Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDR2004-00014 SDR2004- 00014 DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT !',':,:;,,,,>',,,, ,,4,.k,:,..,,' ,,. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION , ., 2:--te.--4,,,',ev:,,,'::,,,,',-, „,:=,,-'-,,-,!:; SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004 00014 : '''''',40',,-1: : i1' 1i' 4. r< r .. ' CITY OF TIOARD :;44i--. ,,; DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT ,#k p Commun y'hevefopment a. . s Betrdmraunzty 120 DAYS = 6/15/2005 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2004-00014 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non- accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01-acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. APPLICANT: Durham Plaza, LLC OWNER: Pacific Realty Associates, LP PO Box 2404 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 APPLICANT'S Jack Kriz REP: Mildren Design Group, P.C. 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: The property is located between SW Durham Road and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 00102. ZONE: I-P: The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, CRITERIA: 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790, 18.795 and 18.810. SECTION II. DECISION ,„?.,.,4„.,4,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,„,, ,f'#"fir. ,,T x 14 ,;r . 5. z'S& €& a. E .".y. It ereb given that theY'Ci ofTjgar�"Eo m ©ee.e „.nt-�Direcf rs de nee has ED 'tl above requesit � 1' 4 : �� i*** je, + amain flc(t it of 4Uroval. The f i r . fi rra1 lit i 4 $t r eci l Y� r4se aa I c ted C �'� et4. .,'}. "x° . ; " ,r* "f g �'a P- ..," i! it fro.... t,, . 4"3+e�h�`C .. .,;;�.��. '��"�a�°3.,V.�A'.,..;� Aid�'`-<,� .ailinat.N+,i S, .�,; $4.' a ,. "3.," { V_ IMi,h NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 1 OF 19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING:CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TOISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Planning Department (Gary Pagenstecher, 639-4171, ext. 2434) for review and approval: 1. Prior to site development, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan (L1.1) to show at least one tree to be located east of the proposed parking lot. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 2. Prior to site development, the applicant shall obtain a site permit for storm pipe installation from the Building Division. 3. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover public utilities work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. FOB. • �� � �� S E want, Submit to t e Engineering department (Kim ` c Il an, I39- 11, ext. 24 1) for review and approval: 7. 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 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 2 OF 19 THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEE (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE,DATE Ol* S DECISION SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The subject property has been zoned for industrial use and designated Industrial Park (I-P) since at least 1981 as shown on City of Tigard zoning maps of that period. Pacific Realty Associates purchased the property in 1992 and developed it as an industrial park in the mid1990s. Vicinity Information The subject property is bordered on the west by the City of Durham and on the north, south, and east by land designated Industrial Park in the City of Tigard. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of the subject 4.01-acre parcel (TL 2S113AC00102). The subject parcel is already fully developed as an industrial park. The 5,000 square foot portion of Tax Lot 102 is located at the western edge of the parcel and is topographically isolated by a 30-foot slope from the rest of the parcel. The proposed parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The City did not receive any comments from property owners within 500 feet. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs) 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 3 OF 19 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. ZONING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District: Section 18.530.020 Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the Industrial Park District (I-P). Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in Industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN IDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD ` r I-P^ . Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 174,675 sq.ft.[1] Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 357 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft NA -Side facing street on corner&through lots - NA -Side yard 0/50 ft. 0 --Rear yard 0/50 ft 0 -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. - Maximum Height 45 ft 0 Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[3] 79.4% Minimum Landscape Requirement 25%[3] 20.6% [1]The proposed parking lot site is a small portion of the subject 4.01-acre parcel. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%and the minimum landscape reduced to 20%,per TDC 18.530.050.B. Pursuant to TDC 18.530.050.B, lot coverage may be increased from 75% to 80% as part of the site development review process, providing the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site. In a letter to the City dated January 27, 2005, from Jack Kriz, the owner's representative, the applicant proposes 20.6% landscaping: "At the time of the original site development, the existing site satisfied the reduction of lot coverage requirements of Section 18.530.050.B., allowing a maximum site impervious coverage of 80%, and a minimum landscape coverage of 20%. Note: The actual percentages based on original site plan documents and current field verification adjustments indicate impervious coverage of 78%, and landscape coverage of 22%. Incorporating the new development will alter the coverage numbers by 1.4%, making the impervious coverage 79.4%, and the landscape coverage 20.6%. The new development maintains the reduction requirements of the original site, therefore, the development standards have been met." 2. The applicant shall meet the following performance standards with regard to the landscaping plan approved as part of the site development review process: a. Street trees, as required by Section 18.745.040.C.1 are to be installed with a minimum caliper of three inches rather than the two inches as measured at four feet in height; b. The landscaping between a parking lot and street property line shall have a minimum width of 10 feet; c. All applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745.050 shall be satisfied. d. The applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the landscape area. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 4 OF 19 As the subject site is not adjacent to any streets, no street trees or minimum landscaping width are required. As reviewed below in this decision, the applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745.050 have been satisfied. In a letter to the City dated February 4, 2005, the owner's representative, Jack Kriz, stated that "The landscape portion of the parcel within the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard will be a part of the entire project proposed with the City of Durham. This includes landscape irrigation and maintenance as well as the initial construction." FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Development Standards for the I-P zone have been met. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with various applicable standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable standards in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 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): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. As shown in the applicant's site plan, the proposed development and the proposed parking lot on the subject parcel is accessed by one (1) 30-foot driveway connecting to SW Boones Ferry Road. Therefore, this standard has been met. Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. No joint access is proposed, therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The subject site is accessible from SW Boones Ferry Road, which is a public street that will be maintained as a public street. Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 5 OF 19 • No driveway approach shall be less than five feet from the side property line projected except in cul-de-sacs, without approval and written permission of the city. The end slopes may encroach within the five foot restricted area. No portion of any driveway approach, including the end slopes, shall be located closer than thirty feet to an intersection street right-of-way line. Commercial or service drives shall not be more than thirty feet in width and if located on the same lot frontage shall be separated by a minimum length of curb of thirty feet. Each residential driveway shall be not more than twenty-six feet in width includin end slopes, and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage spacing between such driveways shall be not less than thirty feet measured along the curb line. Joint access driveways shall conform to the appropriate width standard for commercial or residential type usage. The proposed parking lot improvement is not adjacent to any street and is located at the end of the greater parking lot internal to the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; No on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed for the subject parking lot, as it is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed or required for the subject parking lot, as it is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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. No on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed for the subject parking lot, as it is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. Access Management Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.765.030.H.1 states that an access report shall be submitted with all new development proposals which verifies design of driveways and streets are safe by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 6 OF 19 A traffic impact study was prepared by Lancaster Engineerin9 dated May 2004. However, the subject parking element was not considered in the study as It has no bearing on the design of driveways and streets for safety purposes by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO.Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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 dependingg 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. The subject parking lot is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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 alon an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. 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. The subject parking lot is not accessed directly from the street. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. One-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The access drive to the subject parking lot is designed for two-way traffic with a 25-foot isle. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: • Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or • Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or • Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 7 OF 19 To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; The applicant's proposed site plan shows a future sidewalk and automobile access connection between the proposed development and the existing parking lot to the north within the City of Durham portion of the site. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject parcel within the City of Tigard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met for the subject parcel located within the City of Tigard. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725): Noise: For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. 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 of other point- source 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 emission 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; there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or constructing 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. FINDING: The proposed parking lot on the subject parcel is proposed to be used for parking of up to 11 vehicles. As proposed, no adverse impacts from noise, visible emission, vibrations, odors, glare and heat or insects and rodents would accompany such use. Therefore, each of the environmental performance standards above has been 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 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 8 OF 19 The portion of the subject parcel located within the City of Tigard associated with the Durham office building proposal does not front any public street. Therefore, the street tree standard does not apply. 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. The subject site is adjacent to existing and proposed parking lots on the north, west,.and south. To the east, the subject site is bordered by a 30-foot elevation drop which is heavily forested and landscaped. Therefore, no buffering or screening is required, consistent with this standard. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screenin of parking and loading areas. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the arking 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 applicant has proposed a total of 11 standard parking stalls on the subject site. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan (L1.1) that shows a mix of trees and shrubs around the perimeter, including Pacific Wax Myrtle and Merisel Doublefile Viburnum proposed for the development and several trees that are on the adjacent parcel providing shading of the adjacent parking lot. A tree is required to meet the standard of one tree for seven spaces for the proposed development. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the applicable landscaping requirements. 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; Screening of Service Facilities is addressed below under Chapter 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. However, with the implementation of the following condition, providing a tree for screening of the proposed parking area, the standard can be met. Condition: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan (L1.1) to show at least one tree to be located east of the proposed parking lot. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 9 OF 19 Location Standards: To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. No storage areas are proposed for the subject non-accessory parking use. The parking use will not generate any need for Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Design Standards: The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. No storage areas are proposed for the subject non-accessory parking use. The parking use will not generate any need for Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: The Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage Standards do not apply to the proposed non-accessory parking use. 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. The proposed commercial office use requires 154 spaces as shown on the Cover Sheet of the applicant's plan set. Including the 11 spaces in the subject parking lot, the applicant has provided a total of 165 spaces. The subject proposed non-accessory parking lot provides 11 spaces by lease arrangement to the proposed office development from within 170 to 270 feet of the proposed building, consistent with the standard for location of vehicle parking. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 10 OF 19 Joint Parking: Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parkin 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. The applicant has not proposed joint parking. However, the adjacent land owner has agreed to lease the subject 5,000 square foot non-accessory arking lot for 20 years to the Durham Plaza development. Because of the 30-foot grade difference east of the subject site, use of the proposed parking lot is precluded by the owners of the subject tax lot 102. 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 panting required-for that use in Section 18.765.060; 3) Subsequent use or uses, at 80% of the vehicle parking required for that uses) 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. The applicant has not proposed a mixed use project. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the proposed non-accessory parking use. 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 multi-family use. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Preferential Long-Term CarpoolNanpool Parking: Parking lots providing in excess of 20 long-term parking spaces shall provide preferential long-term carpool and van pool 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 carpoolsTvanpools 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 long term parking standard does not apply to the subject non-accessory parking lot development because the majority of the parking spaces and the proposed development are located in Durham. However, the subject spaces could be used for long-term parking if Durham required it. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. The subject non-accessory parking lot is located at a distance from the proposed office building such that any ADA parking would not be located there. Therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 11 OF 19 • 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. No access drive to the subject site is located within the City of Tigard. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject non-accessory parking lot. 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. Pedestrian access has been discussed previously in this decision under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). 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 associated parking stalls to be clearly marked with striping. 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. The applicant's site plan does not include wheel stops but does include a concrete curb in the eleven spaces provided in the proposed non-accessory parking lot. The subject spaces are located along the boundaries of the parking lot. Pacific wax myrtle is proposed for landscaping the border of these spaces. The six-inch curb and the 18-foot deep space will provide adequate parking for vehicles and will not conflict with landscaping of pedestrian access. Therefore, this standard has been 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 12 OF 19 The applicant's plans show the parking stalls to be 9 feet in width and 18 feet in length. The proposed aisle is shown as 25 feet in width. Because the proposed curb is the wheel stop for each space and cars can expect to overhang the landscaped area by approximately three feet, the parking stalls located on the subject lot will be in excess of the required 18.5 feet in length, consistent with this standard. 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 subject non-accessory parking lot is located over 150 feet away from the proposed Durham Plaza building and would not be a suitable location for bicycle parking. The subject non-accessory parking lot is not included in the use table that requires bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Bicycle Parking 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 ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 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 subject non-accessory parking lot is not included in the use table that requires bicycle parking. The subject non-accessory parking lot is located over 150 feet away from the proposed Durham Plaza building and would not be a suitable location for bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. The subject non-accessory parking lot is not included in the use table that requires bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. The proposed non-accessory parking lot does not include a building or use that would require a minimum number of off-street parking spaces. Therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 13 OF 19 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 proposed non-accessory parking lot does not include a building. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have been met. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.F lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in industrial zoning district. Signs are reviewed through a separate permit process administered by the Development Services Technicians. No application for a sign was made for the subject parcel. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit process, and the applicant did not apply for a sign for the subject parcel, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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 standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant submitted a tree plan for the planting, removal, protection, and mitigation of trees prepared by Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc., dated May 17, 2004. According to the applicant's tree inventory (Sheet A1.2), an eight-inch alder and several other smaller trees and shrubs exist on the subject site. The alder (#28 on the inventory) is the only tree proposed to be removed for the proposed parking lot. The other smaller trees will be subject to the tree protection provisions of the Tree Plan. As the oak tree identified for removal is less than 12 inches DBH, no mitigation will be required. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have been met. 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, pplanting, 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. FINDING: The proposed non-accessory parking lot is not located adjacent to any streets or right-of ways. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 14 OF 19 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: 18.360.090.2 (Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment); 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.12 Landscaping; 18.360.090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Provision for the Disabled); and 18.360.090.14 (Provisions of the Underlying Zone). Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • 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. The proposed non-accessory parking lot does not include construction of a building. However, the applicant's Site Lighting Plan (Plan Set, Sheet 1 of 1) shows that the subject parking lot will be illuminated by two 250-watt clear ET-18 high pressure sodium lamps on light poles to a minimum 0.6 foot candles, sufficient to illuminate a person. Therefore, the applicable provision of this standard has been met. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to 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 proposed non-accessory parking lot would not contribute to the need for transit. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 15 OF 19 Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a collector street to have a 62-foot wide right-of-way width and a 34-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. 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 proposed non-accessory parking lot is not adjacent to any street nor does it contain a street. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed non-accessory parking lot does not require a sewer. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 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) . The subject site is at the edge of a 30-foot escarpment with drainage flowing away from the escarpment toward Boones Ferry Road. Therefore, there is no upstream drainage that enters the site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). As described in the applicant's plan set and narrative, the proposed development includes a water quantity and quality facility designed to accept the storm water from the subject proposed parking lot. The applicant's Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan (Sheet C2) shows a catch basin and storm pipe on the subject site linked to the proposed water quality facility. Therefore, any runoff from the subject site will be mitigated by the proposed facility, consistent with this standard. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 16 OF 19 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. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. The subject site does not adjoin any proposed bikeways. Therefore, these standards do not apply. 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 18.810.120.0 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. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. The subject site will require storm pipe installation. Therefore, a site permit shall be obtained prior to site development. FINDING: The proposed non-accessory parking lot requires only provision a of storm drainage utility. No other Street and Utility Improvements Standards such as streets and sewers are applicable to the subject site. Therefore, with the following condition, the proposed parking lot is consistent with the applicable utility standards. Condition: The applicant shall obtain a site permit for storm pipe installation from the Building Division prior to site development. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 17 OF 19 ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water S stem: e applicant has proposed to connect to the City of Tigard water system. The applicant shall submit plans with their PFI application for review and approval. 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. 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 applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 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 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 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 iimpact, 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 has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. No real property dedications are required for the subject proposal; therefore, no Transportation Impact Fees will be exacted. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 18 OF 19 SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and states there are no county requirements. City of Durham City Manager has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. 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 APRIL 21, 2005 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 6, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Aeal_ The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall 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 City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific 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 may be 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 MAY 5, 2005. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. vfi7 )2,..„. ��", April 21, 2005 PREPARED B7: ry Pagenstecher DATE Assistant Planner ■ && April 21, 2005 APPROVED BY: Richard H. Bew)6 sdorff DATE Planning Manager I:\cu rpin\gary\sdr\S DR2004-00014.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 19 OF 19 v 1• CITY of TIGARD 4`�C \ GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP O0�'S q Ate D'S'O SDR2004-00014 DURHAM PLAZA P,, s , PARKING z 1 AY DRS FERR 0 ,,,MM. �' - ■\\\ \ 4" 'W• ~ ` \ \ M 44 "III Tigard Area Map / A N O • 411111111111111111 0 100 200 300 400 Feet UI',__ 1"=311 feet HAU0 aft ,II ., _AI. -City of Tigard IIIIIIII./ Information on this map is for general location only and should be verified with the Development Services Division. Cl. , 13125 SW OR 97223 (503)Tigard,OR 97223 (503)639-4171 http://w`wv.ci.tigard.or.us Community Development Plot date:Feb 18,2005;C:1rnagic\MAGIC03.APR 1 �li r i . Ir 1 yr •av- ■ al iI it® 1011.11111111•1111111 111 •uiuuu•i r dg d/di 1/ III Z ,r r O C_ CO Area subject to review 5 •�•�•� $i by the City of Tigard I in b t �'wJ I I I ' - - B . -I ` V ! i I. a ii-Hin111 a� , .� Z i . .• i I j 'A il! ,,j —I,d Z i I I :211 �L- - I I ! ' rr-0•• a r-c 1•� r r C •11 I Ji r - It o I CI .r i I. i r l I Ce " I C ! i1 ' tt Ai %�1A11 � 1 Ir r it lia• . aj I� i1A: - e e - • fI cwt I I �' b O . I r g:........fa■1■I......■I„I R 5. O Eli 1 ` ��. ■I1e..au■ o 1 i LL of I e ' 1 w . • I i I r : `SI -- i 1•''i1r 1 [OW :� e - I MI AFTON LN. --j i ;.�I' tF e P. Oho_- z ---`----` - `i I jl1 � O, ,v,,:,: n i_ai ,� . F=MMI I I $ 1 ■ i 1 t�r - e. 5 8• . 1 '1■ III x ■IS NI 1 In Po 1 /1'1NI: X ■e • i e:I r o (fly OF TIGARD c SDR2004-00014 SITE PLAN (Map is not to scale) DURHAM PLAZA PARKING NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004-00014 4' CITY OF TIOARD Community cDeve(opment DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 6/15/2005 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2004-00014 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01-acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. APPLICANT: Durham Plaza, LLC OWNER: Pacific Realty Associates, LP PO Box 2404 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 APPLICANT'S Jack Kriz REP: Mildren Design Group, P.C. 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: The property is located between SW Durham Road and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 00102. ZONE: I-P: The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, CRITERIA: 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 APPROVED the above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. 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 APRIL 21, 2005 AND EFFECTIVE ON MAY 6, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Appeal., The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confii the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment p Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time ti by the appellate body. ITHE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 5, 2005. Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Gary Paqenstecher at (503) 639-4171, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. N / • VICINITY MAP SDR2004-00014 5 DURHAM PLAZA ,;.` % PARKING �a � .LAS= rel at I III A 1111111 Clry o(i'i•ud fJ �' ••.r tsi tta r. nn•�.:*:;: II ( Z Area subject to review 5 by the of Tigard 0 . j I le1 ,1 Crr z ill:1 et r . O. • aya > r .se•�•na sou 0 3 rz .Mil ' I_- s I L) . --., Wet i' ligil I i s•�, � et j i - .101,.- AA I OF TIGARD t SDR2OO4-00014 slum euPs (Map I.not to scale) N DURHAM PLAZA PARKING NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NOTICE OF PENDING LAND US E APPLICATION C 0 N SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CITY :`I'I OF TIGARD Community DeveCopment Shaping A Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: March 2, 2005 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004-00014 Type II Land Use Application FILE NAME: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. TP EEQUF TEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON MARCH 16, 2005. All comments should be directed to Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171 or by e-mail to Garypci.tiqard.or.us. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2005. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: . Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; . Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; . Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: . The application is accepted by the City . Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. . The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. . City Staff issues a written decision. . Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. If you want to inspect the file, please call and make an appointment with either the project planner or the planning technicians. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." ........40%Ir‘PATI tlIQNeTV MAP SW�R AO'. SDR2004-00014 • 'y DURHAM PLAZA ; �� PARKING lilt iii APO 11111 1 III dattk mit 06 It: 1 A .47/#4111111. itk : �11�` City of Tip.d rw.nw,� RECEIVED PLANNING MAR 2 1 2005 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIOARD F TIGAR® Community CDevelopment CITY O Shaping BetterCommunxty DATE: March 2,2005 TO: Steve Conway,Weshingten County Department of Land use a Transportation "`-"I MR 03215 FROM: Cify of Tigard Planning Division . . . . . • Wf STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenste cher,Associate Planner(x24341 Phone: 15031639.4171/Fax: [5031684-7297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SORT 2004.00014 ➢ DURUM PLAZA PARKING< REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel, The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a,proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District, The i-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review, From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the ro al in the near future. I you wish to comment on this application You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments, you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible, If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. x�A] ... } it.rAj�y��)y //may H ry. �_i 141 ' - �� � `LOWlN „ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact _ of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: 0 (Aiti/. V e. 14A-0'1 _ . //ea - R5L-r 3,1(71-2 Name & Number of Person Commenting: TO 'd 62:01 SOOZ 81 JE'W 8062-968-SOS:XP 0N11 OD HSdM Sent By: CITY OF DURHAM; 5035988595; Mar-3-n5 1 :OOPM; Page 1 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OF HOARD Community(Development S'kaping A Better Commune DAM March 2,2005 _ T RECEIVED P�PNNI G TO: City of nudism City Manager :A 0 4 2005 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CAN OF TIGARD • STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner(x24341 Phone: 15031639-4171/Fax: [5031684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]2004-00014 ➢ DURHAM PLAZA PARKING< REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted lin the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development l Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YFOUR(cbMMENTS,BACK BY: MARCH 16, 2005. