and recycling service to the site. Exhibit 6 of his testimony. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.755.040.A. i. He testified that the applicant is wiling to provide two bicycle parking spaces on the site as shown in Exhibit 7 of his testimony. Therefore the application complies with TDC 18.765.050. j. He submitted a report from a certified arborist, Exhibit 8 of his testimony, which lists the size and species of all existing trees on the site. The site contains six trees, including two regulated.trees larger than 12-inches dbh; a birch tree in the front yard and a walnut tree along the east side of the rear yard. The applicant will remove a 10-inch dbh flowering dogwood from the front yard to accommodate the proposed driveway and parking lot and a 17-inch cedar tree that is dead. The arborist's report includes tree protection measures to protect the remaining trees from impacts of construction on the site. k. He submitted a lighting plan for the site. Exhibit 9 of his testimony. The plan provides exterior lights in the parking lot, front door, rear door and solid waste/recycling area as required by TDC 18.360.090.A.10. 1. He testified that the applicant will construct half-width street improvements along the site's Hermoso Way frontage. The only issue is when the improvements are required. He argued that the proposed development complies with the standards in TDC 18.810.030.A for deferral of frontage improvements. The site frontage will be the only section of Hermoso Way that is improved to current City standards, which could create a hazard. Pedestrians are likely to cut across the short section of improved roadway rather than jogging north to use the short section of sidewalk abutting the site. Frontage improvements will reduce sight distance at the intersection of the site access and Hermoso Way, because vehicles will be further away from the travel lanes as they exit the site. In addition, the applicant must relocate an existing telephone pole on the site in order to construct the required improvements in addition to paying a fee in lieu of placing the overhead utilities underground. The relocated power lines may impact a large fir tree on a neighboring property. He argued that "it would make more sense to build the entire section of Hermoso Way at one time rather than piecemeal improvements as development occurs on individual properties." However the applicant is willing to construct frontage improvements at this time if required by the City. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 4 i • m. He noted that the applicant's plans show a 12-foot wide sidewalk and planter strip as required by the Code. The only issue is how wide the sidewalk is required to be. The Code appears to require a six- or eight-foot sidewalk. The only property on Hermoso Way with existing frontage improvements constructed a six-foot sidewalk and a six-foot planter strip. Similar improvements exist on Beveland Road. The applicant is willing to build the sidewalk to City standards. n. He testified that the applicant proposed to provide an underground stormwater detention and infiltration facility within the parking lot on the site. The applicant merely objected to a condition requiring extension of storm sewer main to the site, because the cost of the improvement would be disproportionate to the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed development will not generate any additional stormwater runoff from a 25-year storm event. The proposed development will generate a maximum 0.02 cubic feet per second during a 100-year storm, which could be accommodated in a swale on the site. However the applicant is willing to pay its proportionate share of the cost of extending a storm sewer in addition to providing on-site infiltration. The applicant's engineers calculate the applicant's proportionate share at $3,125 per existing lot on Hermoso Way or between $3,170 and $3,140 per lot based on the amount of runoff generated per lot during a 25- or 100-year storm event. In the alternative, the applicant could extend the storm sewer line to the site and the City could require payment of a reimbursement fee for all subsequent developments that utilize the sewer extension. o. He noted that the applicant submitted a traffic study with the original application materials. The applicant is willing to contribute its proportionate share of the cost to signalize the SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68th Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street intersections based on the number of pm peak hour vehicle trips the proposed development generates through these intersections. p. He testified that the existing fire hydrant on Hermoso Way generated 887 gallons per minute ("gpm") based on testing by the Tualatin Valley Water District. However the Water District is in the process of replacing the existing four-inch water main with a 12-inch water main. The Water District expects to complete the project by the end of the summer. The larger main will provide adequate volume and pressure to meet fire flow requirements. He agreed to a condition of approval requiring that the applicant demonstrate that adequate fire flow is actually available prior to final occupancy approval. q. He noted that the applicant submitted a grading plan with the original application materials. He submitted an erosion control narrative outlining the erosion control measures the applicant proposes to implement on the site. Exhibit 11 of his testimony. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 5 • • r. He noted that the applicant proposed a revised planting list for the trees on the site. Exhibit 1. The revised list provides a variety of tree species with no more than 30-percent of one family, 20-percent of one genus and 10-percent of one species. In addition, the applicant will retain all but two of the existing trees on the site. The applicant will remove a 10-inch dbh flowering dogwood from the front yard to accommodate the proposed driveway and parking lot improvements. The applicant will also remove a dead 17-inch cedar tree. 4. City engineer Kim McMillan responded to the engineering issues in the applicant's testimony. a. She testified that streets within the Tigard Triangle must be improved with a 12-foot sidewalk or an 8-foot sidewalk and 4-foot planter strip as shown in the figures at page 18.620-19 of the TDC. b. She noted that the applicant's "sight distance certification" (Exhibit 3 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony) did not conclude that adequate sight distance is available at all affected intersections. The analysis concluded that sight distance is inadequate at the intersection of 72nd Avenue and Hermoso Way. However the applicant is only required to address driveway sight distance, which is adequate based on the "sight distance certification." c. She noted that the traffic impact report included in Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony did not include an estimate of pm peak hour traffic generated by the proposed development at the intersections of SW 72nd Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68`h Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street. Therefore the City cannot determine the applicant's proportionate share of the cost of improvements to these intersections. This issue can be addressed with a condition of approval. d. She noted that the Code requires a minimum eight-foot landscape strip along the east and west boundaries of the site. However the landscape buffer abutting the southeast corner of the parking lot is only 5 feet wide, based on the scale shown on the applicant's landscape plan. The applicant can shift the proposed parking lot to the west in order to increase the width of the buffer. However the applicant should be required to demonstrate that the revised parking lot complies with the dimensional requirements of the Code. e. She noted that TDC 18.810.030.A.3 requires that the applicant provide frontage improvements on Hermoso Way abutting the site. TDC 18.810.030.A.5 authorizes the City engineer to accept a future improvement guarantee In lieu of street improvements under certain conditions. In this case the City engineer previously determined that those conditions do not exist on this site. Therefore the applicant must construct frontage improvements as part of the proposed development. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 6 i. She opined that half-width improvements on this site will not create a hazard for pedestrians or vehicles. Similar conditions exist on higher classification roadways throughout the City. The applicant is required to provide an asphalt walkway between the existing roadway improvements and the proposed sidewalk to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The applicant can install a barricade at the ends of the half-width improvement to prevent pedestrians from cutting across the section of improved roadway. Vehicles exiting the site can pull out to the edge of the travel lane to obtain adequate sight distance. ii. She argued that the applicant is required to place the overhead utilities on the site underground or request approval from the City engineer to pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding. Placing the utilities underground will eliminate the power pole on the site and potential interference with the neighbor's trees. f. She noted that the applicant is required to treat and detain stormwater runoff from the site. The applicant must discharge treated stormwater into an approved public system, which could include weep holes in the curb on Hermoso Way. However the applicant has not provided any evidence demonstrating how stormwater treatment and detention can be provided without extending the storm sewer line. The City prohibits on- site infiltration of stormwater. She opined that it is feasible to accommodate stormwater runoff from the site. For example, the applicant could pump stormwater from an underground detention facility to the curb. i. She opined that the City engineer could approve a fee in lieu of extending the storm sewer line to the site. ii. She testified that the City does not have a reimbursement mechanism or latecomers fee process that would allow the applicant to extend the storm sewer line and recover the excess costs from subsequent developments. g. She argued that the applicant should be required to provide a letter from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue ("TVFR") stating that their fire flow requirements have been met prior to final occupancy approval. h. She testified that the erosion control plan narrative submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to meet City requirements. The applicant should be required to submit an erosion control plan prior to undertaking construction on the site. 5. At the end of the hearing, the hearings officer closed the public record and announced his intention to grant the appeal, reverse the director's decision and approve the application subject to conditions of approval necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable approval criteria. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 7 0 C. DISCUSSION 9 TDC 18.390.040.G and ORS 227.175 authorize the hearings officer to hear appeals of Type II decisions, such as the city's decision denying these applications, as a de novo matter. The hearings officer is required to conduct an independent review of the record and is not bound by the prior determination of the manager. The hearings officer adopts the findings in the manager's decision and the Staff Report and the findings and supporting evidence relied on therein, except to the extent inconsistent with the following findings. The hearings officer incorporates by reference the entire planning file regarding the original Type II review of SDR2005-00008 and SGN2005-00255. The hearings officer utilizes the format of the manager's decision for the sake of convenience, with changes necessary to reflect the new evidence submitted on appeal. A. ZONIING DISTRICTS Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the MUE: Mixed-Use Employment zoning district. The proposed use, general office space, is outright permitted in the zone. Development Standards: Section 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.520.2 below: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES STANDARD MUE Minimum Lot Size None - Detached unit - - Boarding, lodging, rooming house Minimum Lot Width 50 ft Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 0' min/ 10' max - Side facing street on corner & through lots - - Side yard 0/20 ft Ill - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 0/20 ft [11 - Rear yard - - Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 ft Maximum Site Coverage 2 85% Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.4 Minimum Landscape Requirement 15% PI no setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone. 121 includes all buildings and impervious area. Setbacks for the MUE zone are zero for all sides unless the site abuts a residential zone. There are no properties zoned residential near the site. Setbacks of the existing building comply with the City standards except the maximum front setback. The corner closest to the street has a setback of 24 feet and the opposite corner's setback is 40 feet. Pre- existing buildings are not required to conform to all of the new requirements for the zone, Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 8 unless expansion is proposed. No changes are proposed to the existing structure. The buildin height is 26 feet, which is within the maximum building height of the MUE zone (45 feet. Based on an analysis of the site plan, Site Coverage is calculated at approximately 30% and landscaping at 70%. Floor Area Ratio is discussed below. Special limitations: The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement. The proposed office floor area is calculated as follows: Site Area: 15,000 square feet Total site area (15,000 square feet) x 0.40 = 6,000 square foot maximum floor area. The proposed office floor area is 1,990 square feet, which is within the maximum allowed. FINDING: The maximum front yard setback is exceeded but is allowed because the structure is pre-existing. Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have been satisfied B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (18.620): Design standards for public street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quality mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system within the Triangle, and utilizing streetscape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and participate in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards apply to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section conflicts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. Performance Option: a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile; Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 9 b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-line distance; C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight-line distance. The proposal meets the Performance Option because SW Hermoso Way is appproximately 1,050 feet in length, which requires 1 to 2 intersections. Currently, there are (2) intersections on Hermoso. The straight-line distance from the subject property to the closest arterial (72" Avenge) is 215 feet. The shortest vehicle and pedestrian trip from the subject property to 72" Avenue is also 215 feet. Therefore, the performance option has been met. Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.01OC2 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. The application does not involve a phased development plan nor is the site one acre or larger. This standard is not applicable. Building Placement On Major And Minor Arterials And The Street: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Southwest Hermoso Way is not a major or minor arterial. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Building Setback: The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands/buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maximum building setback shall be 10 feet. This section requires a maximum building set back of 10 feet from dedicated rights-of- way. The existing building sits at an angle on the site. The front yard setback is approximately 23 feet to the western front corner and 40 feet to the eastern front corner. This building location is non-conforming. As long as the building is not made more non- conforming, the conversion is permissible. No additions or expansions are proposed. This criterion is not applicable at this time. Front Yard Setback Design: Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be provided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one (1) street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard- surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. A new walkway is proposed from the structure to the proposed sidewalk along Hermoso Way. L-1 landscaping standards do not apply because Hermoso Way is a local street. This criterion has been met. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 10 0 0 Walkway Connection To Building Entrances: A walkway connection is required between the building's entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) feet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. A new, six foot wide sidewalk is shown on the site plan connecting the building entrance with the proposed public sidewalk. The front entrance is pre-existing. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Parking Location And Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard. Proposed parking is adjacent to the street. This is allowed because the existing structure prevents access to the rear of the site. L-1 and L-2 landscaping standards do not apply because the site is located along a local street. Standards of Chapter 18.745 only apply. As discussed below, the applicant's revised landscape plan is or will be sufficient to comply with TDC 18.745. Building Design Standards: All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. Ground Floor Windows: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facing elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wall area and for glass doorway openings to ground level. Up to 50 percent of the ground floor window requirement may be met on an adjoining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. According to the standard above, the building must have a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area as windows. The building is pre-existing, and the applicant is not proposing to modify the facade. Therefore this standard is inapplicable. Should any modifications be made, this standard will have to be satisfied. Building Facades: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; (c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade; or (d) by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade shall extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 11 0 • Because the building is pre-existing, this standard does not apply. However, no addition or expansion may occur that increases the non-conformity of the structure according to TDC 18.760.040.D (Nonconforming use of structures). This standard is satisfied. Weather Protection: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building frontages between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be backlit. It is unclear if there is more than one existing entrance to the building. Regardless, it is likely that the front entrance will be the main entry point for all employees and visitors. The applicant states that an existing overhang will provide weather protection for pedestrians. This criterion is satisfied. Building Materials: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet pressboard or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material may be plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The exterior finish material of the building is wood board siding. Foundation materials are plain concrete that is not revealed for more than two feet. This standard has been met. Roofs and Roof Lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The existing building does not have a false front or false roof. This criterion is satisfied. Roof-Mounted Equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. The applicant is not proposing to add any roof-mounted equipment to what is already pre-existing. A staff visit to the site was made and the only roof-mounted equipment was a chimney and a few outlet pipes. This criterion is satisfied. Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code, the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Non-residential development within the MUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone (18.780.130.D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 12 0 Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all signs except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wall on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-1 landscape areas. Sign area is discussed later in this review under Section 18.780 (Signs). The sign elevation plans (Exhibit H of the original application) clearly show the sign as 5 feet 4 inches, which is below the maximum height limitation of 10 feet. L-1 landscaping is not required for this site because Hermoso Way is not an arterial. The applicant proposed to relocate the sign outside of the visual clearance area as shown in Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The relocated sign complies with this criterion. Entry Portals: Entry portals shall be required at the primary access points into the Tigard Triangle. 1. Location - Entry portals shall be located at the intersections of 99W and Dartmouth; 99W and 72nd; I-5 and Dartmouth; Hwy. 217 and 72nd; and at the Hwy. 217 Overcrossing and Dartmouth. 2. Design - The overall design of entry portals shall relate in scale and detail to both the automobile and the pedestrian. A triangle motif shall be incorporated into the design of entry portals. This standard does not apply because the site is not located at a primary access point into the Tigard Triangle. Landscaping and Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are minimum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1 (Low Screen): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 3-1/2-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-percent opacity within one (1) year. Groundcover plants must fully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. The proposal does not abut a major or minor arterial; therefore, the L-1 standards do not apply. L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. 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 (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 13 Because the site is on a local street, the L-2 landscape standards defer to Chapter 18.745. Compliance with Landscaping and Screening standards are discussed further in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening). FINDING: Based on the analysis above and the revised information submitted on appeal, the proposed development complies with the Tigard Triangle Design standards, subject to conditions of approval. ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS 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 applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. Access, Egress and Circulation (18.705): Walkways: 18.705.030(F) requires that on-site pedestrian walkways 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; On site pedestrian walkways are proposed from the building entrance to the parking area and proposed public sidewalk. This standard is met. 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; No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking areas. This standard is therefore not applicable. 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's revised plans depict scored concrete sidewalks. The applicant's lighting plan, Exhibit 9 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony, demonstrates that the walkways will be lighted. This standard has been met. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 14 • Access Management (Section 18.705.030.11) Section 18.705.030.11.1 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 applicant submitted a preliminary sight distance certification that demonstrates compliance with this standard at the proposed driveway. Exhibit d3 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. Sight distance is inadequate at the intersection of 72 Avenue and Hermoso Way. Sight distance restricted by vehicles parked to the north of the intersection. This is an existing problem that the applicant is not required to remedy. There is no evidence that this existing sight distance restriction creates a hazard. This standard has been met. 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 applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, 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. This project is located outside the influence area of an Arterial intersection. This standard is inapplicable. 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. This standard does not apply to the proposed driveway located on Hermoso Way, a local street. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. There is an existing driveway for the residence that will be removed. The new access meets the minimum requirements of 30 feet with 24 feet of pavement as shown on the site plan. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the access egress and circulation requirements have been met. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725): These standards require t ate era an 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 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 15 0 0 Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) 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. The project is considered commercial office, which is permitted within the MUE zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, ongoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of Tigard's' Code Enforcement Officer. Compliance with state, federal, and local environmental regulations are the continuing obligation of the property owner, and will abide by the applicable standards. FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. Landscanin2 and Screening (18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and 40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small, medium or large). The applicant proposed to plant tree species listed on the City's Street Tree Planting List along the Hermoso Way street frontage. The spacing of the trees is dependant on the mature size of the trees as set out in TDC 18.0745.040.C. This standard can be met. A condition of approval is warranted to require that the applicant provide a final landscape plan showing street trees listed on the City's Street Tree Planting List along the site's Hermoso Way frontage and spaced consistent with the requirements of TDC 18.0745.040.C. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 16 0 • Buffering and Screening: Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer is required between a proposed office use and existing office use. Buffering and/or screening are required for dissimilar uses. The vacant property to the north is zoned General Commercial (C-G). All other properties are zoned Mixed Use Employment (MUE). To the east and west of the site are single-family residences. Based on the matrix 18.745.1 the buffer required along the northern boundary is Buffer A. This is a ten-foot buffer made up of lawn or living ground cover. The site plan provided shows how the standard is met. The applicant has proposed a 5-foot landscape strip that is made up of trees and groundcover. In addition there is another 50 plus feet of lawn area between the landscape strip and the existing structure. The required buffer along the eastern and western boundaries is Buffer C. The applicant proposed to provide a 6-foot wooden fence and an eight-foot wide landscape strip. The landscape strip shown on the applicant's landscape plan appears to be only five feet wide. The applicant agreed to modify the plan as necessary to provide an eight-foot landscape strip The hearings officer finds that this standard can be met subject to conditions. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landscape islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The parking areas associated with the proposed project are all shown to be screened from the right-of-way with shrubs and groundcover. The hearings officer finds that TDC 18.745.050.E requires trees in all parking lots regardless of the number of spaces. At the hearing the applicant revised the application to provide an Oregon white oak tree west of the site access as a parking lot tree. See Exhibit 4 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The hearings officer finds that this criteria has been met based on the revised landscape plan. 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 of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; The plan submitted shows an air conditioning unit at the back of the home screened from neighboring residential uses by plantings. The hearings officer finds that proposed six- foot perimeter fence will adequately screen this facility. This criterion is met. 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. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 17 • The applicant's plan also shows a refuse collection area east of the building. The hearings officer finds that the existing building and the proposed six-foot perimeter fence will screen the refuse collection area from public streets and adjacent properties. However TDC 18.755.030.C.3 requires additional screening around the refuse collection area. The applicant proposed to provide additional screening around this area as shown on pages 4 through 6 of Exhibit 5 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The hearings officer finds that the proposed screening is sufficient to comply with this standard. This criterion can be satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards can be fully met. Conditions of approval are warranted to ensure actual compliance. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (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 submitted a franchise hauler review and sign off from Pride Disposal. Exhibit 6 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. This criterion has been met. Location Standards. To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclables 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 refuse container is proposed to be located along the eastern side of the structure. The proposed refuse container will not occupy any required parking stalls and the applicant will provide screening as discussed above. This criterion is satisfied. 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; Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008ISGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 18 • Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant proposed to enclose the refuse collection area with a six-foot high solid wood fence and access gate. See pages 4 through 6 of Exhibit 5. Based on the letter from Pride Disposal, the proposed enclosure is sufficient to accommodate solid waste and recycling containers. Pride Disposal further stated that waste and recycling containers must be placed at the curb for collection. Hauler access is not required. Therefore the proposed five-foot gate is adequate. This criterion is met. FINDING: The applicant has provided evidence of compliance with the Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage design standards and addressed one of the four methods of compliance. This standard has been met. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765): Location of vehicle parking: Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the primary site; The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. Proposed parking is located in front of the existing structure. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Joint Parking_ Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation do not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parking facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required by the larger(est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3) If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. Joint parking is not proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use, i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765.060; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. This proposal is not considered a mixed-use project as it will contain solely office space; therefore this standard is not applicable. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 19 Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term Carpool/Vanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parking for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site. At least 5% of total long-term parking spaces shall be reserved for carpool/vanpool use. Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools shall be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student parking except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall be full-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. The proposed parking lot contains a total of 6 parking spaces. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Disabled-Accessible Parking: All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. No disabled accessible parking is being proposed. Conversions do not require these spaces based on the requirements of the International Building Code. The Building Department has reviewed the project and has no objections. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access Drives: 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; 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; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, 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 access drive has been addressed previously in this decision. All of the access standards have been or can be met. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the property owner shall install a wall, railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 20 • • Pedestrian access has been discussed previously in this decision and there are no drop-off edges that require barriers. This standard has been 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 plans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked with striping. Direction of flow is not marked, but is obvious considering only one access is provided. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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. Wheel stops that meet the standards outlined above will be provided as stated in the narrative. This criterion is met. Space and Aisle Dimensions: Section 18.765.040.N states that: "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. There are six proposed parking spaces. Three of these are compact and the other three are standard spaces. All six meet the required dimensions as currently designed. However, as discussed above, the applicant may need to reconfigure the parking lot to comply with the buffer requirements. If the parking lot is reconfigured, the applicant should be required to demonstrate that the revised design complies with this standard. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. This criteria can be met subject to such a condition. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.765.050 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The site plan shows an area for bicycle parking near the southwest corner of the building that is accessible via a proposed sidewalk. This standard has been met. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements: Section 18.765.050.0. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 21 0 • Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee) parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2-1/2 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At-cost or deposit fees for bicycle parking are exempt from this requirement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drained. The hearings officer finds that the proposed bicycle parking facilities shown in Exhibit 7 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony are adequate to comply with this standard. 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. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. According to Table 18.765.2 of the-Ti~ard Development Code, the minimum bicycle- parking requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Although the minimum required spaces based on the square footage is one, the applicant must supply two as noted in TDC 18.765.050.E. The applicant proposed to provide two bicycle parking spaces as shown in Exhibit 7 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. Therefore this standard has been satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking. Section 18.765.070.11 states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Required minimum off-street parking for this development is 2.7 per 1,000 square feet for office uses. The requirement is six spaces, and the applicant has proposed six. As discussed above the applicant may need to reconfigurephe parkingg lot o compl with the buffer requiremen spIf the parking lot is reconfigured, the applicant should lie required to demonstrate that the revised design complies with this standard. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. This criteria can be met subject to such a condition. 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. The building is not greater than 10,000 square feet; therefore, the applicant is not required to provide a loading space. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards can be fully met. Conditions of approval are warranted to ensure actual compliance. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.D lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the MUE Zoning District. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 22 • • Typically sign permits are reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit process, but the applicant is requesting the review concurrently with the Site Development Review. As noted in the Tigard Triangle Code section 18.620, signs for non-residential development in the Tigard Triangle must meet the requirements for signs within the Professional Commercial (C-P) zone. Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned C-P including: (a) One multi-faced, freestanding sign per premises shall be permitted, subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; (b) A reader-board assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; (c) The maximum square footage of freestanding signs shall be 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; (d) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and (e) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed eight feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 10 feet in height; One freestanding sign is proposed to the west side of the access drive, outside of the public right-of-way and outside of the visual clearance area as shown in Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The hearings officer finds that the proposed sign is roughly 32 square feet per side, measured height from the ground to the top of the posts and the width between the posts. t However the sign face as defined by TDC 18.780.085.A.2 measures 14 square feet.2 As discussed above, the applicant proposed to locate the sign outside of the visual clearance area. FINDING: The pro' osed sign complies with the location and dimensional criteria of the Code, based on Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. This criterion is met. Tree Removal (18.790): Section 18.790.030 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site development review application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining 1 Based on the dimensions shown in Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony, the sign measures 5'4" between the ground and the top of the posts and six feet between the outsides of the posts. 5'4" x 6' _ 31.98 = 32 square feet. 2 TDC 18.780.085.A provides: [T]he perimeter of measurable area shall not include embellishments such as pole covers, framing and decorative roofing, provided there is no written advertising copy, symbols or logos on such embellishments Therefore the proposed sign face measures 5'4" x 32" - 14.22 = 14 square feet, based on the dimensions shown in Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. Hearings Ofcer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 23 • • standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Section 18.790.040 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan, in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. The Existing Conditions Plan identified the location and species of all existing trees. The arborists report, Exhibit 8 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony, lists the dbh measurement of all existing trees on the site and proposes measures to protect the trees during construction activities on the site. Two trees were marked for removal, a 10-inch dbh ornamental Dogwood and a 17-inch Port Orford Cedar that is dead. No mitigation is required because the dogwood tree is less than 12-inches dbh and the cedar tree is dead. The applicant proposed to retain the four remaining trees on the site. The applicant should be required to record a deed restriction to the effect that these retained tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The City Forester concluded that the original tree plan was unacceptable. The City Forester has not reviewed the revised tree plan submitted with the arborists report. The applicant should be required to obtain City Forester approval of the revised tree protection plan and comply with the Conditions of Approval provided by the City Forester to ensure compliance with the standard. FINDING: The tree removal standards can be met subject to conditions. Visual Clearance Areas (18.795): Chapter 18.795 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three (3) and eight (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight (8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance points with a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative that a clear vision area will be maintained. The applicant proposed to relocate the sign outside of the clear vision area as shown in Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. Therefore, this section has been satisfied. C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) provides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 24 • The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Privacy and Noise: Multi-family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360 . 090.7 (Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Multi-family Use); 18.360.090.8 (100- year floodplain); and 18.360.090.9 (Demarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Ad'oining Uses; 18.360.090.13 ~Parkinft 18.360.090.14 (Landscaping); 18.360.09.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.14 Provision for the Disabled). Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. The building is a pre-existing home that is to be converted to office use. The site is not in an area identified as prone to sliding. The site is relatively flat with few trees and no slopes associated with the site. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Crime Prevention and Safety: A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; B. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and E. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Windows exist on all sides of the building. The applicant has also proposed to add windows along the south and east sides of the building during the conversion of the garage to office space. The applicant submitted a lighting plan illustrating the existing and proposed lighting on the site. Exhibit 9 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The proposed lights illuminate the pedestrian pathways, proposed parking, the rear entrance to the building and the refuse collection area. The applicant should be required to submit the proposed lighting plan to the City Police Department for review and approval. In addition, the applicant should be required to demonstrate that the lights on the site will not cast glare onto adjacent properties. This standard can be met subject to conditions. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 25 • • Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to an existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Hermoso Way, which is not on a Tri-met transit route, therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Site Development Review Standard have can be satisfied subject to conditions. Street And Utility Improvements Standards (Section 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 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street and Accessway Standards, requires a local street to have a minimum 60 foot right-of-way width and 36-foot 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 Hermoso Way, which is classified as a local street on the City of Tigard Transportation Plan Map. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. SW Hermoso Way is currently partially improved. TDC 18.810.030.A.5 authorizes the City engineer to accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of actual improvements if one or more of the conditions outlined in TDC 18.810.030.A.5.a-f are met. The City Engineer previously concluded that the project does not meet the standards in TDC 18.810.030.A.5.a-f and therefore does not qualify for a public improvement guarantee. That determination is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer. The hearings officer has no authority to review the City Engineer's determination. The applicant expressly agreed to dedicate of right of way to provide 30 feet from centerline and construct the adjacent street to the applicable standards. Therefore this criterion is met. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets, or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The existing grade on Hermoso Way does not exceed 12%. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 26 • • 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. There is difficulty in meeting the block standards for the area around the development. Topogra hical issues like the wetlands to the northwest of the site and proximity to an arterial (SW 72"d) and State Highway (Hwy 217) hinder connectivity in the area. Currently Hermoso Way only connects with streets to the south and east. There are no street connections to the north that are required at this time by the Transportation System Plan or Tigard Triangle Street Plan. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. 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. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The applicant has proposed to construct the public sidewalk along the Hermoso Way frontage. Hermoso Way is classified as a local street. Therefore the Code requires either a 12-foot sidewalk or an 8-foot sidewalk and four-foot planter strip abutting the site. See the figure at the bottom of page 18.620-15 and the figures at page 18.620-19. The applicant agreed to construct the sidewalk to City standards. Therefore this criterion can be met subject to a condition. 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: 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. The applicant's plans indicate an existing sewer lateral serving this development. This criterion is met. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 27 • • Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of 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). There is no upstream drainage way that impacts this development. The applicant's plans show the extension of the public storm sewer line in Hermoso Way, but the applicant's narrative states that the plans are "filed under protest" because the costs of such extension exceed the rough,y proportional impacts of the development. The applicant agreed to pay a fee in lieu of extending the storm sewer line to the site equal to the roughly proportionate impact of the proposed development on the need for such a facility. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. The applicant proposed to infiltrate stormwater on the site. The City does not allow on- site stormwater infiltration, based on Ms. McMillan's expert testimony. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to accommodate stormwater runoff from this site in compliance with City and CWS standards, based on Ms. McMillan's expert testimony. The applicant can collect, treat and detain stormwater runoff from this site prior to releasing the stormwater to an approved public system. The applicant should be required to design and install a stormwater facility for the site consistent with plans approved by the City. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. 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). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all new developments resulting in an increase of impervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is located adjacent to Fanno Creek. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant proposed to install an on-site stormwater detention facility. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. 0 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. Hermoso Way is not a designated bicycle facility. Therefore this section is inapplicable. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 28 • 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. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Hermoso Way. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The applicant has requested they be allowed to pay the fee-in-lieu of undergrounding the utilities along their Hermoso Way frontage. However the applicant may decide to locate the utilities underground in order to avoid the need to relocate the existing utility pole on the site to accommodate the required frontage improvements. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Stud Findin s: The applicant provided a traffic impact report for this development dated November 22, 2005 and received by the City January 31, 2006. The report analyzed two key intersections: SW 72"d Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street SW 68`" Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street The two critical intersections have been identified as needing traffic signals. As development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces additional trips to these intersections, funds have been collected from the developers that will contribute to the future signal installation. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinnzen Office Building) Page 29 0 • The first project to contribute funds to the intersections was the Babies R Us project. A simile formula was established based urn the imppact from that development. That project had an impact of 1.1% at SW 72 venue SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the City Council required the developer to pay funds in the amount of $20,000.00. At the intersection of SW 68t Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the impact from that project was estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,000.00. Using this same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects in the Triangle, and can be calculated for this project. In order to provide the fairest comparison to the Babies R Us project, it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entering volumes (TEV) estimated as apart of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-out of the triangle area, including the Tri County site at 72°/Dartmouth. Based on Figure 2 of the applicant's November 22, 2005 traffic analysis, the proposed development will generate one PM peak hour vehicle trip through each of these intersections. The applicant should be required to pay its proportionate share of the cost of traffic signals at this intersection based on the single PM peak hour vehicle trip generated at each intersection and the funding formula established with the Babies R Us development. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. Fire and Life Safety: The TVFR comments include: 1) 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 as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshall's Office. (IFC B 105.2) 2) Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. This distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system (IFC 508.5. 1) 3) Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (IFC 1410.1 & 1412.1). There is an existing fire hydrant on the south side of Hermoso Way, approximately 140 feet west of the project's west property line, which is connected to a four-inch water line. Based on recent testing, this hydrant generates 887.58 gallons per minute, a static pressure of 118 psi and residual pressure of 110 psi. See Exhibit 10 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The Tualatin Valley Water District plans to replace the existing four-inch water line with a new 12-inch line during the summer of 2006. See page 2 of Exhibit 10 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony. The hearings officer finds that the larger water main is likely to provide adequate fire flows to meet TVFR standards. The applicant should be required to provide documentation from TVFR that its requirements have been met prior to occupancy approval. Public Water System: Tua atm Valley Water District (TVWD) provides service in this area. The applicant's plans indicate an existing 3/4" water meter that will be retained for use by this development. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 30 • • 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. As discussed above, the applicant agreed to collect and treat stormwater runoff from this site in compliance with CWS and City standards. Ms. McMillan opined that it is feasible to do so. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The applicant is required to obtain City approval of a final stormwater plan with detailed plans and calculations approved y the City prior to final engineering approval, which will ensure the development actually complies with this standard. 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 one or more acre of land. Since this site is over one acre, 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. The applicant's plans show grades for the proposed improvements, but no erosion control plan was provided. At the appeal hearing the applicant submitted an erosion control narrative. Exhibit 11. The hearings officer finds that it is feasible to comply with all applicable erosion control requirements, based on the applicant's submittal and Ms. McMillan's testimony. The applicant should be required to submit and obtain City approval of final grading and erosion control plans prior to issuance of any City permits. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. Address Assi nments: The City o Tigard is responsible for assigning addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary USB). An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. A condition of approval is warranted to that effect. E. IMPACT STUDY (18.390) Section 18.360.090 states, "The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:" Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 31 0 • In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant states that storm water created by increased impervious area on the site will be collected in an approved storm water catch basin with filter. No changes are proposed to the existing water service to the existing structure. It is expected that the new office use will decrease demand for water usage at the location. Sewer will be provided by connecting to the existing main line in Hermoso Way. Park fees are normally collected as System Development Charges at the issuance of building permits. Because this is an existing residence, the Tigard Building Division will issue a credit for this charge. The proposed use for the site is a professional office building. This type of use does not generally produce noise that would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The applicant agreed to provide street improvements along the frontage of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.810.030.A. D. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings adopted and incorporated herein, the hearings officer concludes that the appeal should be granted, because the applicant sustained the burden of proof that the proposed site development does or will comply with the applicable approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code based on the new evidence submitted on appeal. Therefore the hearings officer should reverse the manager's decision and approve the application as modified by the packet of testimony and evidence Mr. Shonkwiler submitted at the appeal hearing and subject to conditions necessary to ensure future development complies with all applicable criteria. E. DECISION In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained and incorporated herein, the hearings officer hereby grants the appeal, reverses the decision of the planning manager and approves SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255 (Shinmen Office Building) subject to the following conditions of approval: Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 32 r i CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SITE/BUILDING PERMITS: Submit to the Planning Division (Cheryl Caines, 639-4171, ext. 2437) for review and approval: 1. Prior to site/building permit issuance the applicant must submit the following" a. A revised site plan for review and approval that provides a minimum eight-foot wide landscape strip along the east and west boundaries of the site. If compliance with the buffer standards requires revisions to the parking lot, the revised site plan shall provide a minimum six parking spaces and comply with the design and dimensional requirements of TDC 18.765. b. A landscape plan approved by the City Forester showing street trees listed on the City's Street Tree Planting List along the site's Hermoso Way frontage and spaced consistent with the requirements of TDC 18.0745.040.C. C. Detailed plans for review and approval that show the solid waste and recycling area is screened from public view consistent with TDC 18.745.050.E.4. 2. The applicant shall submit a tree protection plan for review and approval by the City Forester. Prior to any site work the applicant shall install all proposed tree protection measures consistent with the approved plan. The protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the City Forester prior to commencing any site work. The tree protection measures shall remain in place through the duration of all of the building construction phases, until the Certificate of Occupancy has been approved. If the Builder is different from the Developer or initial applicant: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site plan drawings indicating the location of the trees that were preserved on the lot during site development, location of tree protection fencing, and a signature of approval from the project arborist regarding the placement and construction techniques to be employed in building the structures. All proposed protection fencing shall be installed and inspected prior to commencing construction. The fencing shall remain in place through the duration of all of the building construction phases, until the Certificate of Occupancy has been approved. After approval from the City Forester, the tree protection measures may be removed. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence that the City police department approved the proposed lighting plan for the site. Lights on the site shall not cast glare onto adjacent properties. 4. The applicant shall locate the proposed sign in one of the two locations shown in Exhibit 2 of Mr. Shonkwiler's testimony and entirely outside of the clear vision area for the driveway on the site. The applicant shall comply with the inspection requirements of TDC 18.750.050. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 33 0 0 Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 5. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover half street improvements to Hermoso Way and any other work in the public right-of-way (ROW). Three (3) 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). 6. 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. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay an addressing fee in the amount of $50.00. 8. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the frontage of Hermoso Way to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 9. 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 Hermoso Way. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section for a Tigard Triangle local street from curb to centerline equal to 18 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 12 foot concrete sidewalk or 8 foot concrete sidewalk with a 4-foot planter strip; F. street trees spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlight layout by applicant's engineer, to be approved by City Engineer; 1. underground utilities or fee in lieu approved by the City engineer; J. street signs (if applicable); K. driveway apron (if applicable); and L. adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Hermoso Way in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department 10. A profile of Hermoso Way and Beveland Street shall be required, extending 300 feet either side of the subject site showing the existing grade and proposed future grade. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 34 0 • 11. The applicant shall submit a stormwater plan for City review and approval. The plan shall include on-site detention and water quality facilities as required by Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards (adoJ)ted by Resolution and Order No. 00-7). The calculations shall include all impervious surface area, existing and proposed. The treatment and detention facilities shall discharge to an approved public facility, which may include weep holes in the curb along Hermoso Way. Final plans and calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan) for review and approval prior to issuance of the site permit. In addition, a proposed maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review and approval. 12. Prior to issuance Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of extending the existing storm sewer in Hermoso Way to the site in an amount determined by the City engineer based on this development's proportionate share of the cost of such extension. 13. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12% of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the PFI permit plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 14. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit drawings. The plan shall conform to the "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Design and Planning Manual, February 2003 edition." THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: Submit to the Planning Division (Cheryl Caines, 639-4171, ext. 2437) for review and approval: 15. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that the Project Arborist has submitted written reports to the City Forester, at least, once every two weeks, from initial tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing installation, through the building construction phases, as he monitors the construction activities and progress. This inspection will be to evaluate the tree protection fencing, determine if the fencing was moved at any point during construction, and determine if any part of the Tree Protection Plan has been violated. These reports must be provided to the City Forester until the time of the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. The reports shall include any changes that occurred to the TPZ as well as the condition and location of the tree protection fencing. If the amount of TPZ was reduced then the Project Arborist shall justify why the fencing was moved, and shall certify that the construction activities to the trees did not adversely impact the overall, long-term health and stability of the tree(s). If the reports are not submitted or received by the City Forester at the scheduled intervals, and if it appears the TPZ's or the Tree Protection Plan are not being followed by the contractor or a sub-contractor, the City can stop work on the project until an inspection can be done by the City Forester and the Project Arborist. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Arborist will submit a final certification indicating the elements of the Tree Protection Plan were followed and that all remaining trees on the site are healthy, stable and viable in their modified growing environment. Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 35 0 • 16. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant/owner shall record a deed restriction to the effect that any existing tree greater than 12" diameter may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this decision should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2642) for review and approval: 17. The applicant shall either place the existing overhead utility lines along SW Hermoso Way underground as a part of this project, or, if approved by the City Engineer, 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 $35.00 per lineal foot. If the fee option is chosen, the amount will be $3,500.00 and it shall be paid prior to final plat approval. 18. Prior to a final building inspection, the applicant shall complete any work in the public right-of-way (or public easement) and obtain approval from the Engineering Department. 19. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quality facility to perform construction and visual observation of the water quality facility for compliance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages, and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Staff Contact: Hap Watkins, Building Division. 20. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide documentation from TVFR that all requirements for fire flow and pressure have been met. 21. Prior to any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay ids proportionate share of the cost of traffic siggpals at the intersections of SW 72" Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68` Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City engineer based on the single PM peak hour vehicle trip generated by this development at each intersection and the formula established with the Babies R Us development. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. DATED this 26th day of July 2006. Jo Turner, Esq., AICP City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer Hearings Officer Final Order Appeal of SDR2005-00008/SGN2005-00255(Shinmen Office Building) Page 36 r "TAB A" 0 Testimony Received at the Public Hearing. a JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax(503)684-8971 Phone(503)624-0917 July 11, 2006 Joe Turner Municipal Hearings Official 30439 SE Jackson Road, Suite 200 Gresham, OR 97080 RE : Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermosb Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Mr. Turner: a Enclosed please find a copy of the "Supplemental Application Statement" that was previously filed with the above identified application. These are the documents that I referred to during the public hearing. HN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. 'S~~ 106 W. Shonkwiler ce: M. M. Shinmen A • • M. M. SIIINMEN, L. L. C. 7315 SW Her moso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 December 14, 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION STATEMENT SDR 2005-00008 1. Additional Application Documents. The application is to change the use of the property from single-family residential to professional office as allowed in the MUE zone as a permitted use. Pursuant to a letter dated October 4, 2005 from Matthew Scheidegger, Associate Planner, additional documents were required by the Development Review Engineer for completing the application. In compliance with that request, enclosed with this "Supplemental Application Statement" are three copies of : (1) Preliminary Engineering Drawings, (2) Preliminary Storm Drainage Record, and (3) Trip Generation Report. These documents address the issues raised by the Development Review Engineer regarding grading, street issues, sanitary sewer issues, water issues, storm drainage and water quality issues. 2. Condition of Approval that Applicant construct or pay for extension of public storm sever a. Applicant objects to the condition of approval. Applicant contests the proposed condition of approval by the Development Review Engineer that the Applicant be responsible for constructing or paying for the extension of the 12 in. public storm sewer for approximately 600 ft. along Hermoso Way. The above documents which are submitted by the Applicant for the purposes of obtaining a review, which include drawings for the extension of the 12 in. public storm sewers are filed under protest. b. The proposed condition constitutes an unconstitutional "taking." The proposed condition of approval for extension of the public storm sewer constitutes an unconstitutional "taking" of the Applicant's property without just compensation because the adverse impacts from the proposed use are not roughly proportional to the costs of constructing the storm sewer extension, and the storm sewer extension is not factually necessary to address storm water flow generated at the subject property. The Applicant's proposed underground detention and filtration storm water system retains on site all storm water generated, with the sole exception of a 100 year event. A 100 year event would only create an excess storm water flow of 0.172 cfs which can be retained on site with a grass filtration swale. In fact, the impact of the proposed development does not even create an excess storm water flow of 0.172 cfs. Instead, the difference between the pre-developed condition of the subject property and the proposed post-developed property is only 0.02 cfs (which can be satisfactorily retained and treated Page 1 • • by an on-site biofilter swale). See, attached LCD letter memorandum and Preliminary Storm Drainage Record. Thus, a city required connection to the 12 in. storm sewer is not factually necessary for addressing impacts of the uses at the site, nor legitimate public health, safety and welfare matters of the City of Tigard. If the City requires extension of the 12 in. storm sewer to the Subject Property, the requirement that the Applicant construct at his own expense or pay for that extension excessively exceeds rough proportionality. There are 19 separate properties (tax lots) in the applicable storm water drainage basin abutting SW Hermoso Way. Excluding the three tax lots which appeared to have already participated in storm water sewer improvements (Tax Lot 1609, and the two tax lots along the west side of Hermoso Way), there are 16 properties remaining which potentially would be served by a storm water sewer. These remaining properties are Tax Lots: 1100, 1200, 1300, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1400, 1603, 1602, 1601, 1800, 1700, 1605, 1607, 300 (of 2SIO1BA). Dividing the projected $50,000 storm sewer construction cost by 16 establishes the roughly proportional share for Tax Lot 1300 (subject property) - Proportional Share by number of lots or ownerships is $3,125 per lot. A second way of calculating a roughly proportionate share is by comparing the percentage of storm water generated from the subject property as compared to the overall storm water for the applicable storm water basin. According to the engineering report, the subject property's storm water contribution would be 6.34% for a 25 year event and 6.28% for a 100 year event. Applying these percentages to the projected $50,000 construction cost results in a roughly proportionate share for the subject property of $3,170 for a 25 year event and a $3,140 for a 100 year event. By comparison, the subject property possesses pre-existing improvements which included impervious surfaces. As identified by the engineer's report the difference between the pre-existing use and the proposed post development use is only a storm water generation of 0.02 cfs. Applying this increased storm water generation from the subject property as a result of the proposed development impacts to the $50,000 construction cost results in a roughly proportional share by actual increased impact of $365.12. c. The proposed condition of approval that the Applicant provide a complete stormwater sewer for 600 feet of the street length is an unconstitutional exaction. The requirement of a right-of-way dedication to incorporate the construction of a storm water sewer extending 600 ft. imposes an unconstitutional exaction. Applicant's engineer has identified that all storm water can be retained and treated on site with Applicant's proposed improvements. Thereby, there is no factual need for this proposed use to construct and connect to a city required storm water sewer. There is no legitimate government interest that would arguably be advanced. The City's declared need for the construction of the storm water sewer is to provide adequate drainage for storm water runoff generated at the subject property and because it is required in the City's ordinance. As a result, there is no requisite essential nexus between the exaction of requiring Page 2 • • construction/connection of the storm sewer and the public interest that the exemption was purportedly designed to promote. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed.2d 677 (1987). In addition, merely requiring an improvement by an ordinance provision does not create a sufficient justification for an unconstitutional exaction. J.C. Reeves v. Clackamas County, 131 Or. App. 615, 887 P.2d 360, 365 (1994). Under Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994), the City must make an individualized determination that the required exaction is related both in "nature" and "extent" to the impact of the proposed development. This is a determination of "rough proportionality." Here, the construction of a complete storm water sewer would ultimately be used for the benefit of all property owners along the same street. The projected cost for this storm water sewer system would be approximately $50,000. As identify above, the actual increase in storm water run off generated by the Applicant's proposed use is only 0.02 cfs which is a roughly proportional share in the cost of the storm water construction equivalent to $365.12. Even assuming a factual storm water impact by the proposed application (which the Applicant denies), the roughly proportionate share in the need and use of such a storm water system would not exceed $3,170. A requirement that the Applicant solely pay for the construction of the entire $50,000 storm water sewer system is clearly not proportional to the actual value ($3,170) related to the storm water impacts of the Applicant's proposed use. Such a condition of approval would violate the well-settled doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions" and constitute an unconstitutional "taking." Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or. App. 220, 884 P.2d 569 (1994). 3. Alternative Solutions SW Hermoso Way is zoned for mixed-uses and comprises 18 separate and smaller lots. Over the recent years, a pattern has developed of several of these lots redeveloping from residential to commercial office space. It is reasonably to expect that, in the relative to near future, that most of the length of SW Hermoso Way will seek land-use approvals for conversion to commercial uses. Many of these properties are currently up for sale. The Applicant proposes as the most appropriate solution or condition of approval that the City; (1) approve the application without requiring the immediate construction of and connection to a storm water sewer, and (2) requiring the Applicant to enter into an agreement to contribute the Applicant's rough proportionality share in the eventual construction and connection to the storm sewer when it is eventually constructed (when a sufficient number of abutting property owners have applied for land-use approvals). Other potential solutions that are practicable in liu of immediate connecting to a public storm sewer are: (1) installation of a biofilter swale, (2) an advanced payment of a fee as identified above for the rough proportionality share of the proposed public storm sewer, (3) bonding for the rough proportionality share of the proposed public storm sewer Page 3 • 9 (4) waiver of remonstrance to form a public storm sewer LID, (5) contract or deed restriction to connect to and pay proportionate share for the public storm sewer when it is eventually constructed, or (6) the City and the landowner enter into a contract where landowner constructs the storm sewer and the landowner is subsequently entitled to reimbursement, plus interest, when additional landowners connect to the storm sewer. M. M. Shinmen Page 4 20085 NW Tanasbourne Drive LDC Hillsboro, OR 97124 P 503.858.4242 F 503.645.5500 Design Group www.ldcdesign.com January 10, 2006 Attn: John Shonkwiler Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72"d Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax (503) 684-8971 Phone (503) 624-0917 Subject: Hermoso Office Conversion Dear Mr. Shonkwiler: This letter is in response to the notice of incomplete submittal in Case File No. SDR2005-00008. The letter was dated October 4, 2005. The subject site is 2S1-01AB tax lot 1300. Below are the items that you have requested us to elaborate on, in regards to the storm drainage and water quality issues for the site. 1. A connection to an approved public storm conveyance facility is a requirement of the City of Tigard. Since a public storm sewer is not readily accessible to the site and drywells are not allowed by the city's building department, the city has requested that the public storm sewer be extended to the site's east frontage as one alternative. The pre-development flows for the site for the 2, 10,.25 and 100-year events are 0.063, 0.101, 0.120 and 0.147 cfs respectively. The post-development flows for the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year events are 0.084 cfs, 0.125 cfs, 0.142 cfs and 0.172 cfs respectively. The difference between the pre-developed and post- developed for the 2, 10, 25 and 100 year storm events is approximately 0.02 cfs. Such a difference is essentially negligible, and does not warrant a public storm sewer extension from a hydraulic capacity standpoint. The post-development flows for the total basin for the 25 and 100-year events are 2.24 and 2.74 cfs respectively. The post-development flows for the site basin for the 25 and 100-year events are 0.142 and 0.172 cfs. The percentage of flow that the Hermoso Way site is contributing to the total basin for the 25 and 100-year storm events is 6.34% and 6.28% respectively. 2. The current proposed storm water system consists of a storm water management catch basin filter and a 42 inch underground detention system, which meet the City of Tigard's water quantity and quality requirements. However, the water quantity and quality requirements could also be met by an on-site swale and pond, which would then discharge through a weep hole in the curb. Thus eliminating the need for storm sewer extension. 3. The approximate cost for constructing the 12 inch public storm sewer from the sites east property line to the existing public storm line in Hermoso Way would be in the range of $50, 000 to $60,000 dollars. This estimate includes mobilization, 600 feet of 12 inch storm sewer, four standard storm sewer manholes, one storm sewer cleanout and pavement restoration. i • 20085-NW Tanasboume Drive L Hillsboro, OR 97124 P'503.858.4242 F 503.645.5500 Design Group www.ldcdesign.com a Nvml [omyany 4. Some alternatives that may be more feasible to propose to the City of Tigard are: (1) on-site swale, (2) bonding for the estimated proportional share of the proposed public storm sewer improvements, (3) a payment for the estimated proportional share of the proposed public storm sewer, (4) waiver of remonstrance to form a pubic storm sewer LID, (5) agreement or deed restriction to connect to and pay a proportional share for the public storm sewer when it is constructed, (6) the City and the landowner enter into a contract where the landowner constructs the public storm sewer and the landowner is subsequently entitled to reimbursement, plus interest, when additional landowners connect to the public storm sewer. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Patrick Martin, PE Project Manager M c ii 3 . mot04•/2= m. o. gE~d1 vg ..A f O U f Q x 0 a a U m m .m m ° ° G a x 0 0 E 0 Y O O N 2 0i 0 C l0 O- E O V tu a 0. p C7 c P Q U a Sirs Legend Subject propedY 144ft. USGS Contour loft. USGS Contour Stream Route f a o cs,.. c7.3~{ 0.1-1 0. 4.3Y H rAOSO / _ , WAY a. !°3 J~q fog lad-= sT Sr CI Design G(OUP p085 NWFAX: 50.7 GO~t 97{1d .tA5.51 t 4 e 4.0 TopographY . ~tgur Office Conversion Hermoso FZ°ad ington county, Oregon City. of Tigard, Wash Souxe. Data Disc. August 2005 Metro Oats Resource Center. RUS tale IE 01.1 P-g $*SIp) Date: 11l18I2005 Scale: 1" = 200% proieCt 11p19.001 1 Drawn 8Y CE Y sr1 Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road Office Conversion RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Site Basin - 25 Year total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period- 25 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.90 in. pervious area = 0.06 A CN = 79 impervious area = 0.12 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.18 A peak flow = 0.15cfs @ 7.83 hr. runoff volume = 2,007 cu.ft. SRL 0-49 23-Jan-06 ' srI • Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road Office Conversion- RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Site Basin - 100 Year . total Time of Concentration = 510' storm hyetograpl return period storm duration total rainfall pervious area = impervious area total site area is SCS TypeIA 100 years = 24 hr. = 4.50 in. 0.06 A CN = 79 = 0.12 A CN = 98 = 0.18 A SRL 0.49 13-Jan-06 peak flow = 0.18cfs cal 7.83 hr. runoff volume = 2,375 cu.ft. srl SRL *55 09-Jan-06 Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road Office Conversion RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Entire Basin for Hormoso Way - 25 Year 2-year, 24-hour rainfall = 2.50" flow type description coeff. distance fall slope TIC 1 overland sheet dense.grasses n=0.24 150.0 1.0' 0.67% 34.7' .2 shallow concentrated paved,gravel K=27 300.0 15.01 5.001 0.8' 3 intermittent channel paved.channel K=30 500.0 45.01 9:00% 0.9' total Time of Concentration = 36.4' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period = 25 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall = 3.90 in. pervious area = 3.09 A CN = 79 impervious area = 2.18 A CN = 98 total site area = 5.27 A peak flow = 2.24cfs cad 8.00 hr. runoff volume = 50,114 cu.ft. sr1 SRL 1*56 09-Jan-06 Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road Office Conversion RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Entire Basin for Hormoso Way - 100 Year 2-year, 24-hour rainfall = 2.50" flow type description coeff. distance fall slope TIC 1 overland sheet dense.grasses n=0.24 150.0 1.0' 0.67* 34.7' 2 shallow concentrated paved,gravel K=27 300.0 15.0' 5.00% 0.8' 3 intermittent channel paved.channel K=30 500.0 45.0' 9:00* 0.9' total Time of Concentration = 36.4' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period = 100 years storm duration = 24 hr. total rainfall 4.50 in. pervious area = 3.09 A CN = 79 impervious-area = 2.18 A CN = 98 total site area = 5.27 A peak flow = 2.74cfs @ 8.00 hr. runoff volume = 60,391 cu.ft. 12 inch Proposed Public Storm Sewer Capacity 1019.001 - Hermoso Way Office Conversion Sewer Pipes English Units Civil Tools for Windows (12-20-2005, 14:03:90) Flowrate Diameter Friction Slope Velocity (cfs) (in) (fps) _ 7.37 12.00 0.013 4.28 .9.38 11.35 12.00 0.013 10.14 14.45 6.38 12.00 0.013 3.21 8.13 1.59 12.00 0.013 0.20 2.03 8 1 1 ' 1 1 1 23134 1 1 1 1 E W S:- 19+75 11 1 E 1 : 234.17 4. W ; I 2.00 4 ~ B 33 22 1 ' 12' WV OUf ( . 22180 _A 1 • 11 IZ' iNV 2 225.19 it IA 11 d 23&46 p ~1 Il p 11 11 238.1 237.99 1 1 U 1 ITC SS ODI ' 11 - - _ T-STA + • 23&87 ' IIV IN (rrt) =o1V•aur-( •.-230.&7 d 241.03 1 L n IBIPn IN 72ND A % EfM U. ~ I I >9 I I ,I I I II I I g Pit I al a I 1 I Np ,I I~~ I - i r~li~ P2 ( . i at~~c~ ~t _ _Sir 2ND AVEN_ a 0 ' u g >,a S • ~ 8 B oRAWNG nnte PROJECT: , PREPARED ME Planners JOHN W. SHONKWILER 1DO Engineers HERMOSO OFFICE CONVERSION 13425 SW 72ND AVENUE 3 Surveyors HERMOSO WAY TAX MAP 2$10188 TICARD, OREGON 97223 o (0 mas w. HWBOR",' OREGON 171 on, PROPOSED STORM TAX LOT,ISOO DESIGN GROUP oHOHU(m) a5a-4242 PLAN/PROFILE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 4 ..'(602) 545-5500 x Ez! O ~a 0 !C 111 z CzJ b ~Oy IIK ~ I I^ 1082 CLEAJ OUT A + INV-165.Os SD MH 1A ST STA 11+31 1 Rt. 427 ' RW - 19181 1Y-INViH-(NE 68.3 I2' INV OUT ( ) - MIT W SVCS- 11+7 z BVCE: 193.4 YH 18 > ><bPo 0 U > 1 iSTA_11+91. ' LA.2 n a IM - 194 19 r ; Y INV 01 (E) 2' INV OUT (5 16618 N) - 167.96 EVCS 2+20 8'p EVCE: 96.86 129.2 G N 8 S: 13+25 B : 20665 211.53 216.9 % 216.74 YH 1C Si TA 14+35. 1 RT. S. 221.6 RIM -220.07 1• 12'1NV'VrjE) TZBT- 12'OIVW7 O -212.81 ~ yN~ xp~ A E1IT0 SS MH + o x s 2 •1 5 TA 15+01. 21T. 7.1 - ~ 1 am -22473 '1 1 1 y RI u ON IN (E) 217.01 11 1 g 8 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 .a ~ • ~ 2 1 $ 1 11 1. X70 8 HERMOSO WAY ~ I -xSS-xSS-x54~'t•~'i',"7 ,91 -xw-xw-xw-xw zw1. 'elkJ~ -------------------1 (I ''M1 `':L'~ - 4 d1I' .1 i ° I I .ft ` =~~i5 1 I 1" r'C 1 M f C --------------------I ' I q' 4r. 1 Z I 4.%~ ~ I~ I yr, 1 ~ '"rt I - I I f It .'t s n? c„ I ~ ~}F~,I I N ~ U I h-------------------~ (I t, n I - r f.4 t.,'w 1 ti July 10, 2006 Project: OR05.050.T20 - Hermoso Access Rep DTS ort Ms. Kim McMillan Engineers City of Tigard 'P-1--y 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Access Report for the Hermoso Office Conversion (SDR2005-00008) Dear Ms. McMillan: This letter is in response to the City of Tigard's Notice of Incomplete Submittal letter. The City is requesting that an Access Report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verify design of driveways and that streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. Below is the additional information for queuing along SW 72nd Avenue and the sight distance/safety in the vicinity. The applicant is proposing to convert an existing 2,005 GSF single family home located at 7315 SW Hermoso Way to office space with no change to the building's gross square footage. This redevelopment was estimated to increase trip generation of the site by 2-3 trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Queuing along SW Hermoso Way at SW 72nd Avenue: SW Hermoso is a local street that has 13 single family homes with a speed limit of 25 mph. Traffic eastbound along SW Hermoso is very low and thus, queues of vehicles along its approach to SW 72nd Avenue will be 1-2 vehicles. Queuing along SW 72nd Avenue was observed during the AM and PM peak hours. During the AM peak hour, traffic along SW 72"d Avenue flowed freely, but during the PM peak vehicles in the northbound direction were queued backed from SW Dartmouth to SW Beveland Road. In the southbound direction there were no queues observed. Even so, drivers from Hermoso can find gaps in traffic to make turns onto SW 72nd Avenue. (It should also be noted that vehicles can travel to the south to the traffic signal.) The relatively few additional trips generated by the redevelopment of the site will not significantly impact traffic operations at this intersection. Traffic Safety: We have also evaluated the adequacy of SW Hermoso Way at SW 72nd Avenue and proposed site access driveway. Pictures of these locations are attached to this letter. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, SW Hermoso Way has two travel lanes (one in each direction) with 28 feet of travel way. NE 72nd Avenue has two travel lanes (one in each direction) with 34 feet of travel way. Intersection Sight Distance A preliminary assessment of driver sight distance was performed along SW Hermoso Way and SW 72nd Avenue. Sight distance along SW Hermoso at the proposed driveway will be unrestricted along this street. This street is relatively straight, with a downgrade from SW 72nd to the west. Drivers exiting this driveway will be able to see traffic operations at SW 72nd Avenue (over 225 feet away). SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermoso Way is on a slight crest which has a curve that goes downhill to SW Dartmouth to the north. To the south there is a slight hill and curve to SW Beveland Road. Sight distance 20085 NW TANASBOURNE DR. measurements were performed from 15 feet back of the travel way along SW 72nd HILLSBORO OR 97124 Avenue at SW Hermoso Way. To the south sight distance is approximately 400 feet and PH 503.690.8080 will exceed the sight distance requirements of more than 300 feet for a 30 mph zone Fz 503.645.5930 such as SW 72nd Avenue. Sight distance to the north was approximately 210 feet. This was due to the vehicles that were parked in the parking lot for the business on the WWW•CTSENGINEERS.COM north east corner of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermoso Way. HILLSBORO, OREGON BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON Hermoso Access Report • • Page 2 July 10, 2006 As this is an existing issue, the City should review this situation with the land owners and attempt to restrict parking in this area to preserve the line of sight. With this modification, sight distance will increase and potentially 300 feet (at least from 10-12 feet back, which is more realistic for a setback for residential streets) may be achieved. Photos are attached to this letter to demonstrate sight distance in both north and south directions for the Hermoso Office. If you have any further questions regarding this information, please contact me directly. Sincerely, Howard S. Stein, P.E. Transportation Engineer Attachments ~~Ep PROFS, LNG I Nf W 17, 045 y v OREGON SCOTI C>~ RENEW DATE 7/2008 • 0 Looking North at SW 72nd Avenue from SW Hermoso Way (210 feet to Telephone Pole due to vehicles parked in driveway parking lot) Photos Taken by CTS Engineers STUDY AREA TYPICAL VIEWS HERMOSO OFFICE CONVERSION City of Tigard, Oregon STUDY AREA TYPICAL VIEWS HERMOSO OFFICE CONVERSION City of Tigard, Oregon Photos Taken by CTS Engineers Looking north along SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermoso Way Looking west at SW Hermoso Way from SW 72nd Avenue t TRANSMISSION OR TX/R1 NO 1562 CONNECTION TEL 5036848971 SU13ADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 03/07 16:50 USAGE T 00`16 PGS. SENT 1 RESULT OH v d. T% REPORT crTY-OF TIGAr~D ORE60 . March 7, 2006 ; Mr. John Shomkwiles ; . 731:5 SDI Hetmoso 'may. Tigard, OR 97223 RE.: SDR2005-00008 Shin»=.Rte Develbpmeht Revim Dear-NE Shonkwiler. ; Kiln McMM=, the City's•Desiga Review.Eugineer, and I have re-reviewed the above . applicatian.:A.s qou and I discussed yesterday, the application is :complete but some imus axe inadequate, In.heu of street improvements, you have proposed a future improvements guar=tee. • Section 18.810.030.A.5•outlines the conditions -under w ac table. None o ese condidosts are met for this site,; thus the'stteet impiovera. ' -along the site's frontage' are required. Because the pplication does not meet tandard,, th6 oat iron is to deu Effiiea-p"p=tion. In seg uds to the 'options you have proposed 'for ' . . e storm-line extension, those can -be reviewed and conditioned for accordingly through the review process.: ; I wall be- deeming the applicatioh complete and bq~nxxitsg the review process. Please contact me after reviewing this letter. My phone number is (503) 718-2437 or e-mail is ' plc a~itigard-or.gov. ' Sincerely, ; OREGON March 7, 2006 Mr. John Shonkwiler 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR2005-00008 Shinmen Site Development Review Dear Mr. Shonkwiler: Kim McMillan, the City's Design Review Engineer, and I have re-reviewed the above application. As you and I discussed yesterday, the application is complete but some items are inadequate. In lieu of street improvements, you have proposed a future improvements guarantee. Section 18.810.030.A.5 outlines the conditions under which a guarantee is acceptable. None of these conditions are met for this site, thus the street improvements along the site's frontage are required. Because the application does not meet this standard, the only option is to deny the application. In regards to the options you have proposed for the storm line extension, those can be reviewed and conditioned for accordingly through the review process. I will be deeming the application complete and beginning the review process. Please contact me after reviewing this letter. My phone number is (503) 718-2437 or e-mail is cherylc e,tigar~gov. Sincerely, Cheryl A. Caines Assistant Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 T% REPORT ass TRANSMISSION OH T%/R% NO 1587 CONNECTION TEL 5036848971 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 03/09 15:19 USAGE T 00'53 PGS. SENT 4 RESULT OR Cary of Tigard 13W SWHa17J3.1vd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX TRANSNUTTAL Date March 9, 2006 Number of pages including covet x tf sheet 41 To: John ShonMer From: Csetyl C au'ieq Co: Co: Ca of. Tigard Fax 503-6FA-8971 Fax SUBJECT: ShLimen SDR200 -00008 Ph 403 639-4171, 2437. MESSAGE: The City Engineer lass reviewed your request to postpone the street imp-ggm e= along SW Hermoso Way. Because it 7&es not meet any o the conditions outlined under Tigard Development Code 18.810.030.A.5, po onement is not an oation for this project. A xeoision to the nauative addressina Section 18.810 is necessary to t gat street :iym ovemen City s~s-are-bciug=pyapo__r sed with this develvpxxi t am m a copy of notes made by Kim IVIcMllan, Design Review Engineer. Please contact me if you have any questions. JOHN W. SHONKWILER, PC Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax (503) 684-8971 Phone (503) 624-0917 March 13, 2006 Attn: Cheryl A. Caines City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Cheryl: • RECEIVED PLANNING : MAR. 14 2006 CITY OF TIGARD Thank you for your fax dated March 9, 2006. Enclosed please find three copies of replacement section to the "Narrative" responses for CDC 18.810.030 pertaining to a "Street improvement" requirement. Also enclosed is a letter I received from your office dated March 9, 2006 that appears to include a mistake. The letter is addressed to my office and reflects the file number for my client, M.M. Shinmen. However, the body of the letter refers to a "Minor Land Partition" and the need to submit additional materials to have a complete application. As you know, the Shinmen application is not a partition and is only for site development review. Also, prior communication with your office have previously identified that the Shinmen application materials are "complete" for review. I assume that this letter reflects two separate applications that got mixed together. Sincerely, O W. SHONKWILER, P. C. r John W. Shonkwiler cc: M. M. Shinmen Page - 1 1 ' 3-10-06 MODIFICATION TO NA►RI~AT~VE APPLICATION STATEMENT of M. M. SH NMEN, L.L.C. 7315 SW Her moso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant, M. M. Shinmen, owner of the property located at 7315 SW 1-lermoso Way, Tigard, Oregon (Map Reference 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300) modifies the Applicant's Statement "Narrative" for response to Streets - CDC 18.810.030 A Improvements regarding the requirements for a "Half Street" improvement. H. Street and Utility Improvement Standards - CDC 18.810.030 A :Improvements a. Half Street Improvement. Subsection 2 and 3 provide that a development must meet the standards for streets and that a development may be approved for a half-street improvement standard. The Applicant acknowledges that a half Street improvement is required under the provisions of the code to be built by the Applicant in accordance with city standards. The proposed Site Plan prepared by LDC shows the proposed future change of use and relocation of the street curbing for the widening and half Street improvement. At page 14 of the "Applicant's Statement" the Applicant acknowledges the requirement of a five foot dedication by the Applicant to widen SW Hermoso Way for this half street improvement. Separately in a subsequent response of the Applicant's "Narrative," the Applicant proposes that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of being required to currently construct the half-street improvements. The Applicant makes this request pursuant to CDC 18.810.030 A (5). If the City duly denies that request for a postponement of these improvements to the future, the Applicant acknowledges that this means that the halfstreet improvement along the property's $ontage is required concurrently with the approval of this application. See, Applicant's letter to Cheryl A. Caines ddted March 8, 2006 that was declared a modification of the application by the Applicant. M. M. Shinmen 3-10-06 Modification to Narrative - 1 APPLICANT'S REMONSTRATION ON GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way 1. Gener41 Grounds. Section U. Allegedly the applicant has not met the standards of the following code sections: 18.360(Site Development Review) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.705 (Access, Egress & Circulation) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening), 18.755 (Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage) 18.765 (Off-Street Parking & Loading Requirements) 18.780 (Signs) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795 (Visual Clarence Areas), and 18.810 (Streets & Utility). Page 2 of the Decision [See .Specific Grounds for Appeal] 2. Trees - Street. Section VI B. Parking Location and Landscape Design The finding alledges that contrary to the landscape plan the applicant's narrative indicates that no trees are being installed along Hermoso Way, therefore the landscape standards are not met and are further discussed under section 180.745 Landscaping and Screening Page 5 of the Decision Appeal Exhibit 1 is an alternative landscape plan for the subject property. Exhibit A includes four (4) street trees along Hermoso Way that are to be planted in the parkway. Starting from the West end of the property, these street trees are a Red Maple (Acer rubrum), a Pin Oak (Quercus palustris), a Red Maple (Acer rubrum), and a White Oak (Quercus garryana). All of these trees are listed on the city's approved street tree list. 3. Sign. Section VI B. Sign Location. Finding that the placement of the sign is within a prohibited visual clearance area. Page 7-8 of the Decision Appeal Exhibit 2 displays the 30 foot wide visual clearance area (triangles) that prohibits a location of objects higher than 3 feet. This exhibit also displays two additional alternative locations for the placement of the sign. "Sign Location No. 2" is immediately west of the original sign location and within the same landscaped island next to the parking lot. This alternative sign location is outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The "Sign Location No. 3" is farther west on the west side of the proposed entrance sidewalk. This additional alternative sign location is also outside the prohibited visual clearance area The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer make a determination that both of these alternatives sign locations satisfy all code requirements. The Applicant seeks approval of the sign location in the order of the original and the numbered alternative locations (the first accepted in that order of locations shall be the Page - 1 • • final sign location). Therefore, the application satisfies the code requirements for the approval of a sign. 4. Sidewalk - materials. Section VI B Additional Applicable Development Code Standards for required walkways The finding alleges that the applicant has failed to identify what surface material is used for the sidewalks and therefore the standard under code 18.705 is not met. Pale 8 of the Decision. The Applicant has identify that he intends to construct "a 6 ft. wide concrete walkway connection (with scored concrete)" for the sidewalks included in the "Site Development Plan (Exhibit "D"). As identified in the plans, this six-foot wide concrete walkway or sidewalk extends along the frontage of the street and from the street sidewalk to the office building. See also paragraph four at page 12 of the Narrative. Indeed all permanent surfacing is concrete with the exception of the asphalt parking lot (See bicycle pad at page 18, paragraph five of the Narrative). As a clarification, whereever the Site Development Plan identifies a "sidewalk" that is a sidewalk constructed with concrete that is scored. Therefore, the Applicant has complied with all applicable code provisions. 5. Site distance certification. Section VI B. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H. The findings declared that "a preliminary site distance certification" was not submitted for review, and therefore the access egress and circulation requirements have not been met. Pape 8-9 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 3 is a "Site Distance Certification" report for the subject property by a traffic engineer with CTS. This submittal establishes that the application complies with a code 18.705.030.H. 6. Trees - Street. Section VI B Landscaping and Screening (18.745), Street Trees (18 745 040) Finding, and that the landscape plan calls for a planting of "flowering plum trees" along Hermoso Way street frontage and that these trees are not listed on the "City's Street Tree Planting List" Also a finding is made that the applicant's narrative precludes any street trees in the application. Page 10 of the Decision. The Applicant's first request is for the street trees to be 4 "flowering plum trees." If this selection does not comply with the applicable code, then the Applicant requests the alternative selection of trees identified in Appeal Exhibit 1. Appeal Exhibit 1 is an alternative landscape plan for the subject property. Exhibit A includes four (4) street trees along Hermoso Way that are to be planted in the parkway. Starting from the West end of the property, these street trees are a Red Maple (Acer rubrum), a Pin Oak (Quercus palustris), a Red Maple (Acer rubrum), and a White Oak (Quercus garryana). All of these trees are listed on the city's approved street tree list. 7. Landscape strip width. Section VI B. Buffering and Screening (18.745.080 and matrix 18.745. 1) The finding alleges that the Applicant is proposing a 'six-foot wooden Page - 2 • • fence and a 5 ft. wide landscape strip along the eastern and western boundaries of the property, and therefore the Applicant fails to comply with the requirements of Buffer C in the matrix 18.745.1. Page 10 of the Decision. The Applicant in the Narrative identifies that the Applicant will comply with the landscape design in Exhibit C. Nowhere in the Narrative does the Applicant state that the landscape strips on the east and western boundaries are only 5 ft. wide. The Director's finding is in error. At page 12 the Applicant does state that the landscaping area in the front of the property (to the south) separating the parking lot from the sidewalk (separated from the "public right of way") will be a minimum of 5 ft. in width. Possibly this confused the Director, however, it is unrelated to the side yard standard. The Landscape Plan requires an eight-foot wide landscaped strip on the east, west and north sides of the property, with a six-foot high fence along a most of the east and west boundaries (reducing height to 3 ft. near the front of the property). See, Exhibit C. For clarification, the Applicant declares that these landscaping strips are 8 ft. wide. The Applicant has complied with all applicable to code provisions. 8. Trees - Parking a Lot. Section VI B. Screening (18.745.050 E. 10.). The finding alleges that the code requires one tree for each 7 parking spaces with a landscape island having a minimum dimension of 3 ft. wide. The finding further alleges that the application has not met that standard. Page 11 of the Decision. In the event that the Hearings Officer finds that an additional tree is required, the applicant thereby modifies the application to replace the sign improvement located in an island (wider than 3 ft.) abutting the parking lot (See Exhibit C) and the tree will be an Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana). See also, Appeal Exhibit 4. Thereby, all of the applicable provisions of the code are satisfied. 9. Screening of Refuge Containers and A/C unit. Section VI B. Screening of Refuge Containers (18.745.050 E) and A/C unit. The finding alleges that the proposed screening for the Refuge Containers and A/C unit does not met the code standards because it is not screened by a solid wood fence or masonry wall. Page 11 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit No. 5 identifies the screening surrounding the proposed 'a locations for the refuge containers (a 6 ft. high solid wooden fence) and the A/C unit (a 5 ft. high solid wooden fence). The proposed "exterior" fencing should be sufficient to satisfy code requirements. However, if the Hearings Officer determines that the code requires a separate screening, Appeal Exhibit No. 5 satisfies these landscaping and screen standards. 10. Franchise hauler review and sign-off. Section VI B. Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (18.755.040). The finding alleges that the applicant has not addressed this provision and therefore the staff cannot determine which of the four methods which were used to demonstrate compliance. Page 11 of the Decision. Page - 3 Appeal Exhibit 6 is a franchise hauler review and sign-off by Pride Disposal Company. The Applicant has also included a detail of the trash enclosure in Appeal Exhibit 5. Applicant has thereby satisfied all of the applicable code requirements. 11. Sign. Section VI B Access Drives and minimum visual clearance (18.795 and 18 705) The Director has made a finding that all the access standards have not been fully met based Mn the previous discussion pertaining to a sign proposed to be located in the minimum division clearance area. Page 13 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 2 displays the 30 foot a wide visual clearance area that prohibits a location of objects higher than 3 feet. This exhibit also displays to additional alternative locations for the placement of the sign. "Sign Location No. 2" is immediately west of the original sign location and within the same landscaped island next to the parking lot. This alternative sign location is outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The "Sign Location No. 3" is farther west on the west side of the proposed entrance sidewalk. This additional alternative sign location is also outside the prohibited visual clearance area The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer make a determination that both of these alternatives sign locations satisfy all code requirements. The Applicant seeks approval of the sign location in the order of the original and the numbered alternative locations (the first accepted in that order of locations shall be the final sign location). Therefore, the application satisfies the code requirements for the approval of a sign. 12. Parking lot configuration. Section VI B Space and Aisle Dimensions (18.765.040 H )Finding that the parking lot may need to be reconfigured to meet other code requirements. Page 14 of the Decision. Although this is a finding that does not support a denial of the application, it is nevertheless factually in error. As identified above in Appeal Grounds No. 7, the proposed landscaping strip along the east and west boundaries of the subject property are 8 ft. in width (thus, no reconfiguration of the parking lot is necessary to meet code requirements). Applicant's Exhibit C and D both identify that the proposed parking lot, landscaping and 12 foot sidewalk/ parkway all fit on the site. A map was prepared by Applicant's engineers (LDC) drafted for the purpose of illustrating storm water facilities on site and a potential storm water facilities offsite. This LDC map used one of the possible width requirements for a sidewalk/parkway identified in the City's code (a smaller one of 10 ft.). This LDC map design included a 5 ft. wide sidewalk with a 4 ft. wide parkway and a 1 ft. wide curb (totaling 10 feet in width). This map may have inadvertently confused the star Applicant's Exhibit C and D are the correct site development plans. Even assuming the need to alot an additional 2 ft. to the street side sidewalk/ parkway, this can be satisfied by reducing the entrance sidewalk paralleling the Page - 4 existing building from the 6 foot width to a 4 ft. width [the minimum entrance sidewalk width under Code a 180.705.030 F(3) is 4 feet]. The 3 foot wide "planter strip" abutting the existing building can also be reduced by 2 ft. Therefore, the required dimensions of the parking lot, landscaping and streetside sidewalk/ parkway can be accommodated on the site. 13. Bicycle Parking. Section VI B. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements (18.765.050. C and H.). Finding that the applicant has not provided drawings or plans for the bicycle parking and materials identification, other than the site plan indicating the location. Also the finding that the code requires two parking spaces for bicycles and the applicant is proposing only one space. therefore allegedly the Applicant has not met the off-street parking and loading standards. Pages 14-15 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 7 is a bicycle parking design plan for the location of the bicycle parking as identified on the Applicant's Exhibits C and D. The bicycle parking pad is 10 ft. by 6 ft. and is to be aconstructed with concrete that is scored. This concrete pad includes two separate bicycle parking spaces (2 ft. 6 in. by 6 ft. separated by a space that is 5 ft. by 6 ft.). Each bicycle rack is of galvanized metal pipe construction, set in concrete, in a "loop" or "horseshoe" elongated shape (2 ft. 6 in. high and 5 in. wide with a 3 in. gap). This bicycle parking plan complies with the requirements of 18.765.050. 14. Sign, Section VI B. Signs (18.780). Finding that the proposed location of the sign cannot be approved because it is within a visual clearance area and is over 3 ft. in height, and therefore the criteria has not been met. Pages 15 and 16 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 2 displays the 30 foot a wide visual clearance area that prohibits a location of objects higher than 3 feet. This exhibit also displays to additional alternative locations for the placement of the sign. "Sign Location No. 2" is immediately west of the original sign location and within the same landscaped island next to the parking lot. This alternative sign location is outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The "Sign Location No. 3" is farther west on the west side of the proposed entrance sidewalk. This additional alternative sign location is also outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer make a determination that both of these alternatives sign locations satisfy all code requirements. The Applicant seeks approval of the sign location in the order of the original and the numbered alternative locations (the first accepted in that order of locations shall be the final sign location). Therefore, the application satisfies the code requirements for the approval of a sign. 15. Tree - Arborist Report. Section VI B. Tree Removal (18.790). Finding that the diameters of several trees is not included in the Applicant's submittal and that the applicant has not provided a tree plan conducted by a Certified Arborist, and therefore the tree removal standards have not been met. Page 16 of the Decision. Page - 5 0 • The Applicant is submitting a Certified Arborist's report, Appeal Exhibit 8; and thereby the Applicant has complied with all the applicable code requirements. This Certified Arborist's report addresses conditions and recommendations for the existing trees, the tree removal, protection of trees during construction and lists diameters of all trees. 16. Sign. Section VI B. Visual Clarence Areas (18.795). Finding that the proposed sign is located in a visual clarence area and therefore the requirements are not satisfied. Page 16-17 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 2 displays the 30 foot a wide visual clearance area that prohibits a location of objects higher than 3 feet. This exhibit also displays to additional alternative locations for the placement of the sign. "Sign Location No. 2" is immediately west of the original sign location and within the same landscaped island next to the parking lot. This alternative sign location is outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The "Sign Location No. 3" is farther west on the west side of the proposed entrance sidewalk. This additional alternative sign location is also outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer make a determination that both of these alternatives sign locations satisfy all code requirements. The Applicant seeks approval of the sign location in the order of the original and the numbered alternative locations (the first accepted in that order of locations shall be the final sign location). Therefore, the application satisfies the code requirements for the approval of a sign. 17. Exterior fighting plan. Section VI B. Crime Prevention and Safety (18.360.090 A 10). Finding that the Tigard police has requested an exterior li tg iting_plan. and because the applicant has not provided that plan the code provision is not satisfied, nor the requirements of the site development plan standard. Page 17 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 9 is an'exterior lighting plan for the proposed application in compliance with Code 18.360.090 A 10. The application has complied with all the applicable code requirements regarding exterior lighting. 18. Half street improvement. Section VI B. Street and Utility Improvements Standards (18.810). Finding, that the applicant allegedly has not proposed construction of the adjacent half street improvement in the project and does not qualify for a public improvement guarrantee in lieu of actual improvements. Page 18 of the Decision. First, the Applicant at page 19 and 20 of the Narrative first requests that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of the Applicant being immediately required to construct the half-Street improvement otherwise required under the code. The Applicant makes that request pursuant to a code to 18.810.030 A (5) and sets forth the reasons and substantial evidence for compliance with that code provision allowing a Page - 6 0 0 guarantee at pages 20-21. The Director's finding, without any substantial evidence, has denied the request and appears to have simply ignored the supporting reasons in evidence in the Applicant's Narrative. Second, the Applicant has agreed to provide the half-street improvement required by the code if the request for a "future improvements gguarantee" is finally denied by the city. See the Applicant's "3-10-06 Modification to Narrative" and Applicant's letter to Cheryl A. Caines dated March 8, 2006. The Director's decision seems to ignore those portions of the Applicant's application. 19. Sidewalk - widths. Section VI B. Sidewalks (18.810.070). Finding that the proposed sidewalk does not allegedly meet the standards of a 12 ft. wide sidewalks along the streets. Page 19 of the Decision. The Site Development Plan (Exhibit D.) and the Landscape Plan (Exhibit C.) both identify that the sidewalk and parkway area total 12 ft. in width as required under the applicable code provisions. The applicant is proposing to construct the sidewalk in accordance with the requirements of 18.810.070. See Narrative at 22 paragraph 3. During the pre-application conference the representative of the Applicant asked the City staff what was the correct sidewalk and a parkway/planter dimension requirements under the code. The Staff could not give an answer to that question except that the total was to be 12 ft. wide. As a result, the Applicant included a discussion of the contrasting code provisions in paragraph "2 a" starting at page 21 through page 22 of the Narrative. Since the City Staff was not able to clarify the dimensional standards for the sidewalks and parkway/planter, and the Director's Decision just declares noncompliance without identifying what the standard is, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer identify the correct standard to be applied and the Applicant modifies the application to comply with that standard. In essence, the Applicant has provided a combination that equals 12 ft. and needs a city clarification as to how wide the sidewalk and the parkway/planter area should be within that 12 ft. overall width. 20. Storm Drainage. Section VI B. Storm Drainage (18.810.100). The finding alleges that the applicant has notprovided any plans to review for adequacy relating to alternatives to an extension of the public storm a sewer. Page 19 of the Decision. In the Applicant's "Supplemental Application Statement" dated December 14, 2005, the Applicant identifies that connection to a storm sewer in Hermoso Way is, in fact, not required because of the impacts from the proposed application to do not necessitate such a connection. The Applicant also proposes numerous alternatives, all of which are capable of being reviewed by the City Staff and the Director for adequacy. The Applicant hereby incorporates this Supplemental Application Statement as support for this Appeal Grounds No. 20, along with all the documentation from Applicant's engineers (LDC). First, the Applicant has requested that immediate connection to a storm water sewer be not required (because it is, factually, not necessary) and that Applicant be Page - 7 • • required to connect to such storm sewer if it is eventually constructed in the future. Second, the Applicant has provided, under protest, engineering calculations and plans for a storm sewer and connection thereto by the Applicant; and thereby the Applicant has complied with all requirements of the code. The Applicant has asserted that if he is required by the City to construct the entire storm sewer solely at his own expense, this expense will not be roughly proportional to the adverse impacts generated by the proposed application, and thereby the requirement would be an unconstitutional "taking" of his property. The Applicant believes that the proposed alternatives in the "Supplemental Application Statement" provide a reasonable, legal and practical solution for both the Applicant and the City's needs and responsibilities. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer approve the application with a proposed alternative as a condition of approval. 21. Traffic Study. Section VI B. Traffic Study Findings. The Finding alleges that the Applicant did not provide a traffic impact report for this development. Pale 20-21 of the Decision. Contrary to the Finding, the Applicant did include as part of the application documents a traffic impact study by the traffic engineers, CTS, in a report dated November 22, 2005. This record did, in fact, do an analysis of the traffic through the intersections of SW 72nd/ SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68th/ SW Dartmouth Street. The Director seems to have overlooked that document. A duplicate copy is attached hereto. Applicant's legal counsel has reviewed the City file on this application and personally did see the Applicant's previously filed traffic study included in that file. The Applicant has fully complied with the applicable code requirements. 22. Fire hydrant - fire flow data. Section VI B. Fire and Life Safety. Finding that a fire hydrant. is located within an acceptable distance from the subject property but no fire . flow data (a report from the fire marshal) was supplied with the application. Page 21 of the Decision. An existing fire hydrant serving the subject property is located 140 feet to west of the site. Appeal Exhibit 10 establishs that the fire flow data for this hydrant is adequate for serving the proposed use of the property and meeting fire marshal standards. The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. 23. Storm Water. Section VI B. Storm Water Quality. The Finding reasserts the same finding _previously raised that the Applicant has filed a storm water plan under protest and that the plans and calculations for the alternatives were not submitted for review. Page 21 of the Decision. Page - 8 • • This is a reiteration of the Director's findings in Appeal Grounds No. 20. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeal, arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 20. 24. Grading and Erosion Control. Section VI B. Grading and Erosion Control. The finding is that no erosion control plan was provided for the parking lot and construction. Page 21 of the Decision. Appeal Exhibit 11 sets forth the Applicant's Grading and Erosion Control Plan. The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. 25. Half street improvement and sidewalk widths. Section VI B. Impact Study (18.390). Finding that only a dedication of right-of-way and a substandard sidewalk has been proposed, and therefore the improvements did not meet the code requirements. Page 22 of the Decision. Again, this is a reassertion of the the findings pertaining to a Appellant's Appeals Grounds No. 18 and 19 above. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeal, arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 18 and 19. 26. Trees - species diversity. Section VI B. Landscaping and Screening Finding that Applicant must comply with the tree species diversity requirements on site. If the Hearings Officer finds that the species, genus or family of these additional trees violate City Requirements, the Applicant requests that the list of trees set forth in a Appeal Exhibit 1 to be substituted for the description of trees in the Landscape Plan (Exhibit Q. This list of trees in Appeal Exhibit 1 satisfies the tree species diversity requirements of the city in meeting no more than 30% of 1 family, no more than 20% of 1 genus, and no more than 10% of any one species. With the exception of the tree to be removed from the proposed parking lot, all construction will not interfere with the root system of any existing tree on the site (let alone 15% of that root system). See the Arborist's Record in Appeal Exhibit 8. Also, fencing shall be provided around the existing Birch tree in the front yard to protect its root system. The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. 27. Tree - Arborist Report. Section VI B. Tree Removal. Finding that. the applicant did not submit a report by a certified arborist. The finding also asserts that the caliper of only the effectived trees was determined but not the height that it was taken, and retention requirements for trees of over 12 in. is not addressed. Page 23-24 of the Decision. The Applicant is submitting a Certified Arborist's report, Appeal Exhibit 8; and thereby the Applicant has complied with all the applicable code requirements. This Certified Arborist's report addresses conditions and recommendations for the existing Page - 9 0 0 trees, the tree removal, protection of trees during construction and diameters of all of the trees. As regard to the caliper of the trees, the caliper was taken at a 4 foot height of ground-level as required by the code. See Appeal Exhibit 8. M. M. Shinmen Page - 10 • APPEAL EXHIBIT 1 0 Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Wav I. Trees - Street. Section VI B. Parking Location and Landscape Design. This Exhibit 1 is an alternative landscape plan for the subject property. Exhibit C, the original landscape plan, includes 24 trees, including four (4) street trees along Hermoso Way that are to be planted in the parkway. There are five existing trees on the property and and only one is to be removed (an ornamental dogwood in the front yard). Thus, Exhibit C calls for only one tree removed and 17 new trees to be planted. This Exhibit 1 replaces the trees to be planted (as identified in Exhibit C) with the following list of trees in accordance with the number locations identified in Exhibit C. An additional tree is included in this Exhibit 1 listing to be placed in the parking lot area where the original sign was to be located. This will be tree number 25 (and will constitute 18 new trees to be planted balanced against only one tree being removed). H. Replacement Tree List 1. White English Birch (existing) - Betulaceana pandendula 2. Red Maple (street tree) - Acer rubrun 3. Pin Oak (street tree) - Quercus palustris 4. Red Maple (street tree) - Acer rubrun 5. Oregon White Oak (street tree) - Quercus garryana 6. Plum, Newport - Prunus cerasifera Newport 7. Flowering Cherry - Prunus sp. 8. Japanese Maple - Acer palmatum Bloodgood 9. Dogwood (red) - Cornus Kousa Satomi 10. Dogwood (white) - Cornus Florida 11. Flowering Cherry - Prunus serrulata pendula 12. Plum, Thundercloud - Prunus cerasifera Thundercloud 13. Flowering Cherry - Prunus semilata pendula 14. Plum, Thundercloud - Prunus cerasifera Thundercloud 15. Magnolia - Stellata Royal Star 16. Magnolia - Stellata Royal Star 17. Dogwood (white) - Cornus Florida 18. Dogwood (red) - Cornus Kousa Satomi 19. Japanese Maple - Acer palmatum Bloodgood 20. Flowering Cherry - Prunus sp. EXHIBIT--J- Page - 1 PAGE 1 OF Q=- • 21. Plum, Newport - Prunus cerasifera Newport 22. Walnut (existing) - Juglandaceane hindsii 23. Willow (existing) - Salicaceae annularis Corkscrew 24. Walnut (existing) - Juglandaceane hindsii 25. Oregon White Oak (street tree) - Quercus garryana 0 EXHIBIT-L- PAGE--,9--OF-,2:- • • APPEAL EXHIBIT 2 _Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way 1. Sign - Visual Clearance Area Appeal Exhibit 2 displays the 30 foot wide visual clearance area (triangles) that prohibits a location of objects higher than 3 feet. This exhibit also displays two additional alternative locations for the placement of the sign. "Sign Location No. 2" is immediately west of the original sign location and within the same landscaped island next to the parking lot. This alternative sign location is outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The "Sign Location No. 3" is farther west on the west side of the proposed entrance sidewalk. This additional alternative sign location is also outside the prohibited visual clearance area. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer make a determination that both of these alternatives sign locations satisfy all code requirements. The Applicant seeks approval of the sign location in the order of the original and the numbered alternative locations (the first accepted in that order of locations shall be the final sign location). Therefore, the application satisfies the code requirements for the approval of a sign. II. Sign - Dimensions The Staff Report asserts at page seven that the sign application shares to different sign heights. The Staff Record appears to be in error. Exhibit H, page 1, clearly states that the "Sign Dimensions" are "5'4" high x 6'0" wide." Exhibit H, page 2, is a drawing of the sign and also identifies that the sign height is "5'4." III. Map of Visual Clearance Area and Alturnative Sign Locations EXHIBIT ~ Page - 1 PAGE OF 2 A 'w r iP J f ~ S = Y6 d 3 O a W o s? m ]uly 10, 2006 DTS Englneen Ms. Kim MCMINan City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Project: OROS.OSO.720 - Hermoso Access Report 51d0set Amex /a Ww t for die ffs nE s DOW Gamersion (Sn Miosaoooel Dear Ms. McMillan: This letter is in response to the City of Tigard% Nbtim of Incornplle[e Submittal letter. The City is requesting that an Access Report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verify design of driveways and that streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and decterabon standards set by OOOT, Washington Couruty, the City and AASHTO. Below is the additional Information for queuing along SW 72nd Avenue and the sight distance/safety in the vicinity. The applicant is proposing to convert an existing 2,005 GSF single family home located at 7315 SW Hermoso Way to office space with no change to the building's gross square footage. This rent was estimated to increase trip generation of the site by 2-3 trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Queuing along SIN tfer.rroso Way tali SW 7MW Avenue: sw Hemwso is a local street that has 13 single family homes with a speed limit of 25 mph. Traffic eastbound along SW Hermoso is very low and thus, queues of vehicles along Its approach to SW 72"0 Avenue will be 1-2 vehicles. Queuing Wong SW 72nd Avenue was observed during the AN and PM peak hours. During the AM peak hour, traffic Mang SW 72n0 Avenue flowed freely, but during the PM peak vehicles in the northbound direction were queued backed from SW Darbnouth to SW Seveland Road. In the southbound direction there were no queues observed. Even so, drivers f vm Hermoso can fund gaps in traffic to make turns onto SW 72"° Avenue. (It should also be noted that vehkes can travel to the south to the traffic signal.) The relatively few additional trips generated by the redevelopment of the site will riot significantly impact traffic operations at this intersection. Traffic Silkily: We have also evaluated the adequacy of SW Hermoso Way at SW 72nd Avenue and proposed site access driveway. Pictures of these locations are attached to this letter. In the Immediate vicinity of the proposed site, SW Me. Way has two travel lanes (one in each direction) with 26 feet of travel way. ME 72nd Avenue has two travel lanes (one in each direction) with 34 feet of travel way. Intersectfdn Sight Dlslnnce A preliminary assessment of driver sight distance was performed along SW Hermosa Way and SW 72nd Avenue. Sight distance along SW Hermoso at the proposed driveway will be unrestricted along this street. This street Is relatively straight, with a downgrade from SW 72"d to the wesL MWers exiting this driveway will be able to see traffic operations at SW 77d Avenue (over 225 feet away). SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hermoso way is on a slight crest wtlidr has a curve that goes downhill to SW Dartrriouth to the north. To the south theme is a slight hill and curve to SW SevelaW PuW. Sight distance measurements were perfbnned from 15 feet back of the travel way along SW 72nd Avenue at SW Hernwso Way. To the south sight distance Is approximately 400 feet and will exceed the sight diStuxe requirements of more than 300 feet for a 30 mph zone such as SW 72nd Avenue. Sight distance to the north was approximately 210 feet. This was due to the vehicles that erere parked in the parking lot for the business on the mouth east comer of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Hermoso Way. EXHIBIT Z PAGE-L-®F 2411S ow fliw&Slko$401 bit. tILUSOt0 OR 91121 ►t srx.rr9.r~rr fi 3113.603030 IrS1Tr.rlSltiltE E tS.k00 91tUROtO. DOE600 REWIRE. NA101116TOt 01t7C U." U. Hermoso Access Report July 10, 2006 As this is an existing issue, the City should review this situation with the land owners and attpthpt to reMkt parhung in this area to preserve the One of sk#C With this modification, SW* distance wlih b,crease and potentially 300 feet (at least from 10-12 feet back, which s more realistic for a setback for residential streets) attar be achieved. Photos are attached to this her to demorhsti aft sight diSM in both north and south direcLiorw for the Hermoso Office. if You have any further questions regaiding Oft N1fi0rrnatiahn, please Qorhtact me directly. sinrxn , &Wjb.) s sue. Howard s. stein, P.E. Transportation EMirmer Attachments EXHIBIT- PAGE--2=01r: ~ Page 2 RENEW DATE 7/2008 v~...• uw+a~ww rf-il7L UY/ UJ Looking North at SW 72nd Avenue from SW H Tnoso Way (210 feet to Telephone Pole due to veNcIft Paftd in driveway PwWng lot) ftm* T~ Ay CTS &Onees EXHIBIT -3 PAGE-a®F---Z` • STUDY AREA TYPICAL VMWS • Hotmoso OFICE CONVERSION City ofT*Wd, 0mgm • STUDY AREA TYPICAL VIEWS • HERMOSO OFFICE CONVERSION City of Ted, Ongon Pboft T®A M by CTS bgi mas EXHIBIT PAGEZg- OF--'~'- Lao" west at Sal Hemmm Way fnnm SW 72nd Avenue • E~ IT A . c In 0 c N r P-cot * Tw PatE [..sr.wt sc.. 3 3 N Z m a Ln `N G 0 0 N v T _ r 0 3 z --1 Iq z AT O( V N't a.rs vtvu 7vfcl .a f n:.V4 Gv~b N PAGE I oF-L- • APPEAL EXHIMIT 5 • Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Screening for Refuge Containers and A/C Unit 1. Screening for A/C Unit Screening for the existing A/C Unit will be a 5 ft. high solid cedar wooden fence surrounding the unit on three sides (with the fourth side being blocked by the existing building). The A/C Unit has already been installed on a concrete pad which is a 2 ft. by 2 ft. The North facing cedar fence will be 5 ft. high and 4 ft. wide, and installed on 4x4 pressure-treated corner posts (with cedar fencing slats running vertical along to 2x4 pressure-treated support a railings). UILDINV WALL 4114 C 0 M 4~xw it TOP V tEW Page - 1 EXHIBIT 5 PAGE I OF_ ~ i N 1 S r N t-S " I re= I' -41011 _ I UoAf'-DS F;, Om- \1 IEW EXH 1131T PAGE ~LOF_-4 0 3'0 " Noo 9 E fi LGVS •}x9 ~►xy S tDE V 1 F-WS • REMoVA.FjLE FRONT PANEL FOK MAINTENANCE O Ln RXHIBIT PAGE -3OFD II. Screening for Refuge Containers Screening for the Refuge Containers will be a 6 ft. high solid cedar wooden fence surrounding the unit on three sides (with the fourth side being blocked by the existing building). The Refuge Containers will be stored on a concrete pad (3 ft. ' by 4 ft.) surrounded by the 6 ft. high solid cedar wooden fence installed on 4x4 pressure-treated corner posts (with cedar fencing slats running vertical along to 2x4 pressure-treated support a railings). The enclosure shall have one side with an opening gate for access. TOP VIEW SCALE, 1If= II !EXHIBIT P AGE't OF--(a- 5%011 pit • ~O 5EXHIBIT PAGE 0 • d 5 tnf-- -4t ews EXHIBIT-- PAGE-(p-O% o-' i 0 0 U - DOSPOSAL COMPANY P.O. Bon 820 6henfvoo , OR 97140 Mono: (503) 625-6177 Face (603) 626-6179 June 21, 2006 John W. Shonkwiler Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Property at 7315 SW Hermoso Way This letter is in response to information provided about the property at 7315 SW Hermoso Way, which is being converted to commercial space. Based on the drawing provided, Pride Disposal will be able to provide curbside service for trash and recycling on a weekly basis at 7315 SW Hermoso Way. It is required that all totes (trash, recycling, yard debris) be placed curbside no later than 6:00 AM on collection day. Please be advised that there should not be tree branches, parked vehicles or other objects obstructing access by the automated trucks at the time of collection. Please be sure to contact us when service is requested to begin and should you have any questions. Sincerely, Linda Lopeman Pride Disposal Company (503) 625-6177 ext 124 • APPEAL EX :HBrr 7 • Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Wav Bicycle Parking Design Plan I. Bicycle parldng design description. The location for the bicycle parking is identified on the Applicant's Exhibits C and D. The bicycle parking pad is 10 & by 6 & and is to be aconstructed with concrete that is scored This concrete pad includes two separate bicycle parking spaces (2 & 6 hi by 6 & separated by a space that is 5 & by 6 Each bicycle rack is of galvanized metal pipe construction, set in concrete, in a "loop" or "horseshoe" elongated shape (2 & 6 in. high and 5 in. wide with a 3 in. gap). H. Bicycle parking design o' o 21 o I I ~ BICYCLE CKC L~ RRtK .1, I I Ractce2 I I 1 PA D I ~ SCALE . I/r- It= 1' EXHIBIT-7_ PAGE _LOF 7- • (l) U u ~g~ SIC11CLE IZP~~K SCALE: • EXHIBIT 7 PAGE OFD. Teragan & AssocAUs, Inc. -0 Tesrmce P. Flanagan 7/5/2006 John W. Sbonkwiler, P.C. P.C. John W. Shonkwiler 13425 SW 72nd Avenuie Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Jobw Enclosed is the necessary certified arknist report to complete the property development for the property at 7315 SW Hermosa Way, Tigard, Oregon as required by the'City of Tigard. Assignment The assignment that you requested I complete is to; 1_ Inventory all trees that are on site and identify those trees that are to be retained on site after development 2. Evaluate the condition of trees to be retained in regard to tree health and tree structural condition. 3. Evaluate ifthe site will allow the tree protection as required by the City of Tigard given the level of development of the site. If not, proposed and justify an alternate tree protection plan to protect the trees. 4. Calculate the pesrcen%ge oftree removal compared to the percentage of tree retention to determine the amount of tree mitigation that will be called for by the City of Tigard. Report Use This report is to certify the trees that are on site, their condition and outline the tree protection steps to Protect the trees to be retained on site. This report is written to meet the requirements of the City of Tigard for tree protection on properties that are to be developed. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the constibant is assumed to be eonecL The survey provided by client was the basis of the information provided in this report. The species identification and tree diameters were checked in the field by Teragan and Associates, Inc. 2. It is assumed that this property is not is violation of any codes, statutes, ordirances, or other governmental regulations. 3. The consultant is not mpwslble for in%rmation gathered from others involved in varmus activities pertaining to this PffQJ c t Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. 4. Loss or alteration of any partof this delivered report invalidates the entire report. 5. Drawings and information contained in this report may not be to scale and are intended to . be used as display points ofrc&mnce only. 6. The consultants' role is only to make recons. Inaction on the part of those receiving the report is not the responsiibrlity of the cow 3145 WesMcw Caul. e • Ww oswcg% OR97034 9 (_e43)697-1975. F~Dc (503) 697-1976 F.mag: Teny~l'eraganonm ISA Dowd (3atiScd Master ArbarK #M*120 Bbrr Member, Amcdcan 8opdy ofCansuhigg Adorift EXHIBIT PAGE~0 .iua vv v..r.~---r .-..-o John W. Shonkwiier. P.C- 7/5/2006 Tree Plan for 7315 SW Hermosa Wa , Tigard, OR Page 2 of 8 7. This report is to catify the trees that are on site, their condition, outlining the tree protection steps to protect the trees to be retained on site. This report is written to meet the requirements of the City of Tigard for tree protection on properties that are to be developed for residential or commercial use. Observations On July 1, 2005 we completed the tree inventory. A spreadsheet of our finding is in appendix # 2 listing tree number, species (common name), tree D8K tree condition, tree health, pertinent comYnen e% tree recommendation and the tree protection area required for retained trees if not shown on the site plan Summary of Trees on Site Total number of trees greater than 12 inches diameter on site that are not dead 2 trees Percentage of trees to be retained that are greater than 12 inches der 1000/0 Tree inches to be niftigated 0 Discussion The subject property is to be developed into an office with a new padang lot and entry installed in front. The numbers in the Tree inventory Chart correspond to the numbers boated by the trees indicated on the survey of the property included with this report as Appendix # 3. Two trees, a 17 inch, dead Port Orford cedar and a 10 inch dogwood, are to be removed, the cedar because it is dead and the dogwood to install the new driveway and parking lot. Tree Protection The majority of trees that are to be retained are located in the rear of the property outside the area of construction ofthe new parking lot The dead Po=t Orford cedar is also located in the rear. The only tree that will have possible construction occur within the ideal root protection area of one foot for every inch oftree diameter is tree number 101, a 20 inch diameter birch. This tree's root protection area is shown on the site plum. The tree protection fencing is to be placed at least 10 feet from the face of the tree's trunk. The tree will only be impacted on one side as the tree is bested on the west side of the proposed parking lot The fact that only one side of the root system will be imparted allows for the tree protection to be reduced from the optimum. No cut or fill of soil, excavation for utilities, storage of any material, parking of extra vehicles for constr edon, parking of utility or office trailers and even the pedestrian traffic of construction workers should be allowed within the tare protection areas. Please refer to appendix # 1 for additional steps in tree protection. Mi a tree protection areas may Have to be adjusted to be slightly less than the distance as indicated on the site plan depending on the final placement of the improvements. A certified arborist should be 3145 Westvlaw arde • Lake OsweM OR97034. (503) 697-1975 • Fax (503) 697-1976 & mail: Taty@raaWLWM ISA Hoard Certified Master ArborM R%4120 BMr Member, Amaiim Socidy of Carting Adwrisu 4r EXHIBIT PAGE? OF John W. Shonkwikr. P.C. • 7/5/2006 Tree P1= ftw 7315 SW Hermosa ~1►ay; !Ord, OR Page 3 of 8 consulted to insure that the tree pnitection is adequate if it will be necessary to reduce it below the ideal distance as called for on the site plan. Summary only two trees, the 10 inch diameter dogwood and the dead cedar are to be removed from the property. As the trees are either less than 12 inches in diameter or dead, then is not a requirement to replant any trees. The rest of the trees that are to be retained should be far enough away fiom the planned construction envelope that they should be able to be adequately protected from any construction damage. The tree protection area for the birch tree in front will have to be established before construction at a distance shown on the tree plan. The tree protection area may have to be adjusted based on the final location of the improvements. The project arborist will have to, be involved to correctly adjust tree protection areas while still protecting the trees. Certification of Performance 1, Terrence P. Flanagan, Certify: • That a representative of Teragan and Associates, Inc, has inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have the findugp have been accurately stated. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal is stated in the attached report; • That Teragan and Associates, Inc. has no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and Teragan and Associates, Inc. has no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; • That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are our own and are bused on current industry procedures and facts; • That Teragan and Associates, Ina ooa~pensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conchWon that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events; • That the analysis, opinions, and oonchuMOUS that were developed as part of this report have been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; • That a certified arborist has been utilized to oversee the gathering of data; • I finthe r certify that I an a member of the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and am a Board Certified Master Arborist, # FN- 0120 BMT. 3145 WesMew C m ie • Labe Oswep, OR 97034 • (50) 697-1975 • Fax (SM) 697-1976 Btam7: Teny@T=zvw om ISA Board C nffied MmerAtbmist, MPN=0120 BMT Member, American Society ofCowuWwg Arbmins EXHIBIT v PAGE-3-OFF JUl UU uo vu...., r- . 7/5/2006 John W. Shonkwtler. P.C. 0 Tree Plan for 7315 SW Hermosa W"igerd, OR Page 4 of 8 Conclusion The retention of two trees greater than 12 inches on the property located at 7420 SW Vd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon equals 100 % of the trees on the property, thus no tree planting is called for the removal of the 10 inch diameter dogwood- The tree protection steps outlined under the discussion section of this report and in appendix # 1 "Tree Protection Steps„ will adequately protect the trees during the construction as long as all construction is prevented from occurring within the tree proton areas. Please refer to appendix # 3, the site plan, for the actually placement of the tree protection areas. Please call if you have any questions or concerns regarding this report sincerely, n Tert+ence P. Flanagan ISA Board Certified Master ArborK PN-0120 BM'T Member, American Society ofConsuttnng Arborists Enclo"vw. Appendix # 1- Tree Protection Steps Appendix # 2 - Tree Inventory Appendix # 3 - Site Plan with Tree Numbers 3145 Westview Ch de • Labe Osweipt OR 97034. (503)X97--1975 • Fax (503) 647-1976 E-maU: Teny@7eagan eom ISA Board Cobficid Master Arbonst, MPN-0110 BMT Member, American Society ofConodtft Aibas m EXHIBIT - K , PAGE OF John W. Shonkwiler. P.C. 7/5!2006 Tree Plan for 7315 SW Hermosa Wa , wd, OR Page 5 of 8 Appendix # 1 Tree Proteetien Steps It is critical that the following steps be taken to ensure that the trees that are to be retained are protected. Before Construction Begins 1. Notify all contractors of the trees protection procedures. For successful tree protection on a coon site, all contractors most know and understand the goals of tree protection It can only take one mistake with a misplaced trench or other action to destroy the future of a tree. a. Hold a Tree Protection meeting with all contractors to fully explain goals of tree protection. b. Have all sub CGMtMc = sign memoranda's ofunder5tanding regarding the goals of tree protection. Memoranda to include penalty for violating tree protection plan penalty to equal appraised value of tree(s) within the violated tree protection none per the current Trunk Formula Method as outline by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers current edition of the Gidde f jvr Jiftd Anwar erl. Penalty is to be paid to owner of the property. 2. Fencing a. Establish fencing around each tree or grove of trees to be retained. b. The fencing is to be put in place before the ground is cleared in order to protect the trees and the soil around the trees from any disturbance at alL c. Fencing is to be placed at the edge of the root protection zone. !toot protection zones are to be established by the project arborist based on the needs ofthe site and the tree to be protected. d Fencing is to consist of (-soot high steel farming on concrete blocks or 6-hoot high orange fimcmg secured to the ground with 8-&ot metal posts to prevent it from being moved by conftactmz, or filling down. e. Fencing is to remain is the position that is established by the project Mmist and not to be moved without written permission from the project ar&wist until the end of the prole- - 4. Signage a. All tree protection kwi g should have signage as follows SO that all contractors understand the purpose of the fencing; TREE PROTECTION ZONE DO NOT REMOVE OR AM= M APPROVED LOCA3'ION OVA' TRW TEE PROTECTION FENCING. Please contact the project a dwrist or owner if alterations, to the approved location oftbe tree protection fencing are necessary. 3145 wesWew Cln* • bake oswc@% OR 97034 • (503) 697-1975 • Fax (503) 697-1976 F-nail: Tmy@ Tan pr mom 1SA Bowd Qttified Mister Adman. #PN-0120 BW Memba. Amcicen Society ofCaasuttias Adbonsts EXHIBIT 9 PAGE- OF JUL V.7 pro vv..+vr- ~.••--a John W. Shonltwtter. P.C. Tree Plan for 7315 SW Hermosa Wa , 4W4 OR 7/5/2006 Page 6 of 8 b. Signage should be place as to be visible from all sides of a tree protection area and spaced every 75 feet. During Construction 1 _ Protection Guidelines Within the Root Protection Zone a. No tsaffic shall be allowed within the root protection zone. No vehicle, heavy equipment, or even repeated foot traffic- h No storage of materials including but not limiting to soil, construction material, or waste from the site. L Waste includes but is not limited to concrete wash out, gasoline, diesel, paint, cleaner, thinners, etc. c. Coffin trailers are not to be padwd/placed within the root protection zone without written clearance from project arborist. d. No vehicles shall be allowed to park within the root protection aream e. No activity shall be allowed that will cause soil compaction within the root protection zone. 2. The trees shalt be protected from any cutting, skinning or breaking of branches,, trunks or mots. 3. Any roots that are to be cut from existing trees that are to be retained, the project consulting arborist shall be notified to evaluate and oversee the proper cutting of roots with sharp cau"S tools. Cut roots are to be immediately covered with sod or mulch to prevent them from drying out. 4. No grade change should be allowed within the root protection zone. 5. Any necessary deviation ofthe root protection zone shall be cleared by the project consulting arborist or project owner. 6. Provide waiter to trees during the summer months. Tree(s) that wU have had root system(s) cut back will need supplemental water to overcome the loss of ability to absorb nay moisture during the summer months. 7. Any necessary passage of utilities through the root protection zone shalt be by means of tunneling under roots by band digging or boring. After Construction 1. Carefully lbadscape in the area of the tree. Do not allow trenching within the root protection zone. Carefully plant new plants within the root protection zone. Avoid cutting the roots of the existing trees. 2. Do not plan for irrigation within: the root protection zone of existing trees unless it is drip irrigation for a specific planting or cleared by the project aderist. 3. Provide for adequate drainage of the location around the retained trees. 4. Pruning ofthe trees should be completed as one ofthe last steps ofthe landscaping process before the final placement of trees, shrubs, ground covers, mulch or turf. 5. Provide for inspection and treatment of insect and disease populations that are capable of damaging the retained tress and plants. 6. Trees that are retained may need to be Gwtfiimd and inoculated with mycordikm treatments as called for by project arborist after final inspection. 3145 westviaw Circle • Ldw Oswego,, OR 970134 a (503) 697-1975 • Fax (508) W--1976 E-mail: TeryoTeragen.oom ISA Board Ca6fied Aftger Arbmmt, #PN-0120 BUT Member, Arty Society of Combing Arbodsts EXHIBIT _OF PAGE John W. Shonkwilcr. P.C. Tree Plan for 7315 SW Henn= Y1 , Tigard, OR TREE INVENTORY APPENDIX # 2 Date: 7-1-06 Common Tree No. Name Scientific Name 101 Gray Birch Beftda pendtda Pat Orford Chamaet ypads 103 Cedar fewsoniana English 104 Walnut Jug/ans r+a& Corkscrew 105 Willow Sak sp. English 106 Walnut Jugtans rows Flowering 107 Dogwood Comus flmft Note: There was no Tree No. 102 on site. DBH - Diameter at Brest Height (SC above ground level) 715/2006 Page 7 of 9 DOH Condition Stnmturre Rennave Comments 16" diameter & 9" diameter cavities at ground level on East side. Cavities are from old stems that were 20 F F removed 2W East d West property line. 4' South 17 Deed YES of North property One. Means West 30 10 G F degrees. W x 3 2112' cavity West side from ground level. Learn West 15 11 P P degrees. 2 leaders at r above ground level. Leans 18 G F North 15 degrees. 10 F G YES 2 Sterns 8, 6. 3145 Westvlew C hde • Lake OMcm OR 97034 • (503) 697-1975 • Fax (503) 697-1976 B-nm7_ Tcrnj@ra8V n.oom ISA Board Certified MWer Arbarist, MM"120 BUT Member, American Sodety of C nwhimg Arbmisrs EXHIBIT - K - PAGE7 OF 3 t k i t 3 ; WN~K' L" tttrti 11(.YM ~ ~ `•,~r i ~ , f1 •f ~ pt~fla~ 4~~t••t. V ~ ~ ~ tl .S Ito ot 0441" AV. r' &.21 ~ ~ ~ ~ y,,,~►~w''''6~~ ,~~,,,,..«r•.w..... yF ~ ~ t t ~ ..•A'• `-"~J ~ Z. ~ ; ~ tajl ~.Ir479U~iS'1QN~ Isis Zw KCF^"^' WF• • ' ~ ~f y ~ p itGL 136,• 1 f 1'O, C io I~- ` • APPEAL EMIT 9 Applicant: M M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Exterior lighting plan .r 1. Exterior lighting plan description. The lighting plan provides exterior lighting for all the entrance areas of the property and the parking lot and sidewalk. The exterior lighting plan for the front of the property provides overlapping "spotlight" exterior lighting throughout the parking lot, entrance sidewalk and entrance. This "spotlight" lighting is a double spotlight installed at a 7 ft. 8 in. height to allow overlapping lighted areas at 7 ft. in height. The recessed entrance has a ceiling light which provides light for the entire recess entrance, as well as, partial lighting for the abutting entrance sidewalk. The entrance sidewalk and the west portion of the parking lot is also enhanced by low level (1 1/2 foot-high) "landscape" downward casting lighting. The exterior lighting for the rear portion of the property (the rear entrance and patio area) are lighted by a double "spotlight' installed at a 7 ft. 8 in. height to allow overlapping lighted areas at 7 ft. in height. This "spotlight" provides light coverage of the entire patio and rear entrance. In addition, another "spotlight" will be installed at 7 ft. 8 in. height above the side entrance door located on the rear eastern portion of the existing building. This lighting area will cover the entire side entrance area in the screened refuge container area. All of the exterior lighted areas will be contained within the subject property boundaries and will not extend light to the neighboring properties. This lighting shall be further blocked from interference with neighboring property uses by the six foot high wooden perimeter fence. Page - 1 EXH I BIT PAGE--L E 0 WW RMy VLYM TREG~ 20 8 Irv- Coe 3 G O r V6 G N 2 ° C a s o q -^j Q -o -o z -v ~s N alv&R M~ uilument IS Nrcuit E.S.. c _ d Quatre niveau de balavagc~ l'ep~~®~he Mmine. virtuellement tout pour une po le MaNimum d6c0enchement accidentel ❑ Protecti®od c®ntre les pefiW '"T;~dh~ "'flonomog d 'ffiergle. J Angle-de baiayage • de courant : ~reglable de 1100 2000 0 Circuit 'de protection cuntre d Luminaire mdtalligue les suns ons integrd • a oWe sous ppesslon Y Lmm(Aveane ' 's.Path Li is°~V/12 Watt Lamps. nQ Waft Transformer/ . :100 F>G(30M~ 6 Verchgrl 2 - Verdigris Floodlights wno watt Halogen Lamps• SMART I DUSTRIES, INCr2122 . COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE IF SUITE 220 j CARROLI.TON TEXAS 75006 • • APPEAL EXHOIT 10 Applicant- M M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way 1. Fire hydrant - fire flow data. Section VI B. Fire and Life Safety. An existing fire hydrant serving the subject property is located 140 feet to west of the site. A recent float test for this fire hydrant identifies that the "Static pressure" is "118 psi" and the "Residual pressure" is "110 psi" They fire hydrant is served by only a 4 inch line which results in 887.58 gpm. Attached is the test report in this hydrant. Tualatin Valley Water District is upgrading the water main in SW Heremoso this summer (by August of 2006) to replace the existing 4 inch line with a 12 in. line that will be connected to the 12 in. main already existing in 72nd Avenue, and replace the existing two port fire hydrant and add one or two more hydrants on the street. In accordance with the attached letter and conversations with the Water District engineer, Kevin Schmeltzer, this improvement will increase fire flow and psi to exceed the minimums required by IFC B 105.2. Page - 1 EXHIBIT" /0 PAGE j OF- Tualatin VaUey Water Dis tf Gmpry E. DiLo=to Comes! Manager Bernice Hapall Chief Financial Officer Debra Erickson Manager, Human Resources Dalc Fishback Manager, Operarluns do Field Services Todd Hcidgcrken Manager, Com mniry A rntergovernmermol Relations Brenda l.etmox Manager, Customer A supporl Serdees Oary Pippin Manager F.mgineering Services P.O. Box 745 r Reaverm; Oregon 97075 • Phone' (503) 642-1511 r Fax: (503) 649-2733 • wwwavwd org July 6, 2006 John Shoakwilcr (503) 624-0917 (503) 684-8971 fax (503) 886-9247 RE: SW HERMOSO WAY Tualatin Valley Water District is working on plans to upgrade the water main in SW Hermoso Way this summer, to loop the system and improve fire protection. The existing 4" cast iron water main will be replaced with a 12" ductile iron water main that will connect to 12" mains in 7T4 Ave. and the rmthtsouth stretch of Henmoso Wy. 1n addition this project will replace the existing two port fire hydrant and add one or two more hydrants to this street. I do not have a date that the project will start, but the plans are for the work to be completed this summer. Kevin Sclimeltzer Engineering Tualatin Valley Water District Iz 0 WATER - not to be taken for gmtod JW%pan coumrvr re4wkdJ*zr Hcrmoso upgradc/I/my documenwietters EXHIBIT ~V PAGE---'I-p- F S • - • TUALATIN VALLEY TATER DISTRICT Test 672 FIRE HYDRANT FLOrf TEST REPORT Hydrant oi) Location: 7420 SW HERMOSO WY. Date: 7/5/2006 Test made bv: Kevin & Herb Witness: Time: 2:57 Project name: DfsohaLm caffreftt: .9 Inside din. of outlet = 2.5 inches Pitot reading = 7 psi Mot 7 psi Observed flow rate = 887.58 gpm Flow method: 2 FLOW TUBES pp ` RVf' Static pressure: 118 psi Residual pressure: 110 psi o 20us 1 P-amum c I {:tai • gPrn FlO""f ' s 01I a 4 C.I. Location map: To be attached to test retort and to show which hydrants were used to monitor residual wvs-wre a1W flow. Gage Information: static and residual premure 1W.: 101097 mg mw fiend held Hydrant Informtftion: miam Year Wks fim Flow hydrant: IOWA see map for location Read hydrant: 2S1 W1 A24ti50 1995 MUELLER see map for location Remarks: Hyd is on 40CI, 460' from 120,887 GPM is maximum The mapping, flow or pry infonrmtiorm contained herairl reflects conditions on the date and time of the test. Tualatin ValEsy Water District ,aloes no representation as to the system's ability to meet specific fine flow raqulrC3trtenf8. Future system mimbility mtay diMer from the flows reported herein because of subsequent modifications to the district's system andfor because flow and pressure may vary by time of day and season. Test gage cidlibrstion information available upon request. EXHIBIT ` PAGE OFD. t J x ` t Lc 1 4 t 1 yn L~II --t ~ l1t\/rdd. , SL t ` ~ ~ ; C,v~ t pSat ~ 9L6S~ t 1S aNVn3n38 QNV"t3n38 = C fist S:Sl i Li Dj 'd~Z: tCSt ? iSCL 5Cit ! 5S*t ~S?S` ; ; l Lu 1 Q ' i i ~ SS>L Q 101.0 t + ! N Q + Ca4L C94L r cot 1 i Ca41 ~ , CiZi C+£L CZ,4 441 1 n0. a ' V- Ax ' l Oi O MP SCV; , A , + ` j ' atZL 5~tt SSL: I 36ZL Spat ' S t Ltrt ; t t ~ t (7 1 + t , ~ { s t 066, ' ",Sal Oi .L v ZZ: 1 t l uzz t ; ~r to .tun ca uo UZI: caa APPENDIX B SECTION 8106 tvrarc bUUIM Lav. 0 REFERENCED STANDARDS ice IBC International Building Code B104.-) Table B105.1 ICC IFC international Fire Code B105.2 ICC IUWIC Interrrationnl Urban- B103.3 Wildland Interface Code Standard on Water Supplies NFPA 1142 for Suburban and Rural Fire B10-3.3 Fighting i c aau-0ioar- tuuJ • TABLE 8105-1 uwunua 099 110M =09 F1 rwv ANn FI rAA/ nURATRW FAR RUU_DIN^GS FIRE-FtMW CALCULATION AREA (square feet) FIRE FL OW FLOW Type IA and 0' Type 9A and Me Type IV and V-A6 Type 118 sad 1W Type V B° Inns pet minute )F DURATION (hours) 0-22,700 0-12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 12.701-3 0 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,6014,800 1,750 30,201-38700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9,800 4,801-6,200 .2000 38,70148,300 21,801-24,200 12,901-17400 9,80)-)2.600 6,201-7,700 2,250 Z 48,301-59,000 24,201-33,200 17,401-21300 12,601-15,400 7,701-9,400 2,500 59,001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21,301-25.500 15401-18400 9,401-11300 2,750 70,901-83,700 39,701-47,100 25,501-30,100 18,401-21800 11,301-13,400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-35,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35 201-40,600 25,901-29,3(10 15,601-18,000 3,500 3 112,701-128,700 63,401-72,400 40.601-46,400 29,301-33,500 18,001-20,600 3,750 128,701-145,900 72 401-82,100 46,401-52,500 33,501-37,900 20,601-23,300 4,000 145,901-164200 82,101-92,400 52,501-59,100 37,90142,700 23,301-26,300 4,250 164,201-183,400 92,401-103,100 59,101-66,000 42,701-47.700 26.301-29300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103101-114600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 4,750 203,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73301-81,100 53,001-58,600 32601-36,000 51000 225,291-247,700 126,701-139,400 81,101-89,200 58,601-65,400 36,001-39,600 5,250 247,701-271,260 139,401-152,600 89,201-97.700 65 401-70,600 39,601-43,400 5,500 271,201-295,900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106,500 70,601-77,000 43,401-47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,501-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,40)-51,500 6000 4 115,801-125,500 83,701-90,600 51,501-55,700 6.250 - - 125,501-135,500 90,601-97,900 55,701-60,200 6,500 - 135,501-145,8110 97,901-106,800 60,201-64,800 6,750 - - 145,801-156,700 106,801-113,200 64,801-69,600 7.000 - - 156,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69,601-74,600 7;250 - - 167,901-179,400 121,301-129,600 74,601-79,800 7,500 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750 - - 191,401-Greater 138,301-Greater 85101-Greater 8,000 For Sl: 1 square foot= 0.0929 mZ, 1 gallon per minute= 3.785 Lm, 1 pound per square inch= 6.895 YPa. I a. The minimum required fire flow &MR be permitted to be reduced by 25 percent for Group R. b. Types of construction are based on the International Building Ca& c. Measured at 20 psi. 3780 2004 OREGON FIRE CODE EXHIBIT PAGE -~o r-- APPEAL EXHIBIT 11 _Applicant: M. M. Shir men SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way 1. Grading and Erosion Control. Section VI B. Grading and Erosion Control. The Grading and Erosion Control Plans incorporate all of the required elements. The Grading Plan was included in the "Proposed Site Plan" prepared by LDC, which includes existing elevations and subsequent parking lot comer elevations, slopes to catch basin and pertinent facilities elevations. Where improvements are not proposed, existing elevations shall remain. It should be noted that the parking lot area only has an existing 1 ft. elevation change. The erosion control plan provides for placement of a "silt fence" around the periphery of the construction site. The design details and dimensions for the "silt fence" are identified in the attached plan under "Silt Fence Details". The erosion control plan also includes constructing a stabilized pad of gravel at the Hermoso Way access entrance to the parking lot to preclude erosion and transfer of dirt offsite. Where necessary, erosion control barriers shall be placed around all drainage facilities, basins and abutting curb faces to prevent incursion of sediments. The land area to be grubbed, stripped, used for temporary placement of soil, or to otherwise exposed soil shall be confined only to the immediate construction site. The duration of soils exposure shall be kept to a minimum, and exposed soils shall be covered by mulch, sheeting, temporary seeding or other suitable material following construction, and until stabilized. In the event sediments are unexpectedly carried outside the construction site, the Applicant shall regularly remove any such sediments from the streets, sidewalks and public parking areas. To minimize dust, the Applicant shall sprinkle with water or dust palliatives all access points and locations that are dust producing areas. The Applicant shall maintain effective erosion control measures until the construction and landscaping is completed, and the soils have stabilized. In the event that the City should find that this grading and erosion control plan is insufficient, Applicant requests that, as a condition of approval, a grading and erosion control plan be submitted for review and by the City prior to issuance of City permits (including related building permits for the internal remodeling of the existing structure). The City previously allowed such a condition of approval for the most recent site development review of an office at the end of SW Hermoso Way (SDR 2003-00008). A copy of that approval is attached hereto. EXHIBIT PAGE! OFD ` 1 / • 1 ! 1 1 / 1 / / i. ! 1 1 ~ I I _ i~ I 1 1 I N 1 ;tip I j / ;V i ( I I 1 i 1 I _ s~ 1 I 1 / HEAT PUMP-\, CONTAINER / I I ~ / i 1 i~ a 1. - J ~ 1 ~ "e e ( e r / I / I / it 1 I r I PLANTER I t (nP / 234 @o 1 SRECESSE6 ENTRY / '234.30 • ,I x 31 t It i j / O / / s~ BICYCLE s 1 PARKING a'a REMOVE / PAVEMENT g / / I I ( STORM FILTER CATCHBASIN 23298 $ I A ' ~ ~ ` 6,`i8$ 4p I I / \ / } 235 00 5.00• a ` :tt 1 R.O.W _ - 1 OEDICAT e. \ • d d gpr 1 . 4 4 e' o NZ2.mW Jr / .75 r=== =~c= 40L - _ = L - -1 ARKWAY ~ ~ / FUTURE CURB ~ MA (iG 200' - - - - EIfT ~ \ 233191 ATCN 1 234 } --r -d 30.0 ExISTING aR~ " 3 I 0' If B'i®F SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: MINUTEMAN PRESS CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2003-00008 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to construct a 7,250 square foot commercial office building and associated site improvements. A 1,673 square foot residence currently occupies the site and is proposed to be removed. APPLICANT: Bob Davidson OWNER: John & Marjorie Joens Minuteman Press PMB 130 14285 SW Pacific Highway 944 Vetrans Way, #105 Tigard, OR 97224 Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT'S Rory Antis REP.: Gray Purcell, Inc. PO Box 23516 Portland, OR 97281-3516 LOCATION: 7545 SW Hermoso Way, WCTM 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1501. ZONE: MUE; Mixed Use Employment The MUE zoning district is designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (HWY. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5.. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including -major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi-family housing at a maximum density of 25 unitstacre, equivalent to the R-25 zoning district. )APPLICABLE REVIEW -Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, CRITERIA: 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION EXHIBIT NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION sDR20w-000081tVANiITWAN PRESPAG E OI-~AGE 1 OF 28 120 DAYS = 21512004 Funds for both intersectio*ust be paid to the City prior to a *1 building inspection. Public Wat_e_r_tstteem: THis st s located wiithin the Tualatin Valley Water District (TWVD). There is an existing 12-inch water line located in SW Hermosa Way. The applicant has indicated that they will be using the existing water service. The applicant needs to show on their plans how fire hydrant spacing standards will be met. TVWD will have to review and approve the applicant's proposed water line plans. Storm Water Quali : The city as 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 stonn 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. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the CWS Design Standards. In addition, the applicaane shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved y City prior to construction. The applicant's plans show that they will construct an extended dry detention swale to treat the onsde runoff. To ensure compliance with Clean Water Services design and construction standards, the applicant shall employ the design engineer responsible for the design and specifications of the private water quay facility to peiform construction and visual observation of the water qua ity facility for comp lance with the design and specifications. These inspections shall be made at significant stages throughout the project and at completion of the construction. Prior to final building inspection, the design engineer shall provide the City of Tigard (Inspection Supervisor) with written confirmation that the water quality facility is in compliance with the design and specifications. Grading and Erosion Control: GW3 esrggn an ons on Standards also regulate erosion control to reduce the amount ofsediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, radin , excavating, clearln , and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per WS egulations, the alic_ant is mired to subM t._an_ or_osion control plan for_ City review and approaf_pno"oro issuance gf Gty_permits. ~wTM " 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 one or more acre of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be "fired to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site andlor building permit. The Building Division, as a part of the site permit review, will review a grading/erosion control plan. An NPDES permit is not required, as the development will not disturb more than one acre. Address Assi nments: The i o Tigard is responsible for assi ningg addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary JUSB). An addressing fee in the amou it of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shall be paid to the City prior to final plat approval. For this project, the addressing fee will be $50.00. (1 lots and/or tracts X $50/address. _ $50:00). EXH 1 QiT_LL- NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION srmm oOOOS/NONurEMAN PRESS PAGE * O F Ac 25 OF 28 0 0 "TAB B" Applicant's Materials & All Correspondence Filed with Hearings Officer Prior to the Public Hearing. i • MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Turner, City of Tigard Hearings Officer FROM: Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner RE: Shinmen Office Building (SDR2005-00008) Appeal DATE: July 3, 2006 The applicant has filed an a peal with the City of Tigard in regard to a Director's decision denying the Shinmen Office Site Development Review The appellant's letter received June 2, 2006 outlines the stated grounds for appeal. The issues include but are not limited to: the decision is unconstitutional and is not supported by substantial evidence, the Director improperly construed the applicable law, and the decision and pertinent findings require submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director declared that the application was complete. The City of Tigard has reviewed the information within the appeal and stands by the findin s and conditions of approval within the decision. Additional information addressing e concerns of the appellant will be presented by Qty Staff at the July 10th hearing. Attachments: 1. Director's Decision 2. Appeal filing form and attachments 3. Applicants submittal SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hennoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Wav 1. Section II. Allegedly the applicant has not met the standards of the following code sections: 18.360 (Site Development Review18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards The decision and pertinent findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the whole of the record, the Director improperly construe the applicable law, the decision and pertinent findings made an unconstitutional decision, the decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these fights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The applicant did not meet all of the applicable standards for conversion of an existing home in the Tigard Triangle into a professional office building. As can be seen from the file correspondence, the applicant was made aware of these requirements and given opportunities to modify the application materials. Each time the applicant responded with a narrative stating similar reasons why the improvement standards could be met through future improvement guarantees or other alternatives. These alternatives were reviewed, and Staff found that either the Tigard Development Code criteria were not met or the information provided was not adequate to show the feasibility of the alternatives. This appeal reads that the Director did not provide a set of findings to the applicant prior to the final decision as required under ORS 197.763 (4) and (6) {Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use hearings; notice requirements; hearing procedures}. This was a staff decision and was not heard before a hearing body. A copy of the responses herein will be provided to the applicant prior to the hearing with the Hearing's Office scheduled for June 10, 2006. The above described finding appears to be a summarized findings that rely upon more detailed findings subsequently in the decision. Therefore, the applicant incorporates herein the specific grounds for appeal subsequently identified in this listing of the grounds for appeal. The statement on page 2 of the decision is a summary of the findings that led to a decision to deny the application. Findings for individual criteria are discussed under the relevant code sections in the report. • • In addition to the grounds for appeal listed in Appeal No. 1, the Director misinterpreted the Applicant's application submittal. In Paragraph 3, page 16 of the Narrative, the Applicant does identify that the applicable code section 18.745.040 appears to not require any street trees since the applicant's property is less than 100 ft. wide. However, the Applicant states at the bottom of the paragraph that the Applicant will comply with the street requirements of the city code and Applicant's attached Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C"), which specifically identifies that the Applicant is planting four (4) street trees within the Park Way abutting Hermoso Way. The Applicant has factually complied with the code, and in fact, exceeded the code requirement. See, Applicant's additional comments under the narrative for code section 18.745 and in this appeal statement here after. The applicant states in the narrative that because the property frontage along Hermoso Way is only 100 feet, street trees are not required. The applicant also states that an existing Dogwood tree is located that makes it eligible to count as an existing street tree and it is the intention of the applicant to retain this tree in the present location. If the tree cannot be saved, the applicant will plant a new Dogwood tree in a location suitable to serve as a street tree. Kousa Dogwoods are on the City of Tigard's Street Tree List. However the applicant's Landscape Plan shows four Flowering Plum trees as street trees. These are not on the City's approved Street Tree List. The plans and narrative are not consistent with one another. Street trees are required as part of all improvements within the Tigard Triangle. The applicant has not shown that this requirement has been met. 3. Section VI B. Sign Location. Finding that the placement of the sign is within a prohibited visual clearance area. Page. 7-8 of the Decision. ' The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer on appeal approve the sign application subject to a condition of approval that the sign be moved westward, on the west side of the entrance sidewalk and just north of the small landscaped island of juniper bushes to a location outside the "visual clearance area" required under the code. In the alternative, if the Hearings Officer on appeal refuses or is unable to approve the this modified location for the sign, the Applicant then withdraws its application for a sign at that time, and will resubmit an application at a future date. Therefore, under either of the above options, the applicant's application is in compliance with all applicable code provisions, including the standards required for the Tigard Triangle Design. Further, the Decision defers comments regarding the landscape standards to the discussion under code provision 18.745. The applicant also defers its comments regarding this ground for appeal to the applicant's discussion hereinafter regarding code 18.745. of the Decision. discussed under section 180.745 Landscaping and Screening. Page 5 of the Decision The Applicant has identify that he intends to construct "a 6 ft. wide concrete walkway connection (with scored concrete)" for the sidewalks included in the "Site Development Plan (Exhibit "D"). As identified in the plans, this six-foot wide concrete walkway or sidewalk extends along the frontage of the street and from the street sidewalk to the office building. See also paragraph four at page 12 of the Narrative. Indeed all permanent surfacing is concrete with the exception of the asphalt parking lot (See bicycle pad at page 18, paragraph five of the Narrative). As a clarification, wherever the Site Development Plan identifies a "sidewalk" that is a sidewalk constructed with concrete that is scored. Therefore, the Applicant has complied with all applicable code provisions. The applicant states in the narrative that a concrete sidewalk connection will be provided. Although no material was identified on the site plan (Exhibit D), staff recommends that the Hearing's Officer finds this requirement has been met. 5. access egress and circulation requirements have not been met. Page 8-9 of the Decision. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a preliminary site distance certification of the subject property under separate cover, and this submittal establishes that the application complies with a code 18.705.030.H Typically, a preliminary site distance certification is required as a condition of approval. No conditions were given with this decision as the application was denied. Fast, Applicant's attached Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C"), specifically identifies that the Applicant is planting four (4) street trees within the Park Way abutting Hermoso Way. Applicant's identifies that the applicant will comply with the details listed in the Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C"). The Director has merely misinterpreted the language in the Narrative. See response in Appeal Grounds No. 2 above. The Applicant has complied with the applicable code provisions. List".. Also a finding is made that the applicant's narrative precludes any street trees in the applicatr ion. Page 10 of the Decision. • • Second, code 18.745.040 B. specifically states that the Director can approve an applicant's proposed planting list. This code provision does not specifically limit the Director's authority to only a "City's Street Tree Planting List" which is not included or mentioned in the applicable code provision. Contrary to this finding, the City did approve "flowering plum trees" to be planted as street trees for a residential unit conversion to professional offices at 13425 SW 72nd Ave.(SDR 91-0015). The Applicant requests approval of the street trees as proposed, and if the Hearings Officer finds these type of trees are unauthorized, then the Applicant agrees to modify the application to change the street trees to plant alternating big leaf maple (2) and Oregon White Oak (2) (as proposed by the Director in the findings at page 23). Thereby, the Applicant has complied with all applicable a code provisions. The applicant states in the narrative that because the property frontage along Hermoso Way is only 100 feet, street trees are not required. The applicant also states that an existing Dogwood tree is located that makes it eligible to count as an existing street tree and it is the intention of the applicant to retain this tree in the present location. If the tree cannot be saved, the applicant will plant a new Dogwood tree in a location suitable to serve as a street tree. Kousa Dogwoods are on the City of Tigard's Street Tree List. However the applicant's Landscape Plan shows four Flowering Plum trees as street trees. These are not on the City's approved Street Tree List. The plans and narrative are not consistent with one another. Street trees are required as part of all improvements within the Tigard Triangle. The applicant has not shown that this requirement has been met. 7. Section VI B. Buffering and Screening (18.745.080 and matrix 18.745.1). The finding alleges that the Applicant is proposing asix-foot wooden fence and a 5 ft. wide landscape strip along the eastern and western boundaries of the property and therefore the Applicant fails to comply with the requirements of Buffer C in the matrix 18.745.1. Page 10 of the Decision. The Applicant in the Narrative identifies that the Applicant will comply with the landscape design in Exhibit C. Nowhere in the Narrative does the Applicant state that the landscape strips on the east and western boundaries are only 5 ft. wide. The Director's finding is in error, At page 12 the Applicant does state that the landscaping area in the front of the property (to the south) separating the parking lot from the sidewalk (separated from the "public fight of way") will be a minimum of 5 ft. in width. Possibly this confused the Director, however, it is unrelated to the side yard standard. The Landscape Plan requires an eight-foot wide landscaped strip on the east, west and north sides of the property, with a six-foot high fence along a most of the east and west boundaries (reducing height to 3 ft. near the from of the propert)). See, Exhibit C. For clarification, the Applicant declares that these landscaping strips are 8 ft. wide. The Applicant has complied with all applicable to code provisions. • • The landscape plan shows a 5 foot landscape section between the proposed parking lot and the property line at the SE corner of the site. This dimension is not called out on the plan, but Staff utilized the scale on the plan to measure the distance. The width of landscaping is not stated in the narrative. The applicant describes the mix of plantings to be used and states that a 6 foot wooden fence will be provided to screen the use from neighboring properties. Based on City records the properties to the east and west of the site are single- family residential. A pre-application was held to convert the home on the property to the east into an office in September of 2004, but no formal application was filed or approved. Based on Table 18.745.1 of the TDC, the buffer requirement is C. Options for buffer C include a 6-foot landscape strip in conjunction with a 6-foot wall, an 8-foot landscape strip with a 5-foot fence, or a 10-foot landscape strip with a 4-foot hedge. None of these combinations can be met based on the landscape plan provided without revising the proposed parking lot to be a minimum 6 feet away from the eastern property line. 8. Section VI B. Screening (18.745,050 E. 10).. The finding alleges that the code requires 11 of the Decision. First, code 18.745.050 E does not state that one tree must be provided for a parking lot with less then seven parking spaces. Instead, the code provision requires one tree for "each seven" parking spaces. The Applicant's proposed landscape plan and site plan only has six parking spaces. Since there are not seven parking spaces, this code provision does not require a separate tree in a separate landscaped island. In addition, the code states that the purpose is to "provide a canopy effect." The Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C.") identifies that the parking lot will be bracketed on the east and west sides by trees [existing large Birch tree to the west and two landscape trees to the east (the latter being in a landscape island area wider than 3 ft.)]. These trees will provide a canopy effect over a substantial portion of the parking lot. In the event that the Hearings Officer finds that an additional tree is required, the applicant thereby modifies the application to replace the sign improvement located in an island (wider than 3 ft.) abutting the parking lot (See Exhibit Q and the tree will be an Oregon White Oak Under the circumstances, the Applicant requests this change as a condition of approval. Thereby, all of the applicable provisions of the code are satisfied. TDC 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features, which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Existing and proposed trees are located near the perimeter of the site. These trees will not provide a canopy for the parking lot nor help screen it from the street. Street trees are not considered screening because they are already required as part of the Tigard Triangle standards. Staff recommends an additional tree and shrubs on the western side of the access to screen the parking area from the street. • • 9. Section VI B. Screening of Refuge Containers (18.745.050 E), The finding alleges that the proposed screening for the A/C unit does not met the code standards because it is not screened bya solid wood fence or masonry wall. Page 11 of the Decision. The Director appears to have misapplied the code provision. Code 18.745.050 E states that screening of a service facilities is only required for air conditioners "which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area".. The Applicant's A/C unit is located behind the proposed office structure on the North Side. At this location, the A/C unit is not visible and from a public street, customer or resident parking area. The properties to the east and west, abutting the subject property, both have their residence parking areas on the south side of each of their residences (thus, the subject property building obstructs any view). In addition, the Applicant's landscape plan incorporates a six- foot high solid wooden fence along the east, west and north sides of the a subject property. This fence would obstruct any view of the A/C unit. The code provision does not. require that the wooden fence be immediately abutting the A/C unit. The code provision merely requires that the solid wooden fence shall screen the unit "from view." The Applicants plan complies with that requirement. In the event the Hearings Officer determines that a separate fence must be placed around the A/C unit, the Applicant requests that this requirement be made a condition of approval (a five foot high solid wooden fence). Under either option, the landscaping and screen standards have been fully satisfied. The code requires service facilities, in this case the A/C unit, to be screened from any residential area by a wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. Because the neighboring uses to the east and west are still residential, the unit requires screening. In this case the applicant has proposed planting rhododendron on either side of the unit. In addition, the applicant has proposed a 6-foot cedar fence along the eastern, western`and northern boundaries of the site. This combination will provide adequate screening of the A/C unit from the neighboring residential properties. 10. Section VI B. Solid Waste and Recyclable. Storage (18.755.040).. The finding alleges, . . . . . . . . r . or 11 of the Decision. ~r+l A 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 --r 1. 1 i ne Applicant s site development plan and landscape plan identify a solid waste and recyclable storage area at the back of the office structure. This storage area will be 12 ft. square feet which exceeds the minimum requirements of the code. See Narrative at 170 The Applicant is proposing garbage collection (franchise hauler) with a garbage collection container stored in this area. See Narrative at page 7. Essentially this area is served by Pride Disposal who collects the garbage at the street front on selected days for collection (land owners are provided rolling containers to be rolled to the street frontage for collection). • • The Director did not require a franchise hauler review and sign-off prior to declaring that the Applicant's application was complete. Applicant's Narrative identifies that the storage container will be a garbage container (franchise hauler's standard container) and this storage area will be 12 ft. square feet that is surrounded by a six-foot high solid wooden fence, with access gate. The Director's finding appears to now require some submittal of the "detail of the trash enclosure or refuge container." The applicable code does not appeared to require such a submittal. As previously stated, the storage enclosure will be surrounded by solid six-foot high wooden fence. This fence, in turn is landscaped with rhododendrons and the eastern and northern boundaries of the property are blocked by another six-foot high solid wooden fence. That declaration should be sufficient under the terms of the code. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an, opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting under separate cover a franchise hauler review and sign-off, and a detail of the trash enclosure. Applicant has thereby satisfied all of the applicable code requirements. Under Buffering and Screening requirements in the applicant's narrative, only a 6- foot high wooden fence is proposed "along most of the side yard boundaries." At no point does the applicant respond to the screening criteria or solid waste and recyclable storage criteria by describing a trash enclosure. The landscape plan proposes only rhododendron around the garbage storage area. Completeness review is only to determine that the materials necessary to review the application have been submitted. It is not a review of adequacy of the items to meet the code standards. Regardless, the Franchise Hauler Sign-Off is not a completeness item. This is typically required as a condition of approval to show that the applicant has worked with the Franchise Hauler to develop a system for collection and removal of solid waste and recyclables. The applicant states above that the garbage is to be collected by Pride Disposal through curbside pick-up. This is the Franchise hauler review and sign-off method described in the TDC. To meet the requirements of this method requires a letter from the franchised hauler as described in TDC 18.755.040.F.4. 11. Section VI B. Access Drives and minimum visual clearance (18.795 and 18,705). The Director has made a finding that all the access standards have not been fully met based The Applicant has fully addressed this issue of the sign and these applicable standards in Appeal Grounds No. 3 above. In essence, the Applicant has requested that sign be moved westward outside the restricted area as a condition of approval, or in the alternative, the sign application be withdrawn. Under either option, the Applicant has satisfied all the applicable a code requirements including the findings pertaining to this Appeal Grounds No. 11. This issue has been addressed under Access, Signs and Visual Clearance. 