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: 7 Name & Number of Person Commenting: � ��� l /-1-7 • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIOARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community DATE: March 2,2005 RECEIVED PLANNING TO: Jim Wolf,Tigard Police Department Crime Prevention Officer MAR 0 4 2005 FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division CITY OF TIGARD STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner(x2434) Phone: (5031639-4171/Fax: [503)684-7297 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW[SOLD 2004-00014 ➢ DURHAM PLAZA PARKING< REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 16, 2005. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person Commenting: v40k� -\\(6- 5"10\ REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIGARD Community(Development ShapingA Better Community DATE: March 2,2005 TO: PER ATTACHED FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher,Associate Planner[x24341 Phone: (5031 639-4111/Fax: [5031684-1291 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MDR]2004-00014 ➢ DURHAM PLAZA PARKING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office , building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. Attached is the Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Applicant's Materials for your review. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: MARCH 16, 2005. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter or email. Written comments provided below: Name & Number of Person Commenting: - , TY OF TIGARD REQUEST F0. ,OMMENTS NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FILE NOS.: FILE NAME: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS 14-DAY PENDING APPLICATION NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES OF AREA: ['Central NEast ❑South ❑West CITY OFFICES _LONG RANGE PLANNING/Barbara Shields,Planning Mgr. COMMUNITY DVLPMNT.DEPT./Planning-Engineering Techs. POLICE DEPT./Jim Wolf,Crime Prevention Officer _BUILDING DIVISION/Gary Lampella,Building Official 1.„-ENGINEERING DEPT./Kim McMillan,Dvlpmnt.Review Engineer_PUBLIC WORKS/Matt Stine,Urban Forester _CITY ADMINISTRATION/Cathy Wheatley,City Recorder ie.L PUBLIC WORKS/Brian Rager,Engineering Manager _{'PLANNER–POST PROJECT SITE IF A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM-10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING! SPECIAL DISTRICTS _ TUAL.HILLS PARK&REC.DIST.*1/ UALATIN VALLEY FIRE&RESCUE• _ TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT* I/CLEANWATER SERVICES Planning Manager Fire Marshall Administrative Office Lee Walker/SWM Program 15707 SW Walker Road Washington County Fire District PO Box 745 155 N.First Avenue Beaverton,OR 97006 (place in pick-up box) Beaverton,OR 97075 Hillsboro,OR 97124 LOCAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS CITY OF BEAVERTON * _ CITY OF TUALATIN* _OR.DEPT.OF FISH&WILDLIFE _OR.DIV.OF STATE LANDS Planning Manager Planning Manager 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Melinda Wood(WLUN Form Rewired) Steven Sparks,Dev Svcs Manager 18880 SW Martinazzi Avenue Salem,OR 97303 775 Summer Street NE,Suite 100 PO Box 4755 Tualatin,OR 97062 Salem,OR 97301-1279 Beaverton,OR 97076 OR.PUB.UTILITIES COMM. METRO-LAND USE&PLANNING * _OR.DEPT.OF GEO.&MINERAL IND. 550 Capitol Street NE CITY OF DURHAM * 600 NE Grand Avenue 800 NE Oregon Street,Suite 5 Salem,OR 97310-1380 City Manager Portland,OR 97232-2736 Portland,OR 97232 PO Box 23483 _ Bob Knight,Data Resource center(ZCA) _US ARMY CORPS.OF ENG. .& Durham,OR 97281-3483 _ Paulette Allen,Growly Management coordinator _OR.DEPT.OF LAND CONSERV DVLP. Kathryn Harris Mel Huie,Greenspaces Coordinator(CPA/ZOA) Larry French(Comp.Plan Amendments Only) Routing CENWP-OP-G _CITY OF KING CITY * _ Jennifer Budhabhatti,Regional Planner(Wetlands) 635 Capitol Street NE,Suite 150 PO Box 2946 City Manager _ C.D. Manager,Growth Management Services Salem,OR 97301-2540 Portland,OR 97208-2946 15300 SW 116th Avenue King City,OR 97224 WASHINGTON COUNTY _ OR.DEPT.OF ENERGY(Powenines in Area) _OR.DEPT OF AVIATION(Monopole Towers) Dept.of Land Use&Transp. Bonneville Power Administration Tom Highland,Planning 155 N. First Avenue CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO * Routing TTRC–Attn: Renae Ferrera 3040 25th Street,SE Suite 350,MS 13 — Planning Director PO Box 3621 Salem,OR 97310 Hillsboro,OR 97124 PO Box 369 Portland,OR 97208-3621 1 Steve Conway(General Apps) Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _Gregg Leion(CPA) _ OR.DEPT.OF ENVIRON.QUALITY(DEQ) ODOT,REGION 1 * _Brent Curtis(CPA) —CITY OF PORTLAND (Notify for Wetlands and Potential Environmental Impacts) _Marah Danielson,Development Review Coordinator _Doria Mateja(zCA)Ms 14 Planning Bureau Director Regional Administrator _Carl Torland, Right-of-Way Section(vacations) _Sr.Cartographer(CPAacn)us to 1900 SW 4th Avenue,Suite 4100 2020 SW Fourth Avenue,Suite 400 123 NW Flanders _Jim Nims,S11rvoyOrizCA)M515 Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97201-4987 Portland,OR 97209-4037 —WA.CO.CONSOL.COMM.AGNCY _ODOT,REGION 1 -DISTRICT 2A * _ODOT,RAIL DIVISION _STATE HISTORIC Dave Austin(wcccA("911"(mcie.,,i.T.*.rr) Sam Hunaidi,Assistant District Manager (Notify if ODOT R/R-Hwy.Crossing is Only Access to Land) PRESERVATION OFFICE PO Box 6375 5440 SW Westgate Drive,Suite 350 Dave Lanning,Sr.crossing safety speaalist (Notify it Property Has HD Overlay) Beaverton,OR 97007-0375 Portland,OR 97221-2414 555-13th Street,NE,Suite 3 1115 Commercial Street, NE Salem,OR 97301-4179 Salem,OR 97301-1012 UTILITY PROVIDERS AND SPECIAL AGENCIES _PORTLAND WESTERN RJR,BURLINGTON NORTHERN/SANTA FE R/R,OREGON ELECTRIC R/R(Burlington Northern/Santa Fe R/R Predecessor) Robert I. Melbo,President&General Manager 110 W. 10th Avenue Albany,OR 97321 —SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.RJR _METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS _COMCAST CABLE CORP. —TRI-MET TRANSIT DVLPMT. Clifford C.Cabe,Construction Engineer Debra Palmer(Annexations Only) Randy Bice (s..e ra Area cw, c (If Project is Within'h Mile of a Transit Route) 5424 SE McLoughlin Boulevard Twin Oaks Technology Center 14200 SW Brigadoon Court Ben Baldwin,Project Planner Portland,OR 97232 1815 NW 169th Place,S-6020 Beaverton,OR 97005 710 NE Holladay Street Beaverton,OR 97006-4886 Portland,OR 97232 —PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC —NW NATURAL GAS COMPANY _VERIZON _QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ken Gutierrez,Svc.Design Consultant Scott Palmer,Engineering Coord. Ken Perdue,Engineering Florence Mott,Eng.ROW Mgr. 9480 SW Boeckman Road 220 NW Second Avenue PO Box 1100 8021 SW Capitol Hill Rd,Rm 110 Wilsonville,OR 97070 Portland,OR 97209-3991 Beaverton,OR 97075-1100 Portland,OR 97219 _TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL DIST.#23J_BEAVERTON SCHOOL DIST.#48 _COMCAST CABLE CORP. _COMCAST CABLE COMMUNIC. Marsha Butler,Administrative Offices Jan Youngquist,Demographics Alex Silantiev is..ewrav,..c.^ia<n Diana Carpenter(Apo.E wv+rmNd99w, 6960 SW Sandburg Street 16550 SW Merlo Road 9605 SW Nimbus Avenue,Bldg. 12 10831 SW Cascade Avenue Tigard,OR 97223-8039 Beaverton,OR 97006-5152 Beaverton,OR 97008 Tigard,OR 97223-4203 * INDICATES AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT IF WITHIN 500'OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ANY/ALL CITY PROJECTS (Project Planner Is Responsible For Indicating Parties To Notify). h:\patty\masters\Request For Comments Notification Lisi.doc (UPDATED: 15-Nov-04) (Also update:i:\curpinfsetup\labels\annexation_utilities and franchises.doc when updating this document) MAILING RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING � �' CITY OF 411 Community(Development Shaping,l Better Community I, Patricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of Tigard", Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appropnate Box(s)Below) E3 NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on April 21,2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on April 21,2005, postage prepaid. ?a/at- '/ (Pers. • epared Notice) STAR. OAF OW,EGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the (I) — day of /41-- , 2005. L _ OFFICIAL SEAL SUE ROSS � NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NO.37552 MY COMMISSION COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC.11 2007 aCY0 NOTARY PU11. C F OREGON My Commissi Expires: / �� L 7 EXHIBIT...A... #o. NOTICE OF TYPE II°DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2004-00014 CITY OF TIGARD DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT Community(Uevelopment ,S(iapingA(Better Community 120 DAYS = 6/15/2005 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2004-00014 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non- accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01-acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. APPLICANT: Durham Plaza, LLC OWNER: Pacific Realty Associates, LP PO Box 2404 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 APPLICANT'S Jack Kriz REP: Mildren Design Group, P.C. 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: The property is located between SW Durham Road and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 00102. ZONE: I-P: The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, CRITERIA: 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 Directors designee has APPROVED the eve request for -Site development Review approval subject to certain conditions of approval The findings and`cdndusions on which Cher sign is based are noted in Section VI �' ,F NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 1 OF 19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SITE PERMIT: Submit to the Planning Department (Gary Pagenstecher, 639-4171, ext. 2434) for review and approval: 1. Prior to site development, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan (L1.1) to show at least one tree to be located east of the proposed parking lot. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 2. Prior to site development, the applicant shall obtain a site permit for storm pipe installation from the Building Division. 3. Prior to issuance of a site permit, a Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit is required for this project to cover public utilities work in the public right-of-way. Six (6) sets of detailed public improvement plans shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public Facility Improvement (PFI) permit plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall and the City's web page (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 4. The PFI permit plan submittal shall include the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity w o 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO A FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION: .. Submit to the Engineering Department (Kim McMillan, 639-4171, ext. 2471) for review and approval: 7. 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 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 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 2 OF 19 THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History The subject property has been zoned for industrial use and designated Industrial Park (I-P) since at least 1981 as shown on City of Tigard zoning maps of that period. Pacific Realty Associates purchased the property in 1992 and developed it as an industrial park in the mid1990s. Vicinity Information The subject property is bordered on the west by the City of Durham and on the north, south, and east by land designated Industrial Park in the City of Tigard. Site Information and Proposal Description: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of the subject 4.01-acre parcel (TL 2S113AC00102). The subject parcel is already fully developed as an industrial park. The 5,000 square foot portion of Tax Lot 102 is located at the western edge of the parcel and is topographically isolated by a 30-foot slope from the rest of the parcel. The proposed parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. SECTION IV. COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET The City did not receive any comments from property owners within 500 feet. SECTION V. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. Zoning Districts 18.530 (Industrial Zoning Districts) B. Applicable Development Code Standards 18.705 Access Egress and Circulation) 18.725 Environmental Performance Standards) 18.745 Landscaping and Screening) 18.755 Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage) 18.765 Off-Street parking and loading requirements) 18.780 Signs 18.790 Tree Removal) 18.795 Visual Clearance) C. Specific DR Approval Criteria 18.360 D. Street and Utility Improvement Standards 18.810 E. Impact Study 18.390 NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 3 OF 19 SECTION VI. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA A. ZONING DISTRICT Industrial Zoning District: Section 18.530.020 Lists the description of the Industrial Zoning Districts. The site is located in the Industrial Park District (I-P). Development Standards: Section 18.530.040.B States that Development standards in Industrial zoning districts are contained in Table 18.530.2 below: TABLE 18.530.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN IDUSTRIAL ZONES STANDARD I-P Proposed Minimum Lot Size None 174,675 sq.ft.[1] Minimum Lot Width 50 ft 357 Minimum Setbacks -Front yard 35 ft NA -Side facing street on corner&through lots - NA -Side yard 0/50 ft. 0 --Rear yard 0/50 ft 0 -Distance between front of garage&property line abutting a public or private street. - Maximum Height 45 ft 0 Maximum Site Coverage[2] 75%[3] 79.4% Minimum Landscape Requirement 25%[3] 20.6% [1]The proposed parking lot site is a small portion of the subject 4.01-acre parcel. [2]Includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. [3]Maximum site coverage may be increased to 80%and the minimum landscape reduced to 20%,per TDC 18.530.050.B. Pursuant to TDC 18.530.050.B, lot coverage may be increased from 75% to 80% as part of the site development review process, providing the following requirements are satisfied: 1. The minimum landscaping requirement shall be 20% of the site. In a letter to the City dated January 27, 2005, from Jack Kriz, the owner's representative, the applicant roposes 20.6% landscaping: "At the time of the original site development, the existing site satisfied the reduction of lot coverage requirements of Section 18.530.050.B., allowing a maximum site impervious coverage of 80%, and a minimum landscape coverage of 20%. Note: The actual percentages based on original site plan documents and current field verification adjustments indicate impervious coverage of 78%, and landscape coverage of 22%. Incorporating the new development will alter the coverage numbers by 1.4%, making the impervious coverage 79.4%, and the landscape coverage 20.6%. The new development maintains the reduction requirements of the original site, therefore, the development standards have been met." 2. The applicant shall meet the following performance standards with regard to the landscaping plan approved as part of the site development review process: a. Street trees, as required by Section 18.745.040.C.1 are to be installed with a minimum caliper of three inches rather than the two inches as measured at four feet in height; b. The landscaping between a parking lot and street property line shall have a minimum width of 10 feet; c. All applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745.050 shall be satisfied. d. The applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the landscape area. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 4 OF 19 As the subject site is not adjacent to any streets, no street trees or minimum landscaping width are required. As reviewed below in this decision, the applicable buffering, screening and setback requirements contained in Section 18.745.050 have been satisfied. In a letter to the City dated February 4, 2005, the owner's representative, Jack Kriz, stated that "The landscape portion of the parcel within the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard will be a part of the entire project proposed with the City of Durham. This includes landscape irrigation and maintenance as well as the initial construction." FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Development Standards for the I-P zone have been met. B. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS The Site development Review approval standards require that a development proposal be found to be consistent with various applicable standards of the Community Development Code. The applicable standards in this case are Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 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): Access plan: No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. The applicant shall submit a site plan. The Director shall provide the applicant with detailed information about this submission requirement. As shown in the applicant's site plan, the proposed development and the proposed parking lot on the subject parcel is accessed by one (1) 30-foot driveway connecting to SW Boones Ferry Road. Therefore, this standard has been met. Joint access: Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented in the form of deeds, easements, leases or contracts to establish the joint use; and copies of the deeds, easements, leases or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City. No joint access is proposed, therefore, this standard does not apply. Public street access: All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. The subject site is accessible from SW Boones Ferry Road, which is a public street that will be maintained as a public street. Curb cuts: Curb cuts shall be in accordance with Section 18.810.030N: Concrete curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080: Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval and Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 5 OF 19 No driveway approach shall be less than five feet from the side property line projected except in cul-de-sacs, without approval and written permission of the city. The end slopes may encroach within the five foot restricted area. No portion of any driveway approach, including the end slopes, shall be located closer than thirty feet to an intersection street right-of-way line. Commercial or service drives shall not be more than thirty feet in width and if located on the same lot frontage shall be separated by a minimum length of curb of thirty feet. Each residential driveway shall be not more than twenty-six feet in width includin end slopes, and if more than one driveway is to be constructed to serve the same lot, the frontage spacing between such driveways shall be not less than thirty feet measured along the curb line. Joint access driveways shall conform to the appropriate width standard for commercial or residential type usage. The proposed parking lot improvement is not adjacent to any street and is located at the end of the greater parking lot internal to the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Walkways: On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs, ramps, or elevators of all commercial, institutional, and industrial uses, to the streets which provide the required access and egress. Walkways shall provide convenient connections between buildings in multi-building commercial, institutional, and industrial complexes. Unless impractical, walkways shall be constructed between new and existing developments and neighboring developments; No on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed for the subject parking lot, as it is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety . Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards; No on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed or required for the subject parking lot, as it is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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. No on-site pedestrian walkways are proposed for the subject parking lot, as it is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. Access Management (Section 18.705.030.H) Section 18.765.030.H. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 6 OF 19 A traffic impact study was prepared by Lancaster Engineering dated May 2004. However, the subject parking element was not considered in the study as it has no bearing on the design of driveways and streets for safety purposes by meeting adequate stacking needs, sight distance and deceleration standards as set by ODOT, Washington County, the City and AASHTO.Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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 upon the influence area, as determined from City Engineer review of a traffic impac 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. The subject parking lot is located at some distance from the building and at the back of the proposed development. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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 alon an arterial shall be 600 feet. The minimum spacing of local streets along a local street shall be 125 feet. 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. The subject parking lot is not accessed directly from the street. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. One-way vehicular access points: Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. The access drive to the subject parking lot is designed for two-way traffic with a 25-foot isle. Therefore, this standard does not apply. The Director has the authority to restrict access when the need to do so is dictated by one or more of the following conditions: To provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on streets and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets, upon the finding that the proposed access would: • Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or • Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or • Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. To eliminate the need to use public streets for movements between commercial or industrial properties, parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on adjacent properties unless not feasible. The Director shall require access easements between properties where necessary to provide for parking area connections; NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 7 OF 19 • To facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, access and parking area plans shall provide efficient sidewalk and/or pathway connections, as feasible, between neighboring developments or land uses; The applicant's proposed site plan shows a future sidewalk and automobile access connection between the proposed development and the existing parking lot to the north within the City of Durham portion of the site. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject parcel within the City of Tigard. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met for the subject parcel located within the City of Tigard. Environmental Performance Standards (18.725): Noise: For the purposes of noise regulation, the provisions of Sections 7.40.130 through 7.40.210 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply. 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 of other point- source 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 emission 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; there shall be no emission or transmission of heat or heated air which is discernible at the lot line of the source; and these regulations shall not apply to signs or floodlights in parking areas or constructing 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. FINDING: The proposed parking lot on the subject parcel is proposed to be used for parking of up to 11 vehicles. As proposed, no adverse impacts from noise, visible emission, vibrations, odors, glare and heat or insects and rodents would accompany such use. Therefore, each of the environmental performance standards above has been 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 18.745.040.0 Section 18.745.040.0 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). NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 8 OF 19 The portion of the subject parcel located within the City of Tigard associated with the Durham office building proposal does not front any public street. Therefore, the street tree standard does not apply. 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. The subject site is adjacent to existing and proposed parking lots on the north, west, and south. To the east, the subject site is bordered by a 30-foot elevation drop which is heavily forested and landscaped. Therefore, no buffering or screening is required, consistent with this standard. Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.745.050.E requires the screenin 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 applicant has proposed a total of 11 standard parking stalls on the subject site. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan (L1.1) that shows a mix of trees and shrubs around the perimeter, including Pacific Wax Myrtle and Merisel Doublefile Viburnum proposed for the development and several trees that are on the adjacent parcel providing shading of the adjacent parking lot. A tree is required to meet the standard of one tree for seven spaces for the proposed development. The proposed landscape plan does not meet the applicable landscaping requirements. 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; Screening of Service Facilities is addressed below under Chapter 18.755 (Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the landscaping and screening standards have not been met. However, with the implementation of the following condition, providing a tree for screening of the proposed parking area, the standard can be met. Condition: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan (L1.1) to show at least one tree to be located east of the proposed parking lot. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 9 OF 19 Location Standards: To encourage its use, the storage area for source-separated recyclable shall be co- located with the storage area for residual mixed solid waste; Indoor and outdoor storage areas shall comply with Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements; Storage area space requirements can be satisfied with a single location or multiple locations, and can combine both interior and exterior locations; Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Exterior storage areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. No storage areas are proposed for the subject non-accessory parking use. The parking use will not generate any need for Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Design Standards: The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection; Storage containers shall meet Uniform Fire Code standards and be made and covered with waterproof materials or situated in a covered area; Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position; Storage area(s) and containers shall be clearly labeled to indicate the type of materials accepted. No storage areas are proposed for the subject non-accessory parking use. The parking use will not generate any need for Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: The Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage Standards do not apply to the proposed non-accessory parking use. 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. The proposed commercial office use requires 154 spaces as shown on the Cover Sheet of the applicant's plan set. Including the 11 spaces in the subject parking lot, the applicant has provided a total of 165 spaces. The subject proposed non-accessory parking lot provides 11 spaces by lease arrangement to the proposed office development from within 170 to 270 feet of the proposed building, consistent with the standard for location of vehicle parking. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 10 OF 19 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. The applicant has not proposed joint parking. However, the adjacent land owner has agreed to lease the subject 5,000 square foot non-accessory parking lot for 20 years to the Durham Plaza development. Because of the 30-foot grade difference east of the subject site, use of the proposed parking lot is precluded by the owners of the subject tax lot 102. 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�tor 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. The applicant has not proposed a mixed use project. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the proposed non-accessory parking use. 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 multi-family 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 van ool 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 carpoolsvanpools 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 long term parking standard does not apply to the subject non-accessory parking lot development because the majority of the parking spaces and the proposed development are located in Durham. However, the subject spaces could be used for long-term parking if Durham required it. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. The subject non-accessory parking lot is located at a distance from the proposed office building such that any ADA parking would not be located there. Therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 11 OF 19 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. No access drive to the subject site is located within the City of Tigard. Therefore, this standard does not apply to the subject non-accessory parking lot. 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. Pedestrian access has been discussed previously in this decision under Chapter 18.705 (Access Egress and Circulation). 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 associated parking stalls to be clearly marked with striping. Therefore, this standard has been satisfied. Wheel Stops: Parking spaces alono the boundaries of a parking lot or adjacent to interior landscaped areas or sidewalks shall be provided with a wheel stop at least four inches high located three feet back from the front of the parking stall. The front three feet of the parking stall may be concrete, asphalt or low lying landscape material that does not exceed the height of the wheel stop. This area cannot be calculated to meet landscaping or sidewalk requirements. The applicant's site plan does not include wheel stops but does include a concrete curb in the eleven spaces provided in the proposed non-accessory parking lot. The subject spaces are located along the boundaries of the parking lot. Pacific wax myrtle is proposed for landscaping the border of these spaces. The six-inch curb and the 18-foot deep space will provide adequate parking for vehicles and will not conflict with landscaping of pedestrian access. Therefore, this standard has been 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 12 OF 19 The applicant's plans show the parking stalls to be 9 feet in width and 18 feet in length. The proposed aisle is shown as 25 feet in width. Because the proposed curb is the wheel stop for each space and cars can expect to overhang the landscaped area by approximately three feet, the parking stalls located on the subject lot will be in excess of the required 18.5 feet in length, consistent with this standard. 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 subject non-accessory parking lot is located over 150 feet away from the proposed Durham Plaza building anc would not be a suitable location for bicycle parking. The subject non-accessory parking lot is not included in the use table that requires bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Bicycle Parking 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 ground, wall or other structure; bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 21/2 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 subject non-accessory parking lot is not included in the use table that requires bicycle parking. The subject non-accessory parking lot is located over 150 feet away from the proposed Durham Plaza building and would not be a suitable location for bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. The subject non-accessory parking lot is not included in the use table that requires bicycle parking. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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. The proposed non-accessory parking lot does not include a building or use that would require a minimum number of off-street parking spaces. Therefore, this standard does not apply. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 13 OF 19 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 proposed non-accessory parking lot does not include a building. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the off-street parking and loading standards have been met. Signs (18.780): Chapter 18.780.130.F lists the type of allowable signs and sign area permitted in industrial zoning district. Signs are reviewed through a separate permit process administered by the Development Services Technicians. No application for a sign was made for the subject parcel. FINDING: Because signs will be reviewed and approved as part of a separate permit process, and the applicant did not apply for a sign for the subject parcel, this standard does not apply to the subject proposal. 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 standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. The applicant submitted a tree plan for the planting, removal, protection, and mitigation of trees prepared by Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc., dated May 17, 2004. According to the applicant's tree inventory (Sheet A1.2), an eight-inch alder and several other smaller trees and shrubs exist on the subject site. The alder (#28 on the inventory) is the only tree proposed to be removed for the proposed parking lot. The other smaller trees will be subject to the tree protection provisions of the Tree Plan. As the oak tree identified for removal is less than 12 inches DBH, no mitigation will be required. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the tree removal standards have been met. 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 a I 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. FINDING: The proposed non-accessory parking lot is not located adjacent to any streets or right-of ways. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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: NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 14 OF 19 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: 18.360.090.2 (Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment); 18.360.090.4 (Buffering, Screening and Compatibility Between Adjoining Uses; 18.360.090.12 Landscaping; 18.360.090.13 (Parking); 18.360.090.14 (Provision for the Disabled); and 18.360.090.14 (Provisions of the Underlying Zone). Crime Prevention and Safety: • Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; • Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; • Mail boxes shall be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; • The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and • 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 hei g-ht so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet, which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The proposed non-accessory parking lot does not include construction of a building. However, the applicant's Site Lighting Plan (Plan Set, Sheet 1 of 1) shows that the subject parking lot will be illuminated by two 250-watt clear ET-18 high pressure sodium lamps on light poles to a minimum 0.6 foot candles, sufficient to illuminate a person. Therefore, the applicable provision of this standard has been met. Public Transit: Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to 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 proposed non-accessory parking lot would not contribute to the need for transit. Therefore, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the specific standards of the Site Development Review Section have been met. 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. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 15 OF 19 Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: Section 18.810.030.E requires a collector street to have a 62-foot wide right-of-way width and a 34-foot paved section. Other improvements required may include on-street parking, sidewalks and bikeways, underground utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, and street trees. 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 proposed non-accessory parking lot is not adjacent to any street nor does it contain a street. Therefore, this standard does not apply. 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 18.810.090.0 states that proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed non-accessory parking lot does not require a sewer. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: Section 18.810.100.A states requires developers to make adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.0 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). The subject site is at the edge of a 30-foot escarpment with drainage flowing away from the escarpment toward Boones Ferry Road. Therefore, there is no upstream drainage that enters the site. Effect on Downstream Drainage: Section 18.810.100.D states that where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary and Surface Water Management (as adopted by Clean Water Services in 2000 and including any future revisions or amendments). As described in the applicant's plan set and narrative, the proposed development includes a water quantity and quality facility designed to accept the storm water from the subject proposed parking lot. The applicant's Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan (Sheet 02) shows a catch basin and storm pipe on the subject site linked to the proposed water quality facility. Therefore, any runoff from the subject site will be mitigated by the proposed facility, consistent with this standard. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 16 OF 19 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. Cost of Construction: Section 18.810.110.B states that development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvements. Minimum Width: Section 18.810.110.0 states that the minimum width for bikeways within the roadway is five feet per bicycle travel lane. Minimum width for two-way bikeways separated from the road is eight feet. The subject site does not adjoin any proposed bikeways. Therefore, these standards do not apply. 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 18.810.120.0 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. Site Permit Required: The applicant is required to obtain a Site Permit from the Building Division to cover all on-site private utility installations (water, sewer, storm, etc.) and driveway construction. The subject site will require storm pipe installation. Therefore, a site permit shall be obtained prior to site development. FINDING: The proposed non-accessory parking lot requires only provision a of storm drainage utility. No other Street and Utility Improvements Standards such as streets and sewers are applicable to the subject site. Therefore, with the following condition, the proposed parking lot is consistent with the applicable utility standards. Condition: The applicant shall obtain a site permit for storm pipe installation from the Building Division prior to site development. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 17 OF 19 ADDITIONAL CITY AND/OR AGENCY CONCERNS WITH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS: Public Water System: I he applicant has proposed to connect to the City of Tigard water system. The applicant shall submit plans with their PFI application for review and approval. 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. 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 applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. 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 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 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. 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 has provided an impact study addressing the project's impacts on public systems. No real property dedications are required for the subject proposal; therefore, no Transportation Impact Fees will be exacted. SECTION VII. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 18 OF 19 SECTION VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and states there are no county requirements. City of Durham City Manager has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to it. 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 APRIL 21, 2005 AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON MAY 6, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. AAp eal:� The decision of the Director (Type II Procedure) or Review Authority (Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III Procedure) is final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall 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 City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confined to the specific 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 may be 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 MAY 5, 2005. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503) 639-4171. ji� re April 21 , 2005 PREPARED B. Pa enstecher DATE Assistant Planner April 21 , 2005 APPROVED BY: Ric and H. Bew••sdorff DATE Planning Man. .er I:\curpin\gary\sdr\S DR2004-00014.dec.doc.dot NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT PAGE 19 OF 19 CITY of TIGARD CO \ GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM S VICINITY MAP 4",s, 1 qMlio SDR2004-00014 00oxx DURHAM PLAZA QQ�¢ s� Q PARKING OG o .p z •p0 I 4: 7 7FERR \ 1 uri ,si � _ � \ _` \ `!//111 .1111 Tigard Area Map •, N• _44 igrinima r �al 0 100 200 300 400 Feet I I'm 311 feet �'� 2 Al‘lik CC SW FIND I City of Tigard Cr U./ Information on this map is for general location only and a should be verified with the Development Services Division. Q. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard.OR 97223 (503)639-4171 http:dwww.d.tigard.or.us • Community Development Plot date:Feb 18,2005;C:Imagic\MAGIC03.APR 0 • / f I I' I II 11 I ( ) I I I' I it 0.9 1 I •.0.. III ��141,10 fa II III �11111�1 N�IIMOMI MII SUMMON. I I did d%d II 11, NW I Z I I 0 CO i• Area subject to review 5 (.1• .I.I.1• — al by the City of Tigard Q s I ai_ �4 1� — _ C9 � , i e i 11 ' 1 Z /IU►A .iii • it i I '�I %�!%%��/ I Q ���� J i I ; 'I1 1 - 1 � �a j II 1 11 � ,r,r n r-r r r I i j1 it I 3I 1 MBE o11(1 !.! b WIIIIIMIRIffir 25._,( I m '�I � --- -- -- li i w l i r v ;6-iii- I LL ` w I 1 I 1 > _g eya . o : 0 I . ; 0 I e e ° •I J ari 1 no e li k ■ I', �. Q\\\\■ • Afro- ---1 1 . ma . Fa b ------)\ i . : IITPlh °' : j u F eat. ' I 'r .. F-ao I i �iP Mr. _: F=�a1 I i I © Fal� i I b• J I j r ii �/ If o b i•t I �' ,xo'-o-j 1 IA N = ■e : - i j j a I I; I I , (flY OF TIGARD t S D R2004-000 I 4 SITE PLAN (Map is not to scale) DURHAM PLAZA PARKING • • EXHIBIT Durham Plaza, LLC SDR2004-00014 PO Box 2404 DURHAM PLAZA PARKING Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Pacific Realty Associates, LP Attn: N. Piven 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 Mildren Design Group, P.C. Attn: Jack Kriz 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY G CIAlifk TY OF Community(Development Shaping)l(Better Community , Patricia G. Luns{orcf, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of Tigard; Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appropnate Box(s)Below} © NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on April 21,2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on April 21,2005, postage prepaid. V177a1(Person that Prepare• otice) STATE of oXEGoN ) County of Washington )ss. City of igard ) } )/(CT Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the O day of , 2005. OFFICIAL SEAL : r _ SUE ROSS .1; ,=,'14; NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.375152 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC.1,2007 41130 NOTARY PU OF OREGON My Commi Expires: 11-i-el EXHIBIT..L NOTICE OF TYPE II DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004-00014 . CITY Of TIOARD Community Development DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT Shaping A Better Community 120 DAYS = 6/15/2005 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING LOT CASE NO.: Site Development Review (SDR) SDR2004-00014 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01-acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. APPLICANT: Durham Plaza, LLC OWNER: Pacific Realty Associates, LP PO Box 2404 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 APPLICANT'S Jack Kriz REP: Mildren Design Group, P.C. 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: The property is located between SW Durham Road and SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 00102. ZONE: I-P: The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, CRITERIA: 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 APPROVED the above request. The findings and conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in the full decision, available at City Hall. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR 18 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. All documents and applicable criteria in the above-noted file are available for inspection at no cost or copies can be obtained for twenty-five cents (25 ) per page, or the current rate charged for copies at the time of the request. SECTION III. 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 APRIL 21, 2005 AND EFFECTIVE ON MAY 6, 2005 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. AAp e�al: The Director's Decision is final on the date that it is mailed. Any party with standing as provided in Section 18.390.040.G.1. may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.390.040.G.2. of the Tigard Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal together with the required fee shall be filed with the Director within ten (10) business days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard. Tigard, Oregon 97223. Unless the applicant is the appellant, the hearing on an appeal from the Director's Decision shall be confii the specific issues identified in the written comments submitted by the parties during the comment p Additional evidence concerning issues properly raised in the Notice of Appeal may be submitted by any during the appeal hearing, subject to any additional rules of procedure that may be adopted from time t■ by the appellate body. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS 5:00 PM ON MAY 5, 2005. Questions: For further information please contact the Planning Division Staff Planner, Gary Pagenstecher at (503) 639-4171 , Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 4 Illt" ,,;:- A.1 ,_,. ,,,„_, neiNnr MAP SDR2004-00014 ' DURHAM PLAZA PARKING aitgiliq mmtkPAIR \ in:111111131111b _ N NO MP WO 111111 anima r:1a wn . '• li 01 If ILM■ MEM if I Z I O c-,-) - a Plosi II Ana subject to review 5 by the City of Tigard 0 , c Ir C9 !' '' z 1 I.iii z ei0 4714- z � n � �� ce I . 0.1IM " Td .�.ale t 1hI_'m 1 >, j1411 NI I I INN" \ c.�1. liw-00110 1_____. j. ,1 ■P' 1 i i • I I, Cli OF TIGARD ? SDR2004-00014 SITE •awsa .Map rs not to scale) DURHAM PLAZA PARKING 4110 1110 • 2S113BD-00100 2S113AB-01201 EXHIBIT.. /3 ._ BEHBOODI BAHRAM PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES 6 HIDALGO ST ATTN: N PIVEN LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 15350 SE SEQUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S113AC-00400 2S113AB-01400 DALE FAMILY TRUST PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES BY WALLACE DALE ATTN: N PIVEN 16650 SW UPR BOONES FRY RD 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S113AC-00700 2 113AC-00101 DURHAM DENTAL LLC PA IC REAL► ASSOCIATES 16780 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD ATTN: ' ' N DURHAM,OR 97224 1535. •UOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,0' 97224 2S113AC-00300 . 113AC-00102 DURHAM INVESTORS LLC PA. FIC RE• ASSOCIATES BY PACIFIC SANTE FE ATTN: EN 17700 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD 153 SE QUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND, OR 97224 ••RTLAND, •- 97224 2 S 113AC-00200 . 113AC-00103 D•'HAM INVE TORS LLC PA. FIC RE• ASSOCIATES BY P• IF ANTE FE ATTN: • • VEN 1770 11 PPER BOONES FERRY RD 15 -. SE QUOIA PKWY#300 •'TLAND, •' 97224 '-ORTLAND, •- 97224 2S113BD-05700 . 113AB-00600 FEWLESS DAVID E&CARMEN R PA• IC RE• ASSOCIATES 2518 GALLEON PL ATTN: EN SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 153 E - •UOIA PKWY#300 ••RTLAND,O' 27224 2S1138D-05600 2S113AC-00500 GRAY BRANDON K PARKER RUTH A 7871 SW KINGFISHER WAY 16730 SW UPR BOONES FY RD DURHAM, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S113BD-05500 2S113BD-02100 LELLI RICKY L SAAB PATRICIA D 7609 SW AFTON LN 7550 SW AFTON LN DURHAM, OR 97224 DURHAM,OR 97224 2S113BA-00900 2S113AC-01100 MCNALLY COLLEEN SCHECKLA DARYL D REV LIV TRUST 16515 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY BY DARYL D SCHECKLA TR DURHAM,OR 97224 10520 NW JACKSON QUARRY RD HILLSBORO, OR 97124 2S113BD-05400 113AC-01000 NIJSSE ELSE TRUSTEE SC CKLA DARY D REV LIV TRUST 7623 SW AFTON LN BY DA- L HECKLA TR DURHAM, OR 97224 105 • • •CKSON QUARRY RD LSBORO, O` 97124 • 2S113AC-00600 • • SCHISLER LOREN P&VIRGINIA C 308 E EIGHTH ST NEWBERG, OR 97132 2S1 13AC-00900 SLATER INVESTMENTS L L C BY KEITH SLATER PO BOX 742 TUALATIN,OR 97062 2S113BA-01000 SUMMIT PROPERTIES INC 5550 SW MACADAM BLVD STE 205 PORTLAND, OR 97201 13AB-01500 SUM' PROP IES INC 5550 S • CADAM BLVD STE 205 Pe- LAND, • , 97201 2S113BA-00800 TAYLOR MARY L TR 16565 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD TIGARD,OR 97224 • • Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander 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 Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 30-Dec-04 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping fa Better Community I, cPatricia L. Lunsford, being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of'Tiigar ,, Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: {Check Appropnate Box(s)Beow) © NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION FOR: SDR2004-00014/DURHAM PLAZA PARKING ❑ AMENDED NOTICE (File No/Name Reference) ® City of Tigard Planning Director A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A", and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B", and by reference made a part hereof, on March 2,2005, and deposited in the United States Mail on March 2,2005, postage prepaid. ti'lg„, - fir, • , 'ZPL (Person that•repared Noti = i STATE OE OcEGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of Tigard ) rye Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the /V day of , 2005. e OFFICIAL SEAL SUE ROSS r '�=3 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO.375152 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC.1,2007 NOTA P LIC OF OREGON My Corti ssion Expires: ��/--IJ EXHIBITA_ NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE,IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. II NOTICE OF PENDING LAND USE APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW O CITY OF T TIGARD Community Devetopment Shaping,a Better Community DATE OF NOTICE: March 2, 2005 FILE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004-00014 Type II Land Use Application FILE NAME: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. YOUR RIGHT TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the City making any decision on the Application, you are hereby provided a fourteen (14) day period to submit written comments on the application to the City. THE FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON MARCH 16, 2005. All comments should be directed to Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at the City of Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223. You may reach the City of Tigard by telephone at (503) 639-4171 or by e-mail to Garypci.tiqard.or.us. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD IN WRITING PRIOR TO 5:00 PM ON THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE IN ORDER FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THE CITY OF TIGARD APPRECIATES RECEIVING COMMENTS AND VALUES YOUR INPUT. COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NOTICE OF DECISION. A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2005. IF YOU PROVIDE COMMENTS, YOU WILL BE SENT A COPY OF THE FULL DECISION ONCE IT HAS BEEN RENDERED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BECOME A PART OF THE PERMANENT PUBLIC RECORD AND SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: . Address the specific "Applicable Review Criteria" described in the section above or any other criteria believed to be applicable to this proposal; • Raise any issues and/or concerns believed to be important with sufficient evidence to allow the City to provide a response; • Comments that provide the basis for an appeal to the Tigard Hearings Officer must address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity on that issue. Failure of any party to address the relevant approval criteria with sufficient specificity may preclude subsequent appeals to the Land Use Board of Appeals or Circuit Court on that issue. Specific findings directed at the relevant approval criteria are what constitute relevant evidence. AFTER THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A TYPE II ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT AND TO OWNERS OF RECORD OF PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND TO ANYONE ELSE WHO SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS OR WHO IS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA. BASED UPON THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD, THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUESTED PERMIT OR ACTION. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: . The application is accepted by the City . Notice is sent to property owners of record within 500 feet of the proposed development area allowing a 14-day written comment period. . The application is reviewed by City Staff and affected agencies. . City Staff issues a written decision. . Notice of the decision is sent to the Applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site; all owners of record of property located within 500 feet of the site, as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll; any City-recognized neighborhood group whose boundaries include the site; and any governmental agency which is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the City which includes provision for such notice or anyone who is otherwise entitled to such notice. INFORMATION/EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW: The application, written comments and supporting documents relied upon by the Director to make this decision are contained within the record and are available for public review at the City of Tigard Community Development Department. If you want to inspect the file, please call and make an appointment with either the project planner or the planning technicians. Copies of these items may be obtained at a cost of $.25 per page or the current rate charged for this service. Questions regarding this application should be directed to the Planning Staff indicated on the first page of this Notice under the section titled "Your Right to Provide Written Comments." ...... �� , \ VICINITY�w■ �R°�M/ SDR2004-00014 _,, :;;'''. \.0 T. op 0 DURHAM PLAZA PARKING z dili I il „,. \: ill , \:... c„,_________„ ..4if4itrioii mop_ - ,, re ler 111111/41 ,........ 111Li coy orr� 2S113BD-00100 2S1 BEHBOODI BAHRAM PACIFIC OREALTY ASSOCIATES 6 HIDALGO ST ATTN: N PIVEN LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 15350 SE SEQUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S113AC-00400 2S113AB-01400 DALE FAMILY TRUST PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES BY WALLACE DALE ATTN: N PIVEN 16650 SW UPR BOONES FRY RD 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S113AC-00700 2 113AC-00101 DURHAM DENTAL LLC PA IC REAL► ASSOCIATES 16780 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD ATTN: N DURHAM,OR 97224 15358 •UOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,O' 97224 2S113AC-00300 113AC-00102 DURHAM INVESTORS LLC PA. FIC RE• ASSOCIATES BY PACIFIC SANTE FE ATTN: ' EN 17700 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD 153 SE QUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97224 '•RTLAND, • 97224 2S113AC-00200 113AC-00103 D I'HAM INVE TORS LLC P•. FIC RE• ASSOCIATES BY P• IF ANTE FE ATTN: • • VEN 1770. PPER BOONES FERRY RD 15 .0 SE QUOIA PKWY#300 '•RTLAND, •' 97224 'ORTLAND, •' 97224 2S113BD-05700 113AB-00600 FEWLESS DAVID E&CARMEN R PA• IC RE• ASSOCIATES 2518 GALLEON PL ATTN: ' EN SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 153 E - •UOIA PKWY#300 ••RTLAND,O' '7224 2S113BD-05600 2S113AC-00500 GRAY BRANDON K PARKER RUTH A 7871 SW KINGFISHER WAY 16730 SW UPR BOONES FY RD DURHAM, OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S113BD-05500 2S1138D-02100 LELLI RICKY L SAAB PATRICIA D 7609 SW AFTON LN 7550 SW AFTON LN DURHAM,OR 97224 DURHAM, OR 97224 2S113BA-00900 2S113AC-01100 MCNALLY COLLEEN SCHECKLA DARYL D REV LIV TRUST 16515 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY BY DARYL D SCHECKLA TR DURHAM,OR 97224 10520 NW JACKSON QUARRY RD HILLSBORO,OR 97124 2S113BD-05400 113AC-01000 NIJSSE ELSE TRUSTEE SC CKLA DARY D REV LIV TRUST 7623 SW AFTON LN BY DA- L ' HECKLA TR DURHAM, OR 97224 105 0 • +CKSON QUARRY RD LSBORO, O' 97124 2S113AC-00600 SCHISLER LOREN P&VIRGINIA C 308 E EIGHTH ST NEWBERG,OR 97132 2S113AC-00900 SLATER INVESTMENTS L L C BY KEITH SLATER PO BOX 742 TUALATIN, OR 97062 2S113BA-01000 SUMMIT PROPERTIES INC 5550 SW MACADAM BLVD STE 205 PORTLAND,OR 97201 113A8-01500 SUM PROP IES INC 5550 S CADAM BLVD STE 205 P LAND, 97201 2S113BA-00800 TAYLOR MARY L TR 16565 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD TIGARD,OR 97224 Durham Plaza, LLC PO Box 2404 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Mildren Design Group, P.C. Attn: Jack Kriz 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander 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 Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 30-Dec-04 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE SITE. In the Matter of the Proposed Land Use Applications for: Land Use File Nos.: SDR2004-00014 Land Use File Name: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING I, Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, do affirm that I posted notice of the land use proposal affecting the land located at (state the approximate�opation�)IF nc� ddress(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) Z- S l i 314� 9O I c ��'( IW J) and did personally post notice of the proposed land use application(s) by means of weatherproof posting in the general vicinity of the affected territory, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the . _day of lt'l e# , 2005. ■ �/ Signature of Pe on Wh/Performed Posting h:\login\patty\masters\affidavit of posting for applicant to post public hearing.doc DURHAM PLAZA PARKING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004-00014 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non- accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g. , noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well- integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEVI CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division (staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 503-639-4171 or by email to Garypci.tiqard.or.us. A copy of the application and all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and the applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and copies for all items can also be provided at a reasonable cost. . CITY of TIGARD S/*O ���� GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM •GRy 1 AREA NOTIFIED 4,0 (500') .• t5713A1tlN1 1 0..00\4. . MINIMS FOR: Jack Kriz JQ. s1 Q RE: 2SI I3AC, 102 # 4VA a � MINIM CV fNlYala 9� 'p4 CO Property owner information is valid for 3 months from ,en , the date printed on this map. avwwr 1pt1A1N711 \�\`N. N. \ I■ tsn3BDn111 \ 1,1131/811111 ?S11AC11411 "to 75111AC11S11 • 11 • . N s al11111111111: • 1, aatl11r1, X 0 100 200 300 Feet "rip W V=221 feet awtrMrl HAU• jr w a maim .46;1\ii. 7. City of Tigard } A ► • Cr __ Information on this map is for general location only and s I should be verified with the Development Services Division. W 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, a.I I I I 1 1 11111 63441713 (5 http:llwww.ci.tigard.oc us Community Development Plot date:Feb 8,2005;C:ImagiclMAGIC03.APR 2S113BD-00100 2S113AB-01201 BEHBOODI BAHRAM PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES 6 HIDALGO ST ATTN: N PIVEN LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 15350 SE SEQUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND, OR 97224 2S113AC-00400 2S113AB-01400 DALE FAMILY TRUST PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES BY WALLACE DALE ATTN: N PIVEN 16650 SW UPR BOONES FRY RD 15350 SW SEQUOIA PKWY#300 TIGARD,OR 97224 PORTLAND,OR 97224 2S113AC-00700 2 113AC-00101 DURHAM DENTAL LLC PA IC REALT ASSOCIATES 16780 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD ATTN: ■ ' • N DURHAM, OR 97224 1535' •UOIA PKWY#300 •RTLAND,0' 97224 2S113AC-00300 113AC-00102 DURHAM INVESTORS LLC PA. FIC RE Y ASSOCIATES BY PACIFIC SANTE FE ATTN: EN 17700 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD 153 SE QUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND, OR 97224 '•RTLAND, • 97224 2S113AC-00200 .S113AC-00103 D•'HAM INVE TORS LLC PA. FIC RE• Y ASSOCIATES BY P• IFI . ANTE FE ATTN: • • VEN 17706 :! PPER BOONES FERRY RD 15 -0 SE ' QUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND, •R 97224 '•ORTLAND, • 97224 2S113BD-05700 113AB-00600 FEWLESS DAVID E&CARMEN R PA• IC RE• Y ASSOCIATES 2518 GALLEON PL ATTN: EN SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 153 E •UOIA PKWY#300 "•RTLAND,0" '7224 2S113BD-05600 2S113AC-00500 GRAY BRANDON K PARKER RUTH A 7871 SW KINGFISHER WAY 16730 SW UPR BOONES FY RD DURHAM,OR 97224 TIGARD,OR 97224 2S113BD-05500 2S1138D-02100 LELLI RICKY L SAAB PATRICIA D 7609 SW AFTON LN 7550 SW AFTON LN DURHAM, OR 97224 DURHAM,OR 97224 2S113BA-00900 2S113AC-01100 MCNALLY COLLEEN SCHECKLA DARYL D REV LIV TRUST 16515 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY BY DARYL D SCHECKLA TR DURHAM, OR 97224 10520 NW JACKSON QUARRY RD HILLSBORO, OR 97124 2S113BD-05400 113AC-01000 NIJSSE ELSE TRUSTEE SC CKLA DARY D REV LIV TRUST 7623 SW AFTON LN BY DA" L r HECKLA TR DURHAM, OR 97224 105 ' • •CKSON QUARRY RD LSBORO,0' 97124 • 2S113AC-00600 SCHISLER LOREN P&VIRGINIA C 308 E EIGHTH ST NEWBERG, OR 97132 2S113AC-00900 SLATER INVESTMENTS L L C BY KEITH SLATER PO BOX 742 TUALATIN, OR 97062 2S113BA-01000 SUMMIT PROPERTIES INC 5550 SW MACADAM BLVD STE 205 PORTLAND, OR 97201 13AB-01500 SUM PROP IES INC 5550 S `CADAM BLVD STE 205 P LAND, OR 97201 2S113BA-00800 TAYLOR MARY L TR 16565 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY RD TIGARD, OR 97224 Nathan and Ann Murdock PO Box 231265 Tigard, OR 97281 Sue Rorman 11250 SW 82nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Naomi Gallucci 11285 SW 78th Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Michael Trigoboff 7072 SW Barbara Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Brad Spring 7555 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 Alexander 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 Pat Whiting 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, OR 97223 CITY OF TIGARD - EAST INTERESTED PARTIES (i:\curpin\setup\labels\CIT East.doc) UPDATED: 30-Dec-04 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION .40-40 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Community Development Shaping)!Better Community PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-684-1291 (Attn: Patty/Planning) RtUES1 FOR 500.FOOT PROP 4ITY OWNER M Property owner information is valid for 3 months from the date of your request INDICATE ALL PROJECT MAP & TAX LOT NUMBERS (i.e. 1S134AB, Tax Lot 00100) OR THE ADDRESSES FOR ALL PROJECT PARCELS BELOW: BSI / / d1 /6,2 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 project 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 purpose of providing notice to property owners of the proposed land use application and the decision. The 2 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: PHONE: FAX: This request may be mailed, faxed, or hand delivered to the City of Tigard. Please allow a 2-day minimum for processing requests. Upon completion of your request, the contact person will be called to pick up their request that will be placed in "Will Cal[" 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. I *EXAMPLE* '``COST FOR THIS REQUEST ** / 4 sheets of labels x$2/sheet=$8.00 x 2 sets= $16.00 sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet=$ -// x o � sets= �i, 2 sheets of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties x 2 sets= $ 4.00 / sheet(s)of labels x$2/sheet for interested parties=$ x -sew= GENERATE LIST = $11.00 GENERATE LIST = TOTAL = $31.00 TOTAL February 3, 2005 CI OF TIG D OREGON Jack Kriz Mildren Design Group 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Durham Plaza Development (City of Tigard portion), SDR2004-00014 Dear Mr. Kriz: The City of Tigard received your application resubmittal for site development review for the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road on tax lot 2S113AC00102. The proposal is to utilize a 5,000 square foot portion of this approximately 4.01-acre site for use as non- accessory parking for an adjacent office building, Durham Plaza, located in the City of Durham. Except for the following information, your application is now complete. Please provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the proposed landscape area, pursuant to the development standards for industrial zones (I-P), 18.530.050.B. In addition, please submit 9 full set copies of your revised and new materials (plan sets may be printed at 8 1/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 size as long as you include 3 copies of large set plans). Also, provide two sets of pre-addressed (no return address), stamped (not metered), #10 size envelopes (addresses of property owners located within 500 feet must have been obtained from the City of Tigard within the previous three months from the date of application completeness). The formal comment and review process will begin on receipt of the above materials, which typically takes 6 to 8 weeks. It should be noted that staff has not reviewed the application submittal for compliance with the relevant code criteria, and that additional items may arise during the application review which may require further clarification. if you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, ...._ Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner C: SDR2004-00014 Land Use File 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 CITY OF TIGARD 2/8/2005 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 1:23:06PM .�il; Tigard,Oregon 97223 °'__.. (503)639-4171 Receipt #: 27200500000000000522 Date: 02/08/2005 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid RECEXP Recovered Expenditures(labels)-21.0000 @$1.0000 100-0000-479000 21.00 Line Item Total: $21.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID AcctJCheck No.Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check CURTIS&JENNIFER TROLAN DEB 1875 In Person 21.00 Payment Total: $21.00 cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1 2S 113AC-00102 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES ATTN: N PIVEN 15350 SE SEQUOIA PKWY#300 PORTLAND,OR 97224 APPLICANT MATERIALS PRE-APP.HELD BY: Apo CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OR 97223-8189 503.639.4171/503.684.7297 DECEIVED CITY OF TIGARD OCT � � 2004 OREGON LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION File# SDP -000)4 Other Case # � I Ind Date rcyps-/0,4 By_�L Receipt# Ic DOLT"y(°--5'7 City X Urb Date Complete TYPE OF PERMIT YOU ARE APPLYING FOR ❑ Adjustment/Variance (I or II) ❑ Minor Land Partition (II) ❑ Zone Change (III) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (IV) ❑ Planned Development (III) ❑Zone Change Annexation (IV) ❑ Conditional Use (III) ❑ Sensitive Lands Review (I, II or III) ❑Zone Ordinance Amendment(IV) ❑ Historic Overlay (II or III) XSite Development Review (II) ❑ Home Occupation (II) ❑ Subdivision (II or III) LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED AC I IVI fY WILL OCCUR(Address if available) P tzo?wzT '$a)NOr.O P i SW b\IIMAkM ;caw—17312)IwO Sw LIPP tax. 13CO1vcS r- 1Zy Rty0 TAX MAP&TAX LOT NOS. r -.10 2S 113 AC dibt Wi )`rkv. L 01 14S1 101 AL SI I E SIZE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 4.01 /ac-r- P APPLICANT* 1J U R I-;41/4,N\ p L Lc MAILING ADDRESS/CI I Y/S fAl E/ZIP P. o•F3ox 2-4D4- L�1C� c6v,It„o ,bP-. 6,o► 3 Goo S PHONE NO. FAX NO. - qb€, - 00 Sob • 9b*B.- 9210 PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. JA44--IC 6 orD-fib$ -Cot oO PROPERTY OWNER/DEED HOLDER(Attach list if more than one) P -I -r I L- REw.T J JW-06o -%/.T>;'S, LP MAILING ADDRESS/CI FY/STA1 E/Z 15'350 Sw v01Ob. ) 3oO, PO' -T+-1∎41_0 ,c -a6.t t �t722-O- PHONE NO. - FAX NO. G 03- ( 4.-63oo 5 - 624-- 11S S `When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be • purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The ners must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. PROPOSAL SUMMARY(Please be specific) pE.vr i-O ps.ri)LlN Svft).3 CA1 ■ VV C-T ION I-M h*1 &1'I C1 . Cbvt1.-01∎.)1+% OEV tL O N $C W-. TNT, uTy Of. Dv111-WeN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ALL OF THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE "BASIC SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS" INFORMATION SHEET. THE APPLICANT SHALL CERTIFY THAT: ♦ If the application is granted, the applicant shall exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. ♦ All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, map be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. ♦ The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application(s). SIGNATURES OF EACH OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. ss •T1ro.1_1•Ve n %. 6i 1%/f5r/e .rar "T Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date y App cant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date Applicant/Agent/Representative's Signature Date 10/25/2004 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 12:04:41PM �A.,.d,, 1;,. Tigard,Oregon 97223 . J. i LL (503) 639-4171 Receipt #: 27200400000000004657 Date: 10/25/2004 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid SDR2004-00014 [LANDUS] SDR Under$1,000,000 100-0000-438000 3,536.00 Line Item Total: $3,536.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct./Check Approval No. How Received Amount Paid Check DURHAM PLAZA,LLC CAC 1017 In Person 3,536.00 Payment Total: $3,536.00 ..,..,..4,-,, ! 1.-',, .a y1:.!i.: Fy ; Sys,. y, ",` tz',a. ^ '4 r .*"�- ,^�'j'.f }n`� S e,t'4` r e�F.i i YAP'}• 0'�,r, t.Y F{Y' __....' 0�. 1 ...--1 ry. .- ',I ..'. K•.N wt, „ k ' ,. k Y'Y ..`i,+ a. 1-k,T f , .S'-'t'' '-':','' Y'''.s', •..'.> f Y. t ;3`l,+s f y- SS��� :,. ' } ., �'r i,. 1 ';'�. � t` {�� +3 .�' „: v " _ t.a *5r•'43.-,..-13,1.:- F" WASHINGTON MUTUAL i. r:,4.,,,,,.: T +�. DURHAM PLAZA, LLC ; `f. ei,-s"y �` ;, ' ,'y� KRUSE WAY FINANCIAL CENTER i i ‘'� ,. P.O.BOX 2404 5 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97035 s *isY ``;+ '- 19-70 6-3250 / l7 3 `CJ c.'{ + .� c k ar o-x E -� j £d+t— ` s T , sa th'dS"� t Viz, , t , i4f ir1k4 4:t z a PAY TO THE , 0 J- J t[ cl , �. 3 'Cro 0 •ORDER OF ° / t e N cro 8 ] 1-.�2 ����S A��I j2, 1-�vn,t l o "'� ,--.k S , X 0--A 7J D DOLLARS m B f _ — $ i I MEMO f r w.• l C" d -+ I�e AP I 4 Page 1 of 1 cReceipt.rpt O wAerSh ; p Ivifor ma-iioh ur,,.16/U4 1u:47 FAA 2002 PACTR UST 15350 S.W. Sequoia Pkwy.,Suite 300 Portland,Oregon 97224 Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. 503/624-5300•Facsimile:503/624-7755 August 18, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE—503-968-9270 Mr. Bart Bartholomew MFP of Oregon PO Box 2404 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Dear Bart: Re: PacTrust Business Center Portland, Oregon 5,000 Square Feet of Land(the "Property") GENERAL LEASE TERMS The following will outline the terms under which Pacific Realty Associates,L.P. ("PacTrust")would enter into a lease agreement with MFP of Oregon("MFP") for the Property. • Location: Approximately 5,000 square feet of land at the PacTrust Business Center as shown on the enclosed plan. • Use: The Property shall be used solely for parking to accommodate the proposed building to be built by MFP at the south portion of the Property. • Term: Twenty(20) years. • Rent Schedule: One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)per month with ten percent (10%) increases every five(5) years. • Associated Costs: MFP will be responsible for any and all costs associated with improving the land for its intended use including any permits or governmental approvals. PacTrust will lease the Property to MFP in"as is" condition without any representation or warranty as to whether the land is zoned or otherwise suitable for the use stated above. • Full Indemnity: MFP will fully indemnify PacTrust against any and all claims. . 1 V'✓%10/V4 1V:4! IAA id]003 Mr. Bart Bartholomew Page 2 August 18, 2004 • Assignment or Subletting: The proposed lease will be personal to MFP and may not be assigned or sublet. Bart,this letter outlines the general terms under which PacTrust will lease the Property to MFP. Further terms and conditions will be outlined in the body of the land lease. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact me. Sincerely, PAC e ALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P. 4, Eri- . Sporre Vice President Encl. • g:\brendac\cric\correspondence\bartholornew bart ltr.doc r 1.1 V bOOZ hi -N> � 0 Ililuruuo0 ' ! r . • MM .wKrq 1 �r w.«4 �...a 1 L. �+ WM/ G u -•-•-•••••-""'---Z11---.... ROAD i•.... , �� • ••., •�•,.,!!!'!'P.' , q .�._ ----- _ Lo I t. 1 r ( 4111111j61: .1 r i iI ! j-vat gag r l � 7 V11+u..l r1M■RMMMMRr . V 'V I i 1 ' , .M � �RS MfMM�i wrinICI 010-01111 gortotral 111 r-..anyMMMiM�Mi�� w~ TI iii weld • MN NNW 1 �T7Id �I�tl J ¢ 5 • ICAq : - - • • OAP� �y J in P� IM1r■MMMi.i.� w - ��MMMMMM MMMMMRM■■MMMMMII■■■MIMMI■■■M■MMMMMAIII .- �.�.-. �� ■■M■M■■■■M •. , . • II 1I • ,I • . . ' I i 1 i. w as • it• 41( �1 t F �r 11 1 f .ros 11 I I I r'1 N • • ■ 1 N C n_ • • \ . . Jan 11 05 06: 02p HAR' 'H 78C /1 -9423 p. 2 01/77/Guuo Iti: ro rRJ( DV3 L!4 AG t1UtL11Y LUST , ttnVl,t,t >2Jvvc/via (:!1: Fidelity National Title Company !-!;) The Closing Company Prepared For: t Prepared By:Amber Roof Information Services Department 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 400 - Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone:(503)227-LIST(5478) Fax: (503) 274-5472 E-mail: csrequest@frif.com OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Owner : Pacific Realty Associates Ref Parcel Number :2S 113AC 00102 CoOwner T:02S R:01W 3: 13 Q: 253 Site Address : 'no Site Address" Parcel Number :R2021624 Mail Address : 15350 SE Sequoia Pky#300 Portland Or 97224 Map Number . Telephone : Owner: Tenant: County :Washington(OR) SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION ....] Transferred :03/20/1992 Loan Amount : Document# : 18144 Lender . Sale Price Loan Type . • Deed Type Interest Rate %Owned Vesting Type . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION r ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Map Page&Grid Mkt Land • $1,036,730 Census : Tract: Block: Mla Structure : 32,871,210 Subdivision/Plat :Council View Other . Neighborhood Cd :1(15 Alkt Total :53,907,940 Land Use :2312Misc,Non-mfg,Ifupruvcrncnt,Ind Zone %Improved :73 Legal :COUNCIL VIEW ACRES(LOTS 21-44), 03-04 Taxes :546,908.49 :LOT 25-27,23,24,28,37-41,PLUS PT Exempt Amount : VACATED ST,ACRES 4.00 Exempt Type . Class Code Levy Code :02374 Millage Rate : 16.4177 M50Assd Value :$2,857,190 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Lot Acres :4.00 Year Built . Bathrooms _ Lot SqFt : 174,240 E,QYearBlt . Heat Method Bsm Fin SqFt : Floor Cover Pool Barn Unfin SqFt : Foundation . Appliances Bsm Low SqFt Roof Shope . Dishwasher Bldg SqFt Roof Mall . Hood Fan 1st Fir SqFt InteriorMat . Deck • Upper Flr SgFr : Paving Mat! Garage Type Porch SqFt Const Type . Garage SF Attic SqFt Eat Finish . Deck SqFt . This title information has been furnished,without charge.In conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service Is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds. Indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries wtll not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability!b assumed for any errors In this report. , 1 Jan 11 05 06: 02p HAR 'H 760 71 -9423 p. 3 V it i lfiLVV3 lb: 10 triA 3V4 Zr, rd I•lUtL1IY I;UI JtHVl1:1 10003/013 C Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon , N W E Map # 2S113AC 00102 s , The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting Th in locating the prtmiscs. Fidelity National Tide assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, arca or location of the premises or the location of improvancnts ascertained by actual survey. SW 1/4 NE I/4 SECTION 13 72S R 1194 WIM. 2S 1 13AC wslusror more wacor stake r•tad OS Pa. SS I MI .... • r•-"....1.. T-74- T _,,T • .—,�_,n.f.r„a�; - ,I • R; I —"� �. w act BO on _ ,,. — — '� _ .... rw,a 21 a1 ms l01 .d.e I I II.I. — -t.r --I ll 1 l I 1 I ! I I ,. k 22 I 26 1 26 27 29 I 30 1 31 I S2i S Wes. AI CIO UI M c ' I LIB.' Iy 1 El Y! 1 I . 1 i I I , c..�...1 l ( I I I • J►Y —�.> •. — --i - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - -1 - - 1 — V t - -�-Y- - - 1- ... — T" — T - -T • - - T -- - r - - T - -r,t 1., 'i00'.r 42 l/,� I I I I I y O0.„ 1 1 uI IMP `I •1 I Al C R IE 5 I AAhgM I I 1 `! yllra. 171 I 41 I 40 I 39 38 37 1 36 341 kir 1 I I I son 44 I I 1 23174 r� o, Iz RED 1 1� 1�r ,use I y.... ..! �.. l .�" I -,..,I , y' Y I I C.,, . 1 T rG W. J I0e OW MI I O 1 Q� rR i 'JIC OR AI al I I 1 I J I , i . 2 6 3 E 4 t S 1 4 7 I 9 1 9 b 1 S C 0 U M 1 C 1 1L I Y J Ili N/ I• [ 23-87 I I I I I .r d1� r 1 V _ - 1 - - 1 - - J. — — 1• — — 1 — I,SW. FIMOLAY R0i40°r-�+-A �•« `�" I, z I �- 1 I l —I I I I A C iR E 1 S IN 0. l I I w� l - _ -1 F le 17 a '1 is I 14 13 12 1 -l I I I I I I i I I i I 1 I I 411 —�i �'� .. _ rr i i• ulle� I -vs.-l-.-. .r` 1�.a.r -. _ L V.• - ` —DURHAM '4 a" TIGARD 7 U MPS 2S 1 1340 • • Jan 11 05 06: 03p HAIR' H 760 '1 -9423 p. 4 vi, rOWG/VJ co. rJ rnn JAo crti 14 rlUtL. lr LUJ1 Jtrsvttt IJVV4/V 13 ----.�IIII! Fideli ty National Title Company o f Oregon gon tili i' N Map # 2S113AC 00102 W s E The drawing below is copied from the public records and is provided solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises. Fidelity National Title assumes no liability for variations,if any,in dimensions, area or location of the premises or the location of irnprovemcnts ascertained by actual survey. • ..7pr t��•�:gip. 7''..21;. '— 7 1v T —tin 126'. •c•.42 12.67 341 , 631 N as I427%32 2 » 33 101 rl 102 4.00 AC I S.54.4c. in I I Iv 0 N I I A nI g7i 2 4 25 26 27 - 28 N 29 N A p N C I 0 UJ1 N C J I• " 9c) I \/ J - so' i 76 C 4 . = I I I I O p` (C.S.24,5041 i I - o •vACAT[o• 680/465 T-1,.... — ___. _i_ livg ....._. T _____ ._... 4 4 103 //.78AC. i'vv 1 I Ot, _1 I ,\ 1 C F r 4)6 • 41 I 40 39 f 38 I 37 1 31 I I I I I I 2374 120' . ii. ry0�r .,�i% „ AiMaa w�ia r i 144.67 144.47 i44.4 wa47 141.117 Jan 11 05 06: 03p HAR' H 76C 71 -9423 p. 5 V I f I I I LVVJ Io. IJ r'nn JVJ L14 IL rlucL11 T 1,UJI 3CnV1I (JULIO/1-11J 2 S�1-J.w•:i�Z'''4.•.:.', .i gii. ^?�r lii ir-.•-.:.�'jlo1 .-•Hn-a1:; ._J.i'..67'[_rtia.:R�;y , j•a, •:.a i• y :..- w_e te , - - --V.,•6...'.rMq' •eC .=`5:w•.v' _ , 1,.:<, • Z__11 .,•1• -s :oaa�. :•r Q_41 `•1.' .. -., •'' •ayv?^ 1 _ KdL . ,G -r • .r.,.7'.....:':' ' 3 jr k`� _.. _ — - .J:3 S.= a re �: a_�'�Lli 'M c •--FS.`C...1'•[T.:....7..r :-TT r, � _ - — - _ 1 s RAPS O MID SALE DEED , [,:. V • iV ' KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That WASli1l16TON COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called grantor, for the �"'-: :;', consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby grant. bargain, sell and convoy °": :.: :r unto Pacific Realty Associates. L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, g;.. hereinafter called grantee, and unto grantee's heirs, successors and assigns + lr°,_ , all of that certain real property with the tenements, heredttaeents and l'41.4;. 1 appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the 1:. : County of Washington State of Oregon, shown on the attached Exhibit "8` and ;r;.Z•. being more particularly described as follows. to wit: 5',c- ..f...-:-...L. _� aly+'1 PARCEL I - (WEST OF S.M. DURHAM ROAD) '''', _-y Described on Exhibit 'A', (Pages 1 and 2 of 3) r ...tae attached hereto and by this reference made a ';`+r�i part hereof. i`\. .aft r.. r PARCEL II - (EAST Of S.W. DURHAM ROAD) � ' Described on Exhibit 'A' (Page 3 of 3) 4.4.0_,.h .°'� attached hereto and by this reference made l 4,:' . I";��a� part hereof. ' dire Subject to the rights of the Public in and to those portions thereof ,5 'e•' •ii' lying within the right-of-way and utility easement, as dedicated for 'I the use of the public, recorded in Document No. 9Z-018142 _. ie the Washington County Book of Records. 4i"','' Thu True and actual consideration paid for Chia transfer, stated In Less ti k,. y of dollars, ix none. However, the actual consideration consists of other value G w ` given which is the whole consideration; i.e., en exchange of real property, A LAND TRADE AGREEMENT" was entered into on September 3, 1991, by and between the above stated parties, which was approved by the Washington County Board of ;?i '`r r Commissioners on June 4, 1991 by MINUTE ORDER 491-194. Also complies with R:.•^: �........ppppaaee RESOLUTIon AND oaOCI r;o. 91-G1 and RIUUFE ORDER W0. 91-427. ...r �-� 11 F ��..'1 TH15 TNSTRI�IE)fi YiLI NDT ALLDfi USE OF THE PROpERri DESCRIBED IN THIS L�>�-�. INS1I4 MENT IN YTOLATION OF APPLICABLE UUO USE LAYS A19) RICULATIt1NS. BEFORE ..�. • 3! SIGNING OR ACCEPTING 11(1S INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING Fit TITLE 1D THE =.°r�<i. PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK VEIN TI;E APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT . g'+�r 10 VERIFY APPROVED USES. 'c.;'F• Page 1 of 6 - BARGAIN AND SALE DEED I;; �' ' 251 13AC, Tax Lot No. 100 February 7, 1992 i' 1` PRCTRUST/b .;, s, �: ay,f•s y-. 10-... e <� :� • r rJ +`L\4�t 7Y4 _, '• _.,... ..` : . •r. il::i y �. , . . , • f.14 �. tk:.j. �t� ,i, lr)A,4, %•:;':n3V�:�`.m:•:?•-[o4::- 4'.r.,•: ..�f;� JrMr'Y,+2L•fy � .l„r 'L: �C'iiii. ,•.1l _ _�.m',,. r�v.i 'IL ../.iw^\\� +ktVf.•K. 11 (y,:., 1':�1 ti .'•111 y;.:. ,•-4,'L'Il.rr+..s�:r ! �••''i.' y�.� .+,� ki 1+�'i£.�"� ��• •y��4.• ..� �•ry�..r.r�,'r r•';`' .'r'` cLt �x., 3,•.�^r+' .1. - .✓.- 7 I '� 1^fir:l '.. '.j.�c�: .;�" :jci.:• l•i+F ' �"\'f1\�1.�. �S. � • t'-i ++ii -i'• 74�' !r L�y%`::''•1�-'• ..ate,,.:.- �`:iildar�``�? ��.--�.ar �-•.:..,...,;. •IY^• i t ear.+ins•;9�,n 1 R a -i-" .,w•.. . p∎rti.r. r-•t ':-L....7/ .h-- --'t---7: 7‘27:4-..'.."ar � tr '�-' ,/y xi ��,1'"'y,:�;;:�", SY ^�ir• .- ,S,'••, ..•:•:_,r� .r^�,�r�e�;r.. 1P1.,Sn/ :.:rr�r✓�1 a. P a. 'C{i'TXZ� :;::L••:'a.1' r-[ ... r ,ay..., fJr. .V.:1.14....1:,r: .-.. Vin."-�= mr1! .1;f,• �•.''.✓ -1., ''�{� '.' .+i•..It'• .C.:01,,,1:1, �'••rJt'1 -SI:.•. ....., /C.°•:;r, 7..:I ••.7'11.1 -- ._ i` •�' :. I,t* 1/... - ar '}7 i ST4:rNr, 1yY.F .-S_.. WwRsl • 1r.•G�+" [ . y :',- 'r• � t `[�r.. �. ? •wa . f 1'_ `'.,: .n, i+ . •t:iliyi�2i^,�..r.N , 1,1. ��, I , ..•ice . F "4',"..11.•.;re ,,,,4±7, _• -, L. • yy T .r , ■Z:I-i.-! , 4. .,,.:9,t c:.-;+J ✓i. ".Xis: '}�7'; ' � •�� �i►..iTv.T,7r<�.r_ •:i's'�. :.7.4'<: . ._.. Jan 11 05 06: 03p HARE 'H 780 71 -9423 p. 8 ur/ 11/CVV7 lb. lb rnx OV3 Zro rG h1UtL11Y UUSI NEIIV10E kg 0015/01',1 1k vM,, ` T ? * 4=,� o ••r P; •.i +w.x• : Lr i d.i -„ • ..::Y•c(F.it_i.::�y ' :�,�-. �+►'.-'a..-'.t' _ =' ,J a: � -.� -.111 —y , ear - __.- To Have and to Hold, the above described and granted premises unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. „ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Washington County by and through its Board of County -- Goeelsalonarc executes this instrument this-2/ day of, Q/.s,,,,,y , 1992. _ j �J k, • o �t; •:.. ay pQ COMA/. BOARD OF COUNTY COl9IISSIONERS =_,;;.. :rj .t p FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON -- ��`�-* chairman • Bonnie HQyi %i_:r• . 11Z oy wk- Recording seers y 1 :" ospoilili_s. + MINUTE ORDER 493-194. E; "S�, OAT 6-4- 9/ _ e L 1.e-v BY C o oarBi AMU _ _ __„ _ ---- gg,,,��� r - _-. -Off-twits ti Y 1 ?."4A�` NOTE - ALSO COMPLIES VITN: % „1 eRRCMa seifl*ANEK y RESOLUTION AND ()MGR N0. 91-61 ! Mo mss $ ...-COMAISYSION AND MINUTE ORDER NO. 91-427 far • eg- - p Fs---- - IL is c ,:.; ' •RED.�,,, Subscribed and sworn to before me c•_ t om......!/ ••, t iq7 at fEr `+�'R�= this �day of,if 195,2 •1 . 0 4..------ ` • WAN i Jan 11 05 06: 03p HRR H 760 71 -9423 P. 7 VI/ I I/ZUU3 ID: ID rM) 3VJ .L�((I. .� IL hiUtL1IY LUSI StKV1GL 1QJ007/013 '`c`•,.°• J a :'':,;%'.rf�•�' .:4 •:.�_-a.�i'4'!%ilY-T��i:+. . ,(,..r..,v�.ti.%�w.a:.•�.._. _yam. _r• —'o.-a , T-Z _ ' • _ - ..,r.._ _Y�..�_` _ ''c` Se, _-• '%���_ �, �..•e'. ?1:31` JEXH I B I T A 42260002,teg_ 1 "z;'131• Papa I of 3 a— __ ENGINEERING INC :` LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY j M ''.;, WeSt PacTtust Parcel To Center Line Durham Road N z January 19, 1992 Q 1' A parcel of property in Section 13,Township 2 South,Range 1 West of the g, 4 Willamette Meridian in Washington County,Oregon desaibed as follows' it '-',+ Be�g�alrt,��at the Into/scalar' of the,North line of Lot 32 of Council View �k°c. 30.00 Acres fee(west of the a teRigI oof aid y line of SW 72nd Avenue,said point being THENCE South 89°44'50"West along said North line,a distance of 215,06 • frM• feet. moore or 1-5s, to an angle point in the�South lino of that tract conveyed to 3 r, Pacific Realty Associates,LP.by deed recorded under Auditor's Filo#84008324 of i sff said Washington County records, .• ;� THENCE along said South 1Ine South 00°09'31' West 42.83 feet, more or 'I: 'ei less,to an angle point In said South line; • a''' THENCE along said South line South 89°44'50"West a distance of 279.31 y•. feet,more or less,to the East Right of Way line of SW Durham Road; .•y :?.ii THENCE continuing South 89°44.50'West 36.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; '•v:. THENCE South 00° 14' 37"East parallel with the Southerly projection of said SW Durham Road a distance of 252..13 feet to a point on a 200.00 foot radius curve to the left; THENCE around said 200.00 foot radius curve to the left a distance Of 107.07 fret; THENCE South 89°44'50'West 559.47 feet,more or less,to the West line r • r of Lot 41 of said Council View Acres No,2; • 1 THENCE North 110'20' 10'West along said West line and the Northerly projection thereof 56.98 feet,more or less,to the Southeast corner of Lae 23; } :;;;••. THENCE South 89' 13' 14" West along the South line of said Lot 23 a r' distance of 4838 feet. more or I to the West line of that tract eonvezed to r'. +T Washington County by deed recorded in Book 439 at Page 459 of said Washington / '`;r, : County records; THENCE North 00'25'00'West along said West line 10020 feet°more or :':a teas,to an angle point In said Warr line; • ��' THENCE Minh 89°44' 30'East 120.00 feet to an angle point in said West :i.:,',;•: line; is Page 3 of 6 ••• r.+l ellwCV,r.OiYvroas • 0.ewcros M4:OV°r,An.f/l�:rp:$6000 raeu.uri • .,ur.aswsa�rr • sarannsai Sr. gi4if r• e,+ .,- ..__ .ry.- •r ._ ^wZraiJ_; r?..'..N.L'Ir.1 wntY.J/. 417199:1L1 :q., .• _ r -q. - - r '+••: *.l....'%! S.aa , p•' I. • •C " : • _:'� r : �i ' -M r 1 * -'' -a .. ' 1 / , ,- . -T i r y ,, ' :. • ' ' �j ,,r '+ 4. -r> �r�� ;�r ' t, _ r4 ... r. • , . ,c rfe_ f: •, - - ::s...‘7::;: ') .1-.:, - _ �' I�---1....../. •!•,.:.' •'Y• • Fi▪g ?:.:y. %"...:-C.,-.Lr.My 7r 7��Sti .R �' ?rF `f;� ?. - •- _�••• •. •t'•' '1�r�1Y�^;-:+'aUH{v yf~:Y:u �Y•:••.rte. Y r .aj •r .`r.;"4Y �''•i•_ . ,'•r•j : 1.»., - _ ..; 4� : n '�?t% ' .. .4X-2.:V4 :W:1�.7...... k.-•.17. ha , • I .,1 ;: tom..• tiao»sv-N_ •.r'Pp-tJ'F� :;rc(..'..::::?•••,',.':i%. ,:rti;4 ..'•• ..;�,+•-%/-•,..: -•.1-1.t...6• -':-.-:.z t. 1-•,.....•-1:... ,..s:•+' :r%'S�i't'.':ti mac: ,_fir:: . • Jan 11 05 06: 04p H fi R 'H 76C 71 -9423 P- 8 U1/11/ZUO lb: lb t-AX Ot.5 ZI, f2 1-1ULLIIY CUSI EfiVICE 16008/013 .--— ..,..------=:---: ''-'",-.:-1:— Idior..:",'''' - ,:e---....7.-4:vizt,..f...-1:....•', '.-,- - - :-.-..:-.=-7,..:-,..-...,.....- - - .-7... :.,,;....,-...,4-,-,-4%M%;-, ,_■..,:tr: ;:,..- .:-F.-cr."2-7-".".' •.'•— •""" 7... ....:. -4..,.;„„.;_•-....,,,.-...„,..„,.0 = .,:..1..• ....,„.. •.. -•••:,4.,%). - •...,---.F.• . --- ..;-:4-..C.'2,_,.. .., •!:t.E.t.:... - -- ,..-., ..211:',.....14.4. 1 7 • --__-- .•:• ;ii • • 4226000218g-2 : ...-. Page 2 of 3 --. ..i........i)i=. ,..... .-.....— Ft - TRENCE North 00'15'30'West along said West line 191A2 feet.more or ..... . -• • ::;•.5-, •:-.• less,to the South line of that tract conveyed to Pacific Realty Associates,L.P.by f...w.,h• ri CV deed recorded under Auditor's File#85044163 of said Washington County records; 'THENCE North Br 44'SO'East along said South Wm and the Easterly peg:derails thereof a distance of 460.3Z fact to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ri-lo- ..-.1 „---_. ...ns.wmmss re*? -.•:le- .4 .22;,:t 74.1 1 V427_ ,...0... •:2 ' :;:f:4,iri• '/••••, -.t.*. -.r. • ;-4.•;..t. -.4. • .4-,. ...:?..i ......ir, ,;-'4•:..;. 1 - -..;;• :-.4.•; ,i.k. -..t.... •i -:_i-:., r r . - .,..t.,A. r-:---.7•21 1 ' eg: * 1:* MX"-.: "V. -•..i. -F-T 1...a.:.7.1:: • -••1 ( —•-.--------- JO ti .., .... , ■ I- , • .. : . .,!I• :•,.. • 0:1;;C: ". Ar.-11.E o. ...; . • ,.. ......0. .:3 ....'4; :.%• s. -i.e...., • - ..7i. . 4,.:.•• :-• • ,.... ....2.: ,....,... ‘•.-.:. .- ... .1, :la 4'..... . •,,,, :igVit ..e.:::-. • 41,.. ..r.4:... ) ",.._,...• ..1„-. ...-!:' '.',:f •:::.?.... .1T.: • ,,,,, ..,.:•;:. Page 4 of 6 ....s.f — ---• ,. It. ......k. ••• - - —•11•?; 9 -1'407 4 .'i •..4..-e• ■ P..t.'" zr.,..w• ,-?. -- , , ....1••••Kr ••••• - 1,..'?. ge',,?24eSicte,..ii.:n-t'..1.•N'Le'...:i.i. • ..•.. .1.tr.::--;• .:%J; ".. A.1'...-;-.<:.-.'.i-.•:'-'..;r.--f.'-'•r•i:i:at:ti...::Kr.....-..,:4::1;1"::'"::2;!te :3;■;.7"4 Z-Z71r. '...;kti4eR14:rVZ;;;;.;::::,•'... !1,:;.;,..'''.:::,''.i.'i:-.:k,;;;gi.-....c,,.:,,,,4,..,,..:,:.:-;it:.,..-..:;11..75-4.;:.,,,-.6.y te,.-.;,;4:,,:::::,--2..,- -,.,73..7,ryik, owe *.i.-;.-5.1.11 ',,-;-!,>.,ta-;.iitti:rMi.„'t:::,,e....:.,-.7,,,,,,:....(.:.;,.!:•,•:-;:::..f.-- -fg.'..‘,.'.•.-i:1:%,"-*%,1..%4.f:•?;.,'•"1 i.7- il.;...1-;-..44':'•:'-,,.••i-7!(,:tt:-.1.›.;.:::t1:1::tg-iiipk`W-It T3T-Ct.7 ,.- t..0 I ,24.'„ .:i. '..., 41.:,-,,.',97,..:lk.::1 tlf.'",-,k -f'.-;:-.••••1'•••... --: .iy,ti.•;'fir'-':...11-41-...-Z,•.•;i7.0;-':.!1;:effet:.::‘ ,--.1.!:.:AV•.,-,''-0,:',;:;;41: t - . -:..:f....;:•.:-.,-;le..:•.7:;:s7g.i.;}:..- •:.?".■•••, -,:,_. .,..--.,r..-11--1. t ...,•PS 4 kr v.; -A, -r i-1,"A* s.-1.” 1:Z4.,...•::,';■•••..-:,,?;-e •....1..-.4 ..:':;• ....-.'... ••, ".•)1::,r••:•• ..;'• ..,..--7&••.- -••••..- -. al.0..la,,...:. ,... ,„ ' .;":...7.- .,-; ••:. . ! -1‘..A:4): =“...."..:=''......7...-..r;:i.-2t?..7,....:",,g.f■..• -•--p- ; ••••:,•.1 •..../...- ,f-.......,v,.7.! . .!•1111‘.....,•.4,,.•,_.r.7.4.:‘,., . ,.., .,,•,-, ;.,--- - - ...'.14.,'..,,. V,,,:421:1A,isr:,e.::::4'1‘,•::A,,.:-.e.11.:;;.:.-„-c...,R1 7.'-•'.e.......:'.17f;t::-•., ..,•;_`:::?',..-•j'...-,V.,,,,,..;•AW. . .ri';...v2,Avet% c•)0 1.• ,,... . •Ir la. . . ...V.7 T. *-Lr.:••-''•.= ..IN," ....t.•••••R••\•/:r C •'',,1'.",r. ■7'.--- pri...$ r t•-> •?-----< . ..0 .. ?.4•:;-07.,-;.. .. :.. ::•••?:)••f••..,:•••.:.•‘',!-• -....•"..0-•,; --:. ' : --_,: •-•—•7.••g• .• .. • :••■•••.!47.-- ' •. . gtv-5,---'"' ••••••-,:fr• - 'c- ••••...=- ,•...„•tie% I OA: i.•;:1-15.....v-tv.•;x:-...$?,1I... .4::••147 -....,-.4-,!:;-_,;.0.:---..• ;•:::k:-;;:,..11.-.4,:•..:..;;.; ..ii:,...r. •,:-4 0--r-,? .. ..rb..::., ArcZ• - ,,,.-•, -., ., .,.......7.:,,-.-... -1...t.•-9-,...c. --. . ••• ..'•.',!),..".. ... .,.. /-.',...:_-: :-. , .. i.?. `te•• •• • '--. , . . . . - 49-1, --,.t,-.114:4 s .1i.-' .!'■-.t:'irr..;•-••1.4.4i ... r:/:•`•..-::..:.•:'":-::::l.374-3-'' •,.'• •,•%:. -•...r- ----,,-.-.-..,::;,1'4h, . ‘'_.-•;',,, ;..r .• ,i..z.,,,;-r,r• 4::,:•1,1.... .4- •- ''.. '').- i-...:.•e:.4.'1'T 1.'4;;.:e.-..r.-1.1i,...7.:r.v ..i.!--...LIAs.-4 ....,-:- )..1-. -'.:r-11•:-Vg,,•....-*, .• •iit,. &.;••:4 e .•.•_-:. ••■•2._■,_',"-qt. ...'44'. ..i, . . %-z....4,'.'s?:;7----e.';'),Z0?....;,7-.,(,'•r;V::.;.•.41-e.;-...:10e.:::1',..7t.":...t;1'...% 47,•1...:tt•;/.`4:.-"-),- ev'il''., .:•_=-.'.. ...---.-2 ..47,4--...r....gle .-% ,,,..;..,.,.,,e01.;,t... .41.;=4*..:--c....;,;:.,:sf,-.:ti:,•,,,,,i:z..-:,..!:::,..--r:...-A-:=,.:.;..:-.:.7.......,,;2;-,...„1:::..:z: ..--....... .0.....it -t.t:- -.015.1Cw":;:f..„&1. tiLe,A72:1:Y. 1%."-'.."YIZjrC.;'!.. .7 ?14....A1-.7.."4-5.i7z-'34:4.r:%9X.-+ •:4-Ariis,i(2M‘fc=7 - :7,.t.,-,. .2?:'l'11.-7Ar. .,.. k:': "t•1( '-'P'./.;17.4-iii1,,•,•%.-.5-:•*.r.,:t,:',':,....-',..'........-P:"..0,Z.r.--:;:-.)!.'.7-1;.*:-'.4"-. ::•%.•t„..r,•■•!kf,i -M "».-,4 4._ .r.k1W L."-:!;;.Z 7 L', -.=-..-----: s'41;14'' 1.1, ! ---'....`:‘,:t•a-.3 -1::.'a---,9.-.13.,:•.:1:•.!:...:::.;:x.--..? .v..=,-11.-.KW.'4,..F7.4C.T.g,*1.•"..--::A-..i..v-14.. . f.,•.. ...litaim' .....m,• .•• ,. .., ,;.,,„, •.%. ,_ ...,.. .;,.11.,..n,;,;--..;:4.-;`, ....;7•,10..._,-. '., •-:°•,./.?:.A: v...:--.2?....,-4•7"...-:-Ir•Or:i'• ' 9,Y0'.4'. ,1"..... -: • 'az,-T--:,-=-=-__:3;;.,-..-H-•-•, .-.=,'''„r.tt.vte:- ,4--•i'.:/,',7•••;i••-;',F=.7•<‘..%::.r:-.4.A7: 4:..fl.:,!.:i.;•• •••-•?•-.:-.•'.-i.!;.:•:...-!V-•,--.5z;k:I-':7-Z7•':.-Z-.•••:P.•". :''"';' r,. --, 4. ....-•".: . ,,, ,i-vm ..- ...„. -,;---. . ,r -_ .--: -■ •■■Biagifiarikaiiiii■-- ——- :IkerMr'4j"...!:7,*' .','• .. ;., ' ' • '". ...,.',-.....p..•,••••rit..4V14 - - - --.------- Jan 11 05 O6: 04p HEAR' 'H 760 71 -9423 p. 9 ' If 1II4VVJ .V. .I . nn JV.) CI' IG rivrl.ilr UUJI 0E1,vi1,C tQ�' VVOruIJ 'Vn:,-.�.•. `,�•�r. 4 2. ..i. =.a:•L••• •te • ••t ,,,,,,- "• -r-7• ._M111 ;_'If'2 1+MeVr]4`tea • %1N•.:.C c•1.,;: Jan 11 05 0G: 04p HARE H 780 '1 -9423 p. 10 v : • If LVVJ IV. , I n n ,v , �L 1WY�':�' I L r LucLi.I T I.UJI JCMViL,t toV iV/Vl,i ..y. _ 4.04", d •y. ..-7� ..F.11 ' �`...ab..,l -•C ra11LJr 7-.l ... 4� �•+A-'-e`..: •' f - -l•..-T��.L'.�r.�Jl•. •.:.•ft:, ..Y^��q' �, •v.,c ‘Al-s'-e`.=.:' cg.' ,^�cJi:.im rw� - „st.i. •. r r:'... .. .. a:et"._')'Win:U'.'!�,.Y`_/C7t a ,-.:.. .yam I idiom - QUARRY �,DURHAM . ... �..i ' Scale: 1'•400' Oi ' PAPCEL I /• �'. 4 E5r or LY/QlJAM Pa) / = f f f �, � 5 1.1 ia ma. i 1119.7 ` L" ea' x 7TGAAD k. !? s p ? � h ' ^ 4? s y ;: q 4.t ' :. . -s,,, .,--..,:;.....6.:.:,,i.t: : -4.DURHAM •�./1 111= 4554414:::,;.:....: Ns\ '.-t ,..c P �7' '� COUNTY' r (Easr ofs4uaaaticoN-a) ..1.0 :/Y. , , Q Vicinity Map j' } "` •tTOlAiifl .ly ' % chi"• • 171 $:1s { ,.1' i p7 LEA/0,M co. . S)Q RfCYCUYO ' 1'�k'° • .1.$ •-,:l :a it . 1 ....,:. - k -.a. ", ,-: ,,. ,..._ , ::- . : , v. ,. �t ,��ErAit y� 2 1- 1..:•, •1 , I o ^ti w^ w ` q. ; ..... STATE OF OREGON I se 't Je.. -•.-- County of NAaafd+gtaa I `ti I.JeryR.$ .e,..! ofAaaeatmOnl ` r• Page 6 of 6 ve a,,,, .4.40.-r-. •Ay,'.:py cvtur +,�.r :1 112 Wa0 m . '�' Ec k �4', ccUJv1. if+; i„+fit 00c ; 92010144 4i . Etece1 79676 30.00 ' Y09/17/1991 01:27:12PM ;e1'' .• Jan 11 05 06: 05p HAR' H 760 71 -9423 p. 11 V If I I/LVVJ IU. f1 I nn JVJ 41, i4 r1ULL11I UUJ I JG11VAV,[ 12¢JV I I/V IJ Session . .xwp Screen Snapshot 1/11/2005 4:12:14 PM * - - Property Data Selection Menu - - "1 Owner: PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES Prop ID : R2021624 (Real Estate) (125101) ATTN: N PIVEN Map Tax Lot: 25113AC-00102 15350 SE SEQUOIA PKWY #300 Legal : COUNCIL VIEW ACRES (LOTS 21-44) , PORTLAND, OR 97224 LOT 25-27,23.24,28,37-41, PLUS PT* Situs Year Built : Living Area Name(s) Code Area : 023.74 Sale Info : 02/21/92 2004 Roll Values Deed Type : DRS RMV Land 5 1,039,760 (*) Instrument: 92018144 RMV Improvements $ 2,868,180 (*) 2004 Tax Statue * No Taxes Due * RMV Total $ 3,907,940 (=) Current Levied Taxes : 47,999.00 Total Exemptions $ 0 Special Assessments M5 Net Value $ 3,907,940 2005-06 SB125 Taxes MS0 Assd Value $ 2,942,900 (1) Alt pisp (2) Primary (3) Secondary (4) Land/Impr (5) Gen Appr (.) More Enter Option from Above or RET> to Exit: NUM 0 FDX 23- 43 SeesiOn . .xwp Screen Snapshot 1/11725-05 4:12:14 PM `" Jan 11 05 06: 05p HAR' 'H 760 71 -9423 p. 12 U1/11/2005 15: i11 FAX 503 Z(1 (Z FIDELITY CUST SERVICE /013/013 Session . .xwp Screen Snapshot 1/11/2005 4:12:27 PM - - Property Account Summary (R2021624) - - Property: R2021624 25113AC-00102 023.74 PACIFIC REALTY ASSOCIATES (125101 COUNCIL VIEW ACRES (LOTS 21-44) , LOT ATTN: N PIVEN 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, PLUS PT VACATED ST, 15350 SE SEQUOIA PKWY #300 ACRES 4.01 PORTLAND, OR 97224 All Batch: Inq - Eff Date Paid: 01/15/2005 ID$ Bill ID Levied Tax Tax Paid Interest Amount Paid Date Paid 9. Current Taxes for bill 2004.155173, Levied tax of 47, 999.00 1/3 Nov 15 15,999.67 15,999.57 15,999.67 11/15/04 2/3 Feb 15 15,999.67 15,359.68 <639.99> 15,359.68 11/15/04 3/3 May 16 15,999.66 15,199.68 <799.90> 15,199.68 11/15/04 Total Paid: 46,559.03 <1,439.97> 46,559.03 *** No taxes are due on this property **" **{ End of Display *** (P) revioue (Utz) Up (T)op ( .) More Enter Option From Above, or cRET> cr 'X' to Exit: NUM 0 FDX 23- 51 Ses6iOn . .xwp Screen SnapshoC 1/11/2005 4:12:27 PM -- i4hborhood Nee4:�� , l�ocvrH enfafiovl AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING/POSTING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAIL THE CITY OF TIGARD ACOP' E THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS AFFIDAVIT AT THE SAME-TIME PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED NOTICE, TO THE ADDRESS BELOW: p (1 . O tt ! ! :.0. City of Tigard Planning Division t ` ` • ,v: e�x 1 f k w , ,:,.y - k" 13125 SW Hall Boulevard " ° il: '� 1 - Tigard, OR 97223-8189 yy�l,�n �tr , R ADDITION, THEABIMONLSHALL SUBMIT THIS AF ,.)fir COPIES OF ALL NOTICES AT OF APPLICATION. MAILING: I, 110 iM 1.5 IC..,YL► Z. , being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 3r)+11. day of 5Ei=f1'r_*6 20 o4_., I 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)SLA bU► 1tin V:%[:• r dt•Pt.a. bmoN13 to-G12.rz Rp , 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 TI (aAlzr1 with postage prepaid thereon. LONAry,..