12. Section VI B. Space and Aisle Dimensions 18.765,040 H). Finding that the parking lot may need to be reconfigured to meet other code requirements. Page 14 of the Decision. Although this is a finding that does not support a denial of the application, it is nevertheless factually in error. As identified above in Appeal Grounds No. 7, the proposed landscaping strip along the east and west boundaries of the subject property are 8 ft. in width (thus, no reconfiguration of the parking lot is necessary to meet code requirements). As discussed under item 7 above, the buffering requirements are not met. The applicant shows only five feet between the proposed parking area and the eastern property line. A minimum 6-foot landscape buffer is required with a 6-foot wall. The applicant has proposed a 6-foot wooden fence, which requires an 8-foot landscape buffer. The parking area must be moved to meet this standard and therefore the parking lot will be re-designed. Staff cannot determine at this time if all parking standards can be met. 13. The Applicant's Narrative at page 18, paragraph five, identifies that a bicycle parking is to be located within 50 ft. of the primary entrance, bicycle racks provided and the area to be constructed as a concrete pad. Exhibit D. The Site Development Plan further identifies that this bicycle parking pad will be located abutting the entrance sidewalk. If the Hearings Officer determines that the code requires two bicycle parking spaces, the Applicant hereby modifies its plan to include two parking spaces for bicycles at the same location has designated on the Site Development Plan (Exhibit D). The concrete pad for this bicycle parking will then provide for two 2 1/2 feet by 6 ft. spaces with an aisle of 5 ft. in width between the two spaces. The Applicant requests this modification be allowed by the Hearings Officer as a condition of approval. The Director did not require additional plans for the bicycle parking spaces at any time prior to the Applicant's application being deemed complete by the City. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the identification, other than the site plan indicating, the location. Also the finding that the 0 • grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The- Applicant is submitting a modified plan, under separate cover, for the bicycle parking that complies with the requirements of 18.765,050. No dimensions or plans were given within the application to show how dimensional requirements for bicycle parking could be met. A plan is necessary to insure the rack is placed in a location that provides adequate maneuverability. It is typical to condition for a plan to show how the standards for dimensions can be met if the application is approved. A plan such as this is not a completeness item. 14. therefore the criteria has not been met. Pages 15 and 16 of the Decision. As identified in Appeal Grounds No. 3 above, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer on appeal approve the sign application subject to a condition of approval that the sign be moved westward, on the west side of the entrance sidewalk and just north of the small landscape island of the juniper bushes to a location outside the "visual clearance area" required under the code. In the alternative, if the Hearings Officer on appeal refuses or is unable to approve this modified location for the sign, the Applicant then withdraws its application for a sign at that time, and will resubmit an application at a future date. Therefore, under either of the above options, the applicant's application is in compliance with all applicable code provisions. The sign as currently proposed is a structure exceeding three feet in height within the visual clearance area. Fast, the trees in the backyard of the subject property (north yard) are in an area in which there is no proposed improvements, and all of these trees are proposed to be retained. There is no functional purpose for providing their diameter sizes. Their present locations are designated on the Landscape Plan (Exhibits q in the Site Development Planned (Exhibit D The only tree proposed to be removed is an ornamental tree located in the center of the proposed a parking lot. The remaining tree in the front yard (south yard) is to be retained and no improvements are to be located at or near that tree. Under the provisions of the code mitigation is required to replace the removed tree. The applicant's Landscape Plan proposes planting 16 additional trees on the property (in excess of the 4 street trees to be also planted). A protective fence just beyond the canopy drip line and in accordance with code requirements will be temporarily erected around the remaining Birch tree in the front yard during construction. The mitigation requirement is satisfied. In essence, a Certified Arborist's report is not necessary to identify that the one tree proposed to be removed will be eliminated and that all the other remaining trees will be retained and unaffected. met. Page 16 of the Decision. • • The Director did not require a Certified Arborist's report at the time the Applicant's application was formally declared to be complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a Certified Arborist's report, under separate cover, and thereby the Applicant has complied with all the applicable code requirements. An arborist's report is necessary to determine the size and health of the existing trees. This enables mitigation requirements to be calculated. Also no tree protection was proposed in the application for the trees remaining on site. In this case it is likely that mitigation is not required and only tree protection is necessary. If the application had been approved, a condition would be made to provide the tree plan prepared by a certified arborist as required by TDC 18.790.030. An arborist report that includes information on the existing trees, tree protection plans and mitigation requirements are part of that plan. 16. 17 of the Decision. Again, as identified in a Appeal Grounds No. 3 above, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer on appeal approve the sign application subject to a condition of approval that the sign be moved westward, on the west side of the entrance sidewalk and just north of the small landscape island of the juniper bushes to a location outside the "visual clearance area" required under the code. In the alternative, if the Hearings Officer on appeal refuses or is unable to approve the this modified location for the sign, the Applicant then withdraws its application for a sign at that time, and will resubmit an application at a future date. Therefore, under either of the above options, the applicant's application is in compliance with all applicable code provisions. Clear vision area standards can be met if the sign is moved to a location outside of the area as proposed under item 3 above. Code 18.360.090 A 10 does not require the submittal of a lighting "plan" in a form other than a narrative. The Applicant's Narrative at page 9 identifies that exterior lighting already exists in the front and rear of the subject property to illuminate the parking lot area, pedestrian pathways, entrances and patio satisfying the code requirements. plan standard. Page 17 of the Decision. 0 • The Director did not require a lighting plan (other than the narrative plan) to be required before the Applicant's application was formally declared to be complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a lighting plan, under separate cover; and thereby the Applicant has complied with all the applicable code requirements. The City of Tigard Police do not review land use applications until after the application is deemed complete. A lighting plan is not a completeness item. 18. Section VI B. Street and Utili ty Improvements Standards (18.810)..Finding that the applicant allegedly has not proposed construction of the adjacent half street improvement in the project and does not qualify .for a public improvement guarantee in lieu of actual .improvements. Page 18 of the Decision. First, the Applicant at page 19 and 20 of the Narrative fast requests that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of the Applicant being immediately required to construct the half-Street improvement otherwise required under the code. The Applicant makes that request pursuant to a code to 18.810.030 A (5) and sets forth the reasons and substantial evidence for compliance with that code provision allowing a guarantee at pages 20-21. The Director's finding, without any substantial evidence, has denied the request and appears to have simply ignored the supporting reasons in evidence in the Applicant's Narrative. Second, the Applicant has agreed to provide the half-street improvement required by the code if the request for a "future improvements guarantee" is finally denied by the city. See the Applicant's "3-10-06 Modification to Narrative" and Applicant's letter to Cheryl A. Caines dated March 8, 2006. The Director's decision seems to ignore those portions of the Applicant's application. To allow a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements the applicant must show that one or more of the following conditions exist: a) A partial improvement is feasible; b) a partial improvement will not create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c) the existing development on adjacent properties does not preclude extension of the improvements in the foreseeable future; d) the improvements are not in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e) the improvements are not associated with an approved land partition; and f) no additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street. The applicant argues in the narrative that conditions b and c. The applicant's request for a future improvements guarantee has been reviewed by both the Design Review Engineer and the City Engineer. Both have found that none of the conditions exist. 0 • It is typical in the City of Tigard to widen streets along the frontages of approved projects. The City requires measures to be taken by the applicant that will not create a hazardous situation for motorists and pedestrians utilizing the streets. These measures include pavement tapers and barricades to prevent accidents. These types of improvements are standard along all streets in the City including arterials and collectors. These streets handle a larger volume of traffic than Hermoso Way, which is a local street. Sites in the area have been changing from residential to commercial use at an average rate of about 1.5 per year for the last seven years. The area includes Hermoso Way and the neighboring street to the south, SW Beveland, west of SW 72°a Avenue. As the homes are non-conforming for the zoning, Mixed Use Employment, it is expected that this trend of converting existing single family homes or redevelopment with new commercial buildings will continue. 19. Decision. The Site Development Plan (Exhibit D.) and the Landscape Plan (Exhibit C.) both identify that the sidewalk and parkway area total 12 ft. in width as required under the applicable code provisions. The applicant is proposing to construct the sidewalk in accordance with the requirements of 18.810.070. See Narrative at 22 paragraph 3. During the pre-application conference the representative of the Applicant asked the City staff what was the correct sidewalk and a parkway/planter dimension requirements under the code. The Staff could not give an answer to that question except that the total was to be 12 ft. wide. As a result, the Applicant included a discussion of the contrasting code provisions in paragraph "2 a" starting at page 21 through page 22 of the Narrative. Since the City Staff was not able to clarify the dimensional standards for the sidewalks and parkway/planter, and the Director's Decision just declares noncompliance without identifying what the standard is, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer identify the correct standard to be applied and the Applicant modifies the application to comply with that standard. In essence, the Applicant has provided a combination that equals 12 ft. and needs a city clarification as to how wide the sidewalk and the parkway/planter area should be within that 12 ft. overall width. A 12-foot sidewalk is required as shown in the figure for Typical 60 Foot Right-of- Way-Local Street in the Tigard Triangle Design Standards, TDC 18.620 page 15. 20. Section VI B. Storm Drainaize (18.810.100).. The findinz alleges that the aoolicant has the public storm a sewer. Page 19 of the Decision.. In the Applicant's "Supplemental Application Statement" dated December 14, 2005, the Applicant identifies that connection to a storm sewer in Hermoso Way is, in fact, not required because of the impacts from the proposed application to do not necessitate such a connection. The Applicant also proposes numerous alternatives, all of which are capable of being reviewed by the City Staff and the Director for adequacy. The Applicant hereby incorporates this Supplemental Application Statement as support for this Appeal Grounds No. 20 , along with all the documentation from Applicant's engineers (L.DC). First,. the Applicant has requested that immediate connection to a storm water sewer be not required (because it is, factually, not necessary) and that Applicant be required to connect to such storm sewer if it is eventually constructed in the future. Second, the Applicant has provided, under protest, engineering calculations and plans for a storm sewer and connection thereto by the Applicant; and thereby the Applicant has complied with all requirements of the code. The Applicant has asserted that if he is required by the City to construct the entire storm sewer solely at his own expense, this expense will not be roughly proportional to the adverse impacts generated by the proposed application, and thereby the requirement would be an unconstitutional "taking" of his property. The Applicant believes that the proposed alternatives in the "Supplemental Application Statement" provide a reasonable, legal and practical solution for both the Applicant and the City's needs and responsibilities. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer approve the application with a proposed alternative as a condition of approval. Development within the Tigard Triangle is required to connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage. The applicant's plans show the extension of the public storm sewer line in Hermoso Way, but the applicant's narrative states that the plans are "filed under protest". While the applicant discusses some alternative to the extension of the public storm sewer line, there are no plans to review for adequacy. The applicant's plans show a storm filter catch basin for water quality. This catch basin is shown as part of the plans that were "filed under protest". Alternatives were discussed by the applicant in the narrative, but plans and calculations were not submitted for review. 21. Section VI B. Traffic Study Findings. The Finding alleges that the Applicant did not Contrary to the Finding, the Applicant did included as part of the application documents a traffic impact study by the traffic engineers, CTS, in a report dated November 22, 2005. This record did, in fact, do an analysis of the traffic through the intersections of SW 72nd/SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68th/SW Dartmouth Street. The Director seems to have overlooked that document. A duplicate copy is attached hereto. The Applicant has fully complied with the applicable code requirements. A copy of the traffic impact report was submitted under separate cover to the City on January 31, 2006. Completeness copies given to the City for the application review on March 22, 2006 did not include this report; therefore it was not reviewed during this period by the Design Review Engineer. • • 22. Section VI B. --Fire and Life Safety--Finding that a fire hydrant is located within an acceptable distance from the subject .property but no tire flow data (a report from the fire marshal) . was supplied with the application. Page 21 of the Decision. The Director and City Staff did not require a report or data statement on the fire flow for this hydrant prior to declaring that the Applicant's application was complete. Indeed, this hydrant is in existence and has been serving the existing subject property and its surrounding neighbors for approximately 40 years without an operational problem. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these fights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting this documentation under separate cover. The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and other agencies do not review land use applications until after the application is deemed complete. A fire flow report is not a completeness item. 23. Section VI B..Storm Water QUality.. The Finding reasserts the same timing previously This is a reiteration of the Director's Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 20. findings in Appeal Grounds No. 20. The appeal, arguments and evidence previously See response under item 20 above. 24. Exhibit A identities that there is only a 1 ft. elevation change for the area where the proposed parking lot is to be constructed. Since We entire parking lot is level and is of essentially the same grade, there will be no "acceleration" of erosion which would otherwise incur the application of a code restriction. Thus, an erosion control plan "drawings" are not required. Alternatively, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer approve the application with a condition of approval that the Applicant submit to the City an erosion control plan prior to issuance of City permits for construction of the improvements. • • In addition, the Director and City Staff did not require erosion control plan prior to declaring that the Applicant's application was complete. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submittal of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting this documentation under separate cover, The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. Plans are required when grading is proposed regardless of the amount. In this case the amount is minimal and the grading/erosion control plan could have been required as a condition of approval. Because the application was denied no conditions of approval were given. Again, this is a reassertion of the findings pertaining to a Appellant's Appeals Grounds No. 18 and 19 above. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeal-- arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 18 and 19. 26. Section VI B. Landscaping and Screening. Finding that Applicant must comply with the tree species diversity requirements on site. The site currently consists of five trees and the Applicant is proposing to remove one dogwood tree that is presently located in the middle of the proposed parking lot. In accordance with the code requirements for tree replacement on the property, the Applicant would be required to replace that removed tree with a new tree. In addition, the Applicant must plant street trees (which he has proposed as the code requires - 4 trees). This would be a minimum total as required under the code of 9 trees. The Applicant's landscape plan provides for these 9 trees. The Applicant is also proposing to plant 15 additional trees on the property. These additional trees are not required by the code. If the Hearings Officer finds that the species, genus or, family of these additional trees violate City Requirements, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer allow a condition of approval for the followingh(1) delete the violating trees from the application, or (2) allow t e Applicant to modify t e plan to a substitute a variety of different species genius and famil of trees to satisfy the requirements (the Applicant is submitting this documentation under separate cover). With the exception of the tree to be removed from the proposed parking lot, all construction will not interfere with the root system of any existing tree on the site (let alone 15% of that root system), Also, fencing shall be provided around the existing Birch tree in the front yard to protect its root system. Furthermore, the Applicant (on suggestion of the Director in the Decision) agrees to modify the street tree plan to plant aItematin big leaf maple (2) and Oregon White Oak (2). The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. The City Forester noted the following after reviewing the applicant's proposed landscape plan: In order to develop tree species diversity onsite the following guidelines shall be followed: * No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. * No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. * No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. The applicant has only proposed one tree species for the site, Flowering Plum. 27. determined but not the height that it was taken, and retention requirements for trees of over 12 in. is not addressed. Page 23-24 of the Decision. Again, this is a reassertion of the same finding regarding alleged requirement for an arborist report as identify in Appellant's Appeal Grounds No. 15. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeal, arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 15. As regard to the caliper Of the trees, the caliper was taken at a 4 foot height of ground-level as required by the code. The Applicant's Narrative identifies that the only tree removed from the site will be the ornamental dogwood in the front yard. This tree will be replaced and the code requirements are exceeded by the a proposed landscape plan. All other trees, including the large trees, will be retained. Therefore, the Applicant's application complies with all the requirements pertaining to retention of existing trees over 12 in. in caliper. If the Hearings Officer finds that additional information is needed, the Applicant requests that as a condition of approval the Applicant be required to make that submittal to the City prior to issuance of any construction related permits. Responses to tree removal are discussed under item 15 above. M. M. Shinmen Cheryl Caines, Assistant Planner Kim McMillan, Design Review Engineer ATTACHMENT I NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE BUILDING 120 DAYS = 2006 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: SHINMEN OFFICE BUILDING CASE NOS.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2005-00008 Sign Permit (SGN SGN2005-00255 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to convert an existing 1,990 square foot residence into an office building. Re 15,000squarefoot site rs located within the Tigard Triangle. In addition, the applicant is requesting a sign permit for one non-illuminated, freestanding sign. APPLICANT/ M. M. Shinmen, LLC OWNER 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, OR 97223 APPLICANT'S John W. Shonkwiler REP.: 13425 SW 72°' Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 7315 SW Hermoso Way, WCTM 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300. ZONE: MUE. Mixed Use E to ent. The MUE zoning district is desirggned to apply to a ' le, a regional mixed-use employment majority o the land wi the Tigard Q district bounded by Pacific Highway 99), Highway 217 and I-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices, civic uses and housing; the latter includes multi family housing at a maximum density of 25 units/acre, equivalent to the R 25 zoning district. A wide range. of .uses, including but not limited to community recreation facilities, religious institution, medical centers, schools, utilities and transit-related park-and-ride lots, are permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE RE VIE W CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee has DENIED the above requests. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section VI. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHINVIEN OFFICE PAGE 1 OF 25 • T A denial is being issued because Staff could not make positive findings for several Tigard Development Code criteria. The applicant has not shown evidence that the standards from the following code sections are met: 18.360 Site Development Review, 18.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards, 18.705 Access, Egress & Canculationi 18.745 Landscaping & Scree ning , 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage, 18.765 Off- Street Parking & Loading Requirements, 180 Signs, 18.790 Tree Removal, 18.795 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.810 Streets & Utility. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site EmEstory, Staff ucted a search of City records and found several land-use cases associated with the subject parcel. All were from 2000 and related to a development called the Tri-County Center. This was a proposed, large- scale, retail development that included the subject parcel and several surrounding properties to the north and west. Because the development was never constricted, the land use approval has expired. No other land- use cases were found to be on file with the City. Vicini Information: The subject site is located on SW Hermoso Way in an area that has been converting from a predominantly residential neighborhood to an area with mostly professional office uses. These new offices are a mix of converted residential structures and new office buildings. The site is bordered on the north with large vacant sites zoned General Commercial (GG). All other surrounding properties are zoned (MUE) I&ed Use Employment like the subject parcel. Site Information and Proposal Descrition: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval to convert an existing 1,990 square foot residence into an office building. The 15,000 square foot site is within the Tigard Triangle. off-street parking is being proposed in front of the existing structure. No others icant changes are proposed to the site. There are several existing trees on the site. The largest (White Birch) will remain. A small ornamental dogwood will be relocated, if possible, to accommodate the proposed parking area. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET One neighbor' .property owner called with questions about the sign. We discussed size and materials. There were no objections or other comments received about the project. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections: A. Zonin Districts 18.5 Commercial Zoning Districts B. plicable Development Code Standards 8.620 Tigard Triangle Design Standards 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards 18.745 Landscaping and Screening 18.755 Mixed Solidaste and Recyclable Storage 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal. 18.795 Visual Clearance C. Land Use Decisions 18.360 Site Development Review D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18;810 E. Decision Makin Procedures 18.390 Impact §tudy NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SH P4h EN OFFICE PAGE 2 OF 25 • SECTION VI. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS A. ZONIING DISTRICTS Commercial Zoning District: Section 18.520.020 Lists the description of the Commercial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the MUE: Mined-Use Employment zoning district. The proposed use, general office space, is outright permitted in the zone. Development Standards: ection 18.520.040.B States that Development standards in commercial zoning districts are Section" contained in Table 18.520.2 below: TABLE 18.520.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMERQAL ZONES STANDARD MUE. Minimum Lot Size None - Detached unit - Boarding, lodging, rooming house Nlinnmum Lot Width 50 Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 0' min/ 10' max - Side facing street on corner & through lots - - Side yard 0120 ft [1] - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive - zoning district 0120 ft [1] - Rear yard - Distance between front of garage & property line abutting a public or private street. Maximum Height 45 Maximum Site Coverage 2 85% Maximum Floor Area Ratio - - 0.4 Alinimurn 1 ainTscape Requirement 15% [1] no setback shall be required except 20 feet shall be required where the zone abuts a residential zone. [2] includes all buildings and impervious area. Setbacks for the WE zone are zero for all sides unless the site abuts a residential zone. There are no properties zoned residential near the site. Setbacks of the existing building comply with the Cistandards except the maximum front setback The corner closest to the street has a setback of 24 feet and the opposite corner's setback is 40 feet. Pre-existing buildings are not required to conform to all of the new requirements for the zone, unless eNansion is proposed. No changes are proposed to the existing structure. The building hei' ht is 26 feet, which is within the maximum buing height of the MUE zone (45 feet). Based on an analysis of the site plan, Site coverage is calculated at approximately 30% and landscaping at 70%. Floor Area Ratio is discussed below. Special limitations: The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for all commercial and industrial use types and mixed-use developments shall not exceed 0.40. Residential use types, including transient lodging, shall not be subject to this requirement; The proposed office floor area is calculated as follows: Site Area: 15,000 sq. ft. Total site area (151000 sq. ft.) x :40 = 6,000 sq. ft. floor area. The proposed office floor area is 1,990 sq. ft., which is within the maximum allowed. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 3 OF 25 • • FINDING: The maximum front yard setback is exceeded but is allowed because the structure is pre- existing. Based on the analysis above, the underlying zone's development criteria have been satisfie B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS (18.620) Design standards or pu 'c street improvements and for new development and renovation projects have been prepared for the Tigard Triangle. These design standards address several important guiding principals adopted for the Tigard Triangle, including creating a high-quali ty mixed use employment area, providing a convenient pedestrian and bikeway system witthhirn the 'TT'riangle, and utilizing streets cape to create a high quality image for the area. All new developments are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described below and other development standards required by the Development and Building Codes, developments will be required to dedicate and improve public streets, connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage, and partrcrppa~te in funding future transportation and public improvement projects necessary within the Tigard Triangle. The following design standards ap ly to all development located within the Tigard Triangle. If a standard found in this section cor cts with another standard in the Development Code, standards in this section shall govern. Street Connectivity: All development must demonstrate how one (1) of the following standard options will be met. Variance of these standards may be approved per the requirements of Chapter 18.134 where topography, barriers such as railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers prevent street extensions and connections. Design Option: a. Local street spacing shall provide public street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet; b. Bike and pedestrian connections on public easements or right-of-way shall be provided at intervals of no more than 330 feet. Performance Option: a. Local street spacing shall occur at intervals of no less than eight (8) street intersections per mile; b. The shortest vehicle trip over public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the straight-li ne distance; C. The shortest pedestrian trip on public right-of-way from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than one and one-half the straight line distance. The pproposal meets the Performance Option because SW Hermoso Way is approximately 1,050 feet in len;4ch requires 1 to 2 intersections. Currently, there are (2) intersections on Hermoso. The straight- hpe .whidestrian trifrom the subject pethe 72`' Ave. is also 21 feet Therefore, the y shortest p ~nd has been mete property performance e option Site Design Standards: All development must meet the following site design standards. If a parcel is one (1) acre or larger a phased development plan must be approved demonstrating how these standards for the overall parcel can be met. Variance to these standards may be granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.01OC2 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. The application does not involve a phased development plan nor is the site one acre or larger. This standard is not applicable. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 4 OF 25 Building Placement On Major And Minor Arterials And The Street: Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of all street frontages along Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Buildings shall be located at public street intersections on Major and Minor Arterial Streets. Southwest Hermoso Way is not a major or minor arterial. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Building Setback: The minimum building setback from public street rights-of-way or dedicated wetlands /buffers and other environmental features, shall be 0 feet; the maxunum building setback shall be 10 feet. This section requires a maximum building set back of 10 feet from dedicated 21 feet The existing building sits at an angle on the site. . The front yard setback is approximately 23 feet to the western front corner and 40 feet to the eastern front corner. This building location is non conforming. As long as the building is not made more non conforming, the conversion is permissible. No additions or expansions are proposed. This criterion is not applicable at this time. Front Yard Setback Design: Landscaping, an arcade, or a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian path must be 6ro vided between a structure and a public street or accessway. If a building abuts more than one street, the required improvements shall be provided on all streets. Landscaping shall be developed to an L-1 standard on public streets. Hard-surfaced areas shall be constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Benches and other street furnishings are encouraged. These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.620.070. A new walkway is proposed from the structure to the proposed sidewalk along Hermoso Way. L-1 landscaping standards do not apply because Hermoso Way is a local street. This criterion has been met. Walkway Connection To Building Entrances: A walkway connection is required between the building's entrance and the public street or accessway providing access to the property. This walkway must be at least six (6) eet wide and be paved with scored concrete or modular paving materials. Building entrances at a corner near a public street intersection are encouraged, These areas shall contribute to the minimum landscaping requirement per Section 18.60.070. A new, six foot wide sidewalk is shown on the site plan connecting the building entrance with the proposed public sidewalk The front entrance is pre-existing. Wherefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Parking Location And Landscape Design: Parking for buildings or phases adjacent to public street rights-of-way must be located to the side or rear of newly constructed buildings. If located on the side, parking is limited to 50% of the street frontage and must be behind a landscaped area constructed to an L-1 Landscape Standard. The minimum depth of the L-1 landscaped area is five feet or the building setback, whichever is greater. Interior side and rear yards shall be landscaped to an L-2 Landscape Standard, except where a side yard abuts a public street, where it shall be landscaped to an L-1 Landscape Standard Proposed parking is adjacent to the street. This is allowed because the existing structure prevents access to the rear of the site. L-1 and L-2 landscaping standards do not apply because the site is located along a local street. Standards of Chapter 18.745 only apply. Proposed landscaping between the ngh~t-of-way and the parking area is a mix of groundcover and shrubs. The landscape plain shows trees along Hermoso Way, but ese are street trees re quired by the Tigard Tnangle Street Standards. Contrary to the landscape plan, the applicant's narrative indicates that no trees are beingg~ installed along Hermoso Way. Side and rear yards will be planted with a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcover. The landscape standards are not met and are discussed further under section 18.745 Landscaping and Screening. Building Design Standards: All non-residential buildings shall comply with the following design standards. Variance to these standards maybe granted if the criteria found in Section 18.370.010 (Criteria for Granting a Variance) is satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SI Nh EN OFFICE PAGE 5 OF 25 Ground Floor Windows: All street-facing elevations within the Building Setback (0 to 10 feet) along public streets shall include a minimum of 50 percent of the ground floor wall area with windows, display areas or doorway openings. The ground floor wall area shall be measured from three (3) feet above grade to nine (9) feet above grade the entire width of the street-facin elevation. The ground floor window requirement shall be met within the ground floor wa§ area and for glass doorway openins to ground level. Up to 50 percent of the ground floor window require ment may be met on an a joining elevation as long as all of the requirement is located at a building corner. According to the standard above, the building must have at a minimum of 50 percent of the round floor wall area as windows. The building is pre-existing, and the applicant is not proposing to modify the facade. Should any modifications be made, this standard will have to be satisfied. Building Facades: Facades that face a public street shall extend no more than 50 feet without providing at least one (1) of the following features: (a) a variation in building materials; (b) a building off-set of at least 1-foot; ~c) a wall area that is entirely separated from other wall areas by a projection, such as an arcade- or by another design features that reflect the building's structural system. No building facade sLU extend for more than 300 feet without a pedestrian connection between or through the building. Because the building is pre-existing, this standard does not apply. However, no addition or expansion may occur that increases the non-confoiiu of the structure accorduig to Section 18.760.040.D (Nonconforming use of structures) of the Tigard Development Code. This stan dard is satisfied. Weather Protection: Weather protection for pedestrians, such as awnings, canopies, and arcades, shall be provided at building entrances. Weather protection is encouraged along building frontages abutting a public sidewalk or a hard-surfaced expansion of a sidewalk, and along building rontagges between a building entrance and a public street or accessway. Awnings and canopies shall not be backlit. It is unclear if there is more than one existing entrance to the building. Regardless, it is likely that the front entrance will be the main entry point for alemployees and visitors. The ap li cant states that an existing overhang will provide weather protection for pedestrians. This criterion is satisfied. Building Materials: Plain concrete block, plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood, sheet pressboard or vinyl siding may not be used as exterior finish materials. Foundation material maybe plain concrete or plain concrete block where the foundation material is not revealed for more than 2 feet. The exterior finish material of the building is wood board siding. Foundation materials are plain concrete that is not revealed for more than two feet. This standard has been met. Roofs and Roof Lines: Except in the case of a building entrance feature, roofs shall be designed as an extension of the primary materials used for the building and should respect the building's structural system and architectural style. False fronts and false roofs are not permitted. The existing building does not have a false front or false roof. This criterion is satisfied. Roof-Mounted Equipment: All roof-mounted equipment must be screened from view from adjacent public streets. Satellite dishes and other communication equipment must be set back or positioned on a roof so that exposure from adjacent public streets is minimized. Solar heating panels are exempt from this standard. The applicant is not proposing to add any roof mounted equipment to what is already pre-existing. A staff visit to the site was made and the only roof mounted equipment was a chimney and a few outlet pipes. This criterion is satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 6 OF 25 • • Signs: In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.780 of the Development Code, the following standards shall be met: Zoning District Regulations: Non-residential development within the NIUE zone shall meet the sign requirements of the GP zone (18.780.130.D). Sign Area Limits: The maximum sign area limits found in Section 18.780.130 shall not be exceeded. No area limit increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Height Limits: The maximum height limit for all s!ggns except wall signs shall be 10 feet. Wall signs shall not extend above the roofline of the wan on which the sign is located. No height increases will be permitted within the Tigard Triangle. Sign Location: Freestanding signs within the Tigard Triangle shall not be permitted within required L-l landscape areas. Sign area is discussed later in this review under Section 18.780 (Signs). The sign elevation plans provided show two different sign heights. One shows the sign as 4 feet tall and the other shows the sign as 5 feet 4 inches. Either way, the sign is below the maximum height limitation of 10 feet. L-1 landsca ing is not required for this site because Hermoso Way is not an arterial. The placement of the sign stw cannot be approved because the sign is within the visual clearance area. Entry Portals: Entry portals shall be required at the primary access points into the Tigard Triangle. 1. Location - Entry portals shall be located at the intersections of 99W and Dartmouth; 99W and 72nd; I-5 and Dartmouth; Hwy. 217 and 72nd; and at the Hwy. 217 Overcrossing and Dartmouth. 2. Design - The overall design of entry portals shall relate in scale and detail to both the automobile and the pedestrian. A triangle motif shall be incorporated into the design of entry portals. This standard does not apply because the site is not located at a primary access point into the Tigard Triangle. Landscaping and Screening: Two (2) levels of landscaping and screening standards are applicable to the Tigard Triangle. The locations where the landscaping or screening is required and the depth of the landscaping or screening are defined in other sub-sections of this section. These standards are nummum requirements. Higher standards may be substituted as long as all height limitations are met. L-1(Low Screen For general Ian Gaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets, planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening, shall apply. The L-1 standard applies to setbacks on major and minor arterials. Where the setback is a minimum of 5 feet between the parking lot and a major or minor arterial, trees shall be planted at 31/2-inch caliper, at a maximum of28 feet on center. Shrubs shall be of a variety that will provide a Moot high screen and a 90 percent opacity within one (1 year. Groundcover plants must Tully cover the remainder of landscape area within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. The proposal does not abut a major or minor arterial; therefore, the L-1 standards do not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHNMEN OFFICE PAGE 7 OF 25 L-2 (General Landscaping): For general landscaping of landscaped and screened areas within parking lots, local collectors and local streets,.planting standards of Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screenin shall apply. Trees shall be provided at a minimum 21h-inch caliper, at a maximum spacing of 281eet. Shrubs shall be of a size and quality to achieve the req.Tred landscaping or screening effect within two (2) years. Any tree planted in excess of a 2-inch caliper shall be eligible for full mitigation credit. Because the site is on a local street, the L-2 landscape standards defer to Chapter 18.745. Compliance with Landscaping and Screening standards are discussed further in this decision under Chapter 18.745 (L,andscaping & Screening). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Tigard Triangle Design standards have not been fully met. ADDITIONAL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of the Commuity Development Code. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.360 18.390, 18.520, 18n.705, 18.725-,18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795, and 18.810. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is reviewed in the following sections. Access, Esress and Circulation (18.705): Walkwayyss 18.705.030(F requires that on-site pedestrian walkways comply with the followin 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; On site pedestrian walkways are proposed from the building entrance to the parking area and proposed public sidewalk This standard is met. 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 (cured) 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 wrath exclusive of-vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, Q sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No walkways have been proposed to cross the access drive or parking areas. This standard is therefore not applicable. 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. oses. Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways. The plan depicts sidewalks but does not indicate the surface material to be used. This standard has not been met. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.70 .030.H. states Ta-Fan 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 AASO. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHIM EN OFFICE PAGE 8 OF 25 The applicant did not address this section. A preliminary sight distance certification was not submitted for review. 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 night-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 applicant's traffic engineer. In a case where a project has less than 150 feet of street frontage, 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. This project is located outside the influence area of an Arterial intersection. Section 18.705.030.H.3 and 4 states that the minimum spacing of driveways and streets alongga collector shall be 200 feet. The minimums acing of driveways and streets along an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local treet shall be 125 feet. This standard does not apply to the proposed driveway located on Hermoso Way. Minimum Access Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Use: Section 18.705.030.1 provides the minimum access requirements for commercial and industrial uses: Table 18.705.3 indicates that the required access width for developments with 0-99 parking spaces is one 30-foot accesses with 24 feet of pavement. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances; additional requirements for truck traffic may be placed as conditions of site development review. There is an exiistu'ig driveway for the residence that will be removed. The new access meets the minimum requirements of 30 feet with 24 feet of pavement as shown on the site plan. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the access egress and circulation requirements have not been met. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725): These standards require that fe era an 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 7.40.210 of e Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. Visible Emissions. Within the commercial zoning districts and the industrial park (IP) zoning iqd t, ere 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 oint beyond the property line of the use creating the odors is prohibited. DEQ rules for odors (340-08-090) apply. NOTIa OF TYPE n DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHNMEN OFFICE PAGE 9 OF 25 • • Glare and heat. No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from higgh 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 pernutted 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. The project is considered commercial office, which is permitted within the MUE zone. There is nothing to indicate that these standards will not be met. However, onggoing maintenance to meet these standards shall be maintained and any violation of these standards will be addressed by the City of I°ngard's' Code Enforcement Officer. Compliance with state federal, and local environmental regulations are the continuing obligation of the property owner, and a abide by the applicable standards. FINDING: The Environmental Performance standards are met. Landscaping and Screening 18.745): Street Trees: Section 18.745.040 states that all development projects fronting on a public street or a private drive more than 100 feet in length shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with Section 18.745.040.C Section 18.745.040.C re uires 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 applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows flowering plum trees planted along the Hermoso Way street frontage. thThis species is not found on the Citys Street Tree Planting List. Contrary to the plan the narrative reads at street trees will not be provided because the frontage is only 100 feet in length and are not required by code. Street trees are required as part of all street improvements within the Tigard Triangle. This standard has not been met. Buffen' and Screening: Section 18.745.080 states that no buffer is required between abutting uses that are of a different type when the uses are separated by a street. No buffer is required between a proposed office use and existing office use. Buffering and/or screening are required for dissimilar uses. The vacant property to the north is zoned General Commercial (GG). All other properties are zoned Mixed Use Employment JE). To the east and west of the site are single-family residences. In the introduction portion of the narrative, the applicant states that the property to the east is a small business. There was a pre- application meeting in September of 2004 to discuss conversion of the residence into an office use, but no formal applications were filed or approved. The use is still considered residential by the Qty and the proper buffer is required. Based on the matrix 18.745.1 the buffer required along the northern boundary is Buffer A. This is a ten foot buffer made up of lawn or li en' ground cover. The site plan provided shows how the standard is met. The applicant has pro osed a 5 foot landscape strip that is made up of trees and groundcover. In addition there is another 50 plus feet of lawn area between the landscape strip and the existing structure. The required buffer along the eastern and western boundaries is Buffer C The proposed buffer includes a 6 foot wooden fence and five foot wide landscape strip. With a fence the minimal required landscape strip is 8 feet. This standard has not been met. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHFM&N OFFICE PAGE 10 OF 25 Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screening of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features wfiich effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. Planting materials to be installed should achieve a relative balance between low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed on the basis of one (1) tree for each seven (7) parking ~ -spaces in order to provide a canopy effect. The minimum dimension on the landsca a islands shall be three (3) feet wide and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. The parking areas associated with the proposed project are all shown to be screened from the right-of-way with shrubs and groundcover. The code requires a mix of low lying and vertical shrubbery and trees. This criteria has not been met. 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 of a solid wood fence or masonry wall between five and eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area; The plan submitted shows an A/C unit at the back of the home screened from neighboring residential uses %plantings. This does not meet the standard of a solid wood fence or masonry wall. Screening for the refuse containers is discussed below. 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, paring lot, residential or commercial area, or any public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or enclosed from view by placement o} a solid wood fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within the screened area. The site plan and narrative indicate that a screened trash enclosure will be provided. Screening is provided by rhododendrons. There is no indication of what materials are being used to enclose the area. This cntenon is not satisfied. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been fully met. Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage (18.755 pter 18.755 requires that new construction' onstruction 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 followin 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. ,gaidless of which method chosen, the applicant will have to submit a written sign-off from the franchise hauler regarding the facility location and compatibility. The applicant has not addressed Chapter 18.755.040. Therefore, Staff cannot determine which of the 4 methods will be used to demonstrate compliance. Location Standards. To encourage its use the storage area for source-separated recyclables 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 NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SH IZ&N OFFICE PAGE 11 OF 25 • 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 refuse container is proposed to be located along the eastern side of the structure. The pro pposed refuse container will not occupy any required parking stalls and screening is discussed previously in this decision. This criterion is satisfied. Design Standards. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Story a containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterprootgmaterials 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 clearlylabeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. The applicant has not submitted a detail of the trash enclosure or refuse container. FINDING: The applicant has not provided evidence of compliance with the Mixed Solid Waste and Recycfables Storage design standards. Neither has the applicant addressed one of the four methods of compliance. `This standard has not been met. Off-Street Parking and Loading (18.765 Location of vehicle parking: Off-street parking spaces for single-family and duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwellings. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: a) commercial and industrial uses which require more than 40 parkin spaces may provide for the y site; spaces in excess of the required first 40 spaces up to a distance of 3'00 feet from the primar The 40 parking spaces which remain on the primary site must be available for users in the following order of priority: 1) Disabled-accessible spaces; 2) Short-term spaces; 3) Long-term preferential carpool and vanpool spaces; 4) Long-term spaces. Proposed parking is located in front of the existing structure. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Joint Parking: Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may a ree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the peak hours of operation o not overlay, subject to the following: 1) The size of the joint parkin facility shall be at least as large as the number of vehicle parking spaces required b~yy the larger{est) use per Section 18.765.070; 2) Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; 3 ).If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, or if the uses change, the requirements of ttus title thereafter apply to each separately. Joint parking is not proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Parking in Mixed-Use Projects: In mixed-use projects, the required minimum vehicle parking shall be determined using the following formula. 1) Primary use, i.e., that with the largest proportion of total floor area within the development, at 100% of the minimum vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 2) Secondary use i.e., that with the second largest percentage of total floor area within the development, at 90% of the vehicle parking required for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that use(s) in Section 18.765. 60; 4) The maximum parking allowance shall be 150% of the total minimum parking as calculated in D.1.-3. above. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHMEN OFFICE PAGE 12 OF 25 Md propo sal is not considered a mixed-use project as it will contain solely office space; therefore this ard >s not applicable. Visitor Parking in Multi-Family Residential Developments: Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall rovide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use o~ guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development This project does not involve a residential use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term Carpool/Vanppool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and vanpool parkin for employees, students and other regular visitors to the site: At least 5% of total long-term parking s11 ces shall be reserved for carpool/vanppool use. Preferential parking for carpools/varppools be closer to the main entrances of the building than any other employee or student packing except parking spaces designated for use by the disabled. Preferential carpool/vanpool spaces shall beuIl-sized per requirements in Section 18.765.040N and shall be clearly designated for use only by carpools and vanpools between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM Monday through Friday. The proposed parking lot contains a total of 6 parking spaces. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. Disabled-Accessible Packing: All packing areas shall be provided with the reTured number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. No disabled accessible parking is being proposed. Conversions do not require these spaces based on the requirements of the International Buildnig Code. The Building Department has reviewed the project and has no objections. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Access Drives: With regard to access to public streets from off-street parking: access drives from the street to off- street packing 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- 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; access drives shall have a minimum vision clearance in accordance with Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance; access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface; and excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.810.030.P, groups of two or more packing 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 access drive has been addressed previously in this decision. All of the access standards have not been fully met. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access through parking lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.705.030.F. Where a parking area or other vehicle area has a drop-off grade separation, the propert y owner shall install a wall , railing, or other barrier which will prevent a slow-moving vehicle or driverless vehicle from escaping such area and which will prevent pedestrians from walking over drop-off edges. Pedestrian access has been discussed previously in this decision and there are no drop-off edges that require barriers. NOTICE OF TYPE IT DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 13 OF 25 Parking Lot Stri ping: 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 intenor drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. The plans submitted show the parking spaces will be clearly marked with striing. Direction of flow is not marked but is obvious considering only one access is provided. Therefore, this standard has been satisf iea. 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. Wheel stops that meet the standards outlined above will be provided as stated in the narrative. This criterion is met. Space and Aisle Dimensions:, Section 18.765.040.N states that. "except as modified for angled parking in Figures 18.765.1 and 18.765.2 the minimum dimensions for parking spaces are: 8.5 feet x 18.5 feet for a standard space and 7.5 feet x 16.5 feet for a compact space"; aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends, shall be 24 feet in width. No more than 50% of the required spaces may be compact spaces. There are six proposed parking spaces. Three of these are compact and the other three are standard spaces: All six meet the required dimensions as currently designed, but the parking lot may need to be reconfigured to meet other code requirements. Bicycle Parking Location and Access: Section 18.7650 states bicycle parking areas shall be provided at locations within 50 feet of primary entrances to structures; bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas or pedestrian ways; outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional siggns shall be used to located the parking area; and bicycle parking may be located inside a buildng on a floor which has an outdoor entrance open for use and floor location which does not require the bicyclist to use stairs to gain access to the space. Exceptions may be made to the latter requirement for parking on upper stories within a multi-story residential building. The site plan shows an area for bicycle parking near the southwest corner of the building and is accessible via a proposed sidewalk. This standard has been met. Bicycle Parkin Design Requirements: Section 18.765'050.C. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: The racks required for required bicycle parking spaces shall ensure that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience. Provision of bicycle lockers for long-term (employee parking is encouraged but not required; bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the groun3, wall or other structure; bicycle parkin spaces shall be at least 21/2 feet by six feet Ion g, and when covered, with a vertical clearance of-seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shad be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; each required bicycle panting space must be accessible without moving another bicycle; required bicycle parking spaces may not be rented or leased except where required motor vehicle parking is rented or leased. At cost or deposit fees for bicycle parkin are exempt from this reqqu~irement; and areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced matenar ie., pavers, asphalt, concrete or similar material. This surface must be designed to remain well drai.ned The applicant has only provided a site plan indicating the location of the bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard has not been satisfied. NOUCE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 14 OF 25 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. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. According to Table 18.7652 of the Tigard Development Code, the minimum bicycle-par. 'on requirement for an office use is 0.5 spaces per 1,0000 square feet. Although the minimum regrred spaces based on the square footage is one, the applicant must supply two as noted in the code above. Based on the narrative the applicant is only proposing one bicycle parkuig space. Therefore, this standard has not been satisfied. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Section 18.765.070.H states that the minimum and maximum parking shall be as required in Table 18.765.2. Required minimum off-street parking for this development is 2.7 per 1,000 square feet for office uses. The requirement is six spaces, and the applicant has proposed six pain the layout must be changed to meet landscape buffering requirements arong the eastern boundary of tie site. 