„ L Signature (In till presence of a Notary Public) POSTING: I, T‘-/E • it 4L'(L'"Z , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed D>..rc)_ID Q pi,cr affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) IF no address(s)and/or tax lot(s)currently registered) TAY, - T ZS l t-bAC 00►t",frZ and did on the 30".- day of SEPTex"f,r c. , 20 04- personally post notice indicating that the site may be proposed for a SIM DE t_ofrhe.r.ff application, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at S ln] Qbt r2.v4._ .„rn ROAD F0.oNTA/N'E oV. MOPER?Y (state location you posted notice on property) - C■ � Signature In the esence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) STATE OF 0V o - ) County of 91/1e)M1/14./1 I ) ss. Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the )t4i' ay of = .Vii 1/'e/v" , 20 C . 0'1% OFFICIAL SEAL °. SYBIL COSBY /� �.. + NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON '•i, COMMISSION NO.379197 !l MY COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 1, 2008 NOTARY UB OF O'.EGON My Co m fission xpire-: Oe i ( 1,200`U Applicant, please complete the information below: NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Address or General Location of Subject Property: Subject Property Tax Map(s)and Lot#(s): h:\Iogin\patty\masters\afdavit of mailing-posting neighborhood meeting doc `tl F. S. re z t `tr .yv"� J' e� E.urr'-S� 'op; s. �`C. Y ^ _ ,'k- at _ -. a �,n ,'{..ice..:• Sign-in Sheet MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. Architecture • Space Planning for Neighborhood Meeting for tax lot 2S113AC00102, 5,000 s.f. parking Name Phone Address Neighborhood Group S`/■j. (If any) ,gc tC ree .ti Q b 3 6 -51-1 1 L •3o I Z LA-Ice • I✓.4 L 0• r , �O f2.-Frt %. 'craip -7ssv stk.) /-Fjn/L4) 7u�.� • 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 503 244 0552 Fax 503 244 0417 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. ARCH1ILCTURE • SPACE PLANNING 7650 S.W.Beveland,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Voice:503-244-0552 Fax 503-244-0417 Meeting Minute Record for Neighborhood Meeting, City of Tigard Project: Durham Plaza Project Number: 103335 Date of meeting: October 14,2004 Issue Date: October 15,2004 Attending: Jack Green,Durham Plaza,L.L.C.(DP) Jack Kriz,Mildren Design Group,P.C.(MDG) Number of Neighbors attending: 1 Information Items: 1.1 MDG described the project and presented drawings that illustrated the proposal. 1.2 DP discussed their goals,including providing a project that is an asset to the community,visually as well as functionally. 1.3 Questions were answered that were posed by the one individual present.This person is a resident of the City of Durham.The concerns expressed related to building material and appearance,traffic access,and the approval process. 1.4 MDG responded that the project must complete two planning review processes simultaneously,one each in Tigard and Durham,as the project contains property within both jurisdictions.The Tigard parcel will be used solely for parking with the majority of the project being constructed in Durham. Every effort has been made to accurately record the meeting minutes. If any errors or omissions are noted, written response is required within five days of issue date. P:\103335.01\wp\mmr-CoTnm.I.wpd 09/30/04 THU 08:28 FAX 503 244 0417 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP PC 1J 001 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. ARCHITECTURE • SPACE PLANNING 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Voice:503-244-0552 Fax:503-244-0417 FAX TRANSMITTAL To: City of Tigard Date: September 30,2004 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Fax Number: 503-684-7297 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Attention: Gary Pagenstecher Copy to: Project Name: Durham Plaza Number: 103335 Attached pages: Description: 1 each of 1 draft of neighborhood notice letter Total pages sent: 2(including this transmittal) For your use For approval X For your review _, As requested Remarks: Please review and contact us to discuss.Thanks. Signed: Jack Kriz Hard copy to follow in mail P\103335\wp\fa-CoTgp.l.wpd 09/30/04 THU 08:29 FAX 503 244 0417 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP PC 002 September 30,2004 • Interested Party City of Tigard or City of Durham Re: Durham Plaza Dear Interested Party: Mildren Design Group,P.C. is representing the Owner at the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road, S.W. 72nd Avenue, and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, tax lot 2S113AC00102 and described as Council View Acres(Lots 21-44),Lot 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, plus Pt Vacated St, Acres 4.01. We are proposing utilizing a 5,000 s.f. portion of this approximately 7.62 acres(331,927 s.f.)site for use as parking for an adjacent office building which results in our application for site development review by the City of Tigard. The parcel is already fully developed as an industrial park. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits,we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents.You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday,October 14,2004 the office of Mildren Design Group,P.C. 7650 S.W. Beveland, Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97132 6:30 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. We look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call us at 503-244-0552 if you have questions. Sincerely, Jack Kriz Vice President DWO WS Services Provider Lelter Ukf/ZU/ZUU4 1KUIN 13:u3 FAA Lej002/002 ! [ FYI MAY 1 0 'L004 � File Number f X130 8 Cie anWater Services Our commitment is cider. \Sensitive Area.Pre.Screening Site Assessment Jurisdiction C14,Li AaLCbAltrirl Date MCt 10 2- t- Map &Tax Lot '251/3.4d a/oo, Scao,�adJwner Site Address - Contact Proposed Activity Address ` A A 16. .i 01 rJ Phone G�jn4 COQ a,3 ?12.-1 i l vi Ocla/use only below this line Y NJ NA Y N NA ® Sensitive Area Composite Map Map# 2 /( ® Stormwater Infrastructure maps U� QS # £17.2 I n r '1 Locally adopted studies or maps Other - t Specify t U Specify :lob. 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: Li Sensitive areas potentially exist on site or within 200' of the site. THE APPLICANT MUST PERFORM A SITE CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER OR STORM WATER CONNECTION PERMIT. If Sensitive Areas exist on the site or within 200 feet on adjacent properties, a Natural Resources Assessment Report may also be required. Sensitive areas do not appear to exist on site or within 200' of the site. This pre- screening site assessment does NOT eliminate the need to evaluate and protect water quality sensitive areas if they are subsequently discovered on your property. NO FURTHER SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS - REQUIRED. THIS FORM WILL SERVE AS AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A STORMWATER CONNECTION PERMIT. 1 The proposed activity does not meet the definition of development. NO SITE ASSESSMENT OR SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER IS REQUIRED. Comments: S rwc.Jo. lie ale rod wear Jar;a !il f, Reviewed By: Date: /,z./o r 1 Returned to Applicant Mall X Fax Counter MAY I j 11 ' Date of By 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway•HIlisb- •re p• 'I V Phone (503)681.3605•Fax: (503 •• • • ,ww.clm a.t ry +• ProposoJ /,\/&rr& ! i'vc . DURHAM PLAZA,L.L.C. WRITTEN SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL IN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION OCTOBER 18,2004 Mildren Design Group,P.C. is representing the Owner at the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road, S.W. 72nd Avenue, and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, tax lot 2S113AC00102 and described as Council View Acres(Lots 21-44),Lot 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, plus Pt Vacated St, Acres 4.01. We are proposing utilizing a 5,000 s.f. portion of this approximately 7.62 acres(331,927 s.f.)site for use as parking for an adjacent office building which results in our application for site development review by the City of Tigard. The parcel is already fully developed as an industrial park. DURHAM PLAZA, L.L.C. NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION OCTOBER 18,2004 Owner: Durham Plaza, L.L.C. Attention: Jack Green P.O. Box 2404 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Architect: Mildren Design Group Attention: Jack Kriz, Architect 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Civil Engineering: Harper Houf Righellis, Inc. Attention: Gary Alfson 5200 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 580 Portland, Oregon 97201 503-221-1131 Landscape Design: Viridian Design Attention: Mike O'Brien, ASLA 813 SW Alder Portland, Oregon 97205 503-222-1639 Arborist: Applied Horticulture Consulting Attention: Don Richards P.O. Box 2355 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 503-699-9349 Structural Engineer: T.M. Rippey Consulting Engineers Attention: Ralph Turnbaugh 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-443-3900 NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION October 18,2004 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335.01 P:1103335\wp\Narrative2.wpd Page 2 CONTENTS I. Introduction II. I-P Design Standards III. Pre-Application Conference Notes IV. Site Development Review Criteria Referenced Material: • Pre-Application Conference Notes • Architectural and Engineering Drawings • Impact Study • Arborist Report • Clean Water Services Pre-Screening Forms and Site Assessment NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION October 18,2004 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335.01 P:\I03335\wp\Narrative2.wpd Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION This is a Site Development Review application for a property bounded by S.W.Durham Road,S.W. 72nd Avenue,and S.W.Upper Boones Ferry Road,tax lot 2S 1 l 3AC00102 and described as Council View Acres (Lots 21-44), Lot 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, plus Pt Vacated St. Within this narrative, the area of development will be referred to as"the parcel"even though it is,in fact,a very small portion of Tax Lot 102. The parcel of property is proposed to be incorporated into the Durham Plaza Office Park on S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road. The Durham Plaza Office Park is being reviewed by the City of Durham through its site, or design, review process. The City of Durham has requested that the parcel in Tigard be under review by the City of Tigard in its site review process before deeming the City of Durham application complete. The parcel -Tax Lot 102- is to be acquired by long term (20 year) lease from Pac-Trust, the current owner, and is to be used as additional parking for the above- mentioned office park. The parcel is a 0.12 acre portion of the overall tax lot lying to the east of Upper Boones Ferry Road. The parcel is vacant at this time and is generally flat with a high point elevation of 170 feet along the western boundary to a low point elevation of 167 feet in the southeast corner. The parcel is quite isolated from the rest of the tax lot due to an approximately 30'elevation change along an escarpment along the easterly boundary. This application meets all of the Tigard Design Standards that we have found to be applicable. Each of the Pre-Application Conference checklist items have been addressed in the sections indicated below. In addition, the I-P zone standards and the Site Development Review criteria have been addressed. II. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES A. Impact Study(Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) Section 18.390.040(B)(2)(e)requires that Type II applications include an Impact Study. The study addresses the impact of the overall office park on Upper Boones Ferry Road and the implications of the project within the City of Durham. The following text will address the public facilities and services cited in this Code Section as the parcel relates to the City of Tigard: 1. Transportation: An accompanying traffic analysis provides recommendations for traffic requirements to address the impact of this project. The use of this parcel will have no impact on transportation within the Tigard City Limits. 2. Drainage: The application package includes a drainage analysis, and the site development plans provide for on-site detention and water quality. Therefore, the development plans mitigate potential drainage impacts. NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION October 18,2004 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335.01 P:\I03335\wpWarruive2.wpd Page 4 3. Parks: The City of Tigard Parks Master Plan does not indicate a potential park in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, and since office development does not precipitate a need for parks, there is no impact on parks as a result of this application. 4. Water System: The development plans for this project do not require the upgrading and extension of public water lines to serve the project. Impact mitigation is not required. 5. Sewer System: The development plans will extend sanitary sewer as required to serve the site. The City of Durham has not found a deficiency in system capacity so impact mitigation is not required. 6. Noise Impacts: The development of this site as parking will have no noise impacts unusual to the area. Mitigation is not required. B. Access (Code Section 18.705 and 18.765) This parcel is not adjacent to any public roadways and therefore falls under Section 18.765 - Off Street Loading. This parcel meets all requirements regarding parking stall size and location, striping,paving and access per the City of Durham. See accompanying drawings for additional information. C. Walkway Requirements (Code Section 18.705.030) No structures are within or adjacent to this parcel. Walkway requirements are not applicable. D. Special Setbacks (Code Section 18.730) This section relates to building height and setback standards. Special setback requirements are not applicable. E. Special Building Height Provisions (Code Section 18.730.010.B) See item D above. Special Building Height Provisions are not applicable. F. Buffering and Screening (Code Section 18.745) The proposed parking on this parcel is adjacent to additional parking on three sides (north, west and south) with landscaping to the east along the proposed property line. Since the adjacent property is a similar use(Industrial Park I-P),per Table 18.745.1 "Buffer Matrix", no screening is required between the two properties. Required buffer widths applicable to the proposed area: 0 feet along the north boundary; 0 feet along the east boundary; 0 feet along the west boundary;0 feet along the south boundary. G. Landscaping (Code Sections 18.745, 18.765 and 18.705) "Street trees are required f o r all developments fronting on a public or private street . . . " - Not applicable. Property is not adjacent to any public or private streets. NARRATIVE EN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION October 18,2004 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335.01 P:1103335\wp\Nartative2.wpd Page 5 "A minimum of one(1) tree for every seven (7) parking spaces must be planted . . . "-The landscape requirements for the City of Durham have been met by the proposed design - see accompanying drawings for additional information. H. Recycling (Code Section 18.755) No trash/recycling enclosures are required or have been provided for this parcel. The recycling requirements are not applicable. Trash and recycling are provided adjacent to the building within the City of Durham's jurisdiction. I. Parking(Code Section 18.765.040) This parcel contains 13 parking stalls within a larger parking area consisting of 167 total parking spaces. The parcel is not within close proximity to any buildings, therefore no handicap accessible parking stalls have been provided. See accompanying drawings for additional information. J. Loading Area Requirements (Code Section 18.765.080) No buildings are within this property. Loading Area requirements are not applicable. K. Bicycle Racks (Code Section 18.765) No buildings are within this property. Bicycle Rack requirements are not applicable. L. Sensitive Lands (Code Section 18.775) There are no lands unsuitable for development within proximity of this parcel. Sensitive Land requirements are not applicable. M. Steep Slopes(Code Section 18.775.080.C) There are steep slopes within proximity of this parcel, however, the site improvements do not impact sloped areas. Steep slope requirements are not applicable. N. Cleanwater Services Buffer Standards (R&O 96-44/USA Regulations -Chapter 3) See accompanying Clean Water Services Pre-Screening Forms and Site Assessment documentation. O. Signs(Code Section 18.780) No buildings are within this property. Sign requirements are not applicable. P. Tree Removal Plan Requirements (Code Section 18.790.030.C) There are no trees on this parcel will be impacted by the proposed development. Tree removal plan requirements are not applicable. See accompanying drawings and arborist's report for additional information. Q. Mitigation (Code Section 18.790.060.E) NARRATIVE EN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION October 18,2004 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335.01 P:11033351wpWarrativc2wpd Page 6 See item P above. Mitigation requirements are not applicable. R. Clear Vision Area(Code Section 18.795) There are no road/drive, road/railroad or road/road intersections adjacent to this property. Clear vision area requirements are not applicable. S. Additional Lot Dimensional Requirements (Code Section 18.810.060) This parcel is a portion of a larger office park lot and therefore does not abut a public or private street.The parcel has an access aisle connecting to the adjacent parking(aisle width is 25 feet). The parcel is approximately 50 feet by 100 feet, meeting the width by depth requirements. The dimensional requirements have been met. III. I-P DISTRICT STANDARDS The Industrial-Park ("I-P") District allows light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses as described in Code Section 18.530.020.A. The parcel and the proposed use are permitted for the I-P zone (per Table 18.530.1)and meet the development standard requirements (minimum lot size, width, setbacks,etc.)per Table 18.530.2. IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA Section 18.360.090(A)provides approval criteria for Site Development Review application. Each is addressed as follows: 1. "Compliance with this Title..." The various sections of the Code that apply to this application are individually addressed in this narrative. Chapter 18.810 is specifically mentioned in this criterion, and the Public Street and Utility design components of this application have been prepared in compliance with the standards of this section. 2. "Relationship to Environment..." A. Building Location. There are no buildings on this site. Building location criteria is not applicable. 3. "Exterior Elevations..." There are no buildings on this site. Exterior elevation criteria is not applicable. NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION October 18,2004 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335.01 P:\10333%wpkNarrarive2.wpd Page 7 4. "Adjoining Uses." Buffering between similar uses is not an issue. On site screening from adjoining property has been addressed by the existing landscaping. 5, 6, & 7. All apply to multi-family development. Criteria is not applicable. 8. Flood plain development is not proposed. Criteria is not applicable. 9. "Demarcation of Space." Demarcation of the entire proposed parking area has been addressed with adequate light spacing and lighting levels. The proposed parcel of property has been incorporated into the overall parking layout. 10. "Crime Prevention." The design specifically avoids the creation of isolated areas in parking areas. Lighting is provided to facilitate views into and from the site. 11. "Public Transit." There is no public transit immediately adjacent this site. Criteria is not applicable. 12. "Landscaping." This parcel is a small part of Tax Lot 102 at 0.12 acres of 7.62 acres, and its easterly boundary is heavily landscaped in natural plantings including several large trees. Additionally, this parcel, as part of the Durham Plaza Office Park conforms to the City of Durham development standards,including landscape requirements and tree preservation and mitigation regulations. 13. "Drainage." Storm drainage calculations and a utility plan are included in the submittal. 14. "Provisions for Disabled." Handicapped parking stalls and ADA compliant access are not located within this parcel due to distance from proposed structures. Criteria is not applicable. 15. "Underlying Zone." The provisions of the I-P zone are discussed above. 2S 1 13AC 2S 1 13AC € . ;;{ { � ' Vii:my I. f 1 21 1 — JY�_J w w ---- �_—_ _. • - •!ay.13 *0 .,,,,, 200 C C'_3. I N .1 I I I, I ` n 22°e S' az t WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON ./ I ■aal 1 V ass. r- -I SW1I4NE1/4 SECTION 13T2SR1WW.M. - -wean -- .• wit e - '.1 SCALE 1' 100' rnat v- 1 1 i f ,fj3 i ... ... W._ _J ..... ja I ' 1 -4/144.5 rtit■Kril 3 N"A' .0 iMN WOMB 1 I II —��,,� `�t'�tiaN - -- - aw.e — -'-�—..n_-L _--,_ �ACr vela —I— woo —sr—_ —'Ws._ _ .13j; »f. S/ 0 . 2 .00 « e k.ww A 0 1 -[J, r C I � � ;f;pil u � mum I '-� Z.r , • MAAODMONAL NAPS MffOUR AT �, 2374 �� I �`�AOao ��,� -_ � SWIROOMMASIONWAIS iiii A7 IC 1 I I— H•r, .. »l x�e„ J w..,, .... w W. A. sae ,�yj, � fi ----(A)-----I i �. 1 �` ».. ter,. ,, , ,. `� AC Au ■ (pt ,uo 1 J mow„ / S 1 71 pr„; ,0 J �1 C J 1 t 1 ' �:ao t - 100 E moo li p� E E EI R R _{f • - (,0 — a7_'.. MK a.c mec S S 7 S S E to I 1 Cc ..W', 00. Ic.nlap �, 100 j .a,.xn r ae.e r 1 1 ��� 23 E37 1 �� ca .aTwsrFa ffir1aAc 1300.,400.100. 77 1 1 t � = L_" . SW FINDLAY ROAD »a. 11 .., j �y ., ,„„ - r .••. ,,;� —we r ,». ?�r"'maw 7 — I r _ .K A C r"2 E S 1 a #I RI 4 + — \J •0", s 2 t , 20 I ,sos E t8 1 n GI a E! ,s "` I E & u E i}t R, 1 ' u. .•":" r ��� 5 ®I�4 Ile 167 i 7.41 IC / I I �J 0 J. 't oo I- :'-. PLOT DATE:August e.2004 •,_ . } I J I ' `tir FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES �.,,.. ,. • ONLFOR OTNEA USE ON DRIVE I< �..�,• . ,.. = s —X42 -- uo.�..e.nwlr.w.vs.r�rnd.00..nxw.o , .- - - r p>tpmen k.�rrin.+baemm.w eaaro ne n,wr as 0 .!j'f° o�..nwrtr."e.`."`a .-`m'°..n.c/// ,... .nee _ l� / TIGARD DURHAM 2S 1 13AC 2S 1 13AC ,4101111W111 13- 2S1 - I55 RECORD OF SURVEY 2 4,5 0 4 LYING WITH/N B 1 / 2 COUNCIL VIE`VACRES (PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 40) FAQ.5/P'-a W/ALUM 8 GAP COWS 8 ASSOC.' HELD /QOO rot-sr COUNCIL y/EIVACRES \ (PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE/41 iL 8 N89.4359"W /000 TUALAT/N VALLEY HONES FMO.5/8"LR,W/DAV/D )1.:-.-------\------ IN THE (IONS B ASSOG CAP END 5/ATR/DEHAAS B NE//4 8 SE//4 ASSOC) T R/W LINE i� FNO 8 HELD 3/4"LP. 1 N007944'W I I til n SEC //1 /c�/f ILy' III'/'IM, 4268 ' oj° NOO•09J/'k' SEV, /3 TG S /1/// I/,/7/ ..-N59'4450E 2/506 -"•C , 5/8"1R,W/N� ' �- -, 7200_ p- - 42.83 / ! / / MB9.44'S0777563 /CS11.374-77608/ 36•.• -�� �-3000 WASHINGTON CC., OREGON• G4PSB9.4450"W �- 42432 I� 2793/ '� ■ r j063'OF SEl/A I� 42Z32 --- 2823/ - FiIO 3/4"/P.2l BELOW I 7 I "3300 THIS LINE WAS DETERMINE, ��GRoate PARCEL/ IND.5/B"/R. FROM SURVEY 24266 BY µyTH 5/B"LR AM GAP LEGEND r DEHAAS 8 ASSOC (.. I •"�t f 9D 03 4 A S( THE UR/CVNAL MON(HAD PARCEL 2 C1`- I�V I` I ti� MCiS'rLYBEENDES7770YE0 DOCUMENT NO •i ® SET 5/8-=30"IRONROO WITH PLA577C CAR I BY CONSTRUCTION 9/034508 Q /rOwC E 2030' i lJr� J i ! Cr; nl o Ih CD CHORD DEAR/NO BD'STQNCE I NB9.4430'F �, • ti r, N <: C N. /?000 O r". �� FOUND MONUMENTS AS NfOTEO 1 (� ' 3 4v r' 1`Uf b L. FNO DENOTES'FOUND" THESEL/NES WERE GALCD "�b b A=25876" p6ZJJ73" .X\l 7r, ';iut: FRM SLAEYS/4444 8 40 3 R 1300 • R/ 00 r - DENOTES%Rpv Ra� CW0562 I -L452.33 t' O• S "NO.3/4"/R.8HELD g. j f-FM7.3/4"/P.8HELD AS CD NYJ7345"W/04.7/ • `CDN31.3/7_iY/73.40 <'\vy I IP O£nt7TES:cvLWP/PE' } _ yr-SW.COQ LOT 24- FNC t�1V, rl C (MEASURED INSIDE DIAMETER/ 1 m CEP PROPER YL/NE \,1 '' 7V�i t 5897374 fv4138 J ' `,°n- •., V / rV CYOPRI�°£RTYLHfE ^ SN DENOTES SC6PVEYMgd4ER" /CS/4.444-4841 NB9.4450'r-52202 i I I rt fa' M'ON DEMOTES"uaKp/ENT- Ns p-62'7373" G4LCD DEMOTES CAL CL�LATED" R=200.00 ■ � 2 CO N3/'3/T3'W 207.67 `\ p=08 4629" 0.14 DEM77E5 PENCE" ., FND.5/B"ue.N007070"W 4/.87' p,��� R.56700 BN59'3930E O./O'O'-SW.COQ LOT 24 ��N` L=8684•O s o co N67Y/'05"W 8675 N7B7B 35-cv■ 3► COQ DEMOTES'CORNER" r / 4 (% 7x7 \/ �" 60.66 45. DENOTES 77IENf/QlER 17/07 TINE SC47VFYLS p=36 3457" k i ry f; t_ I _ pp,(-•‘,,,,., ```/,'" R=233 00 �JJ ?J•VS OZ'Sj. RECORDED L110fi7N�iYShHG'7LW CLW?Y I cR�r;A$1'ESiEp a OD FND.//2"'P N007070-W/20.8/' �1 d L=/4877 C - 52 929 ' REC:L'>Qtt£ PRO°°SSIOUAL a2 8N8939506-OleFROMSW. F\1J CD N44307/"w/4625 - a 6' ` LP'0 S.;RVEYOR COP,LOT 4L I I (' 11 N79•0%52"W 79.99 I �,/ 4,=/6%4 02" °+ • �� ,� FAO.//2".P 8 HELD AS SW.CAP. �" 0. �"'�G LOT 4L FAK CaQ/S K L4'8 I L=17000 0 D 4946; • O E O N E.7,6'C>FFM.LP. i FAV.//2"/P.8 HELD FOR co 1/70•548/"W/69.43 393 0 30.53 =En.a lw l NW.CAR.LOT 5 FNC LOR.IS v 'h to r • BRUCE 0. TOW.X J ` gyp N 7'B f.L3'aPFW./R. N745599 �i f \ �0 /9249 I I �' _l_ 2/25/92 -- A/89.4504'F 862.70 MATCH L/NE .4./2'2729- 4/8.9'45•041- 30.00 R=61300 L 43764 N437/'49"W 6905 CD N69.0/34"W /3736 NARRATIVE 905:5 OFBEAR/NG-HELD rHE THE PURPOSE Or 711/5 SURVEY/5 TO MONUIENT THE EXT£NS/ON OF THE CENTERLINE Cr SW MO AVE WAS DETERMINED FROM THE WEST L/NE OP LOT 5 Of COUNCIL. S.W,'URHAMRO,FRCNI 17t(ere OF THE EX/ST/NC 8040 ro/75 5RASS CAP ON CENTERLINE NEAR THE SE CORNER LOT//C1'COUNCIL V/EWACRES-PLAT BAS'S.PAGE = L!/:E'SEC770V W/TH SW.72,0 AVE THIS SURVEY,44 SO MONUMENTS V/EWACRES AAm THE DEHAAS AM)ASSOC 1R/000 FEET WEST OF 40 AS NO0'00200 E • Nt4SH/NO TON COUVrrS PROPERTY FOR THE PUPPOSEOFCO,SA°LE77NG C£NTERUNETO THE NCR17N 77/F$v(57R/W LINE WASC4LCLLATEO • Two BOUNDARY L/AZ ACUU5T"f_NTS _ FROMDEEO DISTANCES"ROMOEED saw 931 PAGE 497 SURVEY REFERENCES LU NAMRD.W45 EST7e././/F -Raw SLMVEY CS.20596 5*DURHAM .SW BR/DOEPOPT Ra4D WAS DETERMINED FROM SURVEY/4,444 AND RD.MOSESTABUSHEDASR/YhVEY CS.21286 THE MONUMENTS OD.OTPLANS ALMOST ALL OLD MCMLAIENTSALDNGSWBRIDGEPORT CS22,49) OA✓10c'V.4NS8ASSOC /987 HELD FRAM THESE SURVEYS AR:AS SMONN THE MAJOR/TY OF TMS RA4D AREMLSSNf WW£fDOC THE J/4"LP.Homo OV SURVEY/*444 .OAV.D EVANS 8 ASSOC /987 PROPERTY HAD BEE'JSUPv."Y.a,NR--NOUSLY/NC.S/4.444 WE FOUND AT THE SW CORNER CF LOT 85ORTULA?►VWILLEYI 4ESAAO C'S.2Z•�-' CS..'.:.02 T ROMP 8 ASSOC. 1955 MAN."OF 77E SAMEMq+:;bE'N7S NAT WERE FOLIO 8 HELD DUR/NO CALCULATED TAEACW77lR/W USING rY.EO/STAMCE,SHOwN C'W THAT CS. 4.02.T RYyHARL'PFE.FEP /950 -'CC -SJ 0 /,7,0 205 CS/4.444 THESE A.C vi.W/E'NTS/A"rCM THE OR/G/NIL PLAT'FAIRLY SURVEY WE FOUND AND HELP THE 0007 mom/NE-NT ON THE EAST CS./912/ WC4SN CO.SURVEYOR /980 WELL. WEHEL0 THE MAt"MIE4TS,=.SNOw7V8 CALCDM/SS/NOMOYUMFN7S LINE OF LOT 63 CS/44./I INSH Ca SURVEYOR /972 THE PLATS OF COUNC/L :,_r'AC:R&..AND TUALATIN VALLEY HOMES USED THE NE CORNER OP LOT 83 OF 7Z/4LATAV IAILLEY/,Ov(S WS CALCULATED CS 1Q 595 OEHAAS B ASSOC. /983 SCALE: /=/00' THE 3/4"/P AS SHOWN/i:5 THE SW,COR Cr•LOT/9 CFCOUNCL V/L'W PLATDSTAACE FROM JNEA(w.CORER Or LOT BS AS ALL MONA;MENTAT/OV ---- ACRES.AS THE CENTER OF SEC/3 THE TRUE CENTER OF SEC/3 HAS BEEN EAST H45 BEEN DESTROYED BY GRAVEL MINING ACT/V/77 S • SET/CS/9/271 AM IS SHOWN ON 7H/S SURVEY, /F THE TRUE'CENTERLINE ./I , i OF THE SEC/S USED TO DETERMIE THE NORTH LINE OF TU4LAT/N VALLEY THE NW.CORNER or LOT 85W4S CALCULATED BYNTERSECT9VG THE LINK M/ASNi NGTON Co.'N 7Y V iHC�4E9 THE/.O�RTHL AtEOF LOT 85W 05LO5(1.33'FJRIHERSOUTH CREATED BY77/ETWO PIPES FOC/AVCW/7CN£STLOtecr LOT 05W077/ThE fuRVGYORS CFF10E. /'�00' "� L/NEFROMTHE EAST QUARTERCAVNE/.'GeSECT/OV/J WITH THE 3/4"/P. Q6CEIVED 3-2.-92 TRAVERSES WERE*17114 MD T20008 W/LDDI5L. TRAVERSE CLOSURES FOUND AT THE SW CORNER OFLOT/9 OF COLIIC/L KEW ACRES, ACCEPTED FUN[FILING 4,."._"( s.-- were'Rom k25000 TOexam 3-12-9t. r. CONTINUED PACE 2 FEN 24/9917 6 Arbov' &F epor± ithltorit APPLIED HORTICULTURAL -- CONSULTING, INC. January 12, 2005 City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR To whom it may concern: Please reference our inspection number 05015 regarding a tree removal assessment for the Durham Business Center Phase II located along Upper Boones Ferry Road on part of tax lots 21 through 44, "Council View Acres", City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon on January 10, 2005. The following is a summary of my observations with recommendations to my client, MFP of Oregon, Inc., P.O. Box 2404 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 based on my opinion as the Consulting Arborist. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. OBSERVATIONS 1. A site assessment was conducted at this location to identify and locate the tree that had been requested for removal. 2. The tree in question and symptoms observed were as follows... {A}. (1)Alnus rubra, red alder, co-dominant leader, 2 stems, measuring 8 inches DBH1 aggregate. The tree is growing in the undeveloped area between the steep slope east of the existing parking area and the private property to the south of the existing parking area. This tree is labeled as number 28 on the attached Existing Tree Analysis provided by Mildren Design Group, P.C. The tree is in the direct path of the designated parking area proposed for development. {B}. Other smaller trees exist on this lot, but are not significant in size (not over 12" DBH)and are not in the path of the proposed development. These trees will be preserved on the site using tree protection criteria outlined in the City's Tree Removal Ordinance Chapter 18.790 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The recommendations and remedies for this tree are as follows... {A}. This tree is under the size (12" DBH)requiring a Tree Plan as outlined in The City of Tigard Tree Removal Ordinance Chapter 18.790 and this tree is not located on sensitive lands as described in Chapter 18.775. However, the developers wanted to make sure the City of Tigard was notified of their intent to remove this tree in the course of development and their plan to mitigate the removal of this tree with additional tree plantings even though there was no requirement to obtain a permit to do so. 1 DBH is diameter measured at breast height. PO. Box 2355 Lake Oswego, OR 97035-0601 (503) 699-9349 fax (503) 699-9366 e-mail: richar @hevanet.com Page 2 Durham Business Center Phase II (B). Remove the tree identified in this report completely using good arboricultural practices. Protect any individuals and personal property in the adjacent area during the removal process. {C}. Replacement has been suggested by the developer as(4)2" caliper, deciduous trees in accordance with the landscape plan for the project. {D}. Protection of all adjacent trees shall be accomplished by adequate fencing around the drip line/canopy cover, pruning of limbs and branches that appear to have been impacted as a result of excavation or construction activities or during replacement for a period of 2 years after completion of the project and occupancy of the building. Fertilization, staking and irrigation adequate for the proper health and maintenance of the remaining or replacement trees shall be maintained for two years after planting and pest management if trees show serious pest infestation resulting from excavation, construction or replacement activities for a period of two years after completion of the project. The consulting arborist is required to be on call/on site during the excavation and construction phase of the project to insure compliance with the specifications outlined in this report. Sincerely, Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. Don Richards, President Consulting Arborist,ASCA Consulting Arborist,ISA Reg.#PN-5536A Certified Horticulturist,ASHS Reg.#25543 OCCB#143325 METRO License#00006409 lot ...tie , . . ! K 4., , r �F 1�i CZ rgi W �_ 0• :i � ^ it l'f ,` to y t b • : , ' • • a. '.1 a/p ,ry f r `, - r r� t j4 iJ ,`.rr 1,' - .r ,r el `' /�•---: f. -A41P . 4. • Photographic Exhibits 4 • a - :'S! - - ' �. `. `. .ry r. . ° ; Cr . m i Y . 1. \. . s 1 4. \1/4 • '• �`,� • \1�.�� fir. %.• , , •, `.\- _ 1 i Durham Plaza U - (1) Alnus rubra 8" DBH Co-dominant leader Exhibit 2 Specifications and Recommendations For Pre-Construction Protection, Post-Construction Maintenance, Removal and Retention of Trees Related to Construction and Soil Excavation for The Durham Plaza Site, Lots 42, 43 and 44, "Council View Acres", Located in the SE %, of Section 13, Township 2 S, Range 2 W, W. M., City of Durham, Washington County, Oregon by Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 2355 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Don Richards, President ISA Certified Arborist Number PN-5536A Copyright©Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. 2004 I Table of Contents 1.0 Scope and Limitation of Work 1.1 General 1.2 Timetable 2.0 Qualifications, Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2.1 Qualifications 2.2 Assumptions 2.3 Limiting Conditions 3.0 Standards 3.1 General 3.2 Reference Standards and Guidelines 3.3 Specifications 4.0 Recommendations 4.1 Critical Root Zone Protection 4.2 Compaction Protection 4.3 On Site and Post-Construction Care 4.4 Mitigation and Replacement Trees 4.5 Posting and Notification Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Report Page 1 1.0 Scope and Limitation of Work 1.1 General 1.1.1 A request was made by Mr. Jack Kriz, designer with Mildren Design Group, P.C., for an arborist's report containing an opinion on specifications for tree removal, existing tree protection and post-construction care on this site located along Upper Boones Ferry Road, Durham, Oregon. This scope of work shall include all applicable requirements to obtain a multiple tree removal permit for the site from the City of Durham. 1.1.2 A pre-construction tree inventory was conducted in February 2004 by the surveyor and again on May 17, 2004 by the consulting arborist to determine the location of each tree relative to the proposed development plan, the genus and species of each tree, the current size of each tree measured in DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), the relative health and condition of each tree, which trees are to be removed based on the building and parking lot design and utility placement specifications, which trees should be retained due to their specific use or value on the site and all other pertinent, special tree information associated with this project. 1.2 Timetable 1.2.1 A timetable for completion of our part of the project was confirmed as the week of May 31, 2004. 2.0 Qualifications, Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2.1 Qualifications 2.1.1 Mr. Richards is a consulting arborist under certification with the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture, a licensed nursery appraiser under certification with the National Nursery Appraisers Association and a Certified Professional Horticulturist under certification with the American Society For Horticultural Science. Mr. Richards is a member in good standing with all of these organizations and is therefore qualified to perform this consultation. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Report Page 2 2.2 Assumptions 2.2.1 Any legal descriptions provided to the consultant are assumed to be correct. Any titles and/or ownerships to any property or services are assumed to be true and accurate. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all related assets are evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2.2.2 It is assumed that the property is not in violation of applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, quarantines, or other governmental regulations. 2.2.3 Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable and up to date sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, as the consultant, Mr. Richards can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. Information provided by the client in association with this consultation is assumed to be correct and accurate to the best of their knowledge. 2.3 Limiting Conditions 2.3.1 The limited use of this report is to offer best management practices for tree removal, existing tree protection, post construction maintenance and for implementation of mitigation requirements by the client in performing their tasks as the owner of this property. 2.3.2 As the consultant, Mr. Richards has not been asked to render any opinions legal in character. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Repo'. Page 3 2.3 Limiting Conditions (continued) 2.3.3 Mr. Richards is not an attorney. This report is not intended as, and does not represent, legal advice and should not be relied upon to take the place of such advice. Although every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the information included in this report as of the date on which it was issued, laws, court, and arbitration decisions and governmental regulations in the United States and Oregon are all subject to frequent change. Current information is to be included in all the standards and duties of evaluation, investigations, interpretations, methodology and contradictions in determining the failure for claims and litigation. 2.3.4 As the consultant, Mr. Richards may be asked to give testimony or to attend meetings with the City's Development Review Commission by reason of this report. 2.3.5 Loss or alteration of any part of this report may invalidate the entire report. 2.3.6 Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed without prior written or verbal consent from the consultant. 2.3.7 Neither all nor part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior, expressed, written or verbal consent of the consultant - particularly as to conclusions, identity of the consultant, or any reference to a professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant as stated in the qualifications listed. 2.3.8 This report and any information expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Report Page 4 3.0 Standards 3.1 General 3.1.1 Documentation for this report consists of: 1) A measurement of trees identified for removal by size; 2) A measurement of trees identified for retention by size; 2) An identification of trees for retention and removal by common and botanical names; 3) A visual inspection of all plants for quality and general health prior to construction; 4) A review of applicable tree removal specifications, all sections and subsections from the Durham Tree Preservation and Protection Codes found in Ordinance 189-97. 5) Recommendations for pre-construction tree preservation; 6) Recommendations for post-construction tree care; 7) Recommendations for mitigation after tree removal and 8) Instructions for posting, notification and waiting period. 3.2 Reference Standards and Guidelines 3.2.1 Measurements for this report are based on the American Standard for Nursery Stock, revision ANSI Z60.1-1996 and the National Arborist Association Standards for Tree Measurements, ninth edition. 3.2.2 Common and Botanical names referred to in this report are based on vernacular currently used to describe similar goods or products in the national nursery industry and correspond to plant names and listings found in Hortus III, Fourth Edition, 1994. 3.2.3 Plant protection criteria used in this report are based on best management practices adopted for use by the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture as found in Trees and Development, A Technical Guide To Preservation Of Trees During Land Development, 1998. 3.2.4 The reporting format used to present the findings in this document will follow the current guidelines found in Guide To Report Writing For Consulting Arborists, 1995. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Repor. Page 5 3.3 Specifications 3.3.1 Specifications for existing tree removal, protection and retention are based on information gathered during the actual site evaluation conducted on May 17th, 2004. 3.3.2 Additional specifications used for tree protection and construction remediation will be developed from information contained in the reference Trees and Building Sites, 1995. 3.3.3 Tree Inventory: The quantity of existing trees on the property is (166) total. All trees are identified on the tree survey drawing, the construction design drawing and will be incorporated on the landscape design drawing attached and made part of this report. The trees are of the following genera and species and have the stated dimensions of size measured in diameter at breast height, DBH and have been identified below in alphabetical order by botanical name. They are identified on the corresponding site survey by number in the following order: (13) Tree(s) #32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. Common name is white fir; botanical name is Abies concolor. Current size(s) are 15", 19", 20", 24", 28" and 29" DBH. (1) Tree #55. Common name is bigleaf maple; botanical name is Acermacrophyllurn. Current size is 42" DBH. (1) Tree #9. Common name is Norway maple; botanical name is Acer platanoides. Current size is 14" DBH. (1) Tree #28. Common name is red alder; botanical name is Alnus rubra. Current size is 8" DBH. (1) Tree #130. Common name is European white birch; botanical name is Betula pendula laciniata. Current size is 10" DBH. (2) Tree(s) #124 and 125. Common name is Northern catalpa; botanical name is Catalpa bignoides. Current sizes are 18" and 19" DBH. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Report Page 6 3.3.3 continued (20) Tree(s) #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26 and 121. Common name is Douglas hawthorn; botanical name is Crataegus douglasii. Current sizes are 4", 6", 8", 10", 12", 14", 16" clump and 26" clump DBH. (4) Tree(s) #71, 120, 127 and 128. Common name is English walnut; botanical name is Juglans regia. Current size(s) are 8", 10" and 12" DBH. (3) Tree(s) #122, 123 and 126. Common name is fruiting apple; botanical name is Malus spp. Current size(s) are 10", 14" and 18" DBH. (1) Tree #60. Common name is Austrian pine; botanical name is Pinus nigra. Current size is 18" DBH. (3) Tree(s) #14, 15 and 29. Common name is wild cherry; botanical name is Prunus avium. Current size(s) are 6", 10" and 16" DBH. (20) Tree(s) #22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 77 and 78. Common name is Douglas fir; botanical name is Pseudotsuga menziesii. Current sizes are 8", 10", 12", 14", 22", 24", 28", 36" and 38" DBH. (3) Tree(s) #53, 54 and 129. Common name is Oregon white oak; botanical name is Quercus garryana. Current size(s) are 10", 14" and 36" DBH. (93) Tree(s) #59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166. Common name is coast redwood; botanical name is Sequoia sempervirens. Current sizes are 8", 12", 14", 15", 16" and 20" DBH. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Repon Page 7 3.3.4 Tree Retention: Observations of quality were made during the second site inspection and the few trees designated for retention are of sufficient quality to warrant protection. There are (52) trees identified for retention on this site by the arborist and they are of the following genera and species with the stated dimensions of size measured in diameter at breast height, DBH and they have been identified on the corresponding site survey in alphabetical order by botanical name as the following: (1) Tree total - #130. Common name is European white birch; botanical name is Betula pendula laciniata. Current size is (1) 10" DBH. (5) Tree(s) #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Common name is Douglas hawthorn; botanical name is Crataegus douglasii. Current sizes are (3) 6", (1) 8" and (1) 10" DBH. (1) Tree total - #29. Common name is wild cherry; botanical name is Prunus avium. Current size is (1) 16" DBH. (8) Tree(s) total - #45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52. Common name is Douglas fir; botanical name is Pseudotsuga menziesii. Current sizes are (2) 8", (1) 10", (2) 12", (2) 14" and (1) 38" DBH. (1) Tree total - #129. Common name is Oregon white oak; botanical name is Quercus garryana. Current size is (1) 36" DBH. (36) Tree(s) total - #131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166. Common name is coast redwood; botanical name is Sequoia sempervirens. Current sizes are (36) 14" DBH. 3.3.5 The recommendations for tree protection will be based on the plan drawings submitted to the City of Durham for the commercial property development proposed for the site. No additional recommendations are offered to revise the site plan or its footprint from its original form since the site plan already offers the least amount of environmental impact to the trees without significantly changing the design requirements for the buildings, parking area and utilities. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Report Page 8 3.3.6 Tree Removal: There are (114) trees identified for removal on the construction drawings and landscape design drawings attached and made part of this report. The trees to be removed are of the following genera and species and have the stated dimensions of size measured in diameter at breast height, DBH. They are either in the footprint of the building or parking area or they are of inferior quality. They have been identified on the corresponding site survey as the following: (13) Tree(s) total - #32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. Common name is white fir; botanical name is Abies concolor. Current sizes are (1) 15", (1) 19", (2) 20", (4) 24", (4) 28" and (1) 29" DBH. (1) Tree total - #55. Common name is bigleaf maple; botanical name is Acermacropleyllum. Current size is (1) 42" DBH. (1) Tree total - #9. Common name is Norway maple; botanical name is Acerplatanoides. Current size is (1) 14" DBH. (1) Tree total - #28. Common name is red alder; botanical name is Alnus rubra. Current size is (1) 8" DBH. (2) Tree(s) total - #124 and 125. Common name is Northern catalpa; botanical name is Catalpa bignoides. Current sizes are (1) 18" and (1) 19" DBH. (15) Tree(s) total - #6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26 and 121. Common name is Douglas hawthorn; botanical name is Crataegus douglasii. Current sizes are (1) 4", (3) 6", (2) 8", (4) 10", (1) 12", (2) 14", (1) 16" clump and (1) 26" clump DBH. (4) Tree(s) total - #71, 120, 127 and 128. Common name is English walnut; botanical name is juglans regia. Current size(s) are (1) 8", (1) 10" and (2) 12" DBH. (3) Tree(s) total - #122, 123 and 126. Common name is fruiting apple; botanical name is Malus spp. Current size(s) are (1) 10", (1) 14" and (1) 18" DBH. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Repor, Page 9 3.3.6 continued (1) Tree total - #60. Common name is Austrian pine; botanical name is Pinus nigra. Current size is (1) 18" DBH. (2) Tree(s) total - #14 and 15. Common name is wild cherry; botanical name is Prunus avium. Current size(s) are (1) 6" and (1) 10" DBH. (12) Tree(s) total - #22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 56, 57, 58, 77 and 78. Common name is Douglas fir; botanical name is Pseudotsuga menziesii. Current sizes are (2) 8", (2) 14", (1) 22", (1) 24", (1) 28", (2) 36" and (3) 38" DBH. (2) Tree(s) total - #53 and 54. Common name is Oregon white oak; botanical name is Quercus garryana. Current size(s) are (1) 10" and (1) 14" DBH. (57) Tree(s) total - #59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119. Common name is coast redwood; botanical name is Sequoia sempervirens. Current sizes are (1) 8", (41) 12", (7) 14", (3) 15", (3) 16" and (2) 20" DBH. 3.3.7 All trees designated for removal are to be removed using proper arboricultural techniques appropriate for the size and type of trees. These practices must also be appropriate to the site and must protect all adjacent personnel and property during removal. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Report Page 10 4.0 Recommendations 4.1 "Critical Root Zone" Protection 4.1.1 Delineation of the "critical root zone" shall be established as a distance of 10-15 feet from each tree as defined by the drip line during initial observations made on May 17, 2004. This "critical root zone" shall be marked using orange snow fencing around all trees to remain within 30 feet of the construction location, and shall be installed prior to commencement of construction. 4.1.2 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from chemicals and contaminants, which may be injurious to the root systems of trees. 4.1.3 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from excess water, mud or debris as a result of construction and soil excavation. 4.1.4 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from erosion or sediment depositing as a result of construction and soil excavation. 4.1.5 The "critical root zone" shall be protected at all times from compaction and mechanical tamping as a result of construction and soil excavation. 4.2 Compaction Protection 4.2.1 No machinery will be allowed in the "critical root zone" of the trees to be retained during excavation, unless approved by the consulting arborist. Soil excavation outside the "critical root zone" is expected to be accomplished mechanically. 4.2.2 If machinery is required to enter the "critical root zone" during construction or excavation, a protective pad must be established over the soil surface prior to entry for purposes of weight distribution and compaction prevention. The options for soil surface covers are, 1.) installation of steel plating over the soil surface adequate for weight distribution of the equipment to be used; or 2.) installation of steel grating over the soil surface adequate for weight distribution of the equipment to be used. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Repor. Page 11 4.2.3 Machinery operating within 10' of the "critical root zone" shall proceed back and forth at a radius to the tree trunk - no abrupt wheel or track turns shall occur within the drip line of the trees. 4.3 On Site and Post-Construction Care and Maintenance 4.3.1 The consulting arborist is required to be on call/on site during the excavation and construction phase of the project to insure compliance with the specifications outlined in this report. 4.3.2 Post-excavation and construction care of the trees to be retained and replaced shall include; but not limited to; pruning of limbs and branches that appear to have been impacted as a result of excavation or construction activities or during replacement for a period of 2 to 5 years after completion of the project and occupancy of the buildings. Fertilization, staking and irrigation adequate for the proper health and maintenance of the trees shall be maintained for two years after planting and; pest management if trees show serious pest infestation resulting from excavation, construction or replacement activities for a period of two years after completion of the project. 4.4 Mitigation 4.4.1 Mitigation requirements should be followed to satisfy all applicable City of Durham codes. It is recommended that trees be re-planted at the ratio of 1:1 for 8" diameter or smaller trees; 2:1 for >8" to 18" diameter trees; 3:1 for all trees larger than 18" in diameter. Trees must be planted within 6 months after permit approval. All trees must be staked, fertilized and mulched and shall be guaranteed for a period of two years after the planting date. 4.4.2 The total number of mitigation replacement trees required for this site based on the size and quantity of trees scheduled for removal as outlined in 4.4.1 above is 240. Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Consulting Arborist Repot. Page 12 4.4.3 All trees proposed for mitigation and replacement planting are recommended to be a minimum of 3" caliper measured 24" above mean ground level, in healthy condition, of top grade as designated by the American Nursery and Landscape Association (ANLA)American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z6(1.1), suitable for the site and approved by the City of Durham. If a sufficient quantity of 3" are not available, 2" caliper trees may be used by special permission by the City Administrator. Preserved trees which die from year two through five of building occupancy, shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a minimum 5" caliper tree. 4.4.4 The attached landscape plan indicates where the replacement trees are to be planted. The exact genus and species have been recommended by the landscape architect and/or the consultant as disease resistant or adaptive trees suitable for the site. 4.5 Posting and Notification 4.5.1 "Before granting of a Tree Removal Permit, notice of the application shall be made at the discretion of the City Administrator to all interested parties. The notice shall indicate where the application may be inspected and when a public hearing on the application will be held. 4.5.2 After the City of Durham has issued the proper permit for tree removal, the permit should be conspicuously posted on the site throughout the entire construction and replanting process. - End of Report Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc. May 17, 2004 Photographic Exhibits t (,+a -. "- 17" - • r N� iv. W S� , s iCrw' i ' c:-.:••• , 31 - r+ f ,, r-4 i I'' ,' j .. 4#., . l'ig'*4., , ."'RtN‘ . .�./s V Cu;'. Crataegus douglasii, Douglas hawthorn-remove part/retain part•. .,A .. , i ,-.. -, .tAiiiiii 31. Imo ' • ' _4 •i s ,'r.• r ,, <. .., i,.. ^^"'"'*t: ' ri ,mot' : " ;.. A i s 4. _ s Acer macrophyllum, bigleaf maple-remove all Exhibit 1 Photographic Exhibits s �g s illlirklellt.-it • Betula pendula laciniata, European white birch -retain - 1 may-; - .5' N ,( 1 F ri, .y Y j' 'a r 74 - .tom i g^ 4 4 5 �� �, 7•v t. Cr .°° - 1;. ,...40.02116 �Malns species, fruiting apple -remove all 1 Exhibit 2 Photographic Exhibits ..0. 7 :1.4,'. �- �.�� Ai_ , 1:- r. #. .a l ' •' •, �, k', - 4 - i -may • _=^ 3 e :..� 4, .;° r:?r. `' a ) 17 i x F _ = ` y r :r t .� M .A f F 3 is.-^.. t , ,F lit ,if,I +tea'r a : rk Catalpa bignoides, Northern catalpa-remove all -f f y yv''' . � rte .�e. - -'" s -*Ilk< w l'..: .,}�. Fn ,:.mac". -p.. • rk � '9 -V,elet .,. • t r1 .. _ :�+ _ � -, . a►a� ,.- ;ts. Y ,... ,, 0.,ber04 4:4 �a- 1.... M �\ 4 s .21 1 � , _ 4. • __ Juglans regia, English walnut-remove all Exhibit 3 Photographic Exhibits 3 ! : marls -,1 4t ten• ' 2. . 'trs'F "f' 'Y. 1vL . V_ { e y� � .. tr ♦ .. �~ ..,5 =`C_ X �, 'E *, .t 4q. f _ Ay . , ' .fi y •\ ! Y • k , 11 , a M} - e-1 — l',e -SOD ..4 0.114" a 5.� " -k;- • . fie: — -- : c* i Quercus Oregon white oak-remove part/retain part its= `'♦ r T3:.7 ' ' "' .ri»,t f c . rat' *■ t . r Y ' , yr♦ � � -may • . �Yrf '-. r` tN mow! Proms avium, mazzard cherry-remove part/retain part Exhibit 4 Photographic Exhibits u 'r` ?y a 9 t .* r f •1.-+..gym ... �+ }=.. . . f -a : '.6. 1, ti l..,. ,:. aA.ye, ' • r* _ ' ,' i , — t•r s � *r _v.::- r a r 'I. y e 4,• i ? a xe � " ` ('- 1 r' i y '- �ice. „ �1. .• 1• y - ..'� " ^ .‘ ' �F ;..r.rr t:-..,- :� w c ' • Acer platanoides, Norway maple -remove all it d .. .. a 'law y� . _ •l if - Y ,� fr• . _ ." * ' 0 le., . Ilti • O. 4 • sO 1P. _• 1 V r»i hy Is y !W " i , , T!n te , y • .1.,C t t S'7 +x ; � - \•-� •I�ri . ' , •s- ice t4 • ° y s 4••A > 411 4k- ` ww••% ~5, { or Pinus nigra, Austrian pine -remove all Exhibit 5 Photographic Exhibits er . 111%111111111.4101VP".: '. 44' Ar IOC ' 3 = g '^gyp+ �,," , le { �asr � � F �v ,�s• `.' y J [� ��,+ f - ' s Sequoia sempervirens, coast redwood-remove part/retain part j .. •a_. ``•. .' f - � 4 y '4" y .." M4' . r • .P p &cr y• - , r ` , -- .. + +i t, 4.- '.. t 4 I., 1 . r .' _' '. r. 9 .. • ' :�', lam- jior .r■ s.„' #. 4 { E. er 't 4 f, I ¢ t •• • �ttr Fw R a•# :. ,r ,..a t --, vr- Pseudotsuga menziesii, Douglas fir-remove part/retain part Exhibit 6 a Photographic Exhibits • • 4 Alkk •it• . . . • ,{ •1;0.; P..Y . I} v p '• to.. T. ' lam"c.. a t. - ! ,,'y f t: N% g.' .y 4®4 3 f• �� u�a . . � , =rte. is - ,rte, ..:" Abies concolor, white fir—remove all ors :k.14,5"4 .. r�' 8 u ;„., • t )o- r i r j ..tr is n. • , � .ka ` �• yam, y.`�..:t. r'?L y� �jR'...4r'-..,e .'lm. r ;�y,,^,K.orr • ',6 a' !I`�!. y �. .. • .ANC.! Y ' at "f E ♦;,...‘... Yk.111'..w., a i Fw F�JI�.-„+;^-. ' "> - •�-.ws+ '— Trees not counted if used as hedges Exhibit 7 I CITY OF TIGARD Community'Development shaping A Better Community LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 120 DAYS = 6/15/2005 FILE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 2004-00014 FILE TITLE: DURHAM PLAZA PARKING APPLICANT: Durham Plaza, LLC OWNER: Pacific Realty Associates, LP PO Box 2404 Attn: N. Piven Lake Oswego, OR 97035 15350 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 OWNER'S Mildren Design Group, P.C. REP.: Attn: Jack Kriz 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Site Development Review approval for a non-accessory parking lot on an approximately 5,000 square foot portion of a 4.01 acre parcel. The subject parcel is already developed as an industrial park. The parking will be used in association with a proposed office building development on adjacent property located in the City of Durham, which is being reviewed by the City of Durham. LOCATION: The subject site is located on SW Durham Road, south of SW Upper Boones Ferry Road; WCTM 2S113AC, Tax Lot 102. ZONE: I-P: Industrial Park District. The I-P zoning district provides appropriate locations for combining light manufacturing, office and small-scale commercial uses, e.g., restaurants, personal services and fitness centers, in a campus-like setting. Only those light industrial uses with no off-site impacts, e.g., noise, glare, odor, vibration, are permitted in the I-P zone. In addition to mandatory site development review, design and development standards in the I-P zone have been adopted to insure that developments will be well-integrated, attractively landscaped, and pedestrian-friendly. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.390, 18.530, 18.705, 18.725, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.790 and 18.810. DECISION MAKING BODY BELOW: ❑ TYPE I ® TYPE II ❑ TYPE III ❑ TYPE IV DATE COMMENTS WERE SENT: MARCH 2, 2005 DATE COMMENTS ARE DUE: MARCH 16, 2005 I1 HEARINGS OFFICER (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM I PLANNING COMMISSION (MON.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00 PM ❑CITY COUNCIL (TUES.) DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:30 PM ® STAFF DECISION (TENTATIVE) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 15, 2005 COMPONENTS RELATED TO THE PROJECT AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION Z VICINITY MAP ® DRAINAGE PLAN ® IMPACT STUDY ® SITE PLAN ® STORM WATER ANALYSIS ❑ SIGHT DISTANCE ANALYST: ® NARRATIVE E TREE PLAN ® OTHER: MISCELLANEOUS STAFF CONTACT: Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner (503) 639-4171, Ext. 2434 J VUL . 111 *jr l ll.lnu vl, 1e, rvv., .1.1.V0 rnA .VJU UL UV ilek-V4t A rut,ZA cim.614T PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: (Crr1 OFTitih -nc+-k) COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: GR•DING 0 Existing and •ro•osed contours shown. E';' Are there grading impacts on adjacent parcels? o Mil Adjacent parcel grades shown. id Geotech study submitted? — ST- ET ISSUES rd Ri•ht-of-way clearlyshown. ,,_1 p. C--. Centerline of street(s) clearly shown. N ei Street name s shown. Q (ha xisting/proposed curb o_r edge of pavement shown. �1 C treet •raffles shown. /S M' Future Street Plan: Must show street profiles, topo on adjacent parcel(s), etc. hi MI Traffic Impact and/or Access Report A MO .treet grades compliant? E►O treet/ROW widths dimensioned and appropriate? J c!. Private Streets? Less than 6 lots and width appropriate? N EY Other: 1•1/4, SA ITARY SEWER ISSUES Ell Existin•/•ro•osed lines shown. ,vG •d Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? Ale1c 3,2,e.-- W•TER ISSUES Existing/posed lines w/sizes noted? IAoN� Q Existin•/•ro•osed fire h drants shown? t ioNc 1LJ Proposed meter location and size shown? Nou,:, s Proposed fire protection system shown? Noti;E STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES Existing/proposed lines shown? wc,�,: Mir Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention r\j/pr provided? Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? Ng Area for facility match requirements from calcs? N/A. Facilit shown outside any wetland buffer? Nq Storm stubs to adjacent sarcels re•uired/shown? NoNC The submittal is hereby deemed [] COMPLETE 0 INCOMPLETE By: Date: REVISED: 04/06/04 RECEIVED MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. 2 C J 2004 ARCHITECTURE • SPACE PLANNING OCT I L 7650 S.W.Beveland,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 CITY OF TISARD Voice:503-244-0552 Fax 503-244-0417 PLANNIPOMMINMNIING LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: City of Tigard Date: October 22,2004 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Attention: Planning Staff Copy to: Project Name: Durham Plaza Project Number: 103335 Number of copies: Description: 1 each of 1 completed application form for Site Review 3 each of 1 lease agreement between property owner and applicant 3 each of 1 written summary of proposal 3 each of 1 narrative 3 each of 1 Pre-Application Conference Notes 3 each of 1 Clean Water Services Pre-Screening form 3 each of 1 copy of affidavit of mailing and posting 3 each of 1 copy of meeting attendance sign-in sheet 3 each of 13 24x36 drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,Cr l,C2,C3,C4,C5,L1.1,A2 1.1_A2 21,A31 and site lighting plan ? 3 each of 1 impact study 3 each of 1 arborist report 1 each of 1 filing fee For your use _ For approval X For your review _ As requested Remarks: Please process for site review,please contact us if you have any questions. Signed: Jack Kriz Mailed _ To be picked up X Delivered via MDG P:\103335\wp\tr-CoTpd.l.wpd CITY OF TIGARD `G' �* 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. OCT 29'01 Y 0 3 7 Tigard,Oregon 97223 RECEIVED PLANNING .. o R 83207T2 U.S.POSTAGE - NOV 0 5 2004 CITY OF TIGARD i / City of Durham :,--. ,' 503' �g3' �' '93' Attn: K.J. Won, Planning Director Via./2 .23'yg3 - 7�w `' ..;- 7 `f 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road Durham, OR 9. NIXIE 970 1 01 11/03/04 F'*1- 2.51_• 2 2 Si RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 9722381442.5 *0529--02508-29-43 • ?:?_4+sb" 1`�S}3%a144 ll,l„i.,,1,.1,1„i►1,.11,1.,1..,,11,1.11,1,,InhI,1,1,,,11,1 11/08/2004 15:57 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard fj001 es' *************************** *** ERROR TX REPORT *** *************************** TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO 3680 CONNECTION TEL 5032922231 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 11/08 15:56 . USAGE T 00'00 PGS. SENT 0 RESULT NG #018 BUSY/NO SIGNAL A _1Il ,I I i CITY OF TIGARD October 29,2004 OREGON City of Durham Attention: K.J. Won, Planning Director 17160 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road Durham, Oregon 97281 RE: Durham Plaza, Durham, Oregon Dear ICJ.: The City of Tigard has received an application for site review for the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road, S.W. 72nd Avenue, and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, tax lot 2S113AC00102 and described as Council View Acres (Lots 21-44), Lot 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, plus Pt Vacated St,. The proposal is to utilize a 5,000 s.f. portion of this approximately 7.62 acres (331,927 s.f.) site for use as parking for an adjacent office building in the City of Durham. The City of Tigard has reviewed this proposal in a pre-application conference (September 9, 2004) that concluded that the proposed use is allowed in the zone, subject to development code regulations. We anticipate staff review of the application for completeness by November 20, 2004 and, if complete, approval of the proposal with conditions within six to eight weeks following. The City of Tigard does not object to the City of Durham conducting a development review process on property within the City of Durham that considers the use and design of said property in connection with the proposed Durham Plaza development and its use of this property within the City of Tigard. 