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 40,00 gross square feet or more. The building is not greater than 10,000 square feet; therefore, the applicant is not required to provide a loading space. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have not been fully satisfied. Si ns (18.780): Chapter 18.7 0.130.1) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in the MUE Zoning Distract. Typically sign permits are reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit process, but the applicant is request' the review concurrently with the Site Development Review. As notedin the Tigard Triangle Code section 18.620, signs for non-residential development iii the Tigard Triangle must meet the requirements for signs within the Professional Commercial (GP) zone. Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned GP including: (a) One multi-faced, freestanding sign per premises shall be permitted, subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; b A reader-board assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; c~ The maximums uare footage of freestanding signs shall be 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 squareleet for all sign faces. No part of-any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; (d) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and (e) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed eight feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 1b feet in height; NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHINvIEN OFFICE PAGE 15 OF 25 • • One freestanding sign is proposed to the west side of the access drive and is outside of the public right-of- way. The applicant states within the narrative that the sign will be 32 square feet per face. Based on the pLim provided by the appplicant, the square footage is approximately 15 square feet per face. Neither exceeds the maximum square footage allowed in the zone, but it is unclear which is correct. The height is limited to ten feet by the 1%rd Triangle sign standards. The proposed sign is five feet four inches tall and therefore cannot be placed ie proposed location within the visual clearance area. The visual clearance requirements are discussed in more detail later in this report. FINDING: Although the sign most likely does not exceed the size limits, contradictory information has been provided on the s~'gr1 size. The location of the sign also cannot be approved because it is placed within the visual clearance area and is over to feet in height. The criteria of this section have not been met. Tree Removal (18.790 Section 18.790. 30 requires that a tree plan for the plan tin~ , removal and protection of trees prepared s a certified arborist shall be provided with a site deveropment review application.. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a rogram to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are toe removed, protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Section 18.790.040 states that any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and s6H not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The }orm of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. The Existing Conditions Plan identified the location and species of all exist' trees, but the diameter sizes of several trees were missing. The circumferences of two trees were provided,-but it was not stated where the measurements were taken on the tree. Only one tree was marked for removal, an ornamental Dogwood. The 4pplicant has proposed planting another tree on the site to mitigate for the removal of the tree. It is unknown or how much mitigation is necessary based on the information provided. No tree protection was proposed with the application. The City Forester has commented on the project and finds the tree plan unacceptable. Conditions of Approval were given by the qty Forester to ensure compliance with the standards; but because the application is being denied, these conditions do not apply. FINDING: The applicant has not provided a tree plan conducted by a Certified Arborist. 1Vr igation cannot be determined and no protection is proposed for the trees to be saved. The tree removal standards have not been met. Visual Clearance Areas 18.795 pter 18.795 requires 'that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area sha]Fcontain no vehicle, hedge, planting, Tence, wall structure, or temporary, or permanent obstruction exceeding three (3) feet in height. The code provides that obstructions that may be located in this area shall-be visually clear between three (3) and ei ht (8) feet in height (8) (trees may be placed within this area provided that all branches below eight 8) feet are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed b measuring a 30-f6ot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway, and then connecting these two (2), 30-foot distance poits with a straight line. The applicant has indicated in the narrative that a clear vision area will be maintained. Contrary to the narrative, the proposed sign is shown to be located within the visual clearance area and is over the maximum three foot height limitation. Therefore, this section has not been satisfied. NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 16 OF 25 • • C. SPECIFIC SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS Section 18.360.090(A)(2) through 18.360.090(A)(15) proyides additional Site Development Review approval standards not necessanly covered by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These additional standards are addressed immediately below with the following exceptions: The proposal contains no elements related to the provisions of the following and are, therefore, found to be inapplicable as approval standards: 18.360.090.3 (Exterior Elevations); 18.360.090.5 (Pri a and Noise: Multi family or Group Living Uses); 18.360.090.6 (Private Outdoor Areas: Multi-family Use ; 18.360.090.7 (Shared Chrtdoor Recreation Areas MultifamilYse); 18.360.090.8 (100 Year floodPlain); an 18.360.090.9 Pemarcation of Spaces). The following sections were discussed previously in this decision and, therefore, will not be addressed in this section: 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screenriiinrigg and Compatibility Between Adjoining' ' Uses; 18.360.090.13 (Parr; 18.360.090.14 (Yaridscaping);18-- .36 - U90.15 (Drainage); and 18.360.090.1 (Provision for the Disabled). Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Buildings shall be: located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing ~ site conditions; located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate li ght, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and oriented with consideration for sun and wind. Trees shall be reserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 8.790, Tree Removal. The building is a pre-existing home that is to be converted. The site is not in an area identified as prone to sliding. The site is relatively t with few trees and no slopes associated with the site. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, this standard has been satisfied. Crime Prevention and Safety: A. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; B. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; C. Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; D. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected andthe angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and E. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parkin lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that~ght patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. Windows exist on all sides of the building. The applicant has also proposed to add windows along the south and east sides of the building during the conversion of the garage to office space. The applicant states that lighting already exists to illumiriae pedestrian pathways, proposed park and the rear entrance to the building. The T Police have reviewed the application and have requested,an exterior lighting plan. This standard has not been met. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to an existing or proposed transit route; the requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: the location of other transit facilities in the area; and the size and type of the proposal. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: bus stop shelters; turnouts for buses; and connecting paths to the shelters. The site has frontage on SW Hermoso Way, which is not on a Tri met transit route, therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE H DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 17 OF 25 FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Site Development Review Standard have not been satisfied. Chapter 18.810 provides construction standards for theementation 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 widthpplanned 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 18.620.080.A, Tigard Triangle Street and Accessway Standards, requires a local street to have a minimum 60 foot nght of-way width and 36- foot 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 Hermoso Way, which is classified as a local street on the City of Tigard Transportation Ilan Map.. At present, there is approximately 25 feet of ROW from centerline, according to the most recent tax assessor's map. SW Hermosb_Wayis currently partially improved. The applicant has propposed dedication of ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline. The adjacent street does not meet the applicable standards and the applicant has not proposed to construct the adjacent street to the applicable standards. The project does not qualify for a publrc improvement guarantee in lieu of actual improvements as outlined in 18.810.030.A.5.a-f: a) A partial improvement is feasible; b) a partial improvement will not create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; c) the existing development on adjacent properties does not preclude extension of the improvements in the foreseeable future; d) the improvements are not in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan, e) the improvements are not associated with an approved land partition; and f) no additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street. Grades and Curves: Section 18.810.030.N states that grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12% on collector streets or 12% on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments wil ggrades up to 15% for distances of no greater than 250 feet). Centerline radii of curves shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The existing grade on Hermoso Way does not exceed 12%. Block Desigm - Section 18.810.040.A states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate buding sites for the use contemplated consideration of needs Tor convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic Q 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. There is difficulty in meeting the block standards for the area around the development. Topographical issues like the wetlands to the northwest of the site and proximity to an arterial (SW 721 and State Highway (Hwy 217) hinder connectivity in the area. Currently Hermoso Way only connects with streets to the south and east. There are no street connections to the north that are required at this time by the Transportation System Plan or Tigard Triangle Street Plan. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. NOTIa OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SI IIMIEN OFFICE PAGE 18 OF 25 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. Private streets and industrial streets shall have sidewalks on at least one side. The applicant has proposed to construct the public sidewalk along the Hermoso Way frontage. The proposed sidewalk does not meet the Tigard Triangle design standards of a 12 foot wide sidewalk along local streets. 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: 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. The applicant's plans indicate an existing sewer lateral serving this development. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.C states that a culvert or other drainage facility shall be lame enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development. The City Engineer shall approve the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of Design, and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water management (as adopted by Clean ater Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). There is no upstream drainage wayy ~that impacts this development. The applicant's plans show the extension of the public storm sewer line in Hermoso Way, but the applicant's narrative states that the plans are "filed under protest". While the applicant discusses some alternative to the extension of the pub&c storm sewer line, no plans were provided to review for adequacy. 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). In 1997, Clean Water Services (CWS) completed a basin study of Fanno Creek and adopted the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. Section V of that plan includes a recommendation that local governments institute a stormwater detention/effective impervious area reduction program resulting in no net increase in storm peak flows up to the 25-year event. The City will require that all' new developments resul ' in an increase of ' ervious surfaces provide onsite detention facilities, unless the development is loca=a jacent to Fanno Creel;. For those developments adjacent to Fanno Creek, the storm water runoff will be permitted to discharge without detention. The applicant's plans show an on site detention system that is part of the plan that has been "filed under protest . Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways: Bikeway Extension: Section 18.810.110.A states that developments ad'oining. proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall inclugle provisions for the future extension of such bikeays through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHIN TN OFFICE PAGE 19 OF 25 • • Hermoso Way is not a designated bicycle facility. 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 stone 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 detemunes 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 tee in-lieu of under-grounding. There are existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of SW Hermoso Way. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. The Nplicant has requested they be allowed to pay the fee-in-lieu of undergrounding the utilities along their ermoso Wayfrontage. ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Traffic Stud Findings: The. app 'cant did not provide a traffic impact report for this development. The report was to analyze two key intersections: SW 72`d Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street SW 68`h Parkway/SW Dartmouth Street The two critical intersections have been identified as needing traffic signals. As development has occurred in the Tigard Triangle, and where a development introduces additional trips to these intersections, funds have been collected from the developers that will contribute to the future signal installation. The first project to contribute funds to the intersections was the Babies R Us project. A supple formula was established based upon the impact from that development. That project had an r' act of T.1% at SW 72°d Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street during the PM peak hour. For that impact, the iffly Council required the developer to pay funds in the amount of $20,000.00. At the intersection of SW 68`h Avenue/SW Dartmouth Street, the act from that project was estimated to be 0.75%. For this impact, the developer was required to pay $10,0.00. Using this same rationale, a proportionate share has been calculated for other projects in the Triangle, and could have been calculated for this project..In order to provide the most fair comparison to the Babies R Us project, it is necessary to use the same anticipated total entenne volumes (MV) estimated as a part of the Babies R Us traffic report. That report anticipated more build-out of the triangle area, including the Tri County site at 72 /Dartmouth. NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 20 OF 25 Because the applicant did not submit a traffic impact report; the calculation for the contribution to these intersections from this development cannot be made. Fire and Life Safety: The TVFR comments include: 1) 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 psr'~ whichever is less as calculated usuig IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required trre flow is available from the Fire Marshall's Office. gFCB105.2) 2) Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in anap roved route around the exterior of the building, on site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system (TFC 508.5.1) 3) Approved fire apparatus access roadways and fire fighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. PC 1410.1 & 1412.1). There is an existing fire hydrant on the south side of Hermoso Way, approximately 140 feet west of the project's west property line. No fire flow data was supplied with the application. Public Water S tem: Tualatin V ey Vater District (I'VWD) provides service in this area. The applicant's plans indicate an existing 3/a" water meter that will be retained for use by this development. Storm Water li The City s agree 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. The applicant's plans show a storm filter catch basin for water quality. This catch basin is shown as part of the plans that were "filed under protest". Alternatives were discussed by the applicant in the narrative, but plans and calculations were not submitted for review. Gradin and Erosion Control: CWS sign an 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, clearin , and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per CWS regulations, the applicant is require to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City pemuts. 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 one or more acre of land. Since this site is over one acre, 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. The applicant's plans show grades for the proposed improvements, but. no erosion control plan was provided. Address Assignments: The City o Try ard is responsible for assr'g~ing addresses for parcels within the City of Tigard and within the Urban Service Boundary (LJS. An addressing fee in the amount of $50.00 per address shall be assessed. This fee shallbe paid to the City, prior to issuance of building permits. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00008 SFR` ,WN OFFICE PAGE 21 OF 25 • 0 E. IMPACT STUDY (18.3901 Section 18.360.090 states, "The 'rector shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions or denying an application:" Section 18.390.040 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.390.040 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. The applicant states that storm water created by increased impervious area on the site will be collected in an approved storm water catch basin with filter. No changes are proposed to the existing water service to the existing structure. It is expected that the new office use will decrease demand for water usage at the location. Sewer will be provided by connecting to the existing main line in Hermoso Way. Park fees are norp4y collected as System Development Charges at the issuance of building permits. Because this is an existing residence, the Tigard Buildiftg Division will issue a credit for this charge. The proposed use for the site is a professional office building. -11iis type of use does not generally produce noise that would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. The applicant is required to provide street improvements along the frontage of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.810.030.A. Only dedication of nght-of-way and a substandard sidewalk have been proposed. These improvements do not meet the Tigard Triangle street standards. This issue was also discussed under the Streets and Utilities section of this report. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has offered comments found in the land use file. The City of Tigard Building Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. The City of Tigard's City Forester has reviewed the proposal. and has offered the following comments. The City Forester's Conditions are not included in this decision because the application is being denied. A complete copy of the comments can be found in the land use file. 1. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.030.C, Installation Requirements The installation of all landscaping shall be as follows: 1. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures. The accepted planting procedures are the guidelines described in the Tigard Tree Manual. These guidelines follow those set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree planting guidelines as well as the standards set forth in the American Institute of Architects' ArrlutecturaGraphic Standards, 10`' edition. In the Architectural Graphic Standards there are guidelines for selecting and planting trees based on the soil volume and size at maturi ty. Additionally, there are directions for soil amendments and modifications. In order to develop tree species diversity onsite the following guidelines shall be followed: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2005-00008 SHIMEN OFFICE PAGE 22 OF 25 • • No more than 30% of any one family be planted onsite. No more than 20% of any one genus be planted onsite. No more than 10% of any one species be planted onsite. 2. The plant material shall be of high grade, and shall meet the size and grading standards of the American Standards for Nurberg Stock (ANSI Z-60, 1-1986, and any other future revisions); and 3. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this title. D. Certificate of Occu anc . Certificates of occupancy shall not be issued unless the landscaping requirements have been met or other arrangements have been made and approved by the Caty such as the posting of a bond. Pursuant to findings in 18.790.030.B below, tree mitigation will not be required. E. Protection of Existing Landscaping. Existing vegetation on a site shall be protected as much as possible: 1. The developer shall provide methods for the protection of existing vegetation to remain during the construction process; and 2. The plants to be saved shall be noted on the landscape plans (e.., areas not to be disturbed can be fenced, as in snow fencing which can be placed around the- individual trees). _ Any tree that is located on property adjacent to the construction project that will have more than 15% of its root system disturbed by construction activities shall also be protected. The applicant shall establish fencing as directed by the project arborist to protect the trees to be retained. The applicant shall allow access by the qty Forester for the purpose of monitoring and inspection of the tree protection to verify that the tree protection measures are performi4m adequately. Failure to follow the plan or maintain tree protection fencing in the designated locations shall be grounds for rnmediate suspension o? work on the site until remediation measures and/or civil citations can be processed. 18.745.040, Street Trees B. Street tree planting list. Certain trees can severely damage utilities, streets and sidewalks or can cause persona injury. Approval of any planting fist shall-be subject to review by the Director. Street trees shall be chosen from the City of Tigard's Street Tree List unless otherwise approved by the City Forester. I suggest plant' native species of trees as street trees such as bigle~af maple, cascara or Oregon white oak. Properly sized oaks can be found at River Oak Farm & Nursery. Call Diane at 503-357-2745. 2. TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030. Tree Plan Requirement A. Tree plan rewired. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a cue" d 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 wherever possible. The applicant did not submit a tree plan conducted bya certified arborist so the application is unacceptable. B. Plan requirements. The tree plan shall include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; NOTICE OF TYPE II DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 23 OF 25 The packet of information identified the location and species of all existing ' trees, but the diameter sizes of several trees were missing. The circumferences of two trees were provided, but it was not stated where the measurements were taken on the tree. 2. 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 18.790.060D in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: a. Retention of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program in accordance with Section 18.790.060D of no net loss of trees; b. Retention 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 in accordance with Section 18.790.0601); c. Retention of from 50% to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper re quires that 50 percent of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D, d. Retention of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. The applicant's tree removal plan indicates the trees on the property that are to remain and those proposed for removal. Because the tree plan is incomplete I cannot determine the tree mitigation requirements. This will have to wait until I receive a complete arborist report. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; The one tree that is proposed to be removed is identified in the applicant's survey. 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees daring and after construction. The guidelines for tree protection are not outlined in the tree plan. 18.790.040 Incentives for Tree Retention B. Subsequent removal of a tree. Any tree preserved or retained in accordance with this section may therea r be remove only or the reasons set out in a tree plan in accordance with Section 18.790.030, or as a condition of approval for a conditional use, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction as a condition of approval of any development permit affected by this section to the effect that such tree maybe removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist. The deed restriction may be removed or will be considered invalid if a tree reserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. A condition of approval will ensure that this standard is met. SECTION VIII.. AGENCY COMMENTS Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approvaL• NOTICE OF TYPE 11 DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE PAGE 24 OF 25 i • 1) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - RE UIRED FIRE FLOW The re cared fire flow for the s all not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute GP or e available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IF C, endix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's C+fficeC B1052) 2) FIRE HYDRANTS - COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS: Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a t on a ire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the building, on site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. This distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system qFC 508.5.1) 3) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved ire apparatus access roadways and i~ ting water supplies s e ins e an operational prior to anycombustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (MC 1410.1 & 1412:1) We were unable to locate a fire hydrant on the submitted drawings. If there is a fire hydrant meeting the requirements of Items # 1 and # 2 as noted above, the fire district has no other concerns regarding this proposal. SECTION IX. PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION Notice: Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to: X The applicant and owners X Owner of record within the required distance X Affected government agencies Final Decision: THIS DECISION IS FINAL ON MAY 19, 2006 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 6, 2006 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal 1 edeecision of the Director (Type H Procedure) or Review Authority Eyed. e II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it >s Any p with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.8.1. ma appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of theTimard Community Development Code which pro vides that a written appeal together with the required fee be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the notice of the decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard Gty Hall, 13125 SW Hall-Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the gplicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the spec' is issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment period. Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal maybe submitted by any party during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time to time by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS AT 5:00 PM ON JUNE 5, 2006 (Duestions: I you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. May 19, 2006 PREPARED BY: Cheryi Caines DATE Assistant Planner NOTICE OF TYPE H DEQSION SDR2005-00008 SHINN EN OFFICE PAGE 25 OF 25 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM JI CY) LMHURST ST SITE i MOSO WAY Q' BEVELAND RD BEVELAND RD zz N Q n GONZAGA ST CD sw HAMPTON VICINITY MAP SDR2005-00008 SHINMEN OFFICE 0 N 0 200 400 600 Feet 1"= 408 feet b a Information on this map is for general location only and - Should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hail Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 aT e! wW '3 3 : 3 fn N 2 O z n 3 r z t^ C w N f p 3 o O P6. c• -v TEL! POLE G11Y~NC sc. to _ 0 u ut G ! 0 3 rq z )PI z IM~OC NNb ►LgM TAW, aC al' ID [apt Y~N6 CVtd N 0 0 ATTACHMENT 2 RECEIVED AP P EAL FILING FOJUN-02.2006 FOR LAND USE DECISIOI&FTIGARD CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (5D~~~~=TZPGINEERING The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the '56-M ?005 Application Being Appealed: S~I~~bO~-b~OB~f 4- 60 25_$f -3 (!5 SHI MaSo r~ ADD . GR How Do You Qualify As A Party?: ~D L i 041&1 Appellant's Address: "73(6 SU-) {jjff,=QM050 tk~W City/State: ' (16 o4 A J> Zip: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(5D3) & X q - O q i7 Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: ,~U N 2 00 (.0 Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: MCUt q( aW8 2 Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: SEF_ ATroc ff b r3 Piur-s 5 A'7` C N Case No.(s):~ Case Name(s): 5(41L)I J46" Receipt No.: Application Accepted By: Date: Approved As To Form By: c~T Date: Denied As To Form By: Date: Rev. 7/1/05 is\curpln\masters\revised\appeal.doc REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS . ✓ Application Elements Submitted: ❑ Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Filing Fee (based on.criteda below) ➢ Directors Decision to Planning Commission $ 250.00 ➢ Expedited Review (deposit) 0:60 ➢ Hearing Referee $ 500.00 ➢ Planning CommissionlHearing's Officer to City council $ 2,387.00 Transcript) re(s) 114 ,L ~ to 0 0 APPEAL FILING FORM J :OR LAND USE DECISIONS (C • i - - - SPECIFIC-GROUNDS-FOR-"PEAS Applicant:.M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Wav 1. Section H. Allegedly applicant has not met the, standards of the following code sections: 18.360(Site Development Review), 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards), 18.705 (Access, Egress & Circulation), 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening), 18.755 (Solid Waste & Recyclable Storage), 18.765 (Off-Street Parking & Loading Requirements), 18.780 (Signs), 18.790 (Tree Removal), 18.795 (Visual Clarence Areas), and. 18.810 (Streets Utility). Page 2 of the Decision The decision and pertinent findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the whole of the record, the Director improperly construe the applicable law, the decision and pertinent findings made an unconstitutional decision, the decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The above described finding appears to be a summarized findings that rely upon more detailed findings subsequently in the decision. Therefore, the applicant incorporates herein the specific grounds for appeal subsequently identified in this listing of the grounds for appeal. 2. Section VI B. Parking Location and Landscape Design. The finding alled eg s that contrary to the landscape plan the applicant's narrative. indicates that no trees are being installed along Hermoso Way, therefore the landscape standards are not met and are further discussed under section 180.745 Landscaping and Screening. Page 5 of the Decision In addition to the grounds for appeal listed in Appeal No. 1, the Director misinterpreted the Applicant's application submittal. In Paragraph 3, page 16 of the Narrative, the Applicant does identify that the applicable code section 18.745.040 appears to not require any street trees since the applicant's property is less than 100 ft. wide. However, the Applicant states at the bottom of the paragraph that the Applicant will comply with the street requirements of the city code and Applicant's attached Landscape Page - 1 i • Plan (Exhibit "C"), which specifically identifies that the Applicant is planting four (4) street trees within the Park ay a Bing ermoso ay. The App icant-has fac ut-ally - complied with the code, and in fact, exceeded the code requirement. See, Applicant's additional comments under the narrative for code section 18.745 and in this appeal statement here after. 3. Section VI B. Sign Location. Finding that the placement of the sign is within a prohibited visual clearance area. Page 7-8 of the Decision. ' The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer on appeal approve the sign application subject to a condition of approval that the sign be moved westward, on the west side of the entrance sidewalk and just north of the small landscaped island of juniper bushes to a location outside the "visual clearance area" required under the code. In the alternative, if the Hearings Officer on appeal refuses or is unable to approve the this modified location for the sign, the Applicant then withdraws its application for a sign at that time, and will resubmit an application at a future date. Therefore, under either of the above options, the applicant'g application is in compliance with all applicable code provisions, including the standards required for the Tigard Triangle Design. Further, the Decision defers comments regarding the landscape standards to the discussion under code provision 18.745. The applicant also defers its comments regarding this ground for appeal to the applicant's discussion hereinafter regarding code 18.745. 4. Section VI B. Additional Applicable Development Code Standards for required walkways The finding alleges that the applicant has failed to identify what surface material is used for the sidewalks and therefore the standard under code 18.705 is not met. Page 8 of the Decision. The Applicant has identify that he intends to construct "a 6 ft. wide concrete walkway connection (with scored concrete)" for the sidewalks included in the "Site Development Plan (Exhibit "D"). As identified in the plans, this six-foot wide concrete walkway or sidewalk extends along the frontage of the street and from the street sidewalk to the office building. See also paragraph four at page 12 of the Narrative. Indeed all permanent surfacing is concrete with the exception of the asphalt parking lot (See bicycle pad at page 18, paragraph five of the Narrative). As a clarification, whereever the Site Development Plan identifies a "sidewalk" that is a sidewalk constructed with concrete that is scored. Therefore, the Applicant has complied with all applicable code provisions. 5. Section VI B Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H. The findings declared that "a preliminary site distance certification" was not submitted for review, and therefore, the access egress and circulation requirements have not been met. Page 8-9 of the Decision. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff formally declared that the application was complete for feview (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this Page - 2 • • representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the ---~di'~ion eve ence m suppo of~he groan s or appe :The irec or ids prove e a - staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a preliminary site distance certification of the subject property under separate cover, and this submittal establishes that the application complies with a code 1$.705.030.H. 6. Section VI B. Landscaping and Screening (18.745), Street Trees (18.745.040). Finding and that the landscape plan calls for a planting of "flowering plum trees" along Hermoso Way street frontage and that these trees are not listed on the "City's Street Tree Planting List" Also a fording is made that the applicant's narrative precludes any street trees in the application. Page 10 of the Decision. First, Applicant's attached Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C"), specifically identifies that the Applicant is planting four (4) street trees within the Park Way abutting Hermoso Way. Applicant's identifies that the applicant will comply with the details listed in the Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C"). The Director has merely misinterpreted the language in the Narrative. See response in Appeal Grounds No. 2 above. The Applicant has complied with the applicable code provisions. Second, code 18.745.040 B. specifically states that the Director can approve an applicant's proposed planting list. This code provision does not specifically limit the Director's authority to only a "City's Street Tree Planting List" which is not included or mentioned in the applicable code provision. Contrary to this finding, the City did approve "flowering plum trees" to be planted as street trees for a residential unit conversion to professional offices at 13425 SW 72nd Ave.(SDR 91-0015). The Applicant requests approval of the street trees as proposed, and if the Hearings Officer fords these type of trees are unauthorized, then the Applicant agrees to modify the application to change the street trees to plant alternating big leaf maple (2) and Oregon White Oak (2) (as proposed by the Director in the findings at page23). Thereby, the Applicant has complied with all applicable a code provisions. 7. Section VI B Buffering _and Screening (18.745.080 and matrix 18.745.1). The finding alleges that the Applicant is proposing a six-foot wooden fence and a 5 ft. wide landscape strip along the eastern and western boundaries of the property, and therefore the Applicant fails to comply with the requirements of Buffer C in the matrix 18.745.1. Page 10 of the Decision. The Applicant in the Narrative identifies that the Applicant will comply with the landscape design in Exhibit C. Nowhere in the Narrative does the Applicant state that the landscape strips on the east and western boundaries are only 5 ft. wide. The Director's Page - 3 • • finding is in error. At page 12 the Applicant does state that the landscaping area in the - - front of the property o e south-) sepaz ing the par ' g lot-fromflie sidew - sepaza e~lc from the "public right of way") will be a minimum of 5 ft. in width. Possibly this confused the Director, however, it is unrelated to the side yard standard. The Landscape plan requires an eight-foot wide landscaped strip on the east, west and north sides of the property, with a six-foot high fence along a most of the east and west boundaries (reducing height to 3 ft. near the front of the property). See, Exhibit C. For clarification, the Applicant declares that these landscaping strips are 8 ft. wide. The Applicant has complied with all applicable to code provisions. 8. Section VI B. Screening (18.745.050 E. 10.). The finding alleges that the code requires one tree for each 7 parking spaces with a landscape island having a minimum dimension of 3 ft. wide. The finding further alleges that the application has not met that Decision. First, code 18.745.050 E does not state that one tree must be provided for a parking lot with less then seven parking spaces. Instead, the code provision requires one tree for "each seven" parking spaces. The Applicant's proposed landscape plan and site plan only has six parking spaces. Since there are not seven parking spaces, this code provision does not require a separate tree in a separate landscaped island. In addition, the code states that the purpose is to "provide a canopy effect." The Landscape Plan (Exhibit "C.") identifies that the parking lot will be bracketed on the east and west sides by trees [existing large Birch tree to the west and two landscape trees to the east (the latter being in a landscape island area wider than 3 ft.)]. These trees will provide a canopy effect over a substantial portion of the parking lot. In the event that the Hearings Officer finds that an additional tree is required, the applicant thereby modifies the application to replace the sign improvement located in an island (wider than 3 ft.) abutting the parking lot (See Exhibit C) and the tree will be an Oregon White Oak. Under the circumstances, the Applicant requests this change as a condition of approval. Thereby, all of the applicable provisions of the code are satisfied. 9. Section VI B. Screening of Refuge Containers (18.745.050 E). The finding alleges that the proposed screening for the A/C unit does not met the code standards because it is not screened by a solid wood fence or masonry wall. Page 11 of the Decision. The Director appears to have misapplied the code provision. Code 18.745.050 E states that screening of a service facilities is only required for air conditioners "which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area". The Applicant's A/C unit is located behind the proposed office structure on the North Side. At this location, the A/C unit is not visible and from a public street, customer or resident parking area. The properties to the east and west, abutting the subject property, both have their residence parking areas on the southside of each of their residences (thus, the subject Page - 4 • • property building obstructs any view). In addition, the Applicant's landscape plan en fence~a ong the east-west an ~Ch-sitie~ofthe-- - --incorporate siK__fa_0_`t-hig soli~ wood. a subject property. This fence would obstruct any view of the A/C unit. The code provision does not require that the wooden fence be immediately abutting the A/C unit. The code provision merely requires that the solid wooden fence shall screen the unit "from view." The Applicants plan complies with that requirement. In the event the Hearings Officer determines that a separate fence must be placed around the A/C unit, the Applicant requests that this requirement be made a condition of approval (a five foot high solid wooden fence). Under either option, the landscaping and screen standards have been fully satisfied. 10. Section VI B Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (18.755.040). The finding alleges that the applicant has not addressed this provision and therefore the staff cannot determine which of the four methods which were used to demonstrate compliance. Page 11 of the Decision. The Applicant's site development plan and landscape plan identify a solid waste and recyclable storage area at the back of the office structure. This storage area will be 12 ft. square feet which exceeds the minimum requirements of the code. See Narrative at 17. The Applicant is proposing garbage collection (franchise hauler) with a garbage collection container stored in this area. See Narrative at page 7. Essentially this area is served by Pride Disposal who collects the garbage at the street front on selected days for collection (land owners are provided rolling containers to be rolled to the street frontage for collection). The Director did not require a franchise hauler review and sign-off prior to declaring that the Applicant's application was complete. Applicant's Narrative identifies that the storage container will be a garbage container (franchise hauler's standard container) and this storage area will be 12 ft. square feet that is surrounded by a six-foot high solid wooden fence, with access gate. The Director's finding appears to now require some submittal of the "detail of the trash enclosure or refuge container." The applicable code does not appeared to require such a submittal. As previously stated, the storage enclosure will be surrounded by solid six-foot high wooden fence. This fence, in turn is landscaped with rhododendrons and the eastern and northern boundaries of the property are blocked by another six-foot high solid wooden fence. That declaration should be sufficient under the terms of the code. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set Page - 5 • 0 of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an -------opportumty for re u~al argument and prove a rebuttal evidence pnor to-the fm-W-- decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting under separate cover a franchise hauler review and sign-off, and a detail of the trash enclosure. Applicant has thereby satisfied all of the applicable code requirements. 11. Section VI B. Access Drives and minimum visual clearance (18.795 and 18.705). The Director has made a finding that all the access standards have not been fully met based upon the previous discussion pertaining to a sign proposed to be located in the minimum division clearance area. Page 13 of the Decision. The Applicant has fully addressed this issue of the sign and these applicable standards in Appeal Grounds No. 3 above. In essence, the Applicant has requested that sign be moved westward outside the restricted area as a condition of approval, or in the alternative, the sign application be withdrawn. Under either option, the Applicant has satisfied all the applicable a code requirements including the findings pertaining to this Appeal Grounds No. 11. 12. Section VI B. Space and Aisle Dimensions (18.765.040 H.). Finding that the parking lot may need to be reconfigured to meet other code requirements. Page 14 Hof the Decision. Although this is a finding that does not support a denial of the application, it is nevertheless factually in error. As identified above in Appeal Grounds No. 7, the proposed landscaping strip along the east and west boundaries of the subject property are 8 ft. in width (thus, no reconfiguration of the parking lot is necessary to meet code requirements). 13. Section VI B. Bicycle Parking Design Requirements (18.765.050. C and H.). Findin that the applicant has not provided drawings or plans for the bicycle parking and materials identification, other than the site plan indicating the location. Also the finding that the code requires two parking spaces for bicycles and the applicant is proposing only one space: therefore allegedly the Applicant has not met the off-street parkins and loading standards. Pages 14-15 of the Decision. The Applicant's Narrative at page 18, paragraph five, identifies that a bicycle parking is to be located within 50 ft. of the primary entrance, bicycle racks provided and the area to be constructed as a concrete pad. Exhibit D. The Site Development Plan further identifies that this bicycle parking pad will be located abutting the entrance sidewalk. If the Hearings Officer determines that the code requires two bicycle parking spaces, the Applicant hereby modifies its plan to include two parking spaces for bicycles at the same location has designated on the Site Development Plan (Exhibit D). The concrete pad for this bicycle parking will then provide for two 2 1/2 feet by 6 ft. spaces Page - 6 • 0 with an aisle of 5 ft. in width between the two spaces. The Applicant requests this - - modilicaion one owe y the Hearings Officer as a condition o approva The Director did not require additional plans for the bicycle parking spaces at any time prior to the Applicant's application being deemed complete by the City. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a modified plan, under separate cover, for the bicycle parking that complies with the requirements of 18.765.050. 14. Section VI B. Signs (18.780). Finding that the proposed location of the sign cannot be approved because it is within a visual clearance area and is over 3 ft in hen hg t, and therefore the criteria has not been met. Pages 15 and 16 of the Decision As identified in Appeal Grounds No. 3 above, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer on appeal approve the sign application subject to a condition of approval that the sign be moved westward, on the west side of the entrance sidewalk and just north of the small landscape island of the juniper bushes to a location outside the "visual clearance area" required under the code. In the alternative, if the Hearings Officer on appeal refuses or is unable to approve this modified location for the sign, the Applicant then withdraws its application for a sign at that time, and will resubmit an application at a future date. Therefore, under either of the above options, the applicant'sapplication is in compliance with all applicable code provisions. 15. Section Vl B. Tree Removal (18.790). Finding that the diameters of several trees is not included in the Applicant's submittal and that the applicant has not provided a tree plan conducted by a Certified Arborist, and therefore the tree removal standards have not been met. Page 16 of the Decision. First, the trees in the backyard of the subject property (north yard) are in an area in which there is no proposed improvements, and all of these trees are proposed to be retained. There is no functional purpose for providing their diameter sizes. Their present locations are designated on the Landscape Plan (Exhibits C) in the Site Development Planned (Exhibit D.). The only tree proposed to be removed is an ornamental tree located in the center of the proposed a parking lot. The remaining tree in the front yard (south yard) is to be retained and no improvements are to be located at or near that tree. Under the provisions of the code mitigation is required to replace the removed tree. The applicant's Landscape Plan proposes planting 16 additional trees on the property (in Page - 7 • • excess of the 4 street trees to be also planted). A protective fence just beyond the canopy drip Iine and in accordancewitli code requirements il~ e e wporari~y erected around-the - - - remaining Birch tree in the front yard during construction. The mitigation requirement is satisfied. In essence, a Certified Arborist's report is not necessary to identify that the one tree proposed to be removed will be eliminated and that all the other remaining trees will be retained and unaffected. The Director did not require a Certified Arborist's report at the time the Applicant's application was formally declared to be complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a Certified Arborist's report, under separate cover; *and thereby the Applicant has complied with all the applicable code requirements. 16. Section VI B. Visual. Clarence Areas (18.795). Finding that the proposed sign is located in a visual clarence area , and therefore the requirements are not satisfied. Page 16-17 of the Decision. Again, as identified in a Appeal Grounds No. 3 above, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer on appeal approve the sign application subject to a condition of approval that the sign be moved westward, on the west side of the entrance sidewalk and just north of the small landscape island of the juniper bushes to a location outside the "visual clearance area" required under the code. In the alternative, if the Hearings Officer on appeal refuses or is unable to approve the this modified location for the sign, the Applicant then withdraws its application for a sign at that time, and will resubmit an application at a future date. Therefore, under either of the above options, the applicant's application is in compliance with all applicable code provisions. 17. Section VI B. Crime Prevention and Safety (18.360.090 A 10). Finding that the Tigard police has requested an exterior lighting_planand because the applicant has not provided that plan the code provisionris not satisfied nor the requirements of the site development plan standard. Page 17 of the Decision. Code 18.360.090 A 10 does not require the submittal of a lighting "plan" in a form other than a narrative. The Applicant's Narrative at page 9 identifies that exterior lighting already exists in the front and rear of the subject property to illuminate the parking lot area, pedestrian pathways, entrances and patio satisfying the code requirements. Page - 8 • • The Director did not require a lighting plan (other than the narrative plan) - - - - -fo be requireT before--th-e---,kp-pYCaht s appIicafion was form-la ly declare to be comp ere for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting a lighting plan, under separate cover, and thereby the Applicant has complied with all the applicable code requirements. 18. Section VI B. Street and Utility Improvements Standards (18.810). Finding that the aDplicant allegedly has not proposed construction of the adjacent half street improvement in the project and does not qualify for a public improvement guarrantee in lieu of actual improvements. Page 18 of the Decision. First, the Applicant at page 19 and 20 of the Narrative first requests that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of the Applicant being immediately required to construct the half-Street improvement otherwise required under the code. The Applicant makes that request pursuant to a code to 18.810.030 A (5) and sets forth the reasons and substantial evidence for compliance with that code provision allowing a guarantee at pages 20-21. The Director's finding, without any substantial evidence, has denied the request and appears to have simply ignored the supporting reasons in evidence in the Applicant's Narrative. Second, the Applicant has agreed to provide the half-street improvement required by the code if the request for a "future improvements gguarantee" is finally denied by the city. See the Applicant's "3-10-06 Modification to Narrative" and Applicant's letter to Cheryl A. Caines dated March 8, 2006. The Director's decision seems to ignore those portions of the Applicant's application. 19. Section VI B. Sidewalks 18.810.070). Finding that the proposed sidewalk does not allegedly meet the standards of a 12 ft. wide sidewalks along the streets. Page 19 of the Decision. The Site Development Plan (Exhibit D.) and the Landscape Plan (Exhibit C.) both identify that the sidewalk and parkway area total 12 ft. in width as required under the applicable code provisions. The applicant is proposing to construct the sidewalk in accordance with the requirements of 18.810.070. See Narrative at 22 paragraph 3. During the pre-application conference the representative of the Applicant asked the City staff what was the correct sidewalk and a parkway/planter dimension requirements under the code. The Staff could not give an answer to that question except that the total was to be 12 ft. wide. As a result, the Applicant included a discussion of the contrasting code provisions in paragraph "2 a" starting at page 21 through page 22 of the Narrative. Page - 9 • • -Since the Ci rStgfwas not able-to ctaannfy ttie dimension-la - standards for the sidewalks and parkway/planter, and the Director's Decision just declares noncompliance without identifying what the standard is, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer identify the correct standard to be applied and the Applicant modifies the application to comply with that standard. In essence, the Applicant has provided a combination that equals 12 ft. and needs a city clarification as to how wide the sidewalk and the parkway/planter area should be within that 12 ft. overall width. 20. Section VI B. Storm Drainage (18.8 10. 100). The finding alleges that the applicant has not provided any plans to review for adequacy relating to alternatives to an extension of the public storm a sewer. Page 19 of the Decision. In the Applicant's "Supplemental Application Statement" dated December 14, 2005, the Applicant identifies that connection to a storm sewer in Hermoso Way is, in fact, not required because of the impacts from the proposed application to do not necessitate such a connection. The Applicant also proposes numerous alternatives, all of which are capable of being reviewed by the City Star and the Director for adequacy. The Applicant hereby incorporates this Supplemental Application Statement as support for this Appeal Grounds No. 20 , along with all the documentation from Applicant's engineers (LDC). First, the Applicant has requested that immediate connection to a storm water sewer be not required (because it is, factually, not necessary) and that Applicant be required to connect to such storm sewer if it is eventually constructed in the future. Second, the Applicant has provided, under protest, engineering calculations and plans for a storm sewer and connection thereto by the Applicant; and thereby the Applicant has complied with all requirements of the code. The Applicant has asserted that if he is required by the City to construct the entire storm sewer solely at his own expense, this expense will not be roughly proportional to the adverse impacts generated by the proposed application, and thereby the requirement would be an unconstitutional "taking" of his property. The Applicant believes that the proposed alternatives in the "Supplemental Application Statement" provide a reasonable, legal and practical solution for both the Applicant and the City's needs and responsibilities. The Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer approve the application with a proposed alternative as a condition of approval. 21. Section VI B. Traffic Study Findings. The Finding alleles that the Applicant did not provide a traffic impact report for this development. Page 20-21 of the Decision. Contrary to the Finding, the Applicant did included as part of the application documents a traffic impact study by the traffic engineers, CTS, in a report dated November 22, 2005. This record did, in fact, do an analysis of the traffic through the intersections of SW 72nd/ SW Dartmouth Street and SW 68th/ SW Dartmouth Street. Page - 10 • • The Director seems to have overlooked that document. A duplicate copy is attached here . 'I e llcanl I M9 full-fully-thepp q plicafile cade re uirem-e~t . _ PP Y p 22. Section VI B. Fire and Life Safety. Finding that a fire hydrant is located within an acceptable distance from the subject property but no fire flow data (a report from the fire marshal was supplied with the application. Page 21 of the Decision. The Director and City Staff did not require a report or data statement on the fire flow for this hydrant prior to declaring that the Applicant's application was complete. Indeed, this hydrant is in existence and has been serving the existing subject property and its surrounding neighbors for approximately 40 years without an operational problem. The decision and pertinent findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting this documentation under separate cover. The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. 23. Section VI B. Storm Water Quality. The Finding reasserts the same finding previously raised that the Applicant has filed a storm water plan under protest and that the plans and calculations for the alternatives were not submitted for review. Page 21 of the Decision. This is a reiteration of the Director's findings in Appeal Grounds No. 20. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeal, arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 20. 24. Section VI B. Grading and Erosion Control. The finding is that no erosion control plan was provided for the parking lot and construction. Page 21 of the Decision. Exhibit A identifies that there is only a 1 ft. elevation change for the area where the proposed parking lot is to be constructed. Since the entire parking lot is level and is of essentially the same grade, there will be no "acceleration" of erosion which would otherwise incur the application of a code restriction. Thus, an erosion control plan "drawings" are not required. Alternatively, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer approve the application with a condition of approval that the Applicant submit to the City an erosion control plan prior to issuance of City permits for construction of the improvements. Page - 11 • In addition, the Director and City Staff did not require erosion control plan prior - - - ----to decFaan-nhaffhe- pplicant s pplica ion was comp etc Phee ecision anpei men findings required the applicant's submittal of additional evidentiary information after the Director (through the City staff) formally declared that the application was complete for review (without the submittal of this additional evidentiary information); and the applicant reasonably relied upon this representation of completeness and, therefore, applicant is entitled to submital of the additional evidence in support of the grounds for appeal. The Director did not provide a staff report, memoranda of the City Staff representations to the Director or a proposed set of findings prior to the final decision; thereby precluding the applicant with an opportunity for rebuttal argument and provide rebuttal evidence prior to the final decision. The applicant did not waive these rights. ORS 197.763(4) and (6). The Applicant is submitting this documentation under separate cover, The Applicant has thereby complied with all applicable code provisions. 25. Section VI B. Impact Study (18.390). Finding that only a dedication of right-of- and a substandard sidewalk has been proposed, and therefore the iMprovements did not meet the code requirements. Page 22 of the Decision. Again, this is a reassertion of the the findings pertaining to a Appellant's Appeals Grounds No. 18 and 19 above. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeals arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 18 and 19. 26. Section VI B. Landscaping and Screening. Finding that Applicant must comply the tree species diversity requirements on site. The site currently consists of five trees and the Applicant is proposing to remove one dogwood tree that is presently located in the middle of the proposed parking lot. In accordance with the code requirements for tree replacement on the property, the Applicant would be required to replace that removed tree with a new tree. In addition, the Applicant must plant street trees (which he has proposed as the code requires - 4 trees). This would be a minimum total as required under the code of 9 trees. The Applicant's landscape plan provides for these 9 trees. The Applicant is also proposing to plant 15 additional trees on the property. These additional trees are not required by the code. If the Hearings Officer finds that the species, genus or family of these additional trees violate City Requirements, the Applicant requests that the Hearings Officer allow a condition of approval for the following: (1) delete the violating trees from the application, or (2) allow the Applicant to modify the plan to a substitute a variety of different species, genius and family of trees to satisfy the requirements (the Applicant is submitting this documentation under separate cover). With the exception of the tree to be removed from the proposed parking lot, all construction will not interfere with the root system of any existing tree on the site (let alone 15% of that root system). Also, fencing shall be provided around the existing Birch tree in the front yard to protect its root system. Furthermore, the Applicant (on suggestion of the Director in the Decision) agrees Page - 12 • 0 to modify the street tree plan to plant alternating big leaf maple (2) and Oregon White - ----O-1a c~2)-The App icanas i er~by compile with all ap ip cable code provisions. 27. Section VI B Tree Removal. Finding that the applicant did not submit a report by a certified arborist The finding also asserts that the caliper of only the effectived trees was determined but not the height that it was taken, and retention requirements for trees of over 12 in. is not addressed. Page 23-24 of the Decision. Again, this is a reassertion of the same finding regarding alleged requirement for an arborist report as identify in Appellant's Appeal Grounds No. 15. The Applicant reasserts herein the grounds for appeal, arguments and evidence previously submitted for Appeal Grounds No. 15. As regard to the caliper of the trees, the caliper was taken at a 4 foot height of ground-level as required by the code. The Applicant's Narrative identifies that the only tree removed from the site will be the ornamental dogwood in the front yard. This tree will be replaced and the code requirements are exceeded by the a proposed landscape plan. All other trees, including the large trees, will be retained. Therefore, the Applicant's application complies with all the requirements pertaining to retention of existing trees over 12 in. in caliper. If the Hearings Officer finds that additional information is needed, the Applicant requests that as a condition of approval the Applicant be required to make that submittal to the City prior to issuance of any construction related permits. M. M. Shinmen Page - 13 • November 22, 2005 Project: OR05.050.T20 - Hermosa Trip Generation Ms. Kim McMillan City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: PM Trip Generation of the Hermoso Office Conversion Located at 7315 SW Hermosa Way City Casefile: SDR2065-00008 Dear Ms. McMillan: As requested, I have computed the potential weekday trip generation and assignments of traffic through the SW Dartmouth/SW 72nd Ave and SW Dartmouth St/SW 68th Ave intersections for the proposed Hermosa Office development based on standard ITE rates. The applicant is proposing to convert an existing 2,005 GSF single family home located at 7315 SW Hermosa Way to office space with no change to the building's gross square footage (see Figures 1 and 1A). This analysis was performed in response to the City of Tigard's Notice of Incomplete Submittal letter dated October 4, 2005. Site-Generpted Traffic Volumes Table 1 presents the estimated net new vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed Hermosa Office building. Notably, the existing single family home the applicant is proposing to convert is currently occupied, and it's trips are already on the roadway system. Thus, generated trips from this home have been deducted from the overall site generated trip estimate for the office use proposed. Furthermore, the applicant should receive Traffic Impact Fee Credit for this existing home's generated trips. Access to the proposed office will be provided via a new 24 foot wide driveway located approximately 22 feet west of the east property line on to SW Hermoso Way. The existing residential driveway will be removed as part of proposed frontage improvements. Using standard trip rates for General Office Building (Land Use Code 710) and Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use Code 210) as presented in the ITE Trip Generation Report (71" Edition), it is estimated the proposed Hermosa Office conversion development will generate a total. of approximately 12 new vehicle trips on the adjacent street system during a typical weekday, including 3 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 2 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Table 1: Trill Generation Estimate for Buildout of the Hermosa Office Conversion Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Trips Total In Out Total In Out Hermosa Office - 2,005 GSF General Office Building 22 3 3 0 3 1 2 Land Use Code 710 Less Existing On Site - 1 Home Single Family Detached Housing -10 -1 -0 -1 -1 -1 -0 Land Use Code 210 Hermosa Office Net New 12 3 3 0 2 0 2 Site Generated Traffic CTS Engineers o vorm~ mmoo~r 2008S NW TAHASBOURHE OR. HILLSBORO OR 92124 PH 503.690.8080 fX 503.64S.S930 WWW.CTSENGINEERS.COM HILLSBORO. OREGON BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON Hermoso Office Conversion Page 2 A November 22, 2005 Directional Distribution and Assignment of Site-generated Trips Commuter traffic generatecr6y fhe Hermoso "C-e-anversian deveiopmentwas-assigned-to-th C - roadway network by considering the buildings proximity to major arterial roadways in the vicinity of the site. As shown in Figure 1, the main roadways in the vicinity of the site are SW 72"d Ave, SW Dartmouth St, as well as Highway's 99W, 217, and I-5. Based on the locations of these roadways, we estimate that the majority (about 65 percent) of vehicle trips to/from the proposed office use development will be traveling to/from the north along NE 72nd Ave. Figure 2 shows these trip distribution patterns as well as the resulting assignment of site-generated traffic during the critical AM and PM peak hours. Notably, the PM trip contribution to the intersections of SW 72nd Ave/SW Dartmouth St and SW 68`" Ave/SW Dartmouth St is one vehicle trip, which addresses the City's incomplete item. If you have any questions related to the data or analyses contained in this report, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincer , H ward S. Stein,.P.E. Transportation Engineer Attachments RENEW DATE 7/2006 . 1..4% rn,, v &Y k office Conversion HermoSite Location Drawir9 {dot TO Scale Proposed Site OR05.050.T20 _ Her,oso office (f~ ~s Enytnee~s 0 • Figure 1A: Proposed Site Plan For The Hermoso Office Conversion CT-S) l l N Drawing Not To Scale Figure 2: We0day Peak Hour Site GenerateWraffic Volumes From The Hermoso Office Development Net New Added Site Traffic ZOOS GSF General Office - 1 Single Fam. Home On Site = Net Site Generated Trips 7 2:005 GSF Office In Out n-J) 1) AM Peak Hour 3 0 PM Peak Hour 1 2 N - Existing Home In Out ° AM Peak Hour 0 1 PM Peak Hour 1 0 Net New Site In Out AM Peak Hour 3 0 PM Peak Hour 0 2 (~T Engineers ~w r3 iJ A i I 1. Drawing Not To Scale Traffic Signal Stop Sign Proposed Site AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes OR05.050.T20 - Hermoso Office TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET RATES Development: Hermoso Office Conversion Size: 2,005 GSF ITE Land Use Code: General Office Building, Code 710 (7th Edition) Variable: Per 1,000 GSF (G) Total Weekday Trips T=11.01x(G) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 11 11 22 Site Distribution 500A 50% 100% Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips T=1.55x(6) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 3 0 3 Site Distribution 88% 12% 100% Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips T = 1.49 x (G) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 1 2 Site Distribution 17% 83°x6 hkdl (*-c Engineowou,..P.v TRIP GENERATION WORKSHEET RATES Development: Hermoso Existing Home Size: 1 Homes ITE Land Use Code: Single Family Homes, Code 210 (7th Edition) Variable: Number of Homes (H) Total Weekday Trips T=9.57x(H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 5 5 10 Site Distribution 50% 50% 100% Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips T=0.75x(H) Enter Exit Total 11 Vehicle Trips 0 4 1 1 1 4 d Site Distribution 25% 75 % 1 10 0,10 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips T = 1.01 x (H) Enter Exit Total Vehicle Trips 1 0 1 Site Distribution 63% 37% 100%0 CTS Engineers • ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant's Statement M. M. SAINMEN Application for Change of Use to Office and Site Plan Approval 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, Oregon REPRESENTATIVE & AGENT: John W. Shonkwiler, PC 13425 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 624-0917 Fax: (503) 684-8971 • JOHN W. SHON%WILER, P. C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue" Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax(503)684-8971 Phone(503)624-0917 March 13, 2006 Attn: Cheryl A. Caines City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Cheryl: • i RECEIVED PLANNING MAR. 1 4 2006 CITY OF TIGARD Thank you for your fax dated March 9, 2006. Enclosed please find three copies of replacement section to the "Narrative" responses for CDC 18.810.030 pertaining to a "Street improvement" requirement. Also enclosed is a letter I received from your office dated March 9, 2006 that appears to include a mistake. The letter is addressed to my office and reflects the file number for my client, M.M. Shinmen. However, the body of the letter refers to a "Minor Land Partition" and the need to submit additional materials to have a complete application. As you know, the Shinmen application is not a partition and is only for site development review. Also, prior communication with your office have previously identified that the Shinmen application materials are "complete" for review. I assume that this letter reflects two separate applications that got mixed together. Sincerely, O W. SHONKWILER, P. C. f ~ W . John W. Shonkwiler cc: M. M. Shinmen Page - 1 s 1 ~ 3-10-06 MODIFICATION TO NARRATIVE APPLICATION STATEMENT of M. M. SHINMEN, L.L.C. 7315 SW Her moso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 1. INTRODUCTION The Applicant, M. M. Shinmen, owner of the property located at 7315 SW Hermoso Way, Tigard, Oregon (Map Reference 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300) modifies the Applicant's Statement "Narrative" for response to Streets - CDC 18.810.030 A Improvements regarding the requirements for a "Half Street" improvement. II. Street and Utility Improvement Standards - CDC 18.810.030 A Improvements a. Half Street Improvement. Subsection 2 and 3 provide that a development must meet the standards for streets and that a development may be approved for a half-street improvement standard. The Applicant acknowledges that a half Street improvement is required under the provisions of the code to be built by the Applicant in accordance with city standards. The proposed Site Plan prepared by LDC shows the proposed future change of use and relocation of the street curbing for the widening and half street improvement. At page 14 of the "Applicant's Statement" the Applicant acknowledges the requirement of a five foot dedication by the Applicant to widen SW Hermoso Way for this half street improvement. Separately in a subsequent response of the Applicant's "Narrative," the Applicant proposes that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of being required to currently construct the half-street improvements. The Applicant makes this request pursuant to CDC 18.810.030 A (5). If the City duly denies that request for a postponement of these improvements to the future, the Applicant acknowledges that this means that the halfstreet improvement along the property's frontage is required concurrently with the approval of this application. See, Applicant's letter to Cheryl A. Caines ddted March 8, 2006 that was declared a modification of the application by the Applicant. M. M. Shinmen 3-10-06 Modification to Narrative - 1 b .1 - - - - W.j T% REPORT s~a~~s~x~s~sasaa~a>rca~~~x~~~e TRANSMISSION OR T%/R% NO 1587 CONNECTION'TEL 5036848971 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 03/09 15:19 USAGE T 00'53 PGS. SENT 4 RESULT OK City of Tigard 13125 SWHa11Ovd. 11 Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 FAX TRA V SI\ .1. AL Date Maxch 9, 2006 c~ Number of pages including cover sheet To: john Shonkwiler From: C!1 r 1 C es Co: Co: C.r of Tigard Fax 503-684-8971 Fax Ph SUBJECT: Shinmen SDR2005-00008 ~90.3~639-4171,E 2437. MESSAGE: The City Engineer bas reviewed your request to postpone the street imptovetnents along SW Hermoso Way. Because it does not meet any of the conditions outlined under Tigard Development Code 18.810.030A.5, postponement is not an oadon for this project. A revision to the nauative addressing section 18.810 is necessary to clarify t:iat street improvements meeting City standards are being proposed with this development. I am including a copy of notes made by Kim McMillan, Design Review Engineer. Please contact me if you have any .questions. JOHN W...SHONKWILER, P. C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd.Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax (503) 684-8971 Phone (503) 624-0917 March 8, 2006 Attn: Cheryl A. Caines City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Applicant: M. M. Shinmen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Cheryl: PlAftri"Y Thank you for your fax dated March 7, 2006 regarding the requirements of a half street improvement along the frontage of the Shinmen property on SW Hermoso Way. I realize a lot of time has gone by since the application was first filed and we also may have a simple misunderstanding in the language used in the application. To clarify, the Applicant has identified at page 20 of the "Applicant's Statement" that the applicant's proposed change of use requires, under the City's code, that adequate public facilities be provided or made available. The Applicant also identifies that the proposed development plan complies with those requirements. This includes the requirement of a half street improvement along the frontage of the property. The proposed Site Plan prepared by LDC shows the proposed future change of use and relocation of the street curbing for the widening and half street improvement. At page 14 of the "Applicant's Statement" the Applicant acknowledges the requirement of a five foot dedication by the Applicant to widen SW Hermoso Way for this half street improvement. To clarify, the Applicant, as part of the application, has agreed to provides a five foot wide dedication along the front page of SW Hermoso Way and to provide a half street improvement along this frontage as required by the City's code. In addition, at pages and 20-21 of the "Applicant's Statement," the Applicant is separately requesting that compliance with this requirement for a half street improvement be postponed to the future under the provisions of CDC 18.810.030 A.5. That code provision allows for the possibility of such a postponement and sets forth criteria which are specifically addressed by the Applicant in pages 20-21 of the Statement. If the City duly denies that request for a postponement of these improvements to the future, the Applicant acknowledges that this means that the halfstreet improvement along the property's frontage is required concurrently with the approval of this application. Page - 1 • This letter is intend to be part of the Application. I hope this letter satisfactorily clarifies the Application. Thar you for your cooperation. Sincerely, W. SHONKWILER, P. C. ~U . LLG~ ohn W. Shonkwiler cc: M. M. Shinmen Page - 2 C • • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON March 7, 2006 Mr. John Shonkwiler 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR2005-00008 Shinmen Site Development Review Dear Mr. Shonkwiler: Kim McMillan, the City's Design Review Engineer, and I have re-reviewed the above application. As you and I discussed yesterday, the application is complete but some items are inadequate. In lieu of street improvements, you have proposed a future improvements guarantee. Section 18.810.030.A.5 outlines the conditions under which a guarantee is acceptable. None of these conditions are met for this site, thus the street improvements along the site's frontage are required. Because the application does not meet this standard, the only option is to deny the application. In regards to the options you have proposed for the storm line extension, those can be reviewed and conditioned for accordingly through the review process. I will be deeming the application complete and beginning the review process. Please contact me after reviewing this letter. My phone number is (503) 718-2437 or e-mail is cherylcntig_ard-or.gov. Sincerely, Cheryl A. Caines Assistant Planner 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 U3/U'!/LUUD 10:DU VAA OUaQUO TRANSMISSION OR TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT 01'11 ur TIUAKL *xc scnc TX REPORT 1562 5036848971 03/07 16:50 00'16 1 OR IQJUU1 March 7, 2006 cinroF riGaRu OREGON Mr. John Shonkwiler 7315 SW Hermoso Way. . Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR2005-00008 Shinmen•Site Development Review- Dear-Mr. Shoakwilet: Kiln McMM=, the City's •Design Review •Engineer, and I Have z6-reviewed the above . application, As qou and I discussed yesterday, the application is '.complete but some items are inadequate. In.lieu of street improvements, you have proposed a future improvements guarantee. • Section 18.810.030.A.5,outlines the conditions under which a guarantee is " acceptable. None of these condidoras are met for this site,, thus the'street impiovetaents' -along the site's frontage-are required. Because the application does not meet this standard, the only option is to deny the application: In regards to the'options you have proposed -for the storm-line extension, those can -be reviewed and conditioned for accordingly through the' review process. I will be deeming the application complete and beung the review process. Please contact me after reviewing this letter. My phone number is (503) 718-2437 or e-mail is rherylc(@62ard-or.a ov. Sincerely, f 0 3-10-06 MODIFICATION TO NARRATIVE APPLICATION STATEMENT of M. M. SHINMEN, L.L.C. 7315 SW Her inoso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 I. INTRODUCTION • The Applicant, ~=M. M: Shinmen, owner of the property located at 7315 SW Hermoso Way, Tigard, Oregon (Map Reference 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300) modifies the ApISlicant's Statement "Narrative" for response to Streets - CDC 18.810.030 A Improvements regarding the requirements for a "Half Street" improvement. II. Street and Utilitv Improvement Standards - CDC 18.810.030 A Improvements a. Half Street Improvement. Subsection 2 and 3 provide that a development must meet the standards for streets and that a development may be approved for a half-street improvement standard. The Applicant acknowledges that a half Street improvement is required under the provisions of the code to be built by the Applicant in accordance with city standards. The proposed Site Plan prepared by LDC shows the proposed future change of use and relocation of the street curbing for the widening and half street improvement. At page 14 of the "Applicant's Statement" the Applicant acknowledges the requirement of a five foot dedication by the Applicant to widen SW Hermoso Way for this lialf street improvement. Separately in a subsequent response of the Applicant's "Narrative," the Applicant proposes that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of being required to currently construct the half-street improvements. The Applicant makes this request pursuant to CDC 18.810.030 A (5). If the City duly denies that request for a postponement of these improvements to the future, the Appticant acknowledges that this means that the halfstreet improvement along the property's frontage is required concurrently with the approval of this application. See, Applicant's letter to Cheryl A. Caines dated March 8, 2006 that was declared a modification of the application by the Applicant. M. M. Shinmen 3-10-06 Modification to Narrative - 1 JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax (503) 684-8971 Phone (503) 624-0917 March 8, 2006 Attn: Cheryl A. Caines City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Applicant: M. NV ' Shiiunen SDR 2005-00008 Hermoso Office Conversion at 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Cheryl: • Thank you for your fax dated March 7, 2006 regarding the requirements of a half street improvement along the frontage of the Shin-men property on SW Hermoso Way. I realize a lot of time has gone by since the application was first filed and we also may have a simple misunderstanding in the language used in the application. To clarify, the Applicant has identified at page 20 of the "Applicant's Statement" that the applicant's proposed change of use requires, under the City's code, that adequate public facilities be provided or made available. The Applicant also identifies that the proposed development plan complies with those requirements. This includes the requirement of a half street improvement along the frontage of the property. The proposed Site Plan prepared by LDC shows the proposed future change of use and relocation of the street curbing for the widening and half street improvement. At page 14 of the "Applicant's Statement" the Applicant acknowledges the requirement of a five foot dedication by the Applicant to widen SW Hermoso Way for this half street improvement. To clarify, the Applicant, as part of the application, has agreed to provides a five foot wide dedication along the front page of SW Hermoso Way and to provide a half street improvement along this frontage as required by the City's code. In addition, at nnoPC nnrl')(L') 1 of the "Annlirnnt'c CtntPmPnt" the Annlirnnt is cPnaritely rPrniectino that compliance with this requirement for a half street improvement be postponed to the future under the provisions of CDC 18.810.030 A.5. That code provision allows for the possibility of such a postponement and sets forth criteria which are specifically addressed by the Applicant in pages 20-21 of the Statement. If the City duly denies that request for a postponement of these improvements to the future, the Applicant acknowledges that this means that the halfstreet improvement along the property's frontage is required concurrently with the approval of this application. Page - 1 i This letter is intend to be part of the Application. I hope this letter satisfactorily clarifies the Application. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, OHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. John W. Shofikwiler cc: M. M. Shinmen Page - 2 M. M. SHINMEN, L.L.C.. 7315 SW Her moso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 December 14, 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION STATEMENT SDR 2005-00008 1. Additional Application Documents. The application is to change the use of the property from single-family residential to professional office as allowed in the MUE zone as a pennitted use. Pursuant to a letter dated October 4, 2005 from Matthew Scheidegger, Associate Manner, additional documents were required by the Development Review Engineer for., completing the application. In compliance with that request, enclosed with this "Supplemental Application Statement" are three copies of : (1) Preliminary Engineering Drawings, (2) Preliminary Storm Drainage Record, and (3) Trip Generation Report. These documents address the issues raised by the Development Review Engineer regarding grading, street issues, sanitary sewer issues, water issues, storm drainage and water quality issues. 2. Condition of Approval that Appiicant construct or pay for extension of public storm sewer a. Applicant objects to the condition of approval. Applicant contests the proposed condition of approval by the Development Review Engineer that the Applicant be responsible for constructing or paying for the extension of the 12 in. public storm sewer for approximately 600 ff. along Hennoso Way. The above documents which are submitted by the Applicant for the purposes of obtaining a review, which include drawings for the extension of the 12 in. public storm sewers are filed under protest. b. The proposed condition constitutes an unconstitutional "taking." The proposed condition of approval for extension of the public storm sewer constitutes an unconstitutional "taking" of the Applicant's property without just compensation because the adverse impacts from the proposed use are not roughly proportional to the costs of constructing the stone sewer extension, and the stone sewer extension is not factually necessary to address storm water flow generated at the subject property. The Applicant's proposed underground detention and filtration storm water system retains on site all storm water generated, with the sole exception of a 100 year event. A 100 year event would only create an excess storm water flow of 0.172 cfs which can be retained on site with a grass filtration swale. In fact, the impact of the proposed development does not even create an excess storm water flow of 0.172 cfs. Instead, the difference between the pre-developed condition of the subject property and the proposed post-developed property is only 0.02 cfs (which can be satisfactorily retained and treated Page 1 by an on-site biofilter swale). See, attached LCD letter memorandum and Preliminary Storm Drainage Record. Thus, a city required connection to the 12 in. storm sewer is not factually necessary for addressing impacts of the uses at the site, nor legitimate public health, safety and welfare matters of the City of Tigard. if the City requires extension of the 12 in. storm sewer to the Subject Property, the requirement that the Applicant construct at his own expense or pay for that extension excessively exceeds rough proportionality. There are 19 separate properties (tax lots) in the applicable storm water drainage basin abutting SW Hermoso Way. Excluding the three tax lots which appeared to have already participated in storm water sewer improvements (Tax Lot 1609, and the two tax lots along the west side of Hermoso Way), there are 16 properties remaining which potentially would , be served by a storm water sewer. These remaining properties are Tax Lots: 1100, 1200, 1300, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404,-1400, 1603, 1602.3 1601, 1800, 1700, 1605, 1607, 300 (of 2S 101 BA). Dividing the projected $50,000 storm sewer construction cost by 16 establishes the roughly proportional share for Tax Lot 1300 (subject property) - Proportional Share by number of lots or ownerships is $3,125 per lot. A second way of calculating a roughly proportionate share is by comparing the percentage of storm water generated from the subject property as compared to the overall storm water for the applicable storm water basin. According to the engineering report, the subjectproperty 's storm water, contribution would be 6.34% for a 25 year event and 6.28% for a 100 year event. Applying these percentages to the projected $50,000 construction cost results in a roughly proportionate share. for the. subject: property of $3,170 for a 25.year event and a $3,140 for a 100 year event. By comparison, the subject property possesses pre-existing improvements which included impervious surfaces. As identified by the engineer's report the difference between the pre-existing use and the proposed post development use is only a storm water generation of 0.02 cfs. Applying this increased storm water generation from the subject property as a result of the proposed development impacts to the $50,000 construction cost results in a roughly proportional share by actual increased impact of 5365.12. c. The proposed condition of approval that the Applicant provide a complete stormwater sewer for 600 feet of the street length is an unconstitutional exaction. The requirement of a right-of-way dedication to incorporate the construction of a storm water sewer extending 600 ft. imposes an unconstitutional exaction. Applicant's engineer has identified that all storm water can be retained and treated on site with Applicant's proposed improvements. Thereby, there is no factual need for this proposed use to construct and connect to a city required storm water sewer. There is no legitimate govertunent interest that would arguably be advanced. The City's declared need for the construction of the storm water sewer is to provide adequate drainage for storm water runoff generated at the subject property and because it is required in the City's ordinance. As a result, there is no requisite essential nexus between the exaction of requiring Page 2 construction/connection of the storm sewer and the public interest that the exemption was purportedly designed to promote..Nollan v. California Coastal Conunission, 483 US,825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed.2d 677 (1987). In addition, merely requiring an improvement by an ordinance provision does not create a sufficient justification for an unconstitutional exaction. J.C. Reeves v. Clackamas County, 131 Or. App. 615, 887 P.2d 360, 365 (1994). " Under Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994), the City must make an individualized determination that the required exaction is related both in "nature" and "extent" to the impact of the proposed development. This is a determination of "rough proportionality." Here, the construction of a complete storm water sewer would ultimately be used for the benefit of all property owners along the same street. The projected cost for this storm water sewer system would be approximately $50,000.:) i As identify above, the actual increase in storm water run off generated by the Applicant's proposed use is only 0.02 cfs which is a roughly proportional share in the cost of the storm water construction equivalent to $365.12. Even assuming a factual storm water impact by the proposed application (which., the Applicant denies), the roughly proportionate share in the need and use of such a storm water system would not exceed $3,170. A requirement that the Applicant solely pay for the construction of the entire $50,000 storm water sewer system is clearly not proportional to. the actual value ($3,170) related to the storm water impacts of the Applicant's proposed use. Such a condition of approval- would-violate the well-settled. doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions" and constitute an unconstitutional "taking." Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or. App. 220, 884 P.2d 569 (1994). 3. Alternative Solutions SW Hernioso Way is zoned for mixed-uses and comprises 18 separate and smaller lots._ Over the recent years, a pattern has developed of several of these lots redeveloping from residential to commercial office space. It is reasonably to expect that, in the relative to near future, that most of the length of SW I-Iennoso Way will seek land-use approvals for conversion to commercial uses. Many of these properties are currently up for sale. The Applicant proposes as the most appropriate solution or condition of approval that the City; (1) approve the application without requiring the immediate construction of and connection to a storm water sewer, and (2) requiring the Applicant to enter into an agreement to contribute the Applicant's rough proportionality share in the eventual construction and connection to the storm sewer when it is eventually constructed (when a sufficient number of abutting property owners have applied for land-use approvals). Other potential solutions that are practicable in liu of immediate connecting to a public storm sewer are: (1) installation of a biofilter swale, (2) an advanced payment of a fee as identified above for the rough proportionality share of the proposed public storm sewer, (3) bonding for the rough proportionality share of the proposed public storm sewer Page 3 (4) waiver of remonstrance to form a public storm sewer LID; (5) contract or deed restriction to connect to and pay proportionate share for the public storm sewer when it.: is eventually constructed, or (6) the City and the landowner enter into a contract where landowner constructs the storm sewer and the landowner is subsequently entitled to reimbursement, plus interest, when additional landowners connect to the storm sewer. A A Shinmen h Page 4 (LDC Design Group o Porct? torspc.~y January 10, 2006" Attn: John Shonkwiler Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72"d Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax (503) 684-8971 Phone (503) 624-0917 20085 NW Tanasbourne Drive Hillsboro, OR 97124 P 503.858.4242 F 503.645.5500 www.ldcdesign.com Subject: Hermoso Office Conversion Dear Mr. Shonkwiler: This letter is in response to the notice of incomplete submittal in Case File No. SDR2005-00008. The letter was dated October 4, 2005. The subject site is 251-01AB tax lot 1300. Below are the.. items. that. you have requested us to elaborate on, in regards to the.storm drainage and water quality issues for the site. .1. A connection to. an. approved public storm conveyance facility. is a requirement of the City of Tigard. Since a public storm sewer is not readily accessible to the site and drywells are not allowed by the city's building ::department, the city has requested that the public storm sewer be extended to the: site's east frontage as one alternative. The pre-development flows for the site for the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year events are 0.063, 0.101, 0.120 and 0.147 cfs respectively. The post-development flows for the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year events are 0.084 cfs, 0.125 cfs, 0.142 cfs and 0.172 cfs respectively. The difference between the pre-developed and post- developed for the 2, 10, 25 and 100 year storm events is approximately 0.02 cfs. Such a difference is essentially negligible, and does not warrant a public storm sewer extension from a hydraulic capacity standpoint. The post-development flows for the total basin for the 25 and 100-year events are 2.24 and 2.74 cfs respectively. The post-development flows for the site basin for the 25 and 100-year events are 0.142 and 0.172 cfs. The percentage of flow that the Hermoso Way site is contributing to the total basin for the 25 and 100-year storm events is 6.34% and 6.28% respectively. 0 Thn nr rrrnnf nrnnnenri cfnrm mnfar cvctom rnncictc of a ctnrm water mananemPnt r.Atr.h ha-in filter and a 42 inch underground detention system, which meet the City of Tigard's water quantity and quality requirements. However, the water quantity and quality requirements could also be met by an on-site swale and pond, which would then discharge through a weep hole in the curb. Thus eliminating the need for storm sewer extension. 3. The approximate cost for constructing the 12 inch public storm sewer from the sites east property line to the existing public storm line in Hermoso Way would be in the range of $50, 000 to $60,000 dollars. This estimate includes mobilization, 600 feet of 12 inch storm sewer, four standard storm sewer manholes, one storm sewer cleanout and pavement restoration. 20085 NW Tanasbourne Drive L D C Hillsboro, OR 97124 P'503.858.4242 F 503.645.5500 Design Group www.ldcdesign.com . a0arctitar.,xny 4. Some alternatives that may be more feasible to propose to the City of Tigard are: (1) on-site swale, (2) bonding for the estimated proportional share of the proposed public storm sewer improvements, (3) a payment for the estimated proportional share of the proposed public storm sewer, (4) waiver of remonstrance to form a pubic storm sewer LID, (5) agreement or deed restriction to connect to and pay a proportional share for the public storm sewer when it is constructed, (6) the City and the landowner enter into a contract where the landowner constructs the public storm sewer and the landowner is subsequently entitled to reimbursement, plus interest, when additional landowners connect to the public storm sewer. Please let me know if you have 1ny further questions or concerns. r - Sincerely, r' Patrick Martin, PE Project Manager J 2 A 45 c, -j. 09 A, C T--~-~ - ,r 3-4 Ax,/2 A5 ! ~ Rte' ~ PER. ! 4 0S ,x XL ~c.. Y u i ~ i r f U 7 ; 0 0 n 4- 0 0 T I 1 T ~ C r. G C O a - '$M E" Ai T-1 I I L%._ h~4r oso •5O ` _ 1VqY O. I p .2,4 p rs~4 o Design Group V fl :~•t IF~PSEOURy~R `E 2005s, SSOPO. ORE 0", +4iLL 2 • PK 5"j"65. ~ \L 0.2W .Legend Subject Property looft. USGS Contour loft. USGS Contour Stream Route r f raphy " Topo g Figure 4.0 o Road Office Conversion Oregon Hermos County, City of Tigard 3 Washington source'. Dic. August 2005 Lite Data _ ? +o+cu+c IJ,etro Data Resource Censer, RUS ST 1 N Date: 11/1812005 Scale: 1" = 20011. Project n: 1019.001 prawn BY: Ct srI Project 1019.001 Hgr.moso Road Office Conversion RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH ...Site Basin - 25 Year --total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period = 25 years storm duration = 24 hr'. total rainfall = 3.90 in. pervious area = 0.06 A CN = 79 impervious area = 0.12 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.18 A peak flow ="t0.15cfs Q 7.83 hr. runoff volume= 2,007 clft. SRL 0:.49 I3-Jan-06 srI • SRL 9:49 13-Jan-06 Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road Office conversion RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Site Basin - 100 Year total Time of Concentration = 5.0' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period- 100 years storm duration = 24 hr.' total rainfall = 4.50 in. pervious area = 0.06 A CN = 79 impervious area = 0.12 A CN = 98 total site area = 0.18 A peak flow =~0.18cfs`Q 7.83 hr. runoff volume = 2,375 cJ.ft.: k ~ 0 srl SRL 55 09-Jan-06 Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road Office Conversion--.. RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH Entire Basin for Hormoso Way - 25 Year 2-year, 24-hour rainfall = 2.50" flow type description coeff. distance fall slope TIC 1 overlana.sheet dense.grasses n=0.24 150.0 1.0' 0.67%. 34.7' .2 shallow concentrated paved,gravel K=27 300.0 15.0' 5.00% 0.8' 3 intermittent channel paved.channel K=30 500.0 45.0' 9:.00% 0.9' total Time of Concentration = 36.4' storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return.period = 25 years storm durab}on = 241hr. total rainfall = 3.90 irk pervious area = 3.09 A. CN = 79 impervious area = 2.18 A CN = 98 total site area = 5.27 A peak flow = 2.24cfs © 8.00 hr. runoff volume = 50,114 cu.ft. s rl : Project 1019.001 .Hermoso Road Office Conversion RUNOFF by the SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPN Entire Basin for Hormoso Way - 100 Year .2-year, 24-hour.-rainfall = 2.50" flow type description 1 overlard'sheet dense.grasses 2•. shallow concentrated paved,gravel 3 'intermittent channel paved.channel storm hyetograph: SCS TypeIA return period = 100.years storm duratipn = 24 hr. total rainfall = 4.50 ink pervious area = 3.09 A CN = 79 impervio~is area = 2.18"A CN = 98 total site area = 5.27 A peak flow = 2.74cfs Q 8.00 hr. runoff volume = 60,391 cu.ft. SRL 1056 09-Jan-06 coeff.. distance fall slope TIC n=0.24 150.0 1.0' 0.67% 34.7' K=27 300.0 15.0' 5.00% 0.8' K=30 500.0 45.0' 9.'00% 0.9' total Time of Concentration = 36.4' x r~ ;17 O O OA Z n 0 r~ y m p1 0 S~ 8 b O b O CR d En I-j n 8 r z N O 8 ~jI pt°I ( N I N ~ I I EMSTIK CLE OUT S A 11+1 . R T. 0 u4V.I85.et uH IA ST STA 11+33 .4 RT. 4.27• I Rlu . 192.61 „ 19 0 12°-INV-W^(NE 1-186-31- w - - - 12'INVOUT( ).186.11 V. N EVES: 11+7 5 BVCE: 193.4 s 1 4 T1TA-11.+94• D-RI-4.27• 194.94 Iu . 194:49 - - 2" INV IN (E) 2" INV OUT IS 188.18 - 187.98 EVCS: 2+20 + o EVCE: 96.86 r 199.9 n - - - - loose \ ; 205.7 N 205.99 0 B S: 13+25 t t. \ B E: 208.85 211.6 - S 216. 4 SD MH 1C ST STA 14+35. 1 RT. 5.00 1 Rlu . 220.D7 221.26 12-TIM-tNIE)- - 12"INV OUT 212.61 5 ~ 5 o n 4 % j IT m IT z23! YS.A S 1 12 LT. 7.16 11_ l ~ N N ~ 7 2 I j1 I . ';m 8"INV IN(E)+ 217.01 11 1 a 8 7 7 111 11 -1 11 1 ---1 - 228., .I 1 22 ~ N I 1 „ 1 1 y h1 I I I I ' II b I I F I N • j1 11 11 I ( l - _a 112.5 If Il it - 1 1 1 233.34 - I I - 11 1 11 1 Ev S: 16+75 11 11 1 E E: 234.17 SD uH 1 234 5 + 1 . 234.94 RIM-23415 12" INV IN ((E . 224.00 1 - I 8• INV IN (E) n 224.33 1 12- INV OUT ( N) . 223.80 AI♦ 1 IM . 235.42 2' INV (w) 225.19 N I1~ I1,A 236.4 - 0 - 1 1 236.4 ~ v. 1 IP N 1 1 11 1 1 'I' A I 238.1 p 231.99 - I N I xTC SS uH 1 1 1 S TA 11 6 LT. 5.6 - - 23&87 239.5 NV IN (NE) T (r D ="rv e7 23o - - 239.51 - I- U - - . ,11 - I 241.0 - I - - LINC ENTER NTERSECTION _i I I SA' 71N. AV WIT ENUE O O O dill v N > HERMOSO WAY 1 1=~ - - xSS - RSS - xSS _ x55•-••??=fib. \ • I -xSD-xSD-xSO ~ I - xW - xW - xW - xW xW ° 0 I in°Rt i I mog 99 r > 'I ' I p N ° . V I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , i V N 002 C S F ) I I 0 o m l l 2. A4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 (°Z I I I I ~ ( 1 I I I R) 7 I - - O I I 1 H,. IK IF I II Ix IF Sly i2ND AVENUE II..~ F E > o II HISON • a s Planners DRANING TITLE: PROJECT, PREPARED TOR: En x CL Engineers JOHN W. SHONKWILER HERMOSO OFFICE CONVERSION 13425 SW 72ND AVENUE s Surveyors HERMOSO WAY TAX MAP 2S101A6 !o TIGARD, OREGON 97223 OLDS RW °°RR DR. PROPOSED STORM O --11 RIll5BOR0, OREGON 97134 . n PHONC:(505) m°-.2.2 TAX LOT 1300 u DESIGN GROUP rAx:(505) 645-55M ) PLAN/PROFILE l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Y r1 • 12 inch Proposed Public Storm Sewer Capacity 1019.001 - Hermoso Way Office Conversion Sewer Pipes English Units Civil Tools for Windows (12-20-2005, 14:03:10) Flowrate Diameter Friction Slope Velocity (cfs) (in) (fps) 7.37 - 12.00 0.013 4.28 9.38 11.35 12.00 0.013 10.14 14.45 6.38 12.00 0.013 3.21 8.13 1.59 12.00 0.013 0.20 2.03 (0 Applicant'S'StAtement M. M.SHINMEN Application for Change of Use to Office and Site Plan Approval 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, Oregon REPRESENTATIVE & AGENT: John W. Shonkwiler, PC 13425 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 624-0917 Fax: (503) 684-8971 a • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION A. The Proposal B. Nature of the Subject Property 1. Property Location and Size 2. Physical and Environmental Characteristics of the Site 3. Existing Improvements 4. Transportation and Nearby Transit Service H. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING III. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND COMMENTS IV. COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (MUE) COMPLIANCE............ A. Chapter 18.520 -Commercial Zoning Districts V. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS COMPLIANCE A. Development Review-Chapter 18.360 VI. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.620.... A. Purpose and Applicability - CDC 18.620.010 B. Street Connectivity - CDC 18.620.020 C. Site Design Standards - CDC 181620.030 D. Building Design Standards - CDC 18.620.40 E. Signs - CDC 18.620.050 F. Entry Portals G. Landscaping and Screening H. Street and Accessway Standards I. Environmental Performance Standards - CDC 18.725 J. Landscaping and Screening - CDC 18.745 K. Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage - CDC 18.755 L. Off-Street Parking - CDC 18.765 M. Signs - CDC 18.780 N. Tree Removal - CDC 18.790 0. Visual Clarence Areas - CDC 18.795 P. Street and Utility Improvement Standards - CDC 18.810........... Q. Inpact Study - CDC 18.390.040 VI. CONCLUSION VII. EXHIBITS A. Map of Subject Property B. Vicinity and Neighborhood Map C. Landscape Plan D. Site Development Plan E. Pre-Application Conference and Staff Notes - Conference No. 1 F. Pre-Application Conference and Staff Notes - Conference No. 2 G. Neighborhood Meeting Documents and Affidavits H. Sign Plans 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 11 11 11 11 12 13 14 14 14 15 15 17 17 19 19 19 20 23 24 Table of Contents - i • I. Existing Conditions Map J. Storm drainage Plan K. Warranty Deed L. Clean Water Services Report 0 • Table of Contents - ii • NARRATIVE APPLICATION STATEMENT of M. M. SB INMEN, L.L.C. 7315 SW Her mono Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 1. INTRODUCTION A. The Proposal The Applicant, M. M. Shinmen, owns the property located at 7315 SW Hermoso Way, Tigard, Oregon (Map Reference 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300) hereinafter the "Subject Property". See, Exhibit A. The Subject Property is currently zoned and planned for as Mixed Use Employment (MUE). The proposal is to change the use of the property from single-family residential to professional office as allowed in the MUE zone as a permitted use. A parking lot in the front of the existing structure would be provided for six parking places. The driveway entrance would be realigned to center on the parking lot. Landscaping and screening would be provided around the periphery of the parking lot. A sidewalk along the street and from the street to the structure will be constructed. Landscaping will be provided along the street and around the parking lot, as well as, around the structure. The existing building is 1530 square feet of developed space. This portion of the building will remain relatively unchanged. The garage area (approximately 460 square feet) would be improved with space for two offices. The existing building has public water and is serviced by a septic tank and drainfield. Public sanitary sewer has a stub and sewerline in Hermoso Way. The applicant proposes constructing a 6 ft. high wooden fence along most of adjacent property lines to buffer visual impacts of the professional office use from neighboring properties. Handicap access ramp will be provided at the front entrance. A bicycle rack for one space will be provided adjacent to the sidewalk near the entrance. The Applicant will provide the City with a dedication, if required, for the widening of Hermoso Way to allow 30 ft. from the centerline of the existing right-of- way- B. Nature of the Subject Property 1. Property Location and Size 0 Narrative - 1 • • The Subject Property is located 7315 SW Hermoso Way in Tigard, Oregon and includes Tax Lot 1300 of the above described tax map. The Subject Property is surrounded by MUE zoning. The current use of surrounding properties includes: vacant land on the North, single-family residential (rental) to the West, a single-family residential dwelling and a small business office to the south, and a small business to the east. See, Exhibit B. The property is when 100 feet wide and 150 feet long, comprising approximately 15,000 square feet. 2. Physical and Environmental Characteristics of the Site The Subject Property is relatively flat with a slight slope of less than 3% downward from the east side of the lot to the northwest. There are only two trees located in the front of the property: a white Dogwood and a white Birch. The white Birch is located at the western comer of the office structure and will not be affected by the improvements. The white Dogwood ornamental tree is located where the future parking lot will be located. The Applicant wishes to save this tree if possible by relocation (otherwise the planting of a replacement tree nearby). An Azazalea is also located in the front of the property within the area that will be dedicated for right-of-way for the widening of Hermoso Way. The Applicant intends to relocate this bush to a different area of landscaping in the front of the property. All the rest of the existing trees, bushes and landscaping along the side and rear yards of the property will be retained (and enhanced by additional landscaping). See, Exhibit C and D. There are no physical limitations for the Subject Property as identified by the Comprehensive Plan: no "Flood Plain and Wetlands" designation, and no "Ground Instability" designation, no "Slope" restrictions, no streams or drainage channels and the property is not in an area designated for wildlife values. 3. Existing Improvements The Subject Property currently contains an older single family structure with an attached garage. Public water service is located approximately midway along the property's frontage. The subject property is also served by access to a sanitary sewer line located at the western comer of the property along Hermoso Way. The Applicant proposes decommissioning the existing septic tank and drainf eld, and connecting the proposed office structure to the City's sanitary sewer system. Storm drainage is primarily absorbed in the level grass yard surrounding the property, French drains for downspouts and otherwise conveyed to the west through overland flow to the northwest. The existing structure is served by existing residential electrical, telephone, and gas service. 4. Transportation and Nearby Transit Service The site is served by public bus service approximately 2 1 /2 blocks away at the intersection of SW 72nd Ave. and SW Hampton. • Narrative - 2 II. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING The Applicant's agent met with the City of Tigard staff in apre-application conference on May 13, 2004 and May 26, 2005. The necessary applications and procedures were outlined by the City staff in this meeting, along with a discussion of the potential key issues related to this review. The pre-application conference application and staff notes from the meeting are attached as Exhibits E and F. III. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND COMMENTS The Applicant mailed out notices on July 12, 2005 to surrounding neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property for a neighborhood meeting scheduled for July 28, 2005. In addition, the Applicant posted a notice signed on the property at 7315 SW Hermoso Way, Tigard, Oregon which announced the date and location of the neighborhood meeting, along with a description of the application. The neighborhood meeting was conducted at 7:00 p.m. on July 28, 2005. At the neighborhood meeting, the Applicant read the required announcement and discussed the nature of the proposed land use application for converting the existing house into an office use. Neighbors attending the meeting signed the signup sheet, and the Applicant's representative took notes of the meeting and the issues discussed. The Affidavit of mailing/posting neighborhood meeting notice, map of the 500 foot notification area, and list of neighbors mailed notice, receipt for requesting 500-foot property owner mailing list, notice letter mailed to neighbors, neighborhood meeting sign up sheet, and the notes of the neighborhood meeting are attached in Exhibit G. IV. COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (MUE) COMPLIANCE A. Chapter 18.520 -Commercial Zoning Districts 1. CDC 18.520.010 provides that the major purposes for the commercial zoning districts is: (a) "to ensure that a full range of retail and office uses are available throughout the City so that residents can fulfill all or most of their needs within easy driving and, ideally within easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes, "and (b) "to ensure that there is a full range of economic activities and job opportunities within the City limits.... " Response: The Subject Property is located within the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) zone which allows professional offices as an outright permitted use. The Subject Property is located in a mixed-use neighborhood and professional offices at this location will help to fulfill the City's needs for office uses within easy driving and easy walking and/or biking distance of their homes. The proposed professional office is the conversion of an existing dwelling, and thereby provides opportunities for lower cost and scale of Narrative - 3 0 • office opportunities (such as an entry-level business and office startup activities) enhancing City economic activities and job opportunities. 2. CDC 18.520.020 F. identifies the Mixed-Use Employment zoning district as "designed to apply to a majority of the land within the Tigard Triangle, a regional mixed-use employment district bounded by Pacific Highway (Hwy. 99), Highway 217 and 1-5. This zoning district permits a wide range of uses including major retail goods and services, business/professional offices.... " Response: The Subject Property is located within the WE zoning district inside the Tigard Triangle. The proposed use and site development concept is consistent with these principles with regard to providing professional office space within this area and in relative proximity to major retail goods and services, business, civic uses and housing. The proposed use is also within close proximity to pedestrian walkways and bus service along 72nd Avenue. 3. CDC 18.530.030 identifies and Table 18.520.1 sets forth the uses that are allowed in the MUE zoning district. Response: Table 18.520.1 identifies that commercial "Office" uses are "permitted" uses in the WE zone. 4. CDC 18.520.050 C and Table 18.520.2 applies development standards to • "permitted" uses (Average Minimum lot width of 50 ft., maximum building height of 45 ft., maximum site coverage of 85% minimum landscaping or natural vegetation area of 15%, and no minimum lot size or front, side, rear or corner setbacks). Response: The Subject Property is a 1500 square-foot lot, with a 100 foot width. The maximum building height for the existing structure is at 26 ft. and will remain unchanged. The site coverage is 27.4% structure and parking lot with a minimum of 16% landscapingfor a total site coverage of 43.4%, which is less than the maximum site coverage of 85% allowed by the code. The proposed landscaping plan will provide a landscaping or natural vegetation area of 16%, which is greater than the minimum requirement under the code of 15%. The proposal calls for a total floor space of 1990 square feet, which is less than the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 required under the code (the proposed development FAR is .133). The proposed development satisfies all of the applicable WE development standards. V. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL STANDARDS COMPLIANCE A. Development Review-Chapter 18360 CDC 18.360.020 A. provides that "site development review shall be applicable to • all new developments in major modifications of existing developments.... Narrative - 4 i • Response: The Applicant's proposed use, and this Applicant's Statement, addresses all the applicable requirements for site development review standards. 1. CDC 18.360.040 on provision of bonding and assurances for public improvements. Response: The Applicant will provide all required performance bonds and other security that are required by the city as it pertains to the Applicant's proposed use. 2. CDC 18.360.090 (1) Approval Criteria of Compliance with all the applicable requirements of this title including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards. " Response: The Applicant's Statement addresses, hereinafter, compliance with the applicable requirements of Title 18, including Chapter 18.810. 3. CDC 18 360.090 A (2) pertaining to the natural and physical environment: a. Building shall be: (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage • were possible based upon existing site conditions; (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding, (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fire-fighting; and (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. Response: The proposed site plan preserves all existing trees, topography and natural drainage at the site, with the single possible exception of relocating the existing ornamental white Dogwood tree located in the center of the front yard. However, the proposed office building is an existing dwelling, and that structure will not be increased in exterior size. Thus, the existing building, itself, will not be interfering with existing trees, topography and natural drainage. The existing structure and the entire Subject Property are not in an area that is subject to ground slumping or sliding. The existing structure is generally centered between the side property lines and neighboring buildings (setback from the side property Narrative - 5 lines by approximately 16 ft. on the west and 11 ft. on the east). The East side of the r. existing structure provides adequate width for emergency vehicles and equipment access ll to the rear of the property (this side is also presently improved with a gravel access way). As a result, the existing structure for the proposed office use is located providing adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation and fire- fighting- The existing structure is oriented with the frontage facing south. This provides sunlight to the primary utilized rooms within the structure. This alignment also provides the least area exposure to the prevailing southwest winds during winter months. As previously identified, all existing trees at the site will be preserved with the possible exception of the ornamental Dogwood tree located in the front yard. The possible retention, relocation or removal of this tree is discussed hereinafter in the section dealing with CDC Chapter 18.790. 4. CDC 18.360.090 A 3 pertains to exterior elevations: a. Along the vertical face of single-family and multi family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 ft. by providing any two of the following: Response: The proposed office structure will no longer be a single-family structure. This existing single-family structure was never an attached single-family or multifamily structure. Thereby, this code provision is not applicable to the proposed office use and site plan. 5. CDC 18.360.090 A 3 pertains to buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between single-family and multi family residential, residential and commercial uses, and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the buffer: (1) The purpose of the buffer, for example is to decrease noise levels, absorbing air pollution, filtering dust, or to provide a visual barrier; (2) The size of the buffer required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and height, (3) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; (4) The required density of the buffering, and (5) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile. Response: The subject property is surrounded by MUE zoning. There are single-family dwellings to the immediate southwest and west of the property. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 6 ft. high wooden fence along these east and west Narrative - 6 • • property lines (lowering to 3 ft. along approximately one half of the front yard east and C. west property lines). The Applicant is also proposing to provide landscaping planting materials along the inside of these two fences. These side yard buffers will decrease noise levels, obstruct visibility, block light from automobiles and help to absorb air pollution. The abutting property to the north is also zoned for commercial uses (is part of a large developable parcel) and is presently undeveloped. The Applicant intends to landscape this backyard area, but does not believe at this time that a wooden fence is necessary to buffer the proposed use from the northern undeveloped property. The Applicant proposes to provide landscaping surrounding the proposed parking lot and along the frontage in the front yard of the subject property. This landscaping will meet the requirements of the City code, and thereby will provide adequate buffering between the properties on the south that are located across Hermoso Way (both existing single-family residences and a small businesses). This front yard and parking lot landscaping will also adequately buffer both pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Hermoso Way. b. On site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on rooftops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening. (1) What needs to be screened, (2) The direction from which it is needed; (3) How dense the screen needs to be; (4) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; and (S) Whether the screening needs to be year-round. Response: The proposed site plan does not provide for any mechanical devices on rooftops or storage areas. The existing structure will remain the same size and shape. Screening of the proposed parking lot is discussed above in the previous section. The only service area function will be the garbage collection container to be located behind a screened barrier (6 ft. high wooden fence) at the southeastern comer of the structure (and at the end of the parking lot). 6. CDC 18.360.090 A S pertains to privacy and noise: multi family or group living uses Response: The proposed use does not include any multi-family or group living uses, and therefore this provision is not applicable. 7. CDC 18.360.090 A 6 pertains to private outdoor area: multi family uses Response: The proposed use does not include any multi-family uses, and • therefore this provision is not applicable. Narrative - 7 • 8. CDC 18.360.090 A 7 pertains to shared outdoor recreational areas: multi family use Response: The proposed use does not include any multi-family uses, and therefore this provision is not applicable. 9. CDC 1&360.090 A 8 provides that "Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year flood plain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greemvay adjoining and within the flood plain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the flood plain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan. Response: The Subject Property is not located within or adjacent to the 100 year flood plain. The Applicant's proposed site plan does not contain any proposal for a landfill. Thereby, this code provision is not applicable. 10. CDC M360.090 A 9 provides that demarcation of publ ic, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention: a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility, and b. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to: (1) A deck; patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine; (2) A trellis or arbor; (3) A change elevation or grade; (4) A changing texture of material, (S) Sign; or (6) Landscaping. Response: The site plan aligns the landscaping, parking lot and office structure to limit public and semi-public access to the front of the structure which is and will be fully visible from Hermoso Way for crime prevention and maintenance purposes. The lower (3 ft.) fence along the East and West property lines in the front yard will not of obscure policing observation of front and side yards from Hermoso Way. The proposed 6 ft. high and fence for the site and backyards of the Subject Property will aid in crime prevention by limiting criminal access to the backyard. In turn, the side yard and backyard fencing and landscaping will mark and define the private spaces in the backyard (which include a grass yard and patio area). 0 Narrative - 8 0 9 11. CDC I&360.090 A 10 pertains to crime prevention and safety: C. a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; b. Interior laundry and service area shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; c. Mailboxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; d The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and e. Lighting fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic in and potentially dangerous areas such as in parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixture shall be placed at a height so that the light patterns overlap in a height of 7 ft which is sufficient to a luminate a person. Response: The existing structure possesses windows around the entire periphery of the structure that enables the occupants to visually survey the entire property (including areas that may be vulnerable to crime). In improving the interior garage area, the Applicant proposes installing new windows along south and east sides of the garage, which will aid in reducing crime vulnerability. The proposed office use will not have an interior laundry. Office related service areas have existing locations that can be observed by the other tenants. The existing mailbox location (consolidated with neighboring mailboxs) is already existing within a lighted area and will not be changed. Lighting fixtures are already provided in the front of the building for the pedestrian pathways and parking lot area, and in the rear of the property at the patio and rear entrances (at the angles oriented toward areas vulnerable to crime). 12. CDC 1&360.090A 11 provides for Public transit: a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; b. The requirements for transit facility shall be based on: (1) the location of other transit facilities in the area; and (2) the size and type of the proposal, c. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: (1) bus stop shelters; (2) turnouts for buses; and (3) connecting paths to the shelters. Narrative - 9 • • Response: The proposed commercial office use would potentially be served by bus service at the intersection of 72nd Avenue and Hampton, approximately three blocks away to the south. The proposed site plan includes construction of a sidewalk along the frontage of Hermoso Way that will assist in providing access to such transit opportunities. 13. CDC 18.360.090 A 12 provides for landscaping. a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745; b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above,a minimum of 20% of the gross area including parking, loading and service area shall be landscaped; and c. A minimum of 15% of the gross site area shall be landscaped. Response: The Applicant's site plan and landscaping plan provide for landscaping that is an excess of the above requirements. See Exhibit "C." 14. CDC 18.360.090 A 13 provides for drainage: all drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master is drainage plan. Response: Storm drainage is responded to under the section, hereinafter, pertaining to Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvement Standards. 15. CDC 18.360.090 A 14 provides for the disable& all facilities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in ORS Chapter 447, and Response: ORS 447.210 (1) and the Americans with Disabilities Act both do not apply to an existing structure that is less than 4000 square feet in size. The structure at the subject site is only 1530 square feet of dwelling space with 460 square feet of garage (totaling 1990 square feet) and this structure was lawfully constructed prior to the effective dates of both acts. Therefore, the Applicant is not required to provide access for the disabled to the structure, nor a handicap parking space. However, the Applicant is voluntarily constructing an entrance ramp that will provide adequate access for the disabled. 16. CDC 18.360.090 A 15 requires that all of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections of this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. Narrative - 10 • Response: The Applicant is not seeking a variance or adjustment. The provisions of the underlined MUE zoned have been addressed earlier in this report, under Chapter 18.520 Commercial Zoning District. All of the applicable standards have been satisfied. VI. TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN STANDARDS - CHAPTER 18.620 A. Purpose and Applicability - CDC 18.620.010 1. Development conformance - CDC 18.620.010 B. requires that all new developments including remodeling and renovation shall meet the Tigard Triangle Designed Standards. Response: The Applicant is proposing to change the use of an existing residential dwelling into a commercial office which will involve some remodeling. Therefore, this Chapter is applicable. The Applicant, in compliance with the required standards, will dedicate additional right-of-way for SW Hermoso Way, participate in improvements to the street as are roughly proportional to the adverse impacts of the proposed development. In addition, the Applicant will connect the proposed use to public sanitary sewer and satisfy the storm drainage requirements. The property is presently connected to public water. Finally, the Applicant will participate in funding future transportation required for the Tigard Triangle roughly proportional to the adverse impact of the proposed development. B. Street Connectivity - CDC 18.620.020 1. Demonstration of Standards - CDC 18.620.020 A requires that all developments must demonstrate how the applicant will meet one of the standard options for design or performance. Response: The minimum required street connection intervals of no more than 660 ft. is already satisfied because the Subject Property is located only 176 feet west of the existing intersection of Hermoso Way and 72nd Avenue. The Applicant will provide a sidewalk along the frontage of the Subject Property which will be in compliance with this code provision. C. Site Design Standards - CDC 181620.030 1. Building placement on Major and Minor Arterials. Response: The proposed development is not located on a major or minor arterial, and therefore this code provision does not apply. 2. Building setback Narrative - 11 Response: This proposed application involves converting an existing residential dwelling into a commercial office without any extensions or expansions of the existing exterior dimensions of the building. Since the Applicant is not proposing a construction of a new building or a new exterior addition to the existing building, this code provision is not applicable. 3. Front yard setback design. Response: Landscaping and hard-surface expansion of the pedestrian walkway will be provided between the existing structure and SW Hermoso Way. The Subject Property does not abut more than one street. The Applicant's landscaping plan proposes satisfying the L-1 standard along Hermoso Way in the L-2 standard on the accessway. 4. Walkway connection to building entrance. Response: A 6 ft. wide concrete walkway connection (with scored concrete) will be provided between the existing building's entrance and SW Hermoso Way. 5. Parking location and landscape design. Response: The proposed commercial use is for the conversion of an existing residential dwelling. No exterior expansions of the existing building are proposed. Since the proposed use is not for a building or phases adjacent to a public street, parking for the proposed commercial use may be located in the front yard area. The Applicant is proposing a front yard parking lot for six spaces which is surrounded by L-2 landscaping along the interior sides of the parking lot and L-1 landscaping where the parking abuts S. W. Hermoso Way (with a minimum depth of 5 ft.) from the public right- of-way. See, Exhibit C. D. Building Design Standards - CDC 18.620.40 1. Ground floor windows. Response: The requirements of this code provision applied only to new construction and phased development that is required to be set back within 0-10 feet of a public street right-of-way. The Applicant's proposal only applies to an existing dwelling that will not involve any new construction or phased development for exterior expansions of the existing building. Therefore, this code provision is not applicable. 2. Building facades. • Narrative - 12 • • Response: The Applicant's proposal only applies to an existing dwelling that will not involve any new construction or phased development for exterior expansions of the existing building. Therefore, this code provision is not applicable. However, the Applicant will be providing a pedestrian connection between the building and the public street. 3. Weather protection. Response: The Applicant's proposal only applies to an existing dwelling that will not involve any new construction or phased development for exterior expansions of the existing building. Therefore, this code provision is not applicable. However, the existing structure already provides an overhang entry for the front entrance of the building which provides adequate weather protection to pedestrians. 4. Building Materials. Response: The Applicant's proposal only applies to an existing dwelling that will not involve any new construction or phased development for exterior expansions of the existing building. Therefore, this code provision is not applicable. However, the exterior finish materials of the existing structure are wood board siding that is in compliance with this code provision. Similarly, the existing foundation materials are plain concrete that is not revealed for more than 2 feet. 5. Roofs and roof lines. Response: The Applicant's proposal only applies to an existing dwelling that will not involve any new construction or phased development for exterior expansions of the existing building. Therefore, this code provision is not applicable. However, the existing roof and roofline is compatible and respects the building's structural system and architectural style. No false fronts or false roofs are included in the existing structure. 6. Roof-mounted equipment. Response: The existing structure and proposed development commercial office do not include any roof mounted equipment. The requirements of this code provision are satisfied. E. Signs - CDC 18.620.050 Non-residential development within the MUE zonr shall meet the sign requirements of the C-P zone, 18.780.130D. Response: The Applicant's proposed sign will meet the requirements of CDC 18.780, and in particular CDC 18.780.130D, as addressed in the subsequent •1 Narrative - 13 0 • section of this report which refers to compliance with the sign requirements of CDC f • 18.780. The proposed sign is substantially less than 10 ft. in height and no freestanding signs are proposed. Exhibit H. F. Entry Portals Entry portals are required at the primary access points for the Tigard Triangle. Response: The Subject Property location is on S. W. Hermoso Way and is not a location of primary access points in the Tigard Triangle. Therefore, this code provision is not applicable. G. Landscaping and Screening CDC 18.620.070 sets forth a requirement for two applicable levels of landscaping and screening standards (L-1 and L-2) which impose the standards set forth under Chapter 18.745. Response: The provisions of the Tigard Triangle Design Standards are addressed later in this report under Chapter 18.745 Landscaping and Screening. See also Exhibit C (the Applicant's Landscaping Plan). The Applicant's landscaping plan provides for local street trees planted with a minimum spacing of 22 ft. on center between the sidewalk and street (within a 4 ft. wide planter strip). H. Street and Accessway Standards CDC 18.620.080 (A) identifies that Table 18.620.1 sets forth the street and pedestrian accessway standards for the Tigard Triangle. Response: Table 18.620.1 provides that the applicable standards for Hermoso Way (a local service street that runs East-West) is a street function to provide access to local services, distribute local traffic and parking access street. The land- use/design priority is for Mixed Use Commercial, access to offer-street parking, and enhanced pedestrian in environment. The Right-of-Way is to be 60 ft. with 34 ft. paved curb-to-curb. At the subject property location, Hermoso Way is a 50 foot right-of way. The Applicant's application calls for a dedication of approximately 5 ft. for the widening of Hermoso Way along the subject property frontage (this, with a similar dedication from the property on the south side of Hermoso Way, will provide a complete 60 ft. right-of- way). Hermoso Way is adequate to provide local service to run from the subject property, and for distribution of local traffic and parking access on the street. In addition, the existing street and the proposed street improvements will provide access for mixed use commercial and off-street parking. The Applicant is proposing to construct a sidewalk abutting Hermoso Way along the frontage of the subject property and a pedestrian i Narrative - 14 • 0 accessway from the street to the office building. These improvements will provide an enhanced pedestrian environment. 1. Environmental Performance Standards - CDC 18.725 1. Noise - CDC 18.725.030A states that for the purposes of regulating noise, CDC 7.40.130-7.40.210 shall apply. Response: The proposed commercial office use satisfies the standards regarding noise regulations. The proposed use for the subject property is commercial office activity. The proposed use does not involve any activities which would generate noise in excess of the maximum noise standards for commercial (75db during the day and 60db during the night). Employee and customer vehicles used at the site will be standard automobiles and no "Jake Brake" will be used on those vehicles. No roof equipment (such as compressors, air conditioning units, etc.) will be utilized on top of the existing structure, thereby eliminating the most common sources for noise admission. The proposed office use is inherently a predominantly "day" time activity, and therefore, potential noise generation from the commercial activity will be greatly reduced during "night" time hours. 2. Visible emissions - CDC I& 725.030B Response: the proposed commercial office use will not produce visible i• emissions. The only emissions associated with the proposed use will be emissions from the standard furnace space heating, standard plumbing vent and automobiles in the proposed parking lot. The code standards are satisfied. 3. Vibrations - CDC 18.725.030C Response: The proposal for the property is a standard commercial office use. These uses will not involve any activities which will produce vibrations as prohibited in the code. 4. Odors - CDC 18.725.030D Response: The proposed commercial office uses will not produce odors, and particularly it will not produce any emissions of odorous gases or other matter in any quantities that could be readily detectable at any point beyond the property lines. 3. Landscaping and Screening - CDC 18.745 1. Applicability - CDC 18.745.020 Response: The proposed use is a remodeling of an existing structure and therefore this code provision applies. Narrative -15 • • 2. General Provisions - CDC 18.745.030 A-H Response: The Applicant and his tenants shall be responsible for maintenance of all landscaping and screening, including no interference with public utilities, pedestrian or vehicular access, and to prevent a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. The applicant shall install all landscaping in accordance with accepted planting procedures, city codes and shall protect existing vegetation during the construction process. 3. Street Trees - CDC 18.745.040 Response: CDC 18.745.040 A requires that all development projects fronting on a public street of more than 100 ft. in length are required to plant street trees. The Subject Property is only 100 ft. wide (only has a 100 ft. frontage along Hermoso Way), and therefore, no street trees are required to be planted for this property. However, the subject property has an existing Dogwood tree which is located in an approximate location suitable for a street tree. It is the intention of the Applicant to attempt saving/retaining this tree at its present location. If the tree cannot be saved, the Applicant will plant a new Dogwood tree in a nearby location suitable to serve as a street tree. The Applicant's proposed Dogwood street trees are qualified as acceptable under the City's street tree planting list. A mature White Birch tree is located in the front yard of the Subject Property, and the proposed landscaping plan will retain that tree. In addition, "small" stature trees (ornamental Flowering Plum trees) will be planted along the exterior side yard boundaries within a six-foot wide landscaping (spacing between the ornamental Plum trees shall be 20 ft.). All planting, pruning and location of the landscaping/street trees shall be in accordance with city code. See Exhibit C. 4. Buffering and Screening - CDC 18.745.050 A. General Provisions - CDC 18.745.050 A. Response: This code provision requires that landscaping be provided for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at the development site. The Applicant proposes a landscaping plan identified in Exhibit C which includes a mixture of rhododendrons, azaleas, English Laurel, Perriwinkle, Dogwood trees and ornamental Flowering Plum trees. Combined with the proposed 6 ft.-high wooden cedar fencing along most of the side yard boundaries, this landscaping plan will provide privacy, protection and reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution. This landscaping plan is in accordance with and exceeds the City's Buffer Matrix (Tables 18.745.1 and 2) which does not require buffering and screening between MUE neighboring uses and MUE proposed use. B. Buffering and screening requirements - CDC 18.745.050 B-F. Narrative -16 i • Response: The Applicant proposes a landscaping plan identified in Exhibit C which includes a mixture of rhododendrons, azaleas, English Laurel, Perriwinkle, Dogwood trees and ornamental Flowering Plum trees. Combined with the proposed 6 ft. high wooden cedar fencing along most of the side yard boundaries, this landscaping plan will provide privacy, protection and reduce or eliminate adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution. This landscaping plan is in accordance with and exceeds the City's Buffer Matrix (Tables 18.745.1 and 2) which does not require buffering and screening between MUE neighboring uses and MUE proposed use. The landscaping plan in Exhibit C satisfies the vision clearance requirements set forth in Chapter 1.795. The side yard fencing will be in accordance with the standards in Section 180.745.040 C2 and shall not exceed 3 ft. in height the front yard area. The parking area will be screened and landscaped, including two trees to provide a canopy over most of the parking lot. The refuge container and refuge collection area will be located in the rear of the building and screened with landscaping. No refuge container or refuge collection area will be visible from a public street. K. Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage - CDC 18.755 Section 18.755.010 B. states that the mixed solid waste and source separated recyclable storage standards shall apply to new multi-unit residential buildings containing five or more units and non-residential construction that are subject to full site plan or design review, and are located within urban zones that allow, outright or by condition, for such uses. Section 18.755.OiaC.5.b. states that non-residential • buildings shall provide a minimum storage area of 10 square feet, plus 4 square feet/1000 square feet gross floor area (GFA) for "office" and "other" uses. Response: The total square footage of the proposed office use is approximately 1,990 square feet. A building of this size is required to provide storage of approximately 7.96 square feet. However, the code requires a minimum area of 10 square feet. The Applicant's site plan includes an enclosed/landscape screened storage area (3 ft. by 4 ft.) at the back of the office structure. The proposed 12 square foot storage area exceeds the minimum requirements. L. Off-Street Parking - CDC 18.765 1. Applicability of Provisions - CDC 18.765.020C Response: the proposed office use is a "change of use" for an existing structure. The prior use was single-family residential, and therefore, the proposed office use is an intensification of use requiring additional vehicle parking. The Applicant proposes parking for six vehicles in accordance with Table 18.765.2. 2. Location of vehicle parking - CDC 18.765.030B(2) 0 Narrative -17 • • Response: Off-street parking for office uses shall be located not further than 500 ft. from the property line that they are required to serve. The proposed parking 16 lot of six spaces will be located adjacent to the front of the structure and adjacent to the east property line. 3. Disabled-accessible parking - CDC 18.765.030G Response: ORS 447.210 (1) and the Americans with Disabilities Act both do not apply to an existing structure that is less than 4000 square feet in size. The structure at the subject site is only 1530 square feet of dwelling space with 460 square feet of garage (totaling 1990 square feet) and this structure was lawfully constructed prior to the effective dates of both acts. Therefore, the Applicant is not required to provide access for the disabled to the structure, nor a handicap parking space. 4. General designed standards - CDC 18.765.040 Response: CDC 18.765.040A. requires that all parking lots shall be clean and in good repair at all times. The Applicant shall carry out regular maintenance of the parking lot to assure that it is cleaned, in good repair, and that all wheel stops are in proper functional condition. The parking lot access will be directly off of Hermoso Way near the present driveway entrance. This access is planned to be moved approximately 10 feet to the West, and the access shall comply with requirements of a curb cut under CDC 18.810.030N. CDC 18.765.040F requires pedestrian access through parking lots to be in accordance with CDC18.705.030F. Pedestrian access will be served by two sidewalks: one will parallel the western boundary of the parking lot and the other sidewalk shall parallel the structure. The Applicant's landscaping plan, Exhibit C, provides for landscaping of the parking lot in compliance with the requirements of CDC 18.745. The parking spaces shall be striped and all parking spaces shall have the wheel stops at least 4 inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall in accordance with CDC 18.765.040 I and J. The proposed parking lot includes compact and standard spaces at 90% angles as follows: Compact 8 x 16.5 Standard 10 x 18.5 5. Bicycle Parking Design Standards - CDC 18.765.050 Response: The Applicant's plan calls for one bicycle parking space located adjacent to the office structure at the end of the entrance sidewalk. This location is within 50 ft. of the primary entrances and the bicycle rack/area will be located on a concrete pad. Table 18.765.2 identifies that there must be bicycle spaces at the rate of 0.5/1000. The proposed 1990 square foot office would require a minimum of one bicycle . space. Narrative - 18 • • 6. Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Perking Requirements - CDC 18.765.070 Response: Table 18.765.2 establishes that the minimum parking requirements are 2.7/1000 and the maximum are 4.1/1000. For a 1990 square foot office structure the minimum parking spaces would be 5.373 (or five spaces), and the maximum parking spaces would be 8.159 (or nine spaces). The Applicant is proposing six parking spaces which is in compliance with the code requirements. M. Signs - CDC 18.780 1. Permits Required - CDC 18.780.020 and 18.780.030 Response: The code requires that no sign shall be a installed without obtaining a permit approval. Permits for new signs will be processed by means of a Type I procedure and the applicant shall submit a proposed sign site plan. The Applicant has included the sign location in the Site Plan/Landscaping Plan. The design of the proposed freestanding sign consists of a wooden frame with a Formica like surface that will include text language. The design plans for the sign are attached as Exhibit "H." 2. Zoning District Regulations - CDC 18.780.130 Response: The code does not provide district regulations specifically for MUE zones. The most similarly related zone appears to be C-G and CBD as described in CDC 18.780.130 C which allows freestanding signs with a maximum square footage of 70 square feet per face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. The Applicant's sign application is for a sign with each face having a square footage of 32 square feet, with a total sign surface of 70 square feet. This is a size more compatible with CDC 18.780.130 D for signs in the C-P zone. N. Tree Removal - CDC 18.790 Response: The Existing Conditions Plan, Exhibit I and Exhibit C, shall serve as the tree plan required by CDC 18.790 .030. The Applicant proposes removing only one tree (an ornamental Dogwood that is part of the existing landscaping) needed to be removed in order to construct the parking lot. The Applicant will plant one tree farther to the West in the front of the property as mitigation for the removal of this dogwood. 0. Visual Clarence Areas - CDC 18.795 Applicability of Provisions - CDC 18.795.020 0 Narrative - 19 Response: CDC 18.795.020 A requires that visual clearance restrictions apply where the applicant is seeking a change of use. The Applicant is seeking a change of use and shall comply with the visual clearance regulations. 2. Visual Clearance Requirements - CDC 18.795.030 Response: The Applicant's property is not located near a comer and Hermoso Way does not possess topographical constraints at this location. Therefore, CDC 18.795.030 B. is the only restriction that applies and it prohibits vehicles, hedges, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding 3 ft. in height at or near Hermoso Way. The clear visual area associated with Hermoso Way entrance at this site and along the frontage shall not be obstructed by any vegetation, equipment, fencing or signs. See Exhibit C. P. Street and Utility Improvement Standards - CDC 18.810 1. General Provisions - CDC 18.810.020 A Response: The Code provides that no development may occur and no land-use application may be approved unless public facilities related to the development comply with the public facilities requirements established in the code and adequate public facilities are available. The Applicant is proposing a change in use which incurs the application of this code requirement. The Applicant's development plan complies with r~ the requirements for public facilities and services for the proposed use 2. Streets - CDC 18.810.030 A Improvements Response: Subsection 1 of the code requires that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. The Applicant's property has frontage along S. W. Hermoso Way and currently possesses one current access for a driveway. a. Half Street Improvement. Subsection 2 and 3 provide that a development must meet the standards for streets and that a development may be approved for a half-street improvement standard. The Applicant requests that it not be required, at this time, to install or construct a half-street improvement. Instead, the Applicant proposes that the City accept a "future improvements guarantee" in lieu of being required to currently construct the half-street improvements. The Applicant makes this request pursuant to CDC 18.810.030 A (5). b. Guarantee In Lieu of Street Improvements. Subsection 5 provides that the city can accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if: (a) a partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards, (b) a partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to • motorists or pedestrians, (c) due to the nature of existing development on adjacent Narrative - 20 properties it is unlikely that the street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity. Hermoso Way is currently improved to a local residential neighborhood standard with a 50 foot right-of-way and a paved surface approximately 28 feet wide with curbs (there are no sidewalks on either side of the street). The Applicant proposes postponing the half-street improvement until sufficient neighboring properties along the street are prepared for redevelopment (and subject to the street improvement requirements). The Applicant proposes constructing the sidewalk along its property frontage at this time and in a location that is compatible with the future street widening requirements. If the Applicant were required to construct the half-street improvement at this time, it will create a potential safety hazard to motorists and pedestrians. The Subject Property is the third property from the comer of 72nd Avenue and Hermoso Way, and none of the properties along this East-West stretch of Hermoso Way have been improved to the new street standard. As a result, the Subject Property would create a confusing widening of the street for only a distance of 100 feet and then abruptly become restricted again (presenting approximately 10-15 foot barrier on the north side of the street). This "jog" in the width of the street would also present a danger to pedestrians walking on this widened area in their natural response to seek a direct line to the curb at the adjacent property. There is also confusion as to a partial improvement not being feasible due to the inability to achieve proper design standards. Currently, there are large trees and telephone/power poles located in the area that would be widened on both sides of this street. There is a legitimate planning question as to whether a future street widening of the entire street will attempt to preserve these existing street trees. The existing telephone/power pole located at the southwestern comer of the Subject Property would be a significant safety hazard to traffic when attempting to drive back from the widened area on the Subject Property to the street abutting the neighboring property. Finally, the properties located near 72nd Avenue have been converted to business uses. However, the interior properties along Hermoso Way have remained residential uses. It is not likely in the "near" future or foreseeable future that all or most of these interior properties will seek approval with the city for a change of use to business uses. Therefore, a sound planning approach would be to require each property (as it seeks approval for a change in use) to be subject to "future improvements guarantee" for their share of the future street improvement. The Subject Property, by itself, does not provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity if it were required to construct the improvements at this time. In fact, such a piece meal improvement or "jog" in the street would most likely jeopardize safety. The Applicant requests that this proposed change of use be required to be subject to a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements to Hermoso Way. The Applicant is willing to make the required right-of-way dedication to the City at this time. c. Hermoso Way Streetisidewalk design standards. Table 18.810.1 which sets "Minimum Widths for Street Characteristics" identifies a "local commercial" street Narrative - 21 r i as requiring a 50 foot right-of-way and 36 feet of paved width. This standard would provide for two lanes, 5-6 ft. wide sidewalks and a 5 ft. wide landscape strip. The existing dimensions of Hermoso Way are a 50 foot wide right-of-way (satisfies the code standard) and a 28 ft. wide pavement (which is 2 ft. short of the code standard). There are also no sidewalks on either side of the street (the code requires sidewalks on both sides of the street). In contrast, CDC 18and.620.1 would impose a 60 ft. right-of-way with a 34 ft. paved surface for a local service street running "East-West." This would require a 5 ft. dedication by the abutting property owners along Hermoso Way on the north and south sides of the street. For the previously approved remodeling and change of use for prior residential structures into office buildings along SW Beveland and the western end of Hermoso Way, the City approved a eight-foot wide sidewalk and a 4 ft. wide planter strip. See improvements for Tax Lots 1600, 1608 and 1609. This 8 ft. sidewalk and 4 ft. planter strip combination would be consistent with the sidewalk requirements of CDC 18.810.1 and the "Tiger Triangle Street Plant Details 4 Foot Planter Strip" identified at CDC 18.620-19. 3. Sidewalks - CDC 18.810.070 Response: The Code requires that Hermoso Way shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the street. CDC 18.810.070 A. The Applicant is proposing to construct a sidewalk along the frontage of the subject property where it abutts Hermoso Way. 4. Sanitary Sewers - CDC 18.810.090 Response: The Code requires that development must be connected to existing sewer mains. CDC 18.180.090 A. The existing building is currently served by an on-site septic tank and drainfield. The Applicant proposes connecting the proposed office use to the existing sanitary sewer main located in Hermoso Way at the existing sewer stub at the southwest comer of the subject property. The existing sanitary sewer main located in the abutting street is an 8-inch line and is adequate to serve the property. 5. Storm Drainage - CDC 18.810.100 Response: The Code requires adequate provisions for storm water in a draining system separate and independent from any sanitary sewerage system. The subject property naturally drains to the Northwest. The Applicant proposes that increased impervious area storm water will be collected in an approved storm water catch basin with filter. 6. Utilities - CDC 18.810.120 0 Narrative - 22 0 Response: In accordance with CDC 18.810.120 C the Applicant proposes paying a fee in-lieu of under-grounding costs for utilities. Currently, power lines and telephone lines are not undergrounded along this East-West stretch of Hermoso Way. A requirement to immediately underground the utilities to serve the development would create cost and technical difficulties which outweigh the benefit of undergrounding in connection with the development. Undergrounding would result in the placement of an additional utility pole at the southeastern comer of the property, rather than the removal of above-ground utility facilities. Q. Invact Study - CDC 18.390.040 Response: The proposed office use for the subject property will create a negligible impact on public facilities and services. The intensity of the proposed office use will not be significantly greater than the impact from the existing residential use at this site. The Applicant is not proposing to increase the external size of the building structure. All necessary public facilities and services are already existing in the subject property and are adequate to serve the proposed office use. The only significant change would be visual and storm water impacts resulting from the proposed parking lot. Transportation System: The Subject Property is located on Hermoso Way, a designated local street. The Applicant agrees to provide dedication of additional right away for Hermoso i• Way and requests that the corresponding half-street improvement be postponed until neighboring properties are required to participate in the street wideninglimprovements. The proposed smaller sized office space for professionals is not anticipated to generate automobile trips to the site that would be significantly higher than the current use for residential. It is anticipated that most of the daily trips to the site will be by private automobile, although it is anticipated that a smaller percentage of patrons will use public transit or bicycle. The Subject Property is in relatively close proximity to 72nd Avenue which provides a TriMet bus route and stops. The low level of traffic expected from the proposed use will not have a significant impact on the area, particularly in consideration of the larger commercial developments in the neighborhood and the existing improved transportation systems. The Applicant has included in the development plans for the construction of a sidewalk along Hermoso Way and an access to the proposed office structure. These improvements should assist in encouraging pedestrian access to the property. The Applicant is also providing, adjacent to the structure, a parking facility for bicycles. Drainage System: The Code requires adequate provisions for storm water in a drainage system separate and independent from any sanitary sewer each system. The subject property naturally drains to the Northwest. The Applicant proposes that increased • Narrative - 23 • • impervious area storm water will be collected in an approved storm water catch basin 41 with filter. See, Exhibit "J." Parks System: The Subject Property does not abut nor is it immediately near any City parks. The professional and client usage of this development are not expected to add to the use of public parks. Water System: The existing structure on the Subject Property is currently served by the Tualatin Valley Water District. The proposed office use will continue to be served with public water through this water District. It is expected that the proposed office use will actually decrease the demand for water consumption at this site (elimination of clothes washing and bathing activities). Sewer System: The existing building is currently served by an on-site septic tank and drainfield. The Applicant proposes connecting the proposed office use to the existing sanitary sewer main located in Hermoso Way at the existing sewer stub at the southwest comer of the Subject Property. The existing sanitary sewer main located in the abutting street is an 8-inch line and is adequate to serve the property. Noise Impacts: The proposed use for this site is professional offices that produce no noise that cannot be completely contained within the existing walls or mitigated by the exterior landscaping and screening. The Applicant is also proposing to construct a six-foot high cedar fence along the side yard boundaries. See, Exhibit C. VI. CONCLUSION This application narrative demonstrates that all applicable provisions of the City of Tigard Community Development Code are satisfied by the Site Development plans for the proposed office use. The Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests approval of this application. 0 Narrative - 24 2 =36 EXHIBIT A 23 g . tea SI'R'E: TL 1300 7315 SW HermosoWay Tigard, OR 97223 AS a TR ES OWNER: M. M. Shinmen, LLC o REPRESENTATIVE & AGEN'T': ~y r 14 . John W. Shonkwiler, PC - 13425 SW 72nd Ave. ~ Tigard, OR 97223 cT t,' (503) 624-0917 ' w Lit n' Fax: (503) 684-8971 D 153 ~ - ~XISTtNts . ~ ►c~e, ExlS`fING PROPOSE D USE: 1 bt~~v C t~l RY J Professional Offices Zoning is MUE tfz LK t • 1 1► p C (r~Doo TAee I 1 u'iitiTY' WATER Zci METER POLE s r=w fir(] ST~3 Q ~ . z LEA A 3IS sw 4ERM0 s0 ~1MOSO'`,rVA u 50 ft. right-of-way CL t i. o 1 q :E' W tia I i . 1JI I I 25' .I ir.ILOL N VICINITY MAP TL 1300 7315 SW HermosoWay Tigard, OR 97223 .H W OWNER: k Tjl EVE ND M. M. -Shinmen, LLC. Tpeid Am Abp' J N X\ I \ I I I o M 200 3W 400 5M reel r• aee reel L-sw ~l i Alf til+9 N, A. In Y1 l A 'i uOttZt AV . OUf9 MS Ill e9 !15° _ 1S_* - - - - - -AY.- MS a g l'2l MH Ni ; AV z ei99 ~ I I add --MS - ~3 a f SW 687H QyyY - I Av Iiut9 Hirn uouzt rte. s-t ~i AlDld ! t; oZ; H1HQ~ ( MS • H169 t-'-----' ~3! AV H169 sNS ''t vll` r•. 0.~ M 4t ~i nr J'.. _ ~.9 HIOL I..--, - As Co' ~j AST 3t hs ! h]1~ ONZL Co. o 111irl AS r 4~ •G C ~I W ~i' ,n nv ~i" H16L M pt A, m Z ,S,II W i MS ; r n a, q► PE v - AV H19L AS j ldIH19 S%41 ~l nS ` ~d r 17 ~l AH213H~ AS 0001 1= AV H1BL HS J~ ` L Qg i jAS ! !AV ~r-Ht6L NS ~,/J is Q ba i I I. w 6 ~'ay y ei NS 1 - 0 aN2B MS ~ EN~ ~ r NS I 1 ynv lure RsRS v> ~,t~p~ zt . Y~~ rib I 1'S~ S`A r 9 ~ iwsnw~ , ; 1VH ! t. QO M t$ 9Mc ~TMAV A194 ~~s ))d/S' r.._ rfi+tnllan MS! JIB 11CS `O (~g • 8US, meune/el ApA IRTMEO C bin p~.F~ nnw+le// BUS, nteun,/e+ T... wine. D RD z N ti g&GONZAGA ST VACAP Fo A 5ALF- ~E~ RES. REST ~ ++nuu,ua RES. ~a`~N T Fob +sua+/"n nnunau ..44 ri0a1/N+7 Went DARTM rimuean menseeen 7snueS/nl nteusntE+ m/wrmee maven/ anwenee nnuume rsnannat nnnnnn Far; HERMOSp wAY kin- 13us. SAL. E RES. ~U51 Fp+r'/n m+Ynnn Rerne K~ tTES. rinuntn/ nriunnel ~ ~ Bus. n' SVS• ssnl+nWT RCS . }Slewttn3 '0j For. Q- .A JS • sn/unnse pnwet9a Tsl/unu°' 605 jI__ 1.n sense . av5, - Bus. a0- Tmwenu smuseoi BEVELAND 136s' 8` 1- RD Ros. n... ` - - I+1/uuv2+. S/ma - S OS . " ' I m+u1+TM1 I \ m+aseTm OEOORAPHIC INr011MAT10N SYSTEM I 5i'ttNMCls `7 sLO 'Ar- RMosO WY 16rAKD , OREGON l~ I FOR: John Shonimler RE: 2S I 0 I AB, 1300 BUS, = B.,S1NESS USr j`C5 ~EStO~NTAL USIS- • N 0100 200 700 Feet 1'- 255 feel City of Tigard Information on this map is for general location only and should he verified vvith the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hag Blvd Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 039.4171 hltpJAww+.ti ligar _ Plot date: Jul 11, 2005; CAmagic~ IC03.APF LANDSCAPE PLAN q, E s ( E%{STiwc, WM1ti'C EN4LI31I t3mrm (JC;4) (%)-(3) STREET TRIES -FLOWERING p~vM PRNNVS ~8R A41 Fr[AA (Y~ ii SC4kEEwNG TREES FLOVWERrN& FL-OM PRo..vy Cct•AS~«tA (rr.1 5. LANDSCAPING ® 3DkLEAF DVSN - EJaNYMYS JA?WlCA (7) ©GOlDEN 3*UNrPE0. OvJa ^ JtJA,IPEA,VS CA6~ ~P6R~WIW hr. E. ~ (16 A C. RsmoyAL. r, D TREE ~ 2., ALfiALA Q03 N( ~ M A,6MT a ~fMx _ U E W • K 0 w z 4 n u ' o 0 .0 i J 3 1 42 W WN Y ~ > 3 ° 4 ~ n yyy°~y m L^ 3 III RK L Y 9 c ^ rya.I R {n' i cn r i o oN W N x v ~ ~ 4 D O ! ^r 1 EXAlo,, D • EXHIBIT E NON-RESIDENTIAL 9 NREAR' ? < ' K'/ APPLICANT: AGENT: ~G1~t1t?kj,.,t.A, Phone:(2ffA ~t.z~4-6v Phone: PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: 73/ SCel /~r1"c~Sn 1l~;~ TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.) AREA: ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.s~) MINIMUM LOT SIZE:.-&-- sq. ft. Average Min. lot width:_~ ft. Max. build ing.height: ~ ft. Setbacks: Front 0 ft. Side (0 ft. Rear .o ft. Corner 'D ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: _95- % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: /5-%. (NEIGHBORHOOD 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 concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meetina is to be held prior to submittina vour application or the application 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. Exhibit CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Rage-4--of ( Page 1 of 8 NON-Residenb ApplealimManning Division section NARRATIVE (Refer to Code ChaW18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL MIT A NARRATIVE which provide ndings 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. ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18.705 and 18.1651 f Minimum number of accesses: / Minimum access width: C7 Minimum pavement width: ~2 el c 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 18.705.0301 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. ❑ SPECIALSETBACKS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7301 ➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. ❑ SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.6.1 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 9. 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 r~ 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. Exhibit E CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2- Of Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential AppikalionSanning Division Section t S_ FFE feet along north boundary. feet along south boundary. along east boundary. along west boundary. r IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: 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 frrom view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. RECYCLING [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 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. SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): cyptIc-c- d5c, 7 to cco It 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 18.765.0801 Every COMMERCfAL 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. rml•`~ r t CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes E Page 3 of 8 NON•ResidengalAppkalionftnningNisionSecGon Page 3 of j PARKING (Refer to Code Section 18.765.0401 REQUIRED parking for this type of use: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): le BICYCLE RACKS (Referto code lion 18.765) BICYCLE RACKS are tired FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COSERCIAL 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 LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the Are- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility to precisely identlfv sensitive land areas. and their boundaries. is the resDonsibility of the aDDlicant. Areas Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ❑ STEEP SLOPES (Refer to Code Section 18.775.080.C) When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. ❑ CLEANWATER SERVICES 1CWS1 BUFFER STANDARDS [Refer to R & 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. Design 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 ~ SENSI IVE AD F R NI N' a`tf r- S~LOQ.~.ADJACEN w; .c~~ er rf+- .1 42_4; N . ti :1NIDI,OaVETATED, i4 E E f+w T I TIO SE~tSITIV i AREA47 " ~~CORRIDOR PAR SIDES y ' • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% It 10 to <50 acres 15 feet > 50 to < 100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% I► 10 to <50 acres 30 feet l' > 50 to <I 00 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet. Measure Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting • Streams with intermittent flow draining > 100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in • Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine6 'Starting 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. 'Vegetated 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 maintaine with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes NON-Residen5al Appkation(Planning Division Section Page_ 4 of Page 4 of 8 Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, developmeMconstruction activities, gardens, I s, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials oRR'iy kind, or other activities shall be p itted 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. SIGNS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of T,ard. 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; 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.; 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.; t 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 18.790.060.E.1 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. Exhibil CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes _ Page 5 of 8 NON-ResWenN Appkarauflanning Division section Page. of > If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the D~tor shall require replacement with r~e than one tree in accordance with the following fo la: 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. M' 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'/z TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the. parcel is less than 1'/z 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 (Variances/Adjustments) 18.380 (Zoning Map/rext Amendments) 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) 18.390 (Decision making Procedureslimpad Study) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) 18.705 (Access/Egress/Circulation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Units) 18.715 (Density Computations) . 18.720 (Design Compatibility Standards) 18.765 (Off-Street Parking/Loac ing Requirements) 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780 (signs) 18.785 (Temporary Use Permits) 18.790 (Tree Removah X 18.795 (visual Clearance Areas) 18.410 (Lot Line Adjustments) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.430 (subdivisions) 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) X 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) • 18.725 (Environmental Performance Standards) 18.798 (vdueless Communication Facilives) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) 18.740 (Historic Overlay) 18.742 (Home Occupation Permits) 18.745 (Landscaping & Screening Standards) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) - 18.755 (Maed solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential AppGcationlPlanning Division Section Page___ (o of ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: 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 Plannina Division acceptance may be 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. Fxhihit Page 7 of 8 CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of NON-Residential ApplicalioNPWruning Division Section '1 n I ~..f- q J The administrative decision ublic hearing will typically occur appr imately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as b complete by the Planning Division. plications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiri review by other jurisdictions may a 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 la use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard A basic flowchart which illustrates the review proc ss is avai b e f in t e 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 City's policy is-to-apply those system OBTAINED). lrpLEASE NOTE: The conference an notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects relateo to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide formation 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 8Y- CITY OhGIi'RD PLANING 61VISION - STAF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4111 FAX: (503) 684-1291 E-MAIL (5tarr: first name)@ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.ci.tigard.or.us H:IpattylmasterslPre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 3-Oct-02 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) r Exhibit- CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential ApplicalionFlanning Division Section Page Of - I t- PRE-APP#CATION CONFERENCE ES env of *k Oregon' ➢ ENGINEERING SECTION Q C ShgiVA &tteico,M aity PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Map(s): 2SIOW Tax lot(s): 01300 Use Type: Convert Home to Office The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a proiection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ® SW Hermoso Wav to 30 feet from centerline ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet Street improvements: ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW Hermoso Way, to include: ® 18 feet of pavement from centerline to curb, in accordance with Tigard Triangle Design Standards (TTDS) ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 6-foot concrete sidewalk with planter strip ® street trees spaced per TDC standards • ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: CITY Of TIGMD P"PlIcatlon Conference Notes Exhibit Page t of s EnvIneerin!Doormat Secno■ Page of l_:i____ ❑ street improvem~ts 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. ❑ Other: 0 ❑ 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. CRY OF TIURD Pre PlIcatlon Conference Notes Page 2 of 6 Engineering Department Settles Exhibit D*3rto D i U Utner: Agreement for Future Street Irpovements: • In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval `i may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 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 Hermoso Way. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: . The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located SW Hermoso Way. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to connect the building to the public sewer, if not already connected. This property is located within Sewer Reimbursement District 15. The fee is $6254.00 and must be paid prior to final inspection. Water Supply: The Tualatin Valley Water District (Phone:(503) 624-1511) provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-7010] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other • questions related to fire protection. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 6 EagloeoringDepartment section Exhibit tE Page of:. All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainaMystem. The applicant will be regdbd to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, an ay be required to prepare a sub-b in drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. On-site detention is required if the net, new impervious surface area exceeds 5000 square feet. The applicant will have to provide preliminary sizing calculations for the facility if detention is required. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65-percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. A water quality facility is required if the net, new impervious surface area exceeds 1000 sqaure feet. 0 Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. 1) A traffic impact report is required. One aspect of that report will be to assess how much traffic this development will contribute to the intersections at Dartmouth/72" d and Dartmouth/6e. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than • $5,000.00. CITY OF TIURO Pre Plication Conference Notes EXh I b I t Page 4 of 6 Englneetio! Department Seetlee Page _ -'-of Pay the TIF. 0 0 EMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The. Engineering- Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PFI Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BLIP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. CITY OF TIGARD Pre Plicatlon Conference Notes Page 5 of 6 Englneenos sesutmect Sectloe Exhibit Page- 13 of For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance is permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes . in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required-when the: lots develop. The design engineer will also. be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. document4 Revised: September 2, 2003 PREPARED BY: ENGI NEftING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: 15031639-4171 Fax: 15031624-0752 CRY of nuRn Pre Pucatlon conference Motes Exhibit Page 6 01 6 Englosorlog Ispartmeot Sactlon Page 14t of Z5 PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST STREETISSUES Project: Date: ❑ Right-of-way clear/ shown. ❑ Centerline of streets clear) shown. ❑ Street names shown. ❑ Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. ❑ Street profiles shown. ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. ❑ Traffic Impact and/or Access Report ❑ Street grades compliant? ❑ Street/ROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width appropriate? ❑ Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES ❑ Existin / ro osed lines shown. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels re uired/shown? WATER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? ❑ Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? ❑ Proposed meter location and size shown? ❑ Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM nRAINAGF ANn WATER r)I1AI 1TV 1sci 1PQ ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? ❑ Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? ❑ Facility shown outside an wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels re uired/shown? The submittal is hereby deemed By. REVISED: 04/06/04 ❑ COMPLETE ❑ INCOMPLETE Date: Exhibit E Page ~~0 f/5 EXHIBIT F JOHN W. SHOMWILER, P.C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax (503) 684-8971 Phone (503) 624-0917 May 19, 2005 Planning.Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Pre-application M. M. Shinmen 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Planning Department: Enclosed please find three copies of a Pre-Application for proposed the change of use from residential to office in the MUE zone for the property at 7315 SW Hermoso Way. The owner, M. M. Shinmen, previously filed and completed a Pre-Application conference on May 13, 2004. Enclosed with this application is the pre-application conference notes. Since more than 12 months has passed since the last pre-application conference, the owner is resubmitting for a new pre-application conference to determine if there have been any significant changes. Sincerely, W. SHONK ER, P. C. 1~340 John W. Shonkwiler cc: M. M. Shinmen Exhibit - Page of CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES ication Meeting Notes are Valid. for Six REV. MG DT . Wror7n4".c&!%10tl Community oeverapment S(rapingA Better Community NON-RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: Adzl2? S AR of 11 wI AGENT: Phone: j Phone: j 1 PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: '7315~51i TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S) NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: A22/'~ ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. s z V I MINIMUM LOT SIZE: gg- sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: ft. Max. building height: 5-S7t. Setbacks: Front ft. Side ft. Rear ft. Comer :-from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: _N2V% Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: / NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handoug THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, 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 your application or the application 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. Exhibit CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of S NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Secdon 0 NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Cha 18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL SSBMIT 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 18.390.050) 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 183651 ~ Minimum number of accesses: / Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: r All driveways and parking areas, e&c t for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Secdon 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 18.1301 ➢ STREETS: feet from the centerline of . ➢ LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary ➢ FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. ❑ SPECIAL BUILDING BEIGNT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Secdon 18330.010.83 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 (Y2) of the building's height; and ➢ The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. t!QBUFFERING 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 2MI be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. Exhibit ~ T-:----- CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section age Page 2 of 8 feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. • IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING [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. ❑ RECYCLING (Refer to Code Chapter 183551 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. ,9 ItG ZA~ 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 18.765.0801 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 Application/Planning Division Section Page, of PARMNG [Refer to Code Section 18365.0401 REQUIRED parking for this type of use: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code ion 18.7651 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 LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABLE GROUND. Staff will attempt to preliminary identify sensitive lands areas at the pre- application conference based on available information. HOWEVER. the resDonsibility to Dreciselv Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIRITFn WITHIN Pi nnnpl Alnlc ❑ STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.775.080.111 When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.0. gCLEANWATER SERVICES (CWS) 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. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: 40 TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MONIIAI nzFCnl I ITInN it r)pnv:p Or.-AA SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT' TO SENSITIVE AREA'. WIDTH OF VEGETATED s CORRIDOR PER SIDE • Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 0 10 to <50 acres 15 feet ► >50 to <100 acres 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet • Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow • Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres • Natural lakes and ponds • Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% ► 10 to <50 acres 30 feet it > 50 to < 100 acres 50 feet • Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet Measure • Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow . in 25-foot increments from the starting ♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres point to the top of ravine (break in • Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' Starting 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. '05 Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 5"rhe 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 Exhibit NON-Residential Application/Ranning Division Section fl Page 4of8 Restrictions in the Ve etate rridor. NO structures, deve opme , construction activities, gardens, Its, 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. ❑ 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 18.790.030.01 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 reqquires 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 Exhibit Page 5 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division section r l- ^ ^ /w / & ➢ If a replacement tre the size cut is not reasonably avalee on the local market or would not be viable, the Dl ctor 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 18395) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE Y3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. he size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. 8-- 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. 0 The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1'h 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 (Variances/Adjustments) 18.380 (Zoning Map✓rextAmendments) 18.385 (Misoetianeous Permits) 18.390 (Decision Making Procedurestimpact 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) 18.620 (Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center) 18.705 (AccesslEgress/Circulation) 18.710 (Accessory Residential Unils) 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 & sawing standards) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.755 (Mixed solid wastelRecyding storage) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) 18.765 (OffStreetParkinglloading Requirements) 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.780 (Signs) - 18.785 (Temporary use Permits) 18.790 (Tree Removal) 18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas) ~e 18.798 Wireless Communication Facilities) L~ 18.810 (Street & Utility Improvement Standards) Exhibit CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes of Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential Apprca6onlPlanning Division Section Page ~L I ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTAI 1 ~ J I 1 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 cuhmi#p by mail nr drooped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance ma)t be 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. Ubibit CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes page--,?-- Of ~.1~---- Page 7 of 8 NON-Residential ApplicationlPlanning Division section The administrative decisior&public hearing will typically occur aoximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as g 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 peri follows all land_yse decis' s. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard A basic flowchart which illustrates the review processlis-availaig6 from th 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 City's policy is to apply those system OLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: CITY OF dIGAR6 PIAMN 811VISION -/SIWFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX 503-684-1291 EMAIL o,trs first name) @ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 1$ (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: l miciAgard.ons H:lpattylmasters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 15-Dec-04 (Engineering section: preapp.eng) Exhibit p'rtA q ^f /l CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes - Page S of 8 NON-Residential Application/Flanning Division section AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN PRE-APMCATION CONFERENCE I~ES ➢ ENGINEERING SECTION Q Commmui Igarit Oregon shariV -9 &tter cry PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Maptsk 2S101A6 Tax Lot[sk 01300 Ose Type: Cofnfen Rome to Mee The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ® SW Hermoso Way to 30 feet from centerline ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet Street improvements: ® Half street improvements will be necessary along SW Hermoso Wav, to include: ® 18 feet of pavement from centerline ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 12-foot concrete sidewalk or 8 foot sidewalk with 4 foot planter strip ® street trees sized and spaced per TDC/Triangle Standards ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: Cfrr OF TIGMG fire-Uppcatlon conference Notes Engigeerlag Department Section LAMUIL Page of Page 1 of 6 ❑ street improver(& ts 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. ❑ Other: 0 ❑ 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. CRY Of TIGUO Pre- PHIDagon conference mows Exhibit Page 2 of 6 Enploeede!Oela mentSection 1( page Of ❑ Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (2.) Overhead Utility Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 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 Hermoso Way. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in Hermoso Way. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to connect the building to the public sewer, if not already connected. This property is located within Sewer Reimbursement District 15. The fee is $6254.00 and must be paid prior to final inspection. Water Supply: The Tualatin Valley Water District_ (Phone:(503) 642-1511 provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact. provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the • questions related to fire protection. Eric McMullen, (503) 612-7010] District should be contacted for need for fire hydrants, or other CITY OF TIGUB Pre- Pocation Conference Notes `A s U I ` Page 3 of 6 E011888dellDOOKWOR CUM Page-,42--of -LO- Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development w the City shall be designed such storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drain system. The applicant will be req Bred to submit a proposed storm drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. On-site detention is required if the net, new impervious surface area exceeds 5000 square feet. The applicant will have to provide preliminary sizing calculations for the facility with the Land Use application. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on- site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. All impervious surface area must be treated (no credit for existing impervious surface area). Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. 1) A traffic impact report is required. At a minimum, the report needs to assess how much traffic this development will contribute to the intersections of 6e Avenue/Dartmouth Road and 72"d Avenue/Dartmouth Road. The developer will pay a fee based on these trips into a fund for the signalization of these two intersections. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited Page 4of 6 CITY 06 TIGHD Pre-AppQeadon Conference Motes Exhibit Engineering 11e111rmleaSeetle page _13, of circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the paynt until occupancy is permissible when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. Pay the TIF. PERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI) Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall. For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security. Where professional engineered plans are required, the Permittee must execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI 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. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. 10 CITY OFTIGARD PraAPPReatlen CeMM1010 Notes Exhibit page 5 of 6 E011eeetlo0 Oeputmeot SICU91 Page... of Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trad (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be is.d in a subdivision until the publWprovements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. • PREPARED 06 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE Phone: [5031639-4111 Fax: [5031624-0152 docwnent2 Revised: September 2, 2003 i CITY OF TIGHO Pre- IPP11catlon Conference NOW Exhibit page 6 of 6 En,leeedo! 6eoertmeon Section Page of ..14~_ PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST ~.iaZRADING ❑ COMPLETE ❑ INCOMPLETE Existin and ro osed contours shown. 7o Are there radin im acts on adjacent arcels? o Adjacent arcel rades shown. o Geotech stud submitted? STREETISSUES ❑ Right-of-way clear/ shown. ❑ Centerline of streets clear) shown. ❑ Street names shown. ❑ Existing/proposed curb or edge of pavement shown. ❑ Street profiles shown. ❑ Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo on adjacent arcels , etc. ❑ Traffic Impact and/or Access Report ❑ Street grades compliant? ❑ Street/ROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? ❑ Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width appropriate? ❑ Other: SANITARY SEWER ISSUES Existin / ro osed lines shown. Stubs to adjacent parcels re uired/shown? WATER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? ❑ Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? ❑ Proposed meter location and size shown? ❑ Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM nRAINA(,F ANn WATER r]IIA( 1TV IccI IP4Z ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? ❑ Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention provided? . ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? ❑ Facilit shown outside an wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels re uired/shown? The submittal is hereby deemed . By. REVISED: 04106/04 Project: Date: Date: Exhibit Page Ito, of~ EXHIBIT G AFFIDAVIT MAILING: 1, fo " W . SAc)WV, w ►&~EfL . being duly sworn, depose and say that on the I afk day of SL Y 20Qs . 1 caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near.) _731-5 13 14-1=R rAo 5 c) 'uU &Y % 16 4R I' . a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at Tits- A r2 U t G~ R iFG oti , with postage prepaid thereon. POSTING: the presence of a Notary Public) I, - 0+W ~Q , SAOA;bc~W iLf-fit . do affirm that 1 am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed of NousE igro rtN bFRc ; affecting the land located at (state the approximate location s) IF no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currents Registered) !7 3157 :5 k :*6E'e M05 o G , and did on the 2T►` day of j 0 4-V . 20 D ~ j personally post notice indicati g that the sit may be • proposed fora application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. OF F~t 4-- The sign was posted at ' M!5 4 w 14Efz #KQSD IA1J-y , %ll [ Ah2 (state location you post no " on property) Signature (In the presence of a Notary. (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZE) STATE OF i`^;1tE(-1W ) County of tt -P;l`►fK&60Ati ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the IpAday o " ! 20L6 . ~Lo=N0EL=$CNNEERR NOTARY w~ ~ COMMIS~l.• i vM1'COMM13SI0 NOTARY PUBLIC OF'OREGON My Commission Expires: • Applicant, please complete.the information below: NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Address or General Location of Subject Property: Exhibit Dorm / of /U _ Ofi00R11PHIC INFORMATION 6YeTaM (50W) "M1Y"700 alm"6e"o magwAm m616"am CO mows" UQ CD Q towu 6e mot"em mms"m" mWw> m mow6A" mown" 7 O 1tlelWillO HP0111 All - m6wol"1 mI11WIW mew6u66 m6w61"6 mewoum m " ssuu"w> m6woml (v mowoa6o 1616we1W 1fI61WIW maW6M" meweMW "Mwew6 BEVEL MD RD malneemm m61"mt" ~ llwom6 mowau" ~ l m6we13m e~r-~ mewmm w6" mowolafi6 mintw"m mewm66 FOR: John Shonlcwiler RE: 2S I 0 I AB, 1300 Property owner Information Is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. A • N 0 100 200 300 Feel V- 255 feel City of Tigard Information an this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Divisiar 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 87223 (503)639 4171 h11pJ1www.ci.Ugard.or.us RD ST a: Jul 11, 2005; C:lmaglc\MAGIC03.AF 2S101AB-01100 • 2S101AB-01600 BAUER DANIEL E & ERDLE WILLIAM J BAUER BARBARA G 7405 SW BEVELAND RD 12335 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 0A S101AB-02000 2S101AB-00601 BERMAN JOHN M & FALL FUN PROPERTIES LLC SUMMERS MICHAEL L 7130 SW ELMHURST ST 7175 SW BEVELAND RD #210 TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AB-02201 2S101AB-01200 BEVELAND BUSINESS PARK LLC FRANK BRIAN L & 7165 SW FIR LOOP #100 KRAFVE KENT B TIGARD, OR 97223 7275 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 2 101A8-02100 2S101A8-01602 BE LAN USINESS PARK LLC GIBSON FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 7165 FIR LOOP #100 BY GIBSON CORNELIA/KLAUS PETER TRS T ARD, 97223 10904 SW PARKWOOD CT WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 2S101AB-01604 2S101AB-00600 BEVELAND LLC GUILLEUX FEMY 5100 SW MACADAM AVE STE 240 18200 DAVIS ST PORTLAND, OR 97239 SANDY, OR 97055 I S101AB-01800 2S101AS-00801 OOEHM GENE G BEATRICE G HAMPTON PARK LLC 7380 SW HERMOSA WAY BY COHEN FINANCIAL TIGARD, OR 97223 2 NORTH LASALLE ST #800 CHICAGO, IL 60602 2S101AB-02704 2 101AB-01000 CAYTON CAROL J LIVING TRUST.. HA TON P K LLC BY CAYTON CAROL J TR BY CO FINANCIAL 7772 NORTH AMETHYST DR 2 N SALLE ST #800 TIGARD, WA 84770 C CAGO, IL 60602 2S101AB-01606 101AB-00900 CLARKE THOMAS C & SUSAN L HA PTON RK LLC 12439 SW 22ND AVE BY C FINANCIAL LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 2 SALLE ST #800 ICAGO, 60602 2S101AB-01403 2S101AM1603 COLWELL GREGGORY W HARLAN BRIAN & MAI 7435 SW HERMOSO WAY 7270 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AB-02707 . 2S101AB-00700 EAGLE HARDWARE & GARDEN INC HERAS MIGUEL RAMON 0\TTN: TAX DEPT (TA3) ELAINE C PO BOX 1111 12280 SW 72ND AVE NORTH WILKESBORO, NC 28656 TIGARD, OR 97223 Exhibit (q Page,3-- of LD 2S101AM0500 LAU JOSHUA L & • 2S101AB-02703 MCCAFFERY HUGH FANCY J TRS MARCHWICK SARAH B 7450 SW BEVELAND ST STE 100 7100 SW ELMHURST ST TIGARD, OR 97223 .TIGARD, OR 97223 • 2S101AB-01401 2S101AB-01300 LYMAN KYLE M MM SHINMEN LLC 11326 SW 84TH AVE 24600 SW MOUNTAIN RD PORTLAND, OR 97223 WEST LINN, OR 97068 2S101AB-01402 2S101AB-01607 LYMAN KYLE M RAND STEPHEN C 7395 SW HERMOSO WAY 7540 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101AB-01400 2S101AB-01700 MARTIN GORDON R ROThf ALAN D AND LINDA A 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD 7420 SW HERMOSO WAY PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97223 2 01 BA-00300 2S101AB-01605 MDON R ROVIG CAROLEA BUR BLVD 7460 SW HERMOSO WAY R 97219 TIGARD, OR 97223 XINRDON 2S701AB-01609 !R TRIANGLE PROPERTIES 8BUR BLVD 7505 SW BEVELAND RD P R 97219 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101BA-00401 2S101AB-01404 MARTIN GORDON R & SHEILA VONRENCHLER MARVIN J & 8565 SW BARBUR BLVD MARY E PORTLAND, OR 97219 7475 SW HERMOSO WAY TIGARD, OR 97223 2S101BA-00400 2S101A6-01608 MARTIN GORDON S WESTERN TIGARD HOLDINGS LLC 12265 SW 72ND AVE 20019 SW ATEN RD TIGARD, OR 97223 BEAVERTON, OR 97007 2 101 BA 0040 2S101A8-01900 MA IN DON S WHITETHORN LLC 1226 72ND AVE 12465 SW 72ND AVE TI ARD, 0 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 01AB-002 101AB-0270 MA RDON S WHI N LLC 22 S 72ND AVE 12 ND AVE 0 ARD, OR 97223 RTLAND, 97223 Exhibit Page_ of vL~-- 2S101AB-01601 • • WHITNEY STEPHANIE BETH & DEFOREST KIMBERLY LYNNE 1421 SE 60TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97215 ro I~ Exhibit & Page of L6 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 11gard, OR 97281 0 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 781h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 '14exander Craghead 12205 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-6210 David Chapman 9840 SW Landau Place Tigard, OR 97223 John Frewing 7110 SW Lola Lane Tigard, OR 97223 CPO 4B 16200 SW Pacific Highway, Suite H242 Tigard, OR 97224 CPO 4M Wat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 . : - Gretchen Buehno 13249 SW 136th Place Tigard, OR 97224 Mildren Design Group Attn: Gene Mildren 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Paged _of Exhibit (!:~r- LI 1 1 V1 ti vni v COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HAIL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PHONE: 503-6394171 FAX: 503-598-1960 (Attn: Patty/Planning) 0 ?10,115 .i ~J I* t'Y OF TIGARD• PLAMNfr;3/E ?IfIEERING CITY OF TIGARD Community rDew&pment SfigingA Better Community aDqr o~3° oo ao '°o op3°~+1 I6~4 Property owner information is vaild for 3 montns Trom,the date OT your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e.1S134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: aSif2i t`Q Ax_L_o;. 1300 7315 SW' R Eez maSo W&_%~ (IGr+r2D OnE601J PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ONLY 1 SET OF LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THIS TIME FOR HOLDING YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. After submitting your land use. application to the City, and the protect planner has reviewed your application for completeness, you will be notified by means of an- incompleteness letter to obtain your 2 final sets of labels. The 2 final sets- of labels need to be placed on envelopes with first class letter-rate postage on the envelopes in the form of postage stamps (no metered envelopes and no return address) and resubmitted to the City for the pur ose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The T sets of envelopes must be Kept separate. The person listed below will be called to pick up and pay for the labels when they are ready. NAME OF CONTACT PERSON: Jot+N lv. S oojt<wft_E2 PHONE: GL63) 1oacf-oq r 7 FAX: Cs63~) 694 - S'4 -7 1 This request may be mailed,. faxed or hand delivered to the city of I igard. vlease allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of our request, the contact person will be called to pick up their- request that will be placed in Will Call by their last name, at the Community Development Reception Desk. The cost of processing your request must be paid at the time of pick up, as exact cost can not be pre-determined. PLEASE NOTE: FOR REASONS OF ACCURACY, ONLY ORIGINAL MAILING LABELS PROVIDED BY THE CITY VS. RE-TYPED MAILING LABELS WILL BE ACCEPTED. Cost Description: $11 to generate the mailing list, plus $2 per sheet for printing the list onto labels (20 addresses per sheet). Then, multiply the cost to print one set of labels by the number of sets requested. IIEXAMPLE-K ""COST FOR THIS REQUEST 7K 7K I 4 sheets of labels z $21sheet = 8.00 x 2 sets = $16.00 sheet(s) of labels x $2/sheet = $x / sets = ~.do 2 sheets of labels x $2lsheet for interested parties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 sheet(s) of labels x $2/sheet for' terested parties = $ 02. x sets = , GENERATE LIST = $1M GENERATE LIST TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL Exhibit Page _7 of i • 1• JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. Attorney at Law 13425 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 Fax(503)684-8971 Phone(503)624-0917 July 12, 2005 RE : Conversion of house into an office 7315 SW Hermoso Way Dear Neighbor or Interested Party: My office represents the owner, M. M. Shinmen, of the property located on at 7315 SW Hermoso Way in Tigard, 2S101AB, Tax Lot 1300. My client is considering proposing to establish a professional offices in the existing residential building at this location. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, I would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: DATE: (Thursday) July 28, 2005 LOCATION: 7315 SW Hermoso Way Tigard, Oregon 97223 TM E: 7:00 p.m. Please notice this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the city. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at (503) 624-0917 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JOHN W. SHONKWILER, P. C. r_ ~N . John W. Shonkwiler Attorney at Law for M. M. Shinmen, LLC Exhibit fi7F Page-a- of ./-Q-- ucation 5hinmen o~ 3uly -Meeting NQ1gbb°rh 2g.) 2005 Aaa~sg ~a C~~~ Name 7 S { -~6 ~JE ..dq t7 Exh'~bi,o Page i Page ~J/li NNE 4 CITY OF TIGARD SI(N PEF441r APPLICATION Permit No. Tria- applicant hereby applies for a permit for the work indicated or as shown in the - a , ` ing plans. and specifications sYGN IDCATIW ADDRESS: -131 5 SW t4Ei;ZMOSo VJ+ 1 G R D ZCNING: _ MV E Npj,EF_ OF BUSINESS: S H o m W r# F R ApPLICANvr/AGENT: %.r S(-toNKwr[ eCCIMPANY: SC- LE PHONE: The City of Tigard inposes an annual Business Tax which must be kept current ori. all .s in the City- Do ycu presently have a current business tax' persorzs doing 1•as;*-.- YES NO t ) U.L. Label 0- PROPOSED SIGN: (Check as many as apply) PFRQ1q1NT Cx) FREES'I7LVDING (X) FREEWAY ( ) ' TE iPORAMC ( ) I-ZA .L ( ) EL,ECI~NIC: ( ) OTHER ( ) B=LLF~ ( ) BArZnW ( ) SIGN DIMI S- ONS: S q 1+t C. N x ~o o W i D - WTAL. SIC-4 AREA (Sq_ Ft.) : 37- !90-. U-AM AREA (Sq. Ft_): N A4 VAIL FACE: NIP, 7QHT (Ft) y Cdr FRCM I+1 L: N/R- ~=ON: YES ( ) No (X) TYPE: copy: A t' ► o 21V E V 5 ,41: LTA UJ _ 1- 0 S MATERIALS: W o o n l x f x'± E"T=)G SMNS: 4 c ~r1•w-K ors ti1AMES '1'7"vRN~`i S ~ r a LL!T_SfR iTrVE rXt I-LCsv: N/A (>C) ' APPROVED'-( ) Ha4 Mai .ARE?, ( ) HEFT ( ) OCUZ-~L~ ;IS: S i cY+v w B E Tj Wo F A-c F S - PLA2~YRK,- DEPASU qr A11 sign permits must be acccapanied by a scale Permit Fee: _ dra•.ring and plot plan. If work authorized under Reoeint No: _ a sign permit has not been ca pleted within ninety A~z cc-j b`~ : days after the issuarkae of the permit, the permit Date: sbal1 base null and void. Ef M RICAI. PE u•LCT I C =IFY JvAT I pi l M-JE RDCX3RDID O IER OF THE RDQUZ : YES ( ) 1I0 P OR AN FZa4T A ZED BY THE 0;Q- ER- "UIIDI?:•G Paz-QT ` .32UII'.ED: YES ( ) NO (x) ~plicant's Signature ~3~~5 5w 7Z~~ DIP,, -0q/7 Cp/a1Q.T,c z-ir A X~llbit Iy-f _Telephor~ Page of EXHIBIT H EXPIRATION DATE: I . Ln a I (p it 41) . 12 -Z ~ - 3211 n r m o. L V 7 70 Exhibit - of 3 D,, ----yam - - ---n - Sut'PoRT RO ulKI~_n- - - - - CIZ - - - - - - - L J~ - - - --12~~ 'ONJ , x tibia'--- EXHIBIT I -Ah 771 SITE: TL 1300 7315 SW HermosoWay Tigard, OR 97223 RS' o TR ES OWNER: M. M. Shimnen, LLC a REPRESENTATIVE & AGENT: - John W. Shonkwiler, PC 13425 SW 72nd Ave. t Tigard, OR 97223 r 0 (503) 624-0917 ~n Fax: (503) 684-8971 l S3 O W t`~t N Ct - ~7ctST1N~ PROPOSED USE: ~sb Cx tSrtNG- - _ 'bii~vCWAj' Professional Offices -76 Zoning is MUE f ~lRLtl pc(r~uoo • PJte 5EWEP. rA -1315 Sw 4E (Z(AOSo QA-Y F LEIIPUM, OSO ',,VA-Y 50 f. right-of-way i t L 0 l I t)v::v _ W;; 1~ r Y I i~ 1(-,-0 EXHIBIT J 0 0 STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN SITE: TL 1300 7315 SW HermosoWay Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: M. M. Shinmen, LLC 1. Proposed parking lots and sidewalks. a. The proposed sidewalk along the frontage with SW Hermoso Way, proposed sidewalks connecting the frontage sidewalk with the office buildings, adjacent parking lot walkway and concrete pad for bicycle parking combine to constitute 806 square feet. b. The proposed parking lot impervious surface and entry apron total 2,329 square feet. 2. Existing driveway. The existing driveway will be replaced entirely by the proposed parking lot. This existing driveway (approximately 24 ft. by 55 ft.) totals 1,320 square feet. This replaced C impervious area must be reduced from the overall proposed parking lot and sidewalk impervious area to determine the net increase in impervious surface. 3. That increase in impervious surface. Proposed surface of 3,135 minus existing surface of 1,320 equals a net increase in impervious surface of 1,815 square feet. 4. Existing roof area equals 2,520 square feet (including eaves). 5. Storm drainage plan. The proposed parking lot will provide a dry well located near the center of the parking lot that is of sufficient size to assure adequate disposal of rain water runoff from the increased in impervious surface. The existing roof area is already served by downspouts into "french drains" which have been successful in disposing of all rain water run off without ponding or exit from the subject property. Thus, this existing roof drainage system already adequately provides for critical event and annual storm water drainage, as well as, clean water treatment to eliminate phosphates and nitrates. In the event that the City requires an engineer drawing of the proposed dry well, the Applicant requests that the requirement become a condition of approval for this use permit. 0 EXHIBIT K 011 W2 ;0°5;15 M 2004-001827 0-0W Crtt■, Me? K GRUNEWALD 1 Transnation • f5.00t1.0011""'o ,t3$207. 00 TdelpurydC1W After Recording, Return to: II III II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII John W. Shonkwiler 00515725200400018270010012 24600 SW Mountain Road berry NVraon tNrectorof Aaaeaere.nt and Ta.atlen and Ei4)M [a County Clerk for WuNngton County, • West Linn, OR 97068 Crop%deheregr e,"tty that the within lnatnmrent of of wldno was received and recorded Ii= recorde of add county. Until a change is requested, tax statements' Jerry RNansonDwttorWAss.iententand Tnadot% shall be sent to the following address: EaC"Ido county dark John W. Shonkwiler 24600 SW Mountain Road. West Linn, OR 97068 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (Individual) (Above Space Reserved for Recorder's Use) Michael F. Laurens conveys and warrants to H. K. SHIHIMEN, LLC the following described real property in the State of Oregon and County of Washington free of encumbrances, except as specifically set forth herein: Lot 3, HERMOSO PARK, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. WASHINGTON COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX SITS,oo I_9 oy FEE PAID DATE Tax Account Number(s): R0457124 This property is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: • Covenants, conditions, restrictions, rights of way, easements and reservations now of record. The true consideration for this conveyance is $185,000.00 which is paid to an accommodator pursuant to an IRC 1031 exchange. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLA- TION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRU- MENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAW- SUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. D this day of January, 2004. Michael-q. Laurens STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF 17c~cNV~ )ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 2004, by chael F. Laurens. Notary Pu tic for Orego V I 1, OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission Expires: I ~C~ J MEGAN CECIL 1 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 343935 • MY COM1lISSION EXPIRES MAY it, 2005 Order No.: 2920127w Nul Ill A EXHIBIT L APR 15 LUM L . , i3y- Number C:lcanWaterr Services Fc)s^~~ $ Our cuinutiiwcuL if clear. Sensitive Area Pre-Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction { Nd..A. Date Map a Tax Lot 7,S 16 1003 Old Owner Contact Site Address pang 11 dress Proposed Activity _ City State Zi 41 (~D~~ A&M 4L--LC- 3+2;r sa-t P % 4wL Z- -CR C ra8~E- ~i"11 Fax ORtaaluw o* b9bw Bas" Y N NA Y N NA ❑ pg ❑ Sensitive Area Composite Map Map R S 144# ❑ ❑ [K Stormwater Infrastructure maps QS NSAA ❑ ❑ ® Spec fy adopted studies or maps E] Q " UN then Specify Based on a review of the above information and the requirements of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order No. 04-9: 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. If Sensitive Amos 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 ff they are subsequently discovered. This document will serve as your Service Provider letter as required by Resolution and Order 049, Section 3.02.1. All required permits and approvals must be obtained and completed under applicable local, state, and federal law. • ❑ The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: Reviewed By: Date: y/.zf/GS Post-W Fax Note 7671 "1e ~I ~c6 6s ' ► To ~+i c From d%,j j COJD* cd, Ct46 PI1fH1p / Ifft_ IF" 31 Returned to Applicant Fot Mail Ft= ,r Counter_ Date y Ijy,4:% 1 t LDC DESIGN GROUP a Parati company Storm Drainage Report 'Hermoso Office Conversion Tax Map 2S 1 01AB Tax Lot 1300 ~~~~p PROF~~,s November 18, 2005 _ 64517PE DREG N -o R1 EE1~j -L. 1. •c, I I 'Ill Prepared For: John W. Shonkwiler, PC 13425 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Prepared By: LDC Design Group 20085 NW Tanasbourne Drive Hillsboro, OR 97124 Submitted To: City of Tigard Hermoso Office Conversion, LDC Project # 1019.001 • 0 Table of Contents: Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Existing Conditions 3 Proposed Conditions 3 Hydrology 4 Methodology and Results 4 Appendib'es: Appendix A - Vicinity Map (Aerial & Topography), Existing Conditions Map & Proposed Basin Map Appendix B - Soil Classification/ Site Maps Appendix C - Conveyance and Detention Facility Calculations Appendix D - Water Quality Calculations 2 • s STORM DRAINAGE_REPORT SUMMARY Introduction The Hermoso Office Conversion is an existing single-family residential property proposal to convert to professional office space located in the City of Tigard, Oregon. It is comprised of a single-family detached home. It is located west of 72nd Ave on SW Hermoso Way and the address is 7315 SW Hermoso Way, Tigard, OR 97223. Reference (Appendix A) for vicinity map. Existing Conditions. The site is approximately 0.34 acres in size. Currently one single family home is located on the site. The site consists of a few landscape plants and lawn with slopes range from 3% to 5% percent. The site runoff sheet flows to the north and west. The runoff from the existing site currently sheet flows to SW Hermoso Way and eventually into a catch basin and conveyance system approximately 600 feet down SW Hermoso Way. The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Washington County, Oregon classifies the existing soils as Woodburn silt loam. This soil is further classified as being in hydrologic group C, with a corresponding curve number (CN) of 76. Reference (Appendix B) for Soil Classification / Site Maps. Proposed Conditions The proposed site plan will include a 5 foot sidewalk along the site frontage and a new parking lot with 6 parking spaces. The site will continue to drain to the north and west in the rear of the lot with the existing house and, proposed parking lot draining into the stormwater management catch basin filter in the parking lot. The storm water runoff from all proposed and existing impervious surfaces will be treated with a stormwater management catch basin filter and detained in a separate detention system, located within the new parking lot. A new 12" storm line has been required to be extended approximately 600' from the existing public storm system in Hermoso Way west of the site to the sites eastern property line. 3 Hydrology (offsite and onsite) . Design Criteria: • Open channel flow • Fully developed conditions assumed • 2-year, 24-hour event = 2.50 inches • 10-year, 24-hour event = 3.45 inches • 25-year, 24-hour event = 3.90 inches • 100-year, 24-hour event = 4.50 inches • Conveyance system design storm = 25-year event • Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph methodology The onsite and downstream st'brm drain conveyance systems are sized to convey the peak discharge from a 25-year recurrence interval storm event under fully developed conditions utilizing Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Methodology. (Reference Appendix C for calculations.) Methodology and Results The site is located in Tigard and will follow the standards of Tigard and Clean Water Service. The design to date is at the planning level and might include modifications to final impervious area calculations, pipe sizing, and orifice sizing. However, the site has been thoroughly analyzed and the general plan will follow the calculations and could work as shown in the current plans. Attached are the calculations related to the existing and proposed development. The existing and proposed calculations include the front half of the site as the back half does not drain into the proposed storm drain system. The total pervious and impervious area will be detained in a 42" diameter, 20' long detention pipe with a flow control manhole in the parking lot, regulating the flow out to the proposed 12" storm line in Hermoso Way. The extension of the 12" storm drain line in Hermoso Way and on-site detention is required per code to limit the flow leaving the site to pre-developed conditions. The treatment will be accomplished with a Stormwater Management Catch Basin Filter system, placed in the parking lot. The difference between the pre-developed and post-developed flow for the 2, 10, 25 and 100-year storm events is approximately 0.02 cfs. To limit the post-developed flow to pre-developed conditions a 1 "orifice will be placed at the bottom of an 8" standpipe in the flow control manhole. The 100-year bypass is accomplished by leaving the top of the 8" standpipe open. The capacity of the 8" storm line from the flow control manhole to the public system in Hermoso Way is 2.76 cfs which is substantially greater than the post-developed flow of 0.172 cfs for the 100-year storm event. The post-developed impervious surface is 5,094 square feet generating a water quality flow of 0.11 cfs or 4.8 gpm per Clean Water Surfaces standards. To accomplish the required water quality one (1) stormwater management filter will be required in the stormwater management catch basin. 4 Appendix A: Vicinity Map (Aerial) Vicinity Map (Topography) Existing Conditions Map Proposed Basin Map 5 ash ng quare 11 '<-Y0 ILER-_..._____± BSI ZL- i - -IV(e ge - -r- Tiga I I~ SUBJECT PROPERTY 2S101AB01300 7315 SW HERMOSO WAY 11 . . l~ 1 N Date: DO Figure 1.0 Vicinity 11/18/2005 Hermoso Road Office Conversion Scale: 1" = 2000ft. Design Group City of Tigard, Washington County,. Oregon . c Faali cumpcny Project 20085 NW TANASBOURNE DRIVE Source: 1019.001 HILLSBORO, OREGON 97124 PH: 503.858.4242 Metro Data Resource Center, RLIS Lite Data Disc, August 2005 Drawn By: CEB FAX: 503.645.5500 A09.Ci15'd E 0 U A C f0 n E 0 U O n 3 3 3 c 0 E a~ v J LL O1 C N ¢ V 7 d O V 0 C Y U O a U y a~ ~ m 1 m r > :S o U C N Q Y O O E m i- 0 0 a y P:U 919.GO7~GIS11.~.aoslG~a~~agc RepoMOI9-001AERIAL.,mj E. O U c M O. E 0 U Q 3 3 3 0 E U J LL N C 61 Q 7 0) O U O c Y U O lY Q U d d m m 0 U C co Q Y O O E co F 0 0 .0 v, 0 T C E 0 U a 0 0. 0 O U O J O t Q° . ~ j ,~O f WAY sr ,O ti sr Legend Q Subject Property 100ft. USGS Contour 10ft. USGS Contour - - Stream Route 2,;0 77- ;~~l Ii NI 1 Date: CC Figure 4.0 Topography 11/18/2005 CLDD Hermoso Road Office Conversion Scale: 1" = 200ft. Design Group City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon.. Project o Porod company 20085 NW TANASBOURNE DRIVE Source: 1019.001 HILLSBORO. OREGON 97124 PH: 503.858.4242 Metro Data Resource Center, RLIS Lite Data Disc, August 2005 FAX: 503.545.5500 Drawn By: CEB --x~x--_x~~ x- - - - ~ ! 1 1 ! I e ♦ ♦ ' I I I f 1 ' ~ + + ` I ~ 1 I J I f 1 ♦ I I + I r r t r + I I I r 1 r + I I I i ! I r r 1 ~ { i I 1 / / I I I I r ! r / I I I I I i I z I I / / ! IING 5' CHAINLINK FENC/ EXISTING CONTOURS O I I ~ 7 lt c l u a ro (yV l I ~ 1 t inch = 10 t1. I I I / r O I I / / + J N I I / ~ I I I I I 0 I I I I ! ! I / I I I I f II I 4 I I I I 3 EXISTING HEATPUMP \ 1 2 I / I 1 / I I 1 ! / ° / i I I + I + I r DATUM: I ( f I I ~ 11 r i STATION DESIGNATION: GC022025 STATION DESCRIPTION: SE CDR DLC 38 r I z i r REFERENCE: USBT BK 9-PG 161 I ( 1 + r / I I ! EXISTING I NAO 83 (91) STATE PLANE COORDINATES ZONE 7601, OREGON NORTH CONCRETE{ WALL I I i J I NORTHING. 651076.919 Wi. FEET I I I i o + I EASTING: 7624301.854 INT. FEET ( I ( S } / + I NGVD 29 ORTHOMETRIC ELEVATION 1 1 l / 1 1 241.08 WT. FEET I + I % L 1l I 1 I I L L / I / O + I 4I STATION IS A 2' BRASS CAP ON A 2' IRON PIPE IN A MONUMENT BOX, STAMPED T2S RIW DLC 3B 1995 WASH. CO. SURVEYOR I I I M I I I I /lr O y / I ( ARE STATION IS LOCATED AT THE NEST END OF W E SOUTH PARKING AREA OF Di HAMPTON PARK APARTMENTS, 12490 SW 72NX0 AVENUE. NUE. THE I I I ( ♦ +Cpk ( STATION LIES 90 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 72ND " i ♦ / AVENUE AND SW HERMOSO WAY, 12.0 FEET EAST OF THE WEST EDGE i I I f ! l i , I i OF THE ASPHALT PARKING LOT, 1 ! I I I *Q' EXISTING ASPHALT 1 II I I j I / REIN1 VEWAY D TO BE 011 I r 1 I 1 1 x If + Ig / I + I I I It EXISTING TREE I + I I J $ L 10 BE I A `REMOVED l + l r ~ I / ♦ / ~ - 1 I I EXISTING 3/4 ♦ / / + I} ♦ WATER METER o i _ _ _ _ I 400 / / + OH Y1N-Xd1-XOH --)(ON -0 XOH-kOH-L-%OH-XCH %OM ' ! :'%OM~XON: %6H I 1. %ON-%OM-%W-X011- %OH ~~XOH XOM--%OH-X011-XW-XON-XDH-XOX- 7 x EXISTING POWER POLE I EXISTING CURB W/ OVERHEAD UTIUIIE¢ EXISTING LIGHT ~ ~'E10.S`iNG STREET UGLL1~ % TO BE A ~ 1 EXISTING MAR BOX / J / J EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ` RELgCATEO I \ ` ' - / ' 1 ! J _ . : . 7g9-xis-%55- ' ' .XSS-%S5 -KSS„-X55 %5S-%95 / -%55 %55 ,.%59-~XSS-xSS- XSS-7. XSS X55-x55- . iSS- 55-M55 -XSS-=.x55 XSS.-XSS" . 5, .....%5 =x55--% S--XSS -X55 . 55 X55, . . r D : : . . , . / . . . . . . ' 1 . r ' / / ILL HERMOSO WAY . N I. . i 4 ~ ~ . E UB X STWG C. . . Vii............ ~ ,..'f' : It 5.,.. ~ '\A 4 ` -%M-%W -XW-xW-kW-_x11-XW--XW-K'N-XW-%f XW- \ % -%11-xW -YW-XW~-%W-%W-XW-%W -XW-XW-%W- 1(W-XW\ XW-%W -%W--%W ---%W--%W -%W -%W-YW-%W-kW --%W -%IY- y 1 ` / ~ I ! - VV - I t I wz J Z N Y6a Zoio V=in N° E! Z N a o a W O n Z O N (if z Omow U ooh n W N'O H ~ QO0 l1. ~ X~ O Q<O O 7- Ln H- U ~ 2 Z Q J CL W H- V) CD Z F N X W oT ~E N N T ~ C C 0) iuo~? =1 o^„2 awU) 0p V O z o z'a ul y J U p a 1019.001 I eF 3 SKEET NAME: REMSION XSIh N~ 0 1700 YY ) 834 SF 'wr ----------i-- I I I I I I I I I az i I I I 0 o He m I 1 inch = 10 EE, TOTAL SITE AREA 15,000 SF = 0.3443 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS . HOUSE = 2,050 SF HOUSE = 2,050 SF PATIO = 256 SF PATIO = 256 SF DRIVEWAY = 834 SF PATH = 246 SF TOTAL = 3,140 SF = 0.0721 AC PARKING = 1700 SF SIDEWALK = 600 SF PERVIOUS AREA = 4360 SF = 0.1001 AC DRIVEWAY = 242 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 3140 SF = 0.0721 AC TOTAL = 5,094 SF = 0.1169 AC PERVIOUS AREA = 2046 SF = 0.0552 AC IMPERVIOUS AREA = 5094 SF = 0.1169 AC I I 11 I I I T I r I I . I I I I I C-C Lm-xss-xss-xss- %SS z55 %55 zSS x55x55 - xS5 -xSS-x55 - %SSx51-xS5 - %SS -x55 - z55-x55 - x5S- x55 - %SS -xSS -YSS-x5S - %SS -xSS-m - %SS -%SS - xS5 - YSS -%55-%55 - YSS - %SS HERMOSO WAY 0 - - - - -r - - 1- - i -1 - - - - - - - - + - - - - a -ifl-xp-%M--'xW-~%'f~-X4--x0-%V ~xY~%f1---1N' x'1-X9-XR llri-kW-xW kY-xW -a--Y -xN-xW-xY-xW-TN-YH-xM xC-Xp-YR-xB•--_py•~-%p--xM_-%N-%N-%G'-%q-%N-YN- I I I I Li D J Z V Y Q z m z OZO VZinw 3 0 =z0of n = v < p0^U a F z O (n Z W O > m w O Sop n . W N'~ Vao~ Q J OC) I< Q o T U) O w a a Z Ul Q m o W 1n O a- 0 u a U) nE U d T ~ rn2 'on„c WN ~ 9 a =1 d a ~ 0 E U Z J Zp N °y w Oa 1019.001 .4 a3 SHEET NILE: FENgON BASIN 0 0 Appendix B: Soil Classification/ Site Maps 1 E 0 U T c m 0. E 0 U O N O. 3 3 3 c 0 E U J LL d c N a U 7 N O U D c Y U O a U a~ rJ a> m a~ 0 U c M >a Y 0 0 E co H 0 0 W Pa701f) 0011GtS'•tdap:.7Crain.:rn Rrnnn~141y-ROtS~aS u~n 9 Chapter 2 Estimating Runoff Table 2-2a • Runoff curve numbers for urban areas v • Technical Release 55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Cover description Cover type and hydrologic condition Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established) Curve numbers for hydrologic soil group Average percent impervious area 21 A Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.) 31: Poor condition (grass cover < 50%) Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 75%) Good condition (grass,cover > 75%) Impervious areas: Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (excluding right-of-way) Streets and roads: Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding right-of-way) Paved; open ditches (including right-of-way) Gravel (including right-of-way) Dirt (including right-of-way) Western desert urban areas: Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) A/ Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier, desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch and basin borders) Urban districts: Commercial and business Industrial Residential districts by average lot size: 1/8 acre or less (town houses) 1/4 acre 1/3 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre 2 acres Developing urban areas Newly graded areas (pervious areas only, no vegetation) 5/ Idle lands (CN's are determined using cover types similar to those in table 2-2c). 68 49 39 B C D 79 8 89 69 X79 84 61 73 80 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 83 89 92 93 76 85 89 91 72 82 87 89 63 77 85 88 96 96 96 96 85 89 92 94 95 72 81 88 91 93 65 77 85 90 92 38 61 75 83 87 30 57 72 81 86 25 54 70 80 85 20 51 68 79 84 12 46 65 77 82 77 86 91 94 1 Average runoff condition, and 4 = 0.2S. 2 The average percent impervious area shown was used to develop the composite CN's. Other assumptions are as follows: impervious areas are directly connected to the drainage system, impervious areas have a CN of 98, and pervious areas are considered equivalent to open space in good hydrologic condition. CN's for other combinations of conditions may be computed using figure 2-3 or 2-4. 3 CN's shown are equivalent to those of pasture. Composite CN's may be computed for other combinations of open space cover type. 4 Composite CN's for natural desert landscaping should be computed using figures 2-3 or 24 based on the impervious area percentage (CN = 98) and the pervious area CN. The pervious area CN's are assumed equivalent to desert sluub in poor hydrologic condition. 5 Composite CN's to use for the design of temporary measures during grading and construction should be computed using figure 2-3 or 2-4 based on the degree of development (impervious area percentage) and the CN's for the newly graded pervious areas. (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) 2-5 122 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 13.-Soil and Hydro- Flooding Soil name and logic map symbol group Frequency Duration Months Klickitat : 25E, 25F, 25G B None Knappa: B None 26 a Labish : 27 D Frequent Very long Dec-Apr Laurelwood: 286,28C,28D,28E,29E,29F B None McBee: 30 ----------r--------------------- B Frequent Brief Nov-May Melbourne: 31B, 31C, 31D, 31E, 31F B None Melby 32C,32D,32~,33E,33F,33G C None Olyic: 34C,34D.34E,35E,35F,35G B None Pervina : 36C,36D,36E,36F C None Quatama : 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D C None Saum: 386.38C, 38D, 38E, 38F C None Tolke : 39E, 39F B None Udifluvents : 40 B Frequent Very brief Nov-Apr Verboort: 42 D Frequent Brief Dec-Apr Wapato: 43 D Frequent Brief Dec-Apr Willamette: 44A, 448, 44C, 44D B None Woodburn: 45A, 45B, 45C, 45D C None Xerochrepts: ' 46F: Xerochrepts part B None Hapioxeroiis part C None '47D: Xerochrepts part D None Rock outcrop part. 'This mapping unit is made up of two or more dominant kinds of soil. See mapping unit description for the composition and behavior of the whole mapping unit. • 48 • SOIL SURVEY medium acid (pH 5.6).; gradual, smooth boundary. 0 to 7 inches thick. B21t-16 to 26 inches, dark-brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay loam, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) dry; moderate, fine, and very fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, slightly sticky and plastic; many fine roots; many, very fine, tubular pores; thick clay films on peds and in pores; medium acid (pH 5.8) ; clear, smooth boundary. 7 to 10. inches thick. B22t-26 to 31 inches, dark-brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; common fine, distinct, dark grayish- brown (10YR 4/2) and grayish-brown (2.5YR 5/2) mottles; weak, medium, and fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, slightly sticky and plastic; few fine roots; many, fine and very fine, tubular pores," common thick clay films in pores and on peds ; few, fine, black manganese stains; medium acid (pH 6.0) ; gradual, smooth boundary. 4 to 10 inches thick. B3-31 to 41 inches, dark grayish-brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay loam, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; common, fine, distinct, dark grayish-brown (10YR 4/2) and grayish- brown (2.5YR 5/2) mottles; weak, me- dium and fine, subangular blocky structure; hard, firm, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few fine and medium roots ; 'common, fine and very fine, tubular pores; few thick clay films in larger pores; medium acid (pH 6.0) ; gradual, smooth boundary. 0 to 12 inches thick. C-41 to 60 inches, dark grayish-brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry; many, distinct, grayish- brown (2.5YR 5/2), dark grayish-brown (10YR 4/3), and dark yellowish-brown (10YR 4/4) mottles; massive; hard, firm, slightly sticky and slightly plastic; few fine roots; very few, fine, tubular pores; medium acid (pH 6.0). The A horizon has moist value of 2 or 3, chroma of 2 or 3, and hue of 10YR. Dry value is 4 or 5, and chroma is 2 or 3. Between depths of 10 and 20 inches, moist value and chroma range to 4. Distinct mottles are within a depth of 30 inches. The B2 horizon ranges from heavy silt loam to silty clay loam. Horizons below a depth of 30 inches are firm to very firm and are brit- r tle. The solum is slightly acid to medium acid. 45A-Woodburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. This nearly level soil has the profile described as repre- sentative of the series. Included with this soil in mapping were areas of Aloha, Amity, Willamette, Helvetia, and Dayton soils, which occupy as much as 15 percent of this mapping unit. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. Capability unit IIw-l ; wildlife group 2. 4513-Woodburn silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes. This soil is gently sloping. Included with this soil in mapping were areas of Aloha, Amity, Willamette, Helvetia, and Dayton soils, which occupy as much as 15 percent of this mapping unit. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. Capability unit He-2; wildlife group 2. 45C-Woodburn silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes. This soil is moderately sloping. Included with this soil in mapping were areas of Aloha, Amity, Willamette, Helvetia, and Dayton soils, which occupy as much as 15 percent of this mapping unit. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is mod- erate. Capability unit IIe-2; wildlife group 2. 45D-Woodburn silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes. This moderately steep soil is 'along terrace escarp- ments. Included with this soil in mapping were areas of Aloha, Amity, Willamette, Helvetia, and Dayton soils, which occupy as much as 15 percent of this mapping unit. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is mod- erate. Capability unit IIIe-5 ; wildlife group 2. Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steep 46F-Xerochrepts and Haploxerolls, very steep. This undifferentiated group is about 45 percent Xerochrepts and about 45 percent Haploxerolls. It occurs as steep to very steep escarpments along the small streams that have cut deeply into the valley terraces and where the terraces meet the bottom lands and flood plains along major streams and rivers. These 'soils are well drained. They formed in a mixture of silt, sand, and an accumu- lation of material that has moved downslope. The short slopes range from 20 to 60 percent. Elevation is 50 to 450 feet. Vegetation is Douglas-fir, Oregon white oak, shrubs, forbs, and grasses. The average annual precipi- tation is 40 to 60 inches, average annual air tempera- ture is 50° to 54° F, and the frost-free period is 165 to 210 days. Included in mapping were areas of Hillsboro, Quatama, Willamette, and Woodburn soils, which make up as much as 15 percent of this mapping unit. Small seep spots and wet-season springs are also in- cluded. Permeability is moderate to moderately slow. Avail- able water capacity is 10 to 12 inches. Water-supplying capacity is 22 to 26 inches. Effective rooting depth is more than 60 inches. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of erosion is severe. These soils are used for pasture, recreation, home- sites, and wildlife habitat. Capability unit VIe_; wild- life group 2. Xerochrepts-Rock outcrop complex 47D-Xerochrepts-Rock outcrop complex. This com- plex is about 50 percent Xerochrepts and 30 percent Rock outcrop. It occurs in irregularly shaped areas southeast of Sherwood and is composed of shallow and very shallow soils and barren exposures of basalt bed- rock. Slope is 5 to 30 percent. The Xerochrepts formed in a mixture of silt and sand too variable to map. Vege- tation is low shrubs, Oregon white oak, Douglas-fir, grasses, and forbs. The average annual precipitation is • Appendix C: Conveyance and Detention Facility Calculations • PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Project: Hermoso Road Office Conversion Project No.: 1019.001 DDC Date: 18-Nov-05 DESIGN GROUP General Site Description and Data Soils Woodburn Silt Loam Type C Rainfall Data 2 year, 24 hour event 2.50 inches 10 year, 24 hour event 3.45 inches 25 year, 24 hour event 3.90 inc es 100 year, 24 hour event 4.50 inches Rainfall Storm Type Type 1A Distribution Site Characteristics , CN Area Area Pre-Development Open Spade (Lawns) 79 0.10 acres 4,360 SF (Fair cond. Open) Impervious 98 0.07 acres 3,140 SF (House, Dwy) 0.17 acres 7,500 SF Post-Developed Time of Concentration Pre-Development Developed Calculations Pre-Development Post-Development Open Space (Lawns) 79 0.06 acres 2,406 SF (Fair cond. Open) Impervious 98 0.12 acres 5,094 SF (House, Parking, Sidewalk, Dwy) 0.17 acres 7,500 SF 5 minutes 5 minutes 2 Year 10 Year 25 Year 100 Year 0.063 cfs 0.101 cfs 0.120 cfs 0.147 cfs 0.084 cfs 0.125 cfs 0.145 cfs 0.172 cfs sr1 SRL 15:09 22-Nov-05 Project 1019.001 Hermoso Road office Conversion GRAVITY PIPE FLOW (Chezy-Manning) 8" Storm line from Flow Control MH to Public Storm System in Hermoso Way diameter = 8.0" slope = 4.50% material: ABS, PVC Manning's n = 0.013 depth of flow = 93.82% of diameter (max) wetted perimeter = 1:76' area = 0.34 s.f. hydraulic radius = 0.19' velocity = 8.12 fps flow = 2.76 cfs G kPAe- I T Y F 9!N " 5TOP-M I_1 iJ E FC>L>- CoNVE`i AX3C- OP*--- 100 YP-- STOZAA PP-00A S 1TF TO PUBLIC 5T-ok-Nk S Y STEAA w 14 E~A&O S o wI~Y. r L-1 2n • • Detention Pipe Basin A Hermoso Storm Pipe Subcat Reach on Link 0 • 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type IA 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 2 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Inflow Area = 0.180 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.69" for 2 Year event Inflow = 0.08 cfs @ 7.94 hrs, Volume= 0.025 of Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 8.14 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Atten= 28%, Lag= 11.9 min Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 8.14 hrs, Volume= 0.025 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 227.62'@ 8.14 hrs Surf.Area= 0.001 ac Storage= 0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 3.9 min calculated for 0.025 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 3.5 min ( 750.4 - 746.9 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 226.50' 0.004 of 42.0"D x 20.00'L Horizontal Cylinder i " # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 226.50' 8.0" x 40.0' long Culvert CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Outlet Invert= 225.21' S=0.0322'/' n=0.013 Cc= 0.900 2 Device 1 225.50' 1.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 2.00 Limited to weir flow C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 8.14 hrs HW=227.62' TW=225.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Passes 0.06 cfs of 1.17 cfs potential flow) t-2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.06 cfs @ 5.1 fps) Pond 2P: Detention Pipe 0.085 ' 0.08-:, 0.075 ' 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 " y 0.05- 0.045- o 0.04 LL 0.035-' 0.03 0.025- 0.02 0.015 0.01 Hydrograph - - C I ~ I I I I I 1 0.061 I I J a 3 I ± .......i.. T(s - - ' - I I I ~ I I 17 ®Inflow p Primary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) • 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type IA 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 3 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Hydrograph for Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Time Inflow Storage Elevation Primary (hours) (cfs) (acre-feet) (feet) (cfs) 1.00 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 .1.50 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.000 226.51 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.000 226.53 0.00 4.00 0.00. 0.000 226.53 0.00 4.50 0.00 0.000 226.54 0.00 5.00 b.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 5.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 6.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 6.50 , 0.02 0.000 226.58 0.01 7.00 0.02 0.000 226.60 0.02 7.50 0.03 0.000 226.71 0.02 8.00 0.08 0.001 227.53 0.05 8.50 0.03 0.001 227.38 0.05 9.00 0.03 0.000 226.97 0.04 9.50 0.02 0.000 226.70 0.02 10.00 0.02 0.000 226.65 0.02 10.50 0.02 0.000 226.62 0.02 11.00 0.02 0.000 226.61 0.02 11.50 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 12.00 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.01 12.50 0.02 0.000 226.58 0.02 13.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 13.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 14.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 14.50 0.01 0:000 226.57 0.01 15.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 15.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 16.00 - 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 16.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 17.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 17.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 18.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 18.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 19.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 19.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 20.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 20.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 21.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 21.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 22.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 22.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 23.00 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 23.50 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 24.00 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 i • 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 4 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Pond 2P: Detention Pipe 1 Inflow Area = 0.180 ac, Inflow Depth = 2.58" for 10 Year event Inflow = 0.12 cfs @ 7.93 hrs, Volume= 0.039 of Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 8.21 hrs, Volume= 0.039 af, Atten= 38%, Lag= 16.6 min Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 8.21 hrs, Volume= 0.039 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 228.51' @ 8.21 hrs Surf.Area= 0.002 ac Storage= 0.003 of Plug-Flow detention time= 7.2 min calculated for 0.039 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time: 6.9 min ( 731.8 - 725.0 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 226.50' 0.004 of 42.0"D x 20.001 Horizontal Cylinder I # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 226.50' 8.0" x 40.0' long Culvert CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Outlet Invert= 225.21' S=0.0322'/' n=0.013 Cc= 0.900 2 Device 1 225.50' 1.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 2.00 Limited to weir flow C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 8.21 hrs HW=228.51' TVV=225.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Passes 0.07 cfs of 1.72 cfs potential flow) t-2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.07 cfs @ 6.8 fps) Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Hydrograph 0.13 0.12ds a 0.,2 nflow Areal- 0:.180; c - - - Pear E'Iev=228:511`- Storagel=x.003 a: ' 0.09 I 1 I I ~ I ~ I I I 1 1 I I y I I 0.08 i 1 .......I .......i. 0.07 cfs L. ..I ..I i.. _ • I I N I 1 t I 1.1 I _ t...... .....i .i - - _ _ _ _ _ i 0.07 - I- 3 I i , I I I i I 0.06 _ ' 0.05- ' ~ I I I 1 ~ I ; 0.04': ' I i I I I i ~ ft! I I I _I 0.03 I ~ I _ ~ 1 I I 0.02 --1---- - 0.01 0 rnTr~rrr~rr-rrTTC'I r, r.-(.r, rr, , rrl r, . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M Inflow ® Primary Time (hours) • 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type IA 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=3.45" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 5 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Hydrograph for Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Time Inflow Storage Elevation Primary (hours) (cfs) (acre-feet) (feet) (cfs) 1.00 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.000 226.50. 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.000 226.52 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.000 226.54 0.00 3.50 0.01 0.000 226.54 0.01 4.00 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 4.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 5.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 5.50 0.02 0.060 226.60 0.02 6.00 0.02 0.000 226.64 0.02 6.50 0.03 0.000 226.72 0.02 7.00 ` 0.03 0.000 226.76 0.03 7.50 0.04 0.000 226.96 0.04 8.00 0.12 0.002 228.28 0.07 8.50 0.05 0.002 228.30 0.07 9.00 0.04 0.001 227.79 0.06 9.50 0.03 0.001 227.28 0.05 10.00 0.03 0.000 226.95 0.04 10.50 0.03 0.000 226.79 0.03 11.00 0.03 0.000 226.75 0.03 11.50 0.02 0.000 226.71 0.02 12.00 0.02 0.000 226.67 0.02 12.50 0.02 0.000 226.67 0.02 13.00 0.02 0.000 226.66 0.02 13.50 0.02 0.000 226.65 0.02 14.00 0.02 0.000 226.64 0.02 14.50 0.02 0.000 226.64 0.02 15.00 0.02 0.000 226.63 0.02 15.50 0.02 0.000 226.63 0.02 16.00 0.02 0.000 226.62 0.02 16.50 0.02 0.000 226.62 0.02 17.00 0.02 0.000 226.61 0.02 17.50 0.02 0.000 226.61 0.02 18.00 0.02 0.000 226.60 0.02 18.50 0.02 0.000 226.60 0.02 19.00 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 19.50 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 20.00 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.01 20.50 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.01 21.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 21.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 22.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 22.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 23.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 23.50 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 24.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type 1A 24-hr 25 Year Rainfall=3.90" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 6 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Inflow Area = 0.180 ac, Inflow Depth= 3.02" for 25 Year event Inflow = 0.14 cfs @ 7.92 hrs, Volume= 0.045 of Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 8.23 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Atten= 41 Lag= 18.1 min Primary = 0.08 cfs @ 8.23 hrs, Volume= 0.045 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 229.01'@ 8.23 hrs Surf.Area= 0.001 ac Storage= 0.003 of Plug-Flow detention time= 8.9 min calculated for 0.045 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 8.6 min ( 726.1 - 717.5 ) # Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 1 226.50' 0.004 of 42.0"D x 20.00'L Horizontal Cylinder i ' # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 226.50' 8.0" x 40.0' long Culvert CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Outlet Invert= 225.21' S= 0.03227' n= 0.013 Cc= 0.900 2 Device 1 225.50' 1.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 2.00 Limited to weir flow C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 8.23 hrs HW=229.01' TW=225.22' (Dynamic Tailwater) LtCulvert (Passes 0.08 cfs of 1.96 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.08 cfs 7.6 fps) Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Hydrograph 1 i IS Inflow . . o. 4 ds Primary 0.15 • i I ------'--'---t--~--'. - ..-----'J ac__. nflow -Area-OA-80; 0.14 • i I I ~ ~ 0.13 I I I I - ea E I 0.12 0.11. , ; Stoa6e=0.00 of - 0.1 -1 r -r' r - --r- r- - 1 I : I I I I I I I I , . 0.09- " 0.08 ds _ 0.08 3 ~ - I ~ I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I 1 0 07 1 .7 T .7 . LL , I I I , 1 I I 0.06- I. L I I I I : . , I 0.05 - . I ..1'. I t I I 1 I I I I I I I 0.04- ' 0.03- - 0.02- r 1 I 0.01 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) 0 • 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type IA 24-hr 25 Year Rainfall=3.90" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 7 HydroCADO 7.00 s/n 002505 ©1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Hydrograph for Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Time Inflow Storage Elevation Primary (hours) (cfs) (acre-feet) (feet) (cfs) 1.00 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.000 226.51 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.000 226.53 0.00 3.00 0.01 0.000 226.54 0.01 3.50 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 4.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 4.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 5.00 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 5.50 0.02 0.06 226.65 0.02 6.00 0.02 0.000 226.70 0.02 6.50 0.03 0-:000 226.81 0.03 7.00 0.03 0.000 226.86 0.03 7.50 0.05 0.001 227.10 0.04 8.00 0.14 0.003 228.68 0.08 8.50 0.06 0.003 228.80 0.08 9.00 0.05 0.002 228.23 0.07 9.50 0.04 0.001 227.64 0.06 10.00 0.03 0.001 227.21 0.04 10.50 0.03 0.000 226.95 0.04 11.00 0.03 0.000 226.85 0.03 11.50 0.03 0.000 226.78 0.03 12.00 0.02 0.000 226.73 0.03 12.50 0.03 0.000 226.73 0.03 13.00 0.02 0.000 226.71 0.02 13.50 0.02 0.000 226.70 0.02 14.00 0.02 0.000 226.69 0.02 14.50 0.02 0.000 226.68 0.02 15.00 0.02 0.000 226.67 0.02 15.50 0.02 0.000 226.67 0.02 16.00 0.02 0.000 226.66 0.02 16.50 0.02 0.000 226.65 0.02 17.00 0.02 0.000 226.65 0.02 17.50 0.02 0.000 226.64 0.02 18.00 0.02 0.000 226.63 0.02 18.50 0.02 0.000 226.62 0.02 19.00 0.02 0.000 226.62 0.02 19.50 0.02 0.000 226.61 0.02 qn nn n ng 0.000 226.61 0.02 20.50 0.02 0.000 226.60 0.02 21.00 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 21.50 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 22.00 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.02 22.50 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.01 23.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 23.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 24.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type IA 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=4.00" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 8 HydroCAD®7 00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Pond 2P: Detention Pipe r 3 Inflow Area = 0.180 ac, Inflow Depth = 3.11" for 100 Year event Inflow = 0.15 cfs @ 7.92 hrs, Volume= 0.047 of Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 8.23 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Atten= 41 Lag= 18.4 min Primary = 0.09 cfs @ 8.23 hrs, Volume= 0.047 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 229.14'@ 8.23 hrs Surf.Area= 0.001 ac Storage= 0.004 of Plug-Flow detention time= 9.3 min calculated for 0.047 of (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 9.0 min ( 725.0 - 716.0 ) , # Invert Avail.Stora4e Storage Description 1 226.50' 0.004 of 42.0"D x 20.00'L Horizontal Cylinder r # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 226.50' 8.0" x 40.0' long Culvert CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Outlet Invert= 225.21' S=0.0322'/' n=0.013 Cc= 0.900 2 Device 1 225.50' 1.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 2.00 Limited to weir flow C=0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.09 cfs @ 8.23 hrs HW=229.13' TW=225.22' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1 =Culvert (Passes 0.09 cfs of 2.01 cfs potential flow) L2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.09 cfs @ 7.8 fps) Pond 2P: Detention Pipe Hydrograph ..1 1. ; i ' i , ; Inflow ® ' 13 Primary 0.16 o.isors 0.15 - , i-- I ----+-A` + e = ! inflow a, 018 _ 0.14 k-Ele 229: Pe 0.13 a 0. 12 - i - OO af 4 a O tor e S . . g l . i I - I _ , I i I • . . ' : I i I I I I 1 I I _ _ _ +n _ _ _ _ _ 09 cfs 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i _ _ I_ _ _ _ _ _I _ _ _ _ r _ _ ; i 0.09 . • v - - - 0.08 ! p i.. . ._i ......I.... .1 . I... I. I..... tL 0.07 - ' I i I I I ! i I I ' 0.06- ! I I I ~ 1 ! I i ~ ~ ~ 0.05. . 0.04 ! I : I I I I I 0.03-' - . 0.02 0.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) 0 • 1019.001 Detention Modeling Type lA 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=4.00" Prepared by LDC Design Group - SRL Page 9 HydroCAD® 7.00 s/n 002505 © 1986-2003 Applied Microcomputer Systems 11/18/2005 Hydrograph for Pond 2P: Detention Pipe _J -~t Time Inflow Storage Elevation Primary (hours) (cfs) (acre-feet) (feet) (cfs) 1.00 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.000 226.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.000 226.51 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.000 226.53 0.00 3.00 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 3.50 0.01 0.000 226.55 0.01 4.00 0.01 0.000 226.56 0.01 4.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 5.00 0.02 0.000 226.60 0.02 5.50 0.02 0.000 226.66 0.02 6.00 0.03 0.000 226.72 0.02 6.50 0.03 0.000 226.83 0.03 7.00 0.04 0.000 226.89 0.03 7.50 0.05 0.001 227.14 0.04 8.00 0.14 0.003 228.78 0.08 8.50 0.06 0.003 228.91 0.08 9.00 0.05 0.002 228.33 0.07 9.50 0.04 0.001 227.73 0.06 10.00 0.03 0.001 227.28 0.05 10.50 0.03 0.000 226.99 0.04 11.00 0.03 0.000 226.87 0.03 11.50 0.03 0.000 226.80 0.03 12.00 0.03 0.000 226.75 0.03 12.50 0.03 0.000 226.74 0.03 13.00 0.02 0.000 226.72 0.02 13.50 0.02 0.000 226.72 0.02 14.00 0.02 0.000 226.70 0.02 14.50 0.02 0.000 226.69 0.02 15.00 0.02 0.000 226.68 0.02 15.50 0.02 0.000 226.68 0.02 16.00 0.02 0.000 226.67 0.02 16.50 0.02 0.000 226.66 0.02 17.00 0.02 0.000 226.65 0.02 17.50 0.02 0.000 226.65 0.02 18.00 0.02 0.000 226.64 0.02 18.50 0.02 0.000 226.63 0.02 19.00 0.02 0.000 226.63 0.02 19.50 0.02 0.000 226.62 0.02 20.00 0.02 0.000 226.61 0.02 20.50 0.02 0.000 226.61 0.02 21.00 0.02 0.000 226.60 0.02 21.50 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 22.00 0.02 0.000 226.59 0.02 22.50 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.01 23.00 0.01 0.000 226.58 0.01 23.50 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 24.00 0.01 0.000 226.57 0.01 • • 3HT FRAME /ER . F SLAB 5 aB AND MANHOLE HALL CONFORM vI SPEC. 478 OVERFLOW I.00 )LTS =SS STEEL) T 8" OUTLET PIPE IE=225.50 MANHOLE AND BASE PER STANDARD MANHOLE DETAIL. NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCT MANHOLE AS REQUIRED PER THIS DETAIL, USE 48" PRE-CAST SECTION INSTEAD. 2. MINIMUM 12" CLEARANCE BETWEEN OUTSIDE OF ALL PIPES LEADING INTO OR OUT OF MANHOLE. FLEXIBLE COUPLING E= 226.50 ROUT 8"x8" FABRICATED CORRUGATED META CROSS ARMCO MODEL 160 CLEANOUT GATE TO BE MADE WATER TIGHT IN PLACE W/MASTIC FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE N TS P:\prol o\engin\blocks\slor m • • Appendix D: Water Quality Calculations it =1 `t 1 • WQ PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Project: Hermoso Road Office Conversion Project No.: 1019.001 Date: 18-Nov-05 WATER QUALITY Impervious Area 5,094 SF WQ Volume 153 CF (0.36" over 4 hours). WQ Flow 0.011 cfs 4.8 gpm Stormwater Management Filter requires 1 cartridge per 15 gpm THEREFORE: 1 Cartridge is needed. Page 1 • "WIN REINFORCING BARS WITH - CARTRIDGE STORMFILTER ' _ MINIMUM 6 OVERLAP 8 OUTLET FOR PERIMETER SLAB B PIPE STUB (STD) 9 7 (BY CONTRACTOR) ti ~+q 41 I r a I d d q e a 3 r~ ffil d IF TING EYE (TYP) L = e INLET PIPE in SOLID LID STUB (OPTIONAL) INLET GRATE CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER - PLAN VIEW f v ~o z2~ s ~ n n C A m PERIMETER SLAB G 3.000 PSI CONCRETE `v 2 (BY CONTRACTOR) H m y zrN vcm 3.-9. OVERFLOW WEIR CREST 8' OUTLET PIPE STUB (STD) 'CLEANOUT OPENING IN OVERFLOW WEIR CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW A >e SQALL MS. The RTORYIIATER MANAGIOLIM StormFlltere D.S. PATENT No. 6,322,629, = No. N707 62 ,7, No. 6.027,639, No. 0.62{,676, AND OTHER U.& AND FOREIGN PATENTH PENDING - GENERAL NOTES: 1.) STORMFILTER BY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INC., PORTLAND, OREGON 800/548-4667. 2.) CATCHBASIN MUST BE SET LEVEL 3.) EXTERNAL PIPING AND COUPUNGS TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 4•) FLEXIBLE COUPLING TO BE USED AT INLET & OUTLET. FERNCO OR ENGINEER APPROVED. 5.) PERIMETER SLAB TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 6.) STORMFILTER REQUIRES REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR DETAILS. 7.) CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATIONS: LOAD RATING: 20.000 LB. CONSTRUCTION: 1/4- STEEL PLATE COATING: CORROSION RESISTANT, ALL SURFACES UNIT WEIGHT. 650 LB. INLET GRATE: DUCTILE IRON PERIMETER SLAB: REQUIRED _ 2-y4 REINFORCING BARS 4- TO INSIDE OF RIM (BY CONTRACTOR) 1 -1 2'-4' 6' f 1 FILTER 2'-3 3/4- CHAMBER (2.3') INLET BAFFLE , ~ 1'-5' OVERFLOW FILTER WEIR WITH CHAMBER CLEANOUT OUTLET CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER - SECTION VIEW B-B 1 • i