11/05/2004 16:03 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard 0 001 t. ' ` *************************** *** ERROR TX REPORT *** *************************** TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED • • TX/RX NO 3677 CONNECTION TEL 5032922231 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 11/05 16:02 USAGE T 00'00 PGS. SENT 0 RESULT NG #018 BUSY/NO SIGNAL CITY OF TIGARD October 29, 2004 OREGON City of Durham Attention: K.J. Won, Planning Director 17160 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road Durham, Oregon 97281 RE: Durham Plaza,Durham, Oregon Dear K.J.: I The City of Tigard has received an application for site review for the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road, S.W. 72nd Avenue, and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, tax lot 2S113AC00102 and described as Council View Acres (Lots 21-44), Lot 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, plus Pt Vacated St,. The proposal is to utilize a 5,000 s.f. portion of this approximately 7.62 acres (331,927 s.f.) site for use as parking for an adjacent office building in the City of Durham. The City of Tigard has reviewed this proposal in a pre-application conference (September 9, 2004) that concluded that the proposed use is allowed in the zone, subject to development code regulations. We anticipate staff review of the application for completeness by November 20, 2004 and, if complete, approval of the proposal with conditions within six to eight weeks following. The City of Tigard does not object to the City of Durham conducting a development review process on property within the City of Durham that considers the use and design - of said property in-connection with the proposed-Durham Plaza-development and-its use of this property within the City of Tigard. CITY OF TIGARD October 29, 2004 OREGON City of Durham Attention: K.J. Won, Planning Director 17160 S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road Durham, Oregon 97281 RE: Durham Plaza, Durham, Oregon Dear K.J.: The City of Tigard has received an application for site review for the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road, S.W. 72nd Avenue, and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road, tax lot 2S113AC00102 and described as Council View Acres (Lots 21-44), Lot 25-27,23,24,28,37-41, plus Pt Vacated St,. The proposal is to utilize a 5,000 s.f. portion of this approximately 7.62 acres (331,927 s.f.) site for use as parking for an adjacent office building in the City of Durham. The City of Tigard has reviewed this proposal in a pre-application conference (September 9, 2004) that concluded that the proposed use is allowed in the zone, subject to development code regulations. We anticipate staff review of the application for completeness by November 20, 2004 and, if complete, approval of the proposal with conditions within six to eight weeks following. The City of Tigard does not object to the City of Durham conducting a development review process on property within the City of Durham that considers the use and design of said property in connection with the proposed Durham Plaza development and its use of this property within the City of Tigard. Sincerely, 0-61.41 1 t‘'...?>./ Gary Pagenstecher Planner C Jack Kriz, Mildren Design Group Land Use File SDR2004-00014 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 City of Durham • 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. e-mail:cityofdurham @comcast.net r - P.O. Box 23483, Durham, Oregon 97281 (503)639-6851 Fax(503)598-8595 Roland Signett-Administrator/Recorder Linda Smith, Administrative Assistant 11/8/04 Mr. Dick Bewersdorff City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Bewersdorff: The City of Durham has received an application for a 44,000 s.f. office building to be located on 2.58 acres on the east side of Upper Boones Ferry Rd. on tax lots 102, 400, 500 and 600, within the City of Durham. We are enclosing documents that may be relevant to your agency's review. An informal meeting is scheduled for the effected agencies and jurisdictions to meet with the proponent on November 23 at 2:00 p.m. at Durham City Hall. City Hall is located at 17160 Upper Boones Ferry Rd. If no one from you agency will be able to attend, written comments should be submitted prior to the meeting date. We would appreciate an RSVP in order to know how many people will be in attendance. Sincerely, • Roland Signett City Administrator PUBLIC FACILITY PLAN Project: Durham Business Park II COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Date: 12/03/04 GRADING ❑ Existing and proposed contours shown. ❑ Are there grading impacts on adjacent parcels? ❑ Adjacent parcel grades shown. ❑ Geotech study submitted? STREET ISSUES ❑ Right-of-way clearly shown. ❑ Centerline of street(s) clearly shown. ❑ Street name(s) 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 I I Existing/proposed lines shown. ❑ Stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? WATER ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines w/ sizes noted? Water not shown. If they are connecting to our water line they will need to show connection location, meter size, fire protection (if required) and proposed hydrants ❑ Existing/proposed fire hydrants shown? ❑ Proposed meter location and size shown? ❑ Proposed fire protection system shown? STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES ❑ Existing/proposed lines shown? 0 Preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention r/,AU ufcCs provided? I L' - ❑ Water quality/detention facility shown on plans? j j f2t) ❑ Area for facility match requirements from calcs? ❑ Facility shown outside any wetland buffer? ❑ Storm stubs to adjacent parcels required/shown? _ The submittal is hereby deemed ❑ COMPLETE ® INCOMPLETE REVISED: 12/03/04 ,ItY I L. 3 .04- LAND USE APPLIC ION Project: 2A,Rfiietr>,. l L.m.z. 0' Date: /Z f/3/D/ COMPLETENESS REVIEW Li COMPLETE INCOMPLETE STANDARD INFORMATION: ? ` Deed/Title/Proof Of Ownership .r Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits, Minutes, List O1 Attendees rg Impact Study(18-390) USA Service Provider Letter Construction Cost Estimate 0 # Sets Of Application Materials/Plans jA Pre-Application Conference Notes R. Envelopes With Postage (Verify Count) AA 1A4.4. f tAu,..:►:c t 6,0 orf PROJECT STATISTICS: m fri Building footprint Size cd %Of Landscaping On Site %Of Building Impervious Surface On Site IN lot Square Footage PLANS DIMENSIONED; An Building Footprint X Parking Space Dimensions(Include Accessible b Bike Parking) /111E] Truck loading Space Where Applicable 041 Building Height pi Access Approach And Aisle NE1 Visual Clearance Triangle Shown ADDITIONAL PLANS: (N, Vicinity flap !"A❑ Architectural Plan ( l, Tree Inventory Existing Conditions Plan V1 Landscape Plan L�7 Site Plan . Lighting Plan TREE PLAN/MITIGATION PLAN:ft'/ ® f j v r v a 1 c! >d41 awe.,-(ocr.lt.:t,s r7i,Sp4.z5 A i/f n Pro Ito t 1.716-4 VA Re no.rslt .et .jai 114.41 yu+144 PrO1r ADDITIONAL REPORTS: (list any special reports) N Ar 'burls ❑ ❑ ❑ RESPONSE TO APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: . (I 18.330(c nditional tlse) ❑ 18.620(rrgud trungte Daign Standards) ❑ 18.765m-sired Parting/Loading Requirements) (11 18.340(Dirtttors Interpretation) OIL 18.630 fwuningcon Squire tegionil caw) ❑ 18.115(Sensitive lands knew) ❑ 18.350(Punned oerebpmeaq 18.105(AcassttgressACradauon) ❑ 18.780(Signs) a 18.360(Ste Development knew) ❑ 18.710(Accessory reside„aml wit,) I 18.785(rempar�use Permits) ❑ 18.310(ruianas,Athusmx03) ❑ 1 8.71 S(Density Computations) 18.790 pae kmoni ❑ 18.380(toning Hap/Text Amendments) 18.720(Design Cnmpatibdit1 Standuds) ❑ 18.195(viszni Clearance Areas) ❑ 18.385(Miscelaneous Permits) 18.725(Environmental P.m-Ian-mace Standards) ❑ 18.197(watrr ksourres(wit)Overlay Disoict) 0 18.390(Decision Making£roadures/Lnpact Study) 18.130(Exceptions to Development Standards) W 18.798(Wuekss Cnmraniatian Iaolties) Q18.410(lot tine Adpntn ents) ❑ 18.140(Historic oeettay) 18.810(street a Wits Improvement Standards) ❑ 18.420(land Pesoons) Li 18.142(Home Ocapation Petits) ❑ 18.430(sobaivisiom) ,❑ 18.145(landscaping d Screening Standards) ❑ 18.510(residmtul Toning Drsi ice) ❑ 18.150(Manufacamtd/tlobil Home kgulauons) .❑ 18.520(Cnrtttrwal toning Districts) 111 18.755 NA Sobs Waste/k/tine Swage) 18.530(Industrial Taring 0,..,(t) ❑ 18.760(Nemeonk nu og Situations)) ADDITIONAL ITEMS: 1:1curpin4nastersVevisecNand use application completeness review.dot REVISED: 17-Jan-01 1 December 15, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Jack Kriz Mildren Design Group 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Durham Plaza Development (City of Tigard portion) Dear Mr. Kriz: The City of Tigard received your application for site development review for the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road on tax lot 2S113AC00102 and described as Council View Acres (Lots 21-44), Lots 23-28,37-41, plus Part Vacated Street. The proposal is to utilize a 5,000 s.f. portion of this approximately 4.01-acre site for use as non- accessory parking for an adjacent office building, Durham Plaza, located in the City of Durham. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the submittal materials and has determined that the following additional information is necessary before the application can be deemed complete: 1. Ownership Information: Please provide a Deed to the subject PacTrust Business Center property located in the City of Tigard. 2. Site Plan for the Subject Property: Please provide a site plan for the subject PacTrust Business Center property. The review of the proposed non- accessory parking use must take into account the development standards for industrial zones (I-P), which require analysis of the whole parcel (e.g. the maximum site coverage of 75%, including all impervious surfaces, and the minimum landscape requirement of 25%). Please revise your narrative to address these standards factually. Include zoning for the City of Durham to address the rear setback development standard. 3. Site Plan: You submitted a Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet A1.1) dated May 2004. Please provide a final Site Plan that includes any changes that may be required in response to the following information needs. In addition, copies of sheets C1—05 were referred to in the Sheet Index, but were not in your submittal. Please provide these sheets as well. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 4. Neighborhood Meeting: Please provide the minutes from the neighborhood meeting. 5. Tree Removal Plan: You submitted an arborist report from Applied Horticultural Consulting, Inc., a Site Survey, and the Preliminary Site Plan. Together, these documents inventory trees for the Durham Plaza project. However, the arborist report identifies the Durham Plaza site as being comprised only of Lots 42, 43, and 44 of "Council View Acres". It does not include the portion of Lot 23 that is the subject property in the City of Tigard. In your narrative, please address the scope of the report and how it applies to the subject property (apparently, an 8" alder identified on the survey will be removed). Please address all of the applicable standards in a revised narrative. 6. Off-Street Parking/Loadinq Requirements: Although your narrative addresses this chapter, some standards have not been addressed. In particular, parking space dimensions, which need to be shown on the site plan. 7. Lighting Plan: Please provide a lighting plan for the proposed parking lot. 8. Public Facility Plan Checklist: Please review the checklist for completeness. Two issues in particular need to be addressed. If water is being provided by Tigard, your Public Facilities Plan will need to show connection location, meter size, fire protection (if required) and proposed hydrants. Storm drainage and water quality issues for the subject PacTrust Business Center property need to be addressed, including existing and proposed lines, and preliminary sizing calcs for water quality/detention. Once this additional information is submitted, staff will review the additional materials to determine if the application is complete. Once the application has been deemed complete, you will be need to submit 12 (full set) copies of your revised and new materials (plan sets may be printed at 8 1/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 size as long as you include 3 copies of large set plans) and five additional copies of your reduced plan sets only. In addition, you will be asked to provide two sets of pre-addressed (no return address), stamped (not metered), #10 size envelopes (addresses of property owners located within 500 feet must have been obtained from the City of Tigard within the previous three months from the date of application completeness). Once complete, the formal comment and review process will begin, which typically takes 6 to 8 weeks. It should be noted that staff has not reviewed the application submittal for compliance with the relevant code criteria, and that additional items may arise during the application review which may require further clarification. 2 If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner C: SDR2004-00014 Land Use File 3 s'bR ao'' — cool REc MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. ,,N`` I ei005 ARCHITECTURE • SPACE PLANNING ^^{` 2 7650 S.W.Beveland,Suite 120 �r 10C41° Tigard,Oregon 97223 ,,,T/ scm Voice:503-244-0552 Fax 503-244-0417 V� LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: City of Tigard Date: January 27,2005 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Attention: Gary Pagenstecher Copy to: Jack Green,Durham Plaza,L.L.C.,one copy each,via mail Project Name: Durham Plaza Project Number: 103335.01 Number of copies: Description: 1 each of 2 letter responding to your completeness review 1/1 each of 11 copy of property title information y 1 each of 15 revised 24x36 drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,A1.1 Alt,A1.2,C1,C2,C3,C4,C5,L1.1, A2.1.1,A2.2.1,A3.1,and 1 of 1 site lighting plan as submitted to the City of Durham 1 each of 2 24x36 drawings,sheets A1.2.1 and A1.2.2.site verification and aerial photo f/1 each of 1 arborist's report 1/ 1 each of 1 completed Public Facilities Plan Completeness Checklist 1„...4 each of 1 neighborhood meeting minutes For your use For approval X For your review _ As requested Remarks: If you have any questions regarding this project,please contact us. Signed: Jack Kriz _ Mailed _ To be picked up X Delivered via MDG P:\103335.01\wp\tr-CoTgp.2.wpd • January 27, 2005 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. Architecture • Space Planning Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Re: Durham Plaza Development (City of Tigard Portion) Submittal-SDR2004-00014 Dear Gary, This letter is in response to your notification (dated December 15, 2004) for the above- referenced project. All items on your checklist have been addressed and/or corrected in the attached package of information, including direct responses to your noted items: 1. Ownership Information:The deed to the subject PacTrust Business Center property (located in the City of Tigard) has been provided. 2. Site Plan for the Subject Property: A site plan for the subject PacTrust Business Center property has been provided - please refer to these drawings, A1.2.1 and A1.2.2,when reviewing the following analysis: A. At the time of the original site development, the existing site satisfied the reduction of lot coverage requirements of Section 18.530.050.B., allowing a maximum site impervious coverage of 80%, and a minimum landscape coverage of 20%. Note: The actual percentages based on original site plan documents and current field verification adjustments indicate impervious coverage of 78%, and landscape coverage of 22%. Incorporating the new development will alter the coverage numbers by 1.4%, making the impervious coverage 79.4%, and the landscape coverage 20.6%. The new development maintains the reduction requirements of the original site, therefore,the development standards have been met. B. Per the City of Durham Comprehensive Land Use Code, Section 4.C.2.c - Rear yard requirements for Industrial Park Districts states (other than adjacencies to residential districts) . . . the "rear yard setback shall be determined by the Planning Commission as part of an industrial park planned development". Durham is reviewing this project with setback similar requirements- the development standards have been met. 3. Site Plan: A final site plan and sheets C1 -C5 have been provided. A full set of the drawing submitted to the City of Durham are included for your review 4. Neighborhood Meeting: Neighborhood meeting minutes have been provided. 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 503 244 0552 Fax 503 244 0417 Letter response to City of Tigard January 27,2005 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335 P:\103335.01\wp\LTR-COTgp.wpd Page 2 5. Tree Removal Plan: An arborist narrative has been provided which addresses the subject property and all the applicable standards. 6. Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements: A Site Plan has been provided. The requirement standards have been addressed below: A. General (Parking) Design Standards (Sec. 18.765.040): i. Maintenance of parking areas.The parking lot shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. The standard has been met. ii. Access drives.This is an internal parking area within a larger parking lot. The access to this area complies with all access standards. iii. Loading/unloading driveways. Not applicable. iv. On-site vehicle stacking for drive-in use. Not applicable. v. Curb cuts. Not applicable. vi. Pedestrian access.No pedestrian walkways are within the boundaries of the site. The standard is not applicable. vii. Parking lot landscaping. Addressed in the previous submittal. The standards have been met. viii. Parking space surfacing. The new parking surface is asphalt. The standards have been met. ix. Parking lot striping. Striping has been provided and shall be clearly marked and signed to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety.The standard has been met. x. Wheel stops. A concrete curb has been provided in lieu of wheel stops. The standard has been met. xi. Drainage. The area has been designed to drain in order to eliminate ponding. The standard has been met. xii. Lighting.Lighting has been provided per the Lighting Plan(attached). The standard has been met. xiii. Signs. No signs have been provided in this area. Not applicable. xiv. Space and aisle dimensions. See dimensions on Site Plan (attached). The standard has been met. B. Loading Area Requirements (Code Section 18.765.080): i. Off-street loading spaces.This site is a portion of a larger parking lot area. No loading spaces are provided on this site. The standard has been met. ii. Off-street loading dimensions. Not applicable (see 6.B.i. above). 7. Lighting Plan: A lighting plan has been provided. 8. Public Facility Plan Checklist.The checklist has been reviewed for completeness and provided.No water is being provided to this site.See Civil drawings(attached) for Letter response to City of Tigard January 27,2005 Durham Plaza Project Number 103335 P:\103335.01\wp\LTR-COTgp.wpd Page 3 storm drainage design. The standards have been met. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments or questions. Cordially, caivi)11-) k Kriz Project Manager TJK/dav February 3, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Jack Kriz Mildren Design Group 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Durham Plaza Development (City of Tigard portion), SDR2004-00014 Dear Mr. Kriz: The City of Tigard received your application resubmittal for site development review for the property bounded by S.W. Durham Road and S.W. Upper Boones Ferry Road on tax lot 2S113AC00102. The proposal is to utilize a 5,000 square foot portion of this approximately 4.01-acre site for use as non- accessory parking for an adjacent office building, Durham Plaza, located in the City of Durham. Except for the following information, your application is now complete. Please provide documentation of an adequate on-going maintenance program to ensure appropriate irrigation and maintenance of the proposed landscape area, pursuant to the development standards for industrial zones (I-P), 18.530.050.B. In addition, please submit 9 full set copies of your revised and new materials (plan sets may be printed at 8 '/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 size as long as you include 3 copies of large set plans). Also, provide two sets of pre-addressed (no return address), stamped (not metered), #10 size envelopes (addresses of property owners located within 500 feet must have been obtained from the City of Tigard within the previous three months from the date of application completeness). The formal comment and review process will begin on receipt of the above materials, which typically takes 6 to 8 weeks. It should be noted that staff has not reviewed the application submittal for compliance with the relevant code criteria, and that additional items may arise during the application review which may require further clarification. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at 503-718-2434. Sincerely, l 7 -�-" ---� Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner C: SDR2004-00014 Land Use File 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. Architecture • Space Planning February 4, 2005 Gary Pagenstecher City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Re: Durham Plaza Development (City of Tigard Portion) Submittal-SDR2004-00014 Dear Gary, Thank you for reviewing our submittal. We understand that with this letter regarding landscape irrigation, we will be deemed complete. The landscaped portion of this application, that is, the portion of the parcel within the jurisdiction of the City of Tigard,will be a part of the entire project proposed with the City of Durham. This includes landscape irrigation and maintenance as well as the initial construction. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments or questions. .ck Kriz ice President 7650 SW Beveland Street,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 503 244 0552 fax 503 244 0417 R ECEN ED MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. Fa 9 2* ARCHITECTURE • SPACE PLANNING �.,��p 7650 S.W.Beveland,Suite 120 M" 1 "'0 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Voice:503-244-0552 Fax 503-244-0417 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: City of Tigard Date: February 8,2005 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Attention: Gary Pagenstecher Copy to: Project Name: Durham Plaza Project Number: 103335.01 Number of copies: Description: 3 each of 16 revised 24x36 drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,A1.1 Alt,A1.2,Cl,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6, L1.1,A2.1.1,A2.2.1,A3.1,and 1 of 1 site lighting plan as submitted to the City of Durham 3 each of 2 24x36 drawings,sheets A1.2.1 and A1.2.2.site verification and aerial photo 6 each of 16 reduced to 11"x 17":revised drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,A1.1 Alt,A1.2,Cl,C2,C3, C4,C5,C6,L1.1,A2.1.1,A2.2.1,A3.1,and 1 of 1 site lighting plan as submitted to the City of Durham 6 each of 2 reduced to 11"x 17":drawings,sheets A1.2.1 and A1.2.2.site verification and aerial photo 2 sets each of 1 mailing labels from City of Tigard on envelopes with stamps For your use _ For approval X For your review _ As requested Remarks: If you have any questions regarding this project,please contact us. Signed: Jack Kriz Mailed _ To be picked up X Delivered via MDG P:\103335.01\wp\tr-CoTgp.3.wpd CITY OF TIGARD Februaryl5, 2005 OREGON Jack Kriz Mildren Design Group 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Durham Plaza Development (City of Tigard portion), SDR2004-00014 Dear Mr. Kriz: The City has received the information necessary to begin the review of your Site Development Review application (SDR2004-00014). Staff has, therefore, deemed your application submittal as complete and will begin the review process. The estimated time for rendering a decision from the date an application is deemed complete is 6-8 weeks. If you have any questions regarding your application, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 718-2434. Sincerely, 6091,47:4": Gary Pagenstecher Associate Planner C: SDR2004-00014 Land Use File is\curpin\gary\site development review\sdr2004-00014 durham plaza\sdr2004-00014 complete.doc 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503)684-2772 7...frt••••■•'•—• MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. RF���v� ARCHITECTURE • SPACE PLANNING c 7650 S.W.Beveland,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 FEB Voice:503-244-0552 Fax 503-244-0417 U 5 2005 T� pTyo� LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 4 ,6 To: City of Tigard Date: February 14,2005 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Attention: Planning Staff Copy to: Project Name: Durham Plaza Project Number: 103335 Number of copies: Description: 9 each of 1 completed application form for Site Review 9 each of 1 lease agreement between property owner and applicant 9 each of 1 written summary of proposal 9 each of 1 narrative 9 each of 1 Pre-Application Conference Notes 9 each of 1 Clean Water Services Pre-Screening form 9 each of 1 copy of affidavit of mailing and posting 9 each of 1 copy of meeting attendance sign-in sheet 9 each of 2 letter dated January 27, 2005 responding to your completeness review dated December 15,2004 9 each of 11 copy of property title information 3 each of 16 revised 24x36 drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,A1.1 Alt,A1.2,Cl,C2,C3,C4,C5,C6, L1.1,A2.1.1,A2.2.1,A3.1,and 1 of 1 site lighting plan as submitted to the City of Durham(provided last week under separate transmittal) 3 each of 2 24x36 drawings,sheets A1.2.1 and A1.2.2.site verification and aerial photo(provided last week under separate transmittal) 6 each of 16 reduced to 11"x 17":revised drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,A1.1 Alt,A1.2,Cl,C2,C3, C4,C5,C6,L1.1,A2.1.1,A2.2.1,A3.1,and 1 of 1 site lighting plan as submitted to the City of Durham 6 each of 2 reduced to 11"x 17":drawings,sheets A1.2.1 and A1.2.2.site verification and aerial photo 9 each of 4 arborist's report 9 each of 1 completed Public Facilities Plan Completeness Checklist Application material Transmittal to Gary Pagenstecher Project Number 103335.01 February 14,2005 P:\103335.01\wp\tr-CoTgp.4.wpd Page 2 9 each of 1 neighborhood meeting minutes 9 each of 1 letter regarding landscape irrigation For your use _ For approval X For your review _ As requested Remarks: Please review,this should make the application complete,contact us if you have any questions. Signed: Jack Kriz Mailed _ To be picked up X Delivered via MDG P:\103335.01\wp\trCoTgp.4.wpd saloN DNEflI4MOD lNiOI ,I,VDI'IddV ilild CITY OF TIGARD PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES b. ��or nva�. �0n Community Development Shaping (Better Community (Pre-Application Meeting Notes are Valid for Six (6) Months) NON-RESIDENTIAL FF&Fp. DNE j°71/6___ 1 SWPRE4P. OP - APPLICANT: InILDRE V d6376-,t/ 6-lrc y PG. AGENT: 11 > k rt t Phone: (50A 2 Yrf- o S'S-2_ Phone: ( ) PROPERTY LOCATION: ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): 2.51134c 001e,2 NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: S[re" pe7/87 ME>UT /22U/LZ(J (.S/"it') lcj • PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: one `I Goa St' e)FF7 C& 6c)"-Ag rG °'"'► of .7 ac.S1 77g ( S,'1'0° i„ n6-1+40 r■ ?,viLftri+s. oIL. r} j rn Ttv.J of 77-(& (01--;5, pPrace3 Fd[ ]T{E Tii- tb JR . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ` MAP DESIGNATION: 1 ND c- ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: r -P CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (C.I.T.)AREA: e,f Sr ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18. 530 l MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 'Cr" sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: Sa ft. Max. building height: Y5 ft. Setbacks: Front 35 ft. Side 90/5c;ft. Rear 1/fit. Corner 20 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 75' I % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: %. B„ 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. 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. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • NARRATIVE [Refer to Code Chapter 18.390) The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.050) 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 18.705 and 18.7651 Minimum number of accesses: / /2- Minimum access width: SJ / . Minimum pavement width: yo' z All driveways and parking areas, excep for some fleet storage parking areas, must be paved. Drive-in use queuing areas: tkl WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18.705.0301 To//v7- /4-`"c V-4 (/erg 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 18.7301 D STREETS: feet from the centerline of D LOWER INTENSITY ZONES: feet, along the site's boundary. D FLAG LOT: 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. I I SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS [Refer to Code Section 18.730.010.8.1 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(1/2) of the building's height; and :- The structure will not abut a residential zoned district. BUFFERING AND SCREENING [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7451 In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the City requires landscaped buffer areas along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may only be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFER WIDTHS applicable to your proposal area are: feet along north boundary. feet along east boundary. feet along south boundary. feet along west boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: XI LANDSCAPING [Refer to Code Chapters 18./45,18.765 and 18.705) 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 18.755) Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. PARKING [Refer to Code Section 18.165.040) REQUIRED parking for this type of use: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): SECONDARY USE REQUIRED parking: Parking SHOWN on preliminary plan(s): NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. PARKING STALLS shall be dimensioned as follows: Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet, 6 inches x 18 feet, 6 inches. ,7' •"-/ 1-IF 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: Y 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 18.765.080) 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 IN BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 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 18.775) 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 responsibility to precisely identify sensitive land areas, and their boundaries, is the responsibility of the applicant. Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 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 18.715.080.C1 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. g CLEARWATER SERVICES ICWSI 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: TABLE 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTH OF VEGETATED TO SENSITIVE AREA 4 CORRIDOR PER SIDE5 ♦ Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 15 feet 10 to <50 acres >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% 30 feet 10 to <50 acres >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' 4Starting point for measurement = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds,whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 feet within the river/stream or wetland vegetated corridor,shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. SVegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 6The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet,if a stamped geotechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 4 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the CWS Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. ---�' CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. T 1 SIGNS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.780) 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.C.) 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.; 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. N4 MITIGATION [Refer to Code Section 18.190.060.11 REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: • The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. ➢ 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. [1 CLEAR VISION AREA [Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City 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. ,rsf 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% TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 11/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330(Conditional Use) 18.620(Tigard Triangle Design Standards) 18.765(Off-Street Parking/Loading Requirements) 18.340(Director's Interpretation) 18.630(Washington Square Regional Center) _ 18.775(Sensitive Lands Review) 18.350(Planned Development) V 18.705(Access/Egress/Circulation) _ 18.780(Signs) 18.360(Site Development Review) 18.710(Accessory Residential Units) 18.785(Temporary Use Permits) 18.370(Variances/Adjustments) 18.715(Density Computations) Y 18.790(Tree Removal) - 18.380(Zoning Map/Text Amendments) 18.720(Design Compatibility Standards) 18.795(Visual Clearance Areas) 18.385(Miscellaneous Permits) j/18.725(Environmental Performance Standards) 18.798(Wireless Communication Facilities) J.-. 18.390(Decision Making Procedures/Impact Study) 18.730(Exceptions To Development Standards) 18.810(Street&Utility Improvement Standards) 018.410(Lot Line Adjustments) 18.740(Historic Overlay) - 18.420(Land Partitions) 18.742(Home Occupation Permits) 18.430(Subdivisions) .= 18.745(Landscaping&Screening Standards) - 18.510(Residential Zoning Districts) 18.750(Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) 18.520(Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.755(Mixed Solid Waste/Recycling Storage) 18.530(Industrial Zoning Districts) 18.760(Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR COMMENTS: ;5 �°,iCe//1 awl Er Gww"LeD orvG n ficvm /fc ( RJ -=/2,t/ 1 y ✓b Wit I T Itfed — /.J 716 Rol 4-/tv `j?4c 7retts1L ?AA /�enrc�it., v'�vro f !lP �s S �`66-QS Leo? �P�c �rt r pv-�N n ) 3 s, 4 14 7 / j. •+ VA/y &e ms prxh.r U tk. .,,lafreftnA14,Y, 5-0.3 3 7 It 7/ "64.-Aya.,y44.14;-4 PROCEDURE Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted by mail or dropped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. The Planning counter closes at 4:00 PM. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches. One (1), 81/2" x 11" map of a proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or administrative decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section • The administrative decision or public hearing will typically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A 10-day public appeal period follows,all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard ko rrics olvfficEZ. . A basic flow chart which illustrates the review proceess is aVailabre from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). PLEASE NOTE: The conference and notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask any questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submitting an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY: v CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7291 E-MAIL (stars first name)@ci.tigard.or.us TITLE 18(CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (ODE)INTERNET ADDRESS: www.ci.tigard.or.us H:lpatty\masters\Pre-App Notes Commercial.doc Updated: 3-Oct-02 (Engineering section:preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 8 NON-Residential Application/Planning Division Section 08 19/2004 10:00 FAX 5035981960 CITY OF TIGARD Z002 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE REQUEST comromomift 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX:(503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant: )41‘...c)(2.a.1 DEASIb►) (02a)P Pc-- • c� Address:-1E50 5 P 4-1(K 1 P 4-1(E t-1*c Phone:SWY 4.D S F j l Case No.: 0 0 - 0 0 0 7 7 9 SATE. 12-0 City: Ti 1,01-.00 Zip: 9-12,"2.3 • Receipt No.: oZO°`d —3S 0 Application Accepted By: C et.- Contact Person:j64.1L X-Z Z. Phone:GAS2Y 2 Date: S c 5 o q Property Owner/Deed Holder(s); {� DATE OF PRE-APP.: 3t - °) Pt.L4T-1 12.04-1 P TIME OF PRE-APP.: 'a`' Address: 15'6ST) S v 0th P1Lwy Phone:COlo. (.24-- (03O17 PRE-APP. HELD WITH: Smartt 3v City: Pcya. u.N,ro Zip: 11 124, Rev.7/1/04 I:Ncu pinlmasterslrevitadTre-AppRequest.doc Property Address/Location(s): APO/1060 PM.T OF GOON& V16•%) /.0-Rea (L015 p'T 2F-21) , REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted 12-a,3 "�}I �JS P•02-1 �Ll�i`�F� ST without the required submittal elements) Tax Map &Tax Lot#(s): 2SIIBONc 604 02 Zoning: T"P ❑ Pre-Application Conf_ Request Form 3 COPIES_EACH OF THE FOLLOWING! Site Size: BibOO S f • ❑ Brief Description of the Proposal and PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE INFORMATION any site-specific questions/issues st issues that you would like to have staff research prior to the meeting. All of the information identified on this form are required to be submitted by the applicant and received by the Planning Division a 17 Site Plan. The site plan must show the minimum of brie (1) week prior to QffiicislIy scheduling a proposed lots and/or building layouts n pre-application conference date/time to allow staff ample time to drawn to scale. Also, show the location prepare for the meeting, of the subject property in relation to the nearest streets; and the locations of A pre-application conference can usually be scheduled within 1-2 driveways on the subject property and across the street. weeks of the Planning Division's receipt of the request for either Tuesday or Thursday mornings_ Pre-application conferences are ❑ The Proposed Uses. one (1) hour long and are typically held between the hours of El Topographic Information. Include 9:00-11:00 AM. Contour Lines if Possible. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES MUST BE SCHEDULED IN ❑ If the P --Application .•nference is for PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER FROM a M•N••OLE pr.' ct, the applicant 8:00-4:00/MONDAY-FRIDAY. must atta • a c••y of the letter and proof in th= -rm of an affidavit of IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE mailing, tha '- collocation protocol was PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE complet= . (se Section 18.798.080 of INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM the •ard Co •munity Development Code . ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE GROUP. ❑ Filing Fee$296.00 a CITY OF TIGARD 8/25/2004 A 13125 SW Ha11 Blvd. 11:20:12AM Tigard,Oregon 97223 1,L '�1;. (503) 639-4171 Receipt #: 27200400000000003805 Date: 08/25/2004 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid PRE2004-00079 [LANDUS]PreApp Conf 100-0000-438000 296.00 Line Item Total: $296.00 Payments: Method Payer User ID Acct/Check Approval No. How Received Amount Pa- Check JHC COMMERCIAL LLC CAC 31442 In Person 296.00 Payment Total: $296.00 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK 19-7076 31442\ JHC COMMERCIAL LLC 190o-756.5000 3250 CCB#158061 11125 Barbur Blvd. • Portland,OR 97219 503/624-7100 Pay: ******************************Two hundred ninety-six dollars and no cents August 24,E 2004 cH5QteiN .?2 $***** ' L6.00 PAY City O Tigard SIGNATURES R UIRED FOR AMOUNTS OVER$1,500.00 TO THE ORDER 13125 SW Hall Blvd ORDER OF Tigard, OR 97223 — J M J 9 Page 1 of 1 cReceipt.rpt Pre-Apps (CD Meetings) Se•tember2004 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:00 8:30 9:00 Pre-app Jack Kriz 503-244-0552 2S113AC-00102 SDR 9:30 10:00 Pre-App 10:30 11:00 Pre-app 11:30 12:00 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 • 6:00 12 45P Wednesday,August 25,2004 MILDREN DESIGN GROUP,P.C. ARCHITECTURE • SPACE PLANNING 7650 S.W.Beveland,Suite 120 Tigard,Oregon 97223 Voice:503-244-0552 Fax 503-244-0417 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: City of Tigard Date: July 22,2004 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 Attention: Jim Hendricks Copy to: Project Name: Durham Plaza Project Number: 103335 Number of copies: Description: 1 each 24x36 drawings A0.1,Survey,A1.1,Cl,C2,C3,C4,C5,L1.1,A2.1.1,A2.2.1,A3.1 For your use _ For approval X For your review _ As requested Remarks: K J Won of the City of Durham indicated he has spoken with you about our project in that city which also includes a parcel within the City of Tigard. K J said you would like to review the drawings we have submitted so far. As a point of explanation,we had not formally applied to Tigard until now as we wanted to be clear what requirements the City of Durham may want to place upon a review by Tigard.It sounds like K J has discussed those with you.If you have any questions regarding this project,please contact us. Signed: Jack Kriz 1 Mailed To be picked up X Delivered via MDG P:\103335\wp\trCoTjh.l.wpd • Project Description The proposed project is a site in Durham, Oregon. The proposal is for one building of a total of approximately 40,000 square feet on a 2.5 acre site. See the Project Process for Jurisdictional Review for this project. Site characteristics: A. Existing: 1. Located in the City of Durham with a portion of a lot, 5,000 s.f., located in the City of Tigard. 2. On the east side of Upper Boones Ferry Road, opposite Afton Lane. 3. Site access from and to Upper Boones Ferry Road will be to the north through an adjacent parcel and with an access planned opposite Afton Lane. 4. Approximately 8 homes and out buildings exist on the site 5. Relatively flat, sloping down about ten feet in 350' from south to north. 6. Some significantly sized trees exist. B. Proposed: 1. Provision for all utilities; storm sewer, sanitary sewer, electric, domestic and fire water,gas,telco.Storm sewer to be surface system as approved by jurisdictions. 2. Vehicular and bicycle parking areas. 3. Pedestrian paved walks. 4. Areas for loading zone and trash receptacles. 5. Fully landscaped. II. Building characteristics: A. Building One: 1. 40,000 S.F. 2. Two story building.. 3. Irregular rectilinear shape with saw tooth step pattern or simple rectangular shape. 4. Central two story lobby with major entries to two sides of the building. 5. Two exit stairways. 6. Construction: a. UBC classification Type 2-NR with B occupancy. b. Concrete wall construction with brick veneer. c. Concrete slab on grade. d. Concrete/steel composite second floor structure. Durham Business Center II Project Description Mildren Design Group,P.C. P\103335\wp\project description.lb.wpd Project Number 103335 Page 1 e. Steel composite roof structure with support structure for centralized building mechanical systems. f. Two stop elevator. g. Minor architectural embellishments such as an entrance canopy. h. Core spaces such as lobby, lobby stair, toilet rooms and primary connecting hallways are included and will be designed to a basic "Class A" level of finish. Note:this description of the project is preliminary in nature and is not intended to include a detailed listing of all project parameters and characteristics. Building and site dimensions given are approximate and may change slightly during design development. Durham Business Center II Project Description Mildren Design Group,P.C. P:\103335\wp\project description.lb.wpd Project Number 103335 Page 2 District Report Page 1 of 1 Overlay Information For 2S113AC00102 Jurisdiction: Tigard School District: TIGARD-TUALATIN Within Urban Growth Boundary: Yes Census Tract: 320 Citizen Participation Org: CPO4M Zip Code: 97224 Garbage Hauler: Pride Disposal (503) 625-6177 Garbage Dropbox: Pride Disposal (503) 639-2378 https://intratech.co.washington.or.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=lntermap&Cmd=Geoseare... 08/24/2004 DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DURHAM, OREGON PREPARED BY LANCASTER ENGINEERING May 2004 - A01/ LANCASTER engineering July 8, 2004 Jack Kriz Mildren Design Group 7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 120 Tigard, OR 97223 RE:Durham Plaza Phase II traffic study addendum Dear Jack: We have received comments from the City of Durham regarding the traffic study for Phase II of the Durham Plaza project. This letter is written to address the comments by the City. There have been some minor changes to the traffic report for the Durham Plaza devel- opment. The original traffic study reported a building size of 40,000 square feet. The proposed building size is 44,000 square feet. In addition, according to City staff, the site is zoned for a general office development, rather than a business park use. The trip generation for the site has been updated to reflect these comments. Using land use code 710, General Office Building, from TRIP GENERATION, the number of trips was recalculated based on a building size of 44,000 square feet. The office building is expected to generate 68 trips during the morning peak hour, 66 trips during the evening peak hour and 484 trips during an average weekday. A copy of the trip generation worksheet has been attached at the end of this letter. The revised trip generation shows an increase of six trips during either the morning or evening peak hours. These additional trips do not change the results of the original traffic study and no additional recommendations are made. Union Station,Suite 206•800 NW 6th Avenue•Portland,OR 97209•Phone 503.248.0313•Fax 503.248.9251 Jack Kriz July 8, 2004 Page 2 of 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Durham Plaza Phase II Entering Exiting Total Trips Trips Trips General Office Building (44,000 sq ft) AM Peak Hour 60 8 b8 PM Peak Hour 11 55 66 Weekday 242 242 484 If you have any questions about this addendum or the original traffic study, please don't hesitate to call me. Yours truly, ,r f �PED PROP NGINEF • Catriona Sumrain a' r Engineering Technician Attachment: Trip generation worksheet 0gs R. LAO..�'� TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 44.0 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.55 Trip Rate: 1.49 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 88% 12% Directional 17% 83 Distribution Distribution TripEnds Trip.....:.:.......:...............:...:.:.:. P n ...;.;I;.....; ...:..:�5:.:.:..:.:.:, ....... WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 11.01 Trip Rate: 0.98 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Directional 50% 50% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends .:.: .:..... :.:.......... Trip n Source:TRIP GENERATION,Seventh Edition l& LANCASTER engineering DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II Traffic Impact Study Durham, Oregon 6. 04 GINF Pri i. 80,54 X1■ r Z a „LOREG* t� 17 Y22. ti9 � S 1-1 LANG Prepared By TOM R. LANCASTER, PE, PTOE CATRIONA SUMRAIN May, 2004 Union Station, Suite 206 •800 NW 6th Avenue•Portland, OR 972091 Phone 503.248.0313•Fax 503.248.9251 IL TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Location Description 5 Trip Generation 10 Trip Distribution 11 Operational Analysis 14 Appendix 28 -2- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Phase II of an office development is proposed for a site in Durham, Oregon. The site is lo- cated on the east side of Upper Boones Ferry Road near Afton Lane and is proposed to be developed with a 40,000 square-foot office building. Access to the site would be through a driveway onto Upper Boones Ferry Road opposite Afton Lane, however access would also be available through the existing driveways for Phase I of the development. 2. Development of an office building is expected to produce 62 trips during the morning peak hour, 60 trips during the evening peak hour and 440 trips on an average weekday. 3. The left-turn lane warrants were marginally satisfied with site development for a southbound left-turn lane on Upper Boones Ferry Road at Afton Lane/site access. How- ever, because there are very low left-turning volumes into the site, a left-turn lane is not recommended at this time. 4. The traffic signal warrants were not satisfied for a traffic signal at Afton Lane/Upper Boones Ferry Road. A traffic signal is not recommended. 5. The intersection of Upper Boones Ferry Road and Durham Road is currently operating within ODOT's v/c standards. However, the development of the Bridgeport Village project will degrade the v/c ratio to unacceptable standards. The site development has no apprecia- ble effect on the v/c ratio. 6. The intersections of Upper Boones Ferry Road at Afton Lane and at Findlay Road are cur- rently operating within ODOT's v/c ratio standards and will continue to operate acceptably through site development. 7. Sight distance was examined at the proposed location of the site access opposite Afton Lane. Sight distance is adequate in both directions. -3- INTRODUCTION A business park development has been proposed in the City of Durham, Oregon. Phase I of the Durham Business Park is completed and Phase II is proposed for development. The site for Phase II of the project is located on the east side of Upper Boones Ferry Road near Afton Lane. The site plan for Phase II of the Business Park shows access onto Upper Boones Ferry Road at Afton Lane, although access will also be available through the driveway for Phase I of the development. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impact of the proposed development on the nearby street system and to recommend any required mitigative measures. The analysis will include level of service calculations, an examination of traffic signal warrants and left-turn lane warrants and a discussion of site access. Detailed information on traffic signal warrants, left-turn lane warrants, level of service, traffic counts, trip generation calculations, and level of service calculations is included in the appendix to this report. -4- LOCATION DESCRIPTION Phase II of a Business Center development is proposed in Durham, Oregon. A 40,000 square-foot building is proposed for development on a 2.5-acre site, which is located on the east side of Upper Boones Ferry Road at Afton Lane. An area map showing the site location is on page seven, and a vicinity map showing the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study area intersections is shown on page eight. Access to the site is proposed through a driveway onto Upper Boones Ferry Road. The driveway would be located opposite the existing leg of Afton Lane. In addition to direct access to the site from Boones Ferry Road, the site plan shows a connection to an existing business park development to the north, Durham Business Center, Phase I, which also has access to Boones Ferry Road. Therefore, the site traffic would have the ability to access Boones Ferry Road through either the site driveway or the existing driveway to the north. For a worst-case impact at the site driveway, in this report it was assumed all of the site traffic would use the proposed driveway at Afton Lane. The City of Durham requires an analysis of the intersections of Upper Boones Ferry Road at Durham Road, Upper Boones Ferry Road at Afton Lane and Upper Boones Ferry Road at Findlay Road. Upper Boones Ferry Road is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Trans- portation (ODOT) and is classified as a District Highway in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. It is also classified by the City of Durham as a Minor Arterial. It is a two-lane facility in the vi- cinity of the site with curbs, gutters and sidewalks near recent developments and shoulders elsewhere. The posted speed is 35 mph. The jurisdiction of Durham Road has been transferred from ODOT to the City of Ti- gard. Durham Road, southeast of Upper Boones Ferry Road, is generally a two-lane facility widening to three lanes at major intersections. The travel lanes are divided by a raised center median. Northwest of Upper Boones Ferry Road, it is generally a three-lane facility with a center two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed is 35 mph. There are curbs, gutters and side- walks typically on both sides of the road. The intersection of Durham Road and Upper Boones Ferry Road is a standard four-legged intersection that is controlled by an eight-phase traffic signal. There are left-turn lanes and protected left-turn phasing on all approaches. The east- bound Durham Road approach and southbound Upper Boones Ferry Road approach have right- turn lanes. -5- Afton Lane is a two-lane residential street with a center median near the Upper Boones Ferry Road intersection. There is no posted speed, although the speed was assumed to be 25 mph. The intersection of Afton Lane and Upper Boones Ferry Road is a standard three-legged intersection that is controlled by a STOP sign on the Afton Lane approach. The proposed site access would add a fourth leg to the intersection. All approaches are single-lane. Findlay Road is a two-lane facility with no posted speed. There are office-type devel- opments near the intersection with Upper Boones Ferry Road with residential developments farther from the intersection. Development near Upper Boones Ferry Road is relatively recent and Findlay Road has curbs, gutters and sidewalks near the Upper Boones Ferry intersection. Elsewhere, there are shoulders. The road surface is paved near Upper Boones Ferry Road, but is gravel farther from the intersection. The intersection of Upper Boones Ferry Road and Findlay Road is a standard three-legged intersection with a STOP sign controlling the traffic on Findlay Road. All approaches are single-lane. The Bridgeport Village project to the south of the site will improve Findlay Road with curbs, gutters and sidewalks, although no access to the road is proposed at this time. While the City classifies Findlay Road as a Collector, the road would be improved to Local Street stan- dards to address neighborhood concerns. There is transit service within one-quarter of a mile from the site. The closest public transit is Tri-Met Route 76, Beaverton/Tualatin, which travels on Durham Road with stops at the Upper Boones Ferry Road intersection. Service is from about 6:00 AM to about 10:00 PM with bus headways at about thirty minutes. Tri-Met Routes 37, Lake Grove, Route 38, Boones Ferry Road, and Route 96, Tualatin/I-5, also serve the area near the site. Generally, the ser- vice runs from about 6:30 AM to about 8:00 PM with buses running about every 15 to 60 minutes during the peak hours and about every 30 to 60 minutes during off-peak hours. Only Route 76 offers Saturday or Sunday service. Manual turning movement counts were made at the study intersections during April 2004 from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The peak hours typically occurred from about 7:25 to 8:25 AM and from about 4:45 to 5:45 PM. The volumes for the morning and evening peak hours are shown in the traffic flow diagram on page nine. -6- Durham Road ey 0 o� JQQ 1, n Afton Lone j PROJECT SITE FindlazRood Rivendell Drive 66 R°oa dc lirtc'ek °\ AREA MAP D8P1.dwg -7- A oe''b °' �c� � \ c --_._____'".4' B Ed °oa 0 Fey e° o�`4.......)I. J.•e< C Legend Project Boundary Proposed Driveway ® Study Intersection ;H; Traffic Signal T STOP Sign 7 ' r 1 1 I I I I Afton 40ne 11 PROJECT o'_ _ SITE 1 I , I I I I L J Q Findla Road lN/ No Scale i VICINITY MAP liExisting Intersection Configurations & Traffic Control Devices DBP1.dwg -8- �ss y� s At � o IC s�s y 5 iSc, °O io o a too J, J. Fet <51' SIT <5i` �T obey 0 5-Q., <5-1, et 1-25 .1 f- 15 Tr> Try 00 Lou, AM PEAK PM PEAK r 1 I , Afton -one it PROJECT o'___ SITE L J Fnd/a Road 'AO No Scale TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Conditions AM & PM Peak Hours DBP1.dwg -9- TRIP GENERATION To estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed office develop- ment, trip rates from TRIP GENERATION, Seventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were used. The trip rates used were for land-use code 770, Business Park. The trip generation rates are based on the gross square footage and were calcu- lated for a 40,000 square-foot business park. The trip generation calculations indicate that there will be an estimated total of 62 trips generated by the office development during the morning peak hour. Of these, 55 will be en- tering and 7 will be exiting the site. During the evening peak hour, there are 60 trips expected, with 10 entering and 50 exiting the site. A total of 440 weekday trips is expected, with half entering and half exiting. Because an office development is typically an origin or destination for trips, no reduc- tion was taken for pass-by trips. Although there is transit service near the site, for a conserva- tive analysis, no reduction was made for transit use. A summary of the trip generation calculations for the office development is shown in the following table. Detailed trip generation calculations are included in the appendix to this report. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Durham Business Park Phase II Entering Exiting Total Trips Trips Trips Business Park (40,000 sq ft) AM Peak Hour 55 7 62 PM Peak Hour 10 50 60 Weekday 220 220 440 -10- TRIP DISTRIBUTION It was expected that the majority of the traffic to and from the site would be from out- side the Durham city limits. There are three major routes to the site, Durham Road to the north, Boones Ferry Road to the south, and Interstate 5 to the east, which has ramp inter- changes at Upper Boones Ferry Road and Bridgeport Road, north and south of the site. While it would typically have been assumed that the majority of the trips to and from the north would use the Upper Boones Ferry route to I-5, the Bridgeport Village project is making extensive improvements to Bridgeport Road and the Bridgeport Road/I-5 interchange, which would greatly increase the capacity of the road. Therefore, most of the trips were assigned to Bridge- port Road based on the assumption that drivers would prefer to drive a road with low delays and available capacity. The diagram on page 12 shows the distribution of the site trips from the office devel- opment during the morning and evening peak hours. The traffic flow diagram on page 13 shows the assignment of the site trips to the roadway network during the morning and evening peak hours. -11- Ooh 4o /oolo �tS 2 od 0 F e� ooze yet �� Pt I"� r 1 � I 1 , Afton 40ne c / PROJECT No OI'_ SITE � I I L J 7 Q , Fndla Road I "M� No Scale I SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION Inbound & Outbound Percentages AM & PM Peak Hours DBPl.dwg -12- o 0 0 o 0 0 0 L_� � � o 0 0 © 0 <5 15 00a (JON E–0 0 o to E–0 E-J 4,y sr 5 E-I 4,L sV'35 het 0-T I T r> 0-T ÷-11\r-> yes 0_ 00( 0- 00(0 coo 0 0 i, yet 'C0 „ to Loo no J,4 �° J,L ,c° Tr> TO too too AM PEAK PM PEAK r 1 I I Afton o/7e ' PROJECT , o'___ SITE I I L J A------ Fndla Road At irkir No Scale I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Site Trips AM & PM Peak Hours DBP 1.d wg -13- OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Background Traffic One specific development has been identified near the site that would contribute to the traffic volumes at the study area intersection. Data from the Bridgeport Village traffic study, prepared in May 2003 by Kittelson & Associates, was used as other development traffic vol- umes. Currently, there is no other development occurring within the Durham city limits. How- ever, there is development in Tualatin and Tigard which could contribute to the traffic volumes at the study area intersections. The Cities of Tualatin and Tigard were also contacted for other development informa- tion. There is no development in the City of Tualatin near the site other than the Bridgeport Village project and the closest development in the City of Tigard is Humbach Grove near 76th Avenue and Durham Road. A three percent per year growth rate was calculated from historical count data pub- lished each year by ODOT in the Transportation Volume Tables; however it appears the Bridgeport Village will account for much of the near-term growth in the area and therefore a two percent per year growth rate was used on Durham Road and Upper Boones Ferry Road. This growth accounts for developments that are not in the immediate vicinity of the site, but still may add through traffic on the streets near the site. Because of the small size of the devel- opment, it is expected that the development could be completed within one year and the growth rate was applied over a period of one year. The Bridgeport Village project may take access to Findlay Road and the traffic study for that project shows potential volumes on Upper Boones Ferry Road with and without the Findlay Road access. Because the Bridgeport access scenarios would affect the volumes at the study intersections for the Durham Business Park, both access scenarios were included in this report. The other development traffic volumes are shown on pages 16 and 17. The first page shows the traffic volumes without the Findlay Road connection to Bridgeport Village and the second page shows the volumes with the access to Bridgeport Village. The background traffic is composed of the existing traffic with the growth rate applied and the other development traffic added. Traffic flow diagrams showing the background traffic during the morning and evening peak hours are given on pages 18 and 19. The first drawing shows the traffic volumes without the Findlay Road connection to Bridgeport Village and the -14- L1J second drawing shows the volumes with the access to Bridgeport Village. Traffic flow dia- grams showing the background traffic with the site trips added is given on pages 20 and 21. Again, the first drawing shows the conditions without the Bridgeport Village access to Findlay Road and the second drawing shows the conditions with a Bridgeport Village access to Findlay Road. -15- 0 0 h Lis L° � ° ;5p0 1p ,)57,\ 9-phi 0 ,C;lI1IIPP ,C0 © o0 0 0^0 0--o F-0 0 J•y .L-° .1-y V' co 3:1; T o> D J i T 00 J' e . < ,0 o �ey °_ o C to © ._0 Tr> TO tOO 00 N AM PEAK PM PEAK r 1 I , Af ton 0,,,e ;' PROJECT o'___ SITE 1 , L J o Findla Road ,NI No Scale 111111411J TRAFFIC VOLUMES Other Developments (No Connection to Findlay Road) AM & PM Peak Hours DBPl.dwg -16- 0 ° ° s° mss° z� °G,6 sv, V\ o s`'\ov, I:\ o �,! os �y 5 o`'S lac, ��°0 6h o� tp t d 0 oIo <-0 (Dino F-0 ADO 0 J,4 \-p �J.4 ,F° e< 0 i\ <-1 1\0> 0-1' T0 es 0� °0,00 0-> o�o eio o 'L 15 65 o<r out J,L . - 10 it', .C30 Tr> 1'0 o, N AM PEAK PM PEAK r Afton 40,263 ,, PROJECT o'_ _ SITE L J (------ Q Fndla Road At No Scale I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Other Developments (With Connection to Findlay Road) I AM & PM Peak Hours DBP1.dwg -17- �1y660 �hh�h so Ni ,,,`-',-%o ss h N.Di9osVI ILN o o IC S 7:`-s 'Qo 5A0 s s o 0 a RA 0,,71 © 0 vCN coon 0 0 E-1• E . Fe< <5--T ElT <5AN <-1T e5 o� 5�, <5 e� 00 r°�,n 5 '25 �^ u) �y \F 5 X4 ,- 15 Tr-> Try 00 U)� h AM PEAK PM PEAK 7 r I I 1 r Afton ,I' PROJECT o'___ SITE , 1 , L Q Findla Road rA ,N, INo Scale I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background Conditions (No Findlay Road Connection) AM & PM Peak Hours DBP1.dwg -18- h 66p�� �hh o �� o vp �' s s oa 5 � 5 to o © a 0 �* boo Ej J• 0J, Fe< <5 1' 1 I' <5 i' F1'' oozes 5� <5i, e�• cNvo X20 °o X90 NI-co t�co �y .F 15 ,L s--45 Try Try (0 N (0� to to AM PEAK PM PEAK r , , Afton 40/76 ,ii PROJECT O ___ SITE , , L J A----- Q Fndla Road 1 * INo Scale I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background Conditions (With Connection to Findlay Road) AM & PM Peak Hours DBPl.dwg -19- 06o 0 1-/) fie. ss°o s h o el 5 `s'�° �� 5 'sa° °a '5(j1 ���j�/ ! ® ao ° t<5 ° o0 V�c°y E-0 °r:� E-05 EJ4,y .C5 f�� X35 Fed <5-T FI T f> <5-T 1/1\1->E e5 5-Q., in"3 <5 et © V.10 t-5 " t25 `t• roLn 4,y \F-5 ,L NV 15 Tf> TO Inc)a ) co In AM PEAK PM PEAK r 1 1 I I Afton 4o/2e ;' PROJECT o'___ SITE L J A------ o Fndla Road At INo Scale I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background + Site Trips (No Findlay Road Connection) AM Peak Hour DBP1.dwg -20- mss°'° e�6p�� ° oSi9y OG"6 ° ��5 V\s�° s�y� ���`s 'Q � � o 1qo 77 `5‘ No)5A s s °a �51p" "5,545,3/ 1 ® 0 in T-<s 15 od to <-0 °�4, F-0 �° f�4 \F 5 <41- NV 35 F e< <5-T 1/1\r> <5-T FI T r> 0—> tn�" 0—> to. e e 5 ° 5� L <5� c t No 't-,20 °o t90 v co coca 4,4 .F15 4,y -45 Tr> Tr> c9N 00 AM PEAK PM PEAK r 7 Afton 4v,,e ;' PROJECT o'_ _ SITE I , L J o Fnd/a Road INo Scale I TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background + Site Trips (With Connection to Findlay Road) l PM Peak Hour DBP1.dwg -21- Capacity Analysis To determine the level of service at the study area intersections, a capacity analysis was conducted. The level of service can range from A, which indicates very little or no delay, to level F, which indicates a high degree of congestion and delay. The City of Durham has no formally adopted level of service standards. Since Upper Boones Ferry Road is an ODOT fa- cility, the City uses ODOT standards for intersection operation. The study area intersections were analyzed using the signalized and unsignalized inter- section analysis methods in the HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL published in 2000 by the Transportation Research Board. The analysis was made for the morning and evening peak hours for existing, background and background plus site trips conditions. The intersections along Upper Boones Ferry Road are under ODOT jurisdiction. ODOT standards are based on a volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) instead of average vehicle delay and level of service. The v/c ratio compares the potential capacity of the intersection to the actual or projected traffic volumes to determine the available capacity. For a District Highway in the Metro area, the maximum acceptable v/c ratio is 0.99 during the first and second hours of the evening peak operating period. The results of the capacity analysis showed that the signalized intersection of Upper Boones Ferry Road and Durham Road is currently functioning at a v/c ratio of 0.82 during the morning peak hour and 0.94 during the evening peak hour. The v/c ratio degrades slightly to 0.85 during the morning peak hour and about 1.0 during the evening peak hour for background conditions. Development of the site does not change the v/c ratio during either peak hour. Typically, an increase in the traffic signal cycle length would be sufficient to improve the v/c ratio slightly. However, the cycle length for the Upper Boones Ferry Road/ Durham Road intersection was calculated using a 120-second cycle length and no further increase could be recommended. Several different timing and phasing scenarios were examined with the re- sults that the existing signal timing and phasing was the most efficient use. Adding right-turn overlap phases for the eastbound and southbound right-turning movements would improve the operation slightly, but not sufficiently to conform to acceptable ODOT standards. At this point, the only mitigation that could be made would be to add capacity to the intersection by installing additional lanes. It is recognized that there is insufficient right-of-way for widening either road, however there were no other mitigations identified that would improve the operation to ODOT's standards. The unsignalized intersection of Upper Boones Ferry Road and Afton Lane is currently a three-legged intersection, which is operating at a v/c ratio of 0.02 during the morning peak hour and 0.03 during the evening peak hour. These v/c ratios refer to the available capacity of -22- the eastbound traffic exiting Afton Lane. The v/c ratio remains the same for background condi- tions. With the site development, the intersection would be reconfigured as a four-legged inter- section with the fourth leg serving as the site access. As a four-legged intersection with the site traffic, the v/c ratio degrades to 0.04 during the morning peak hour and 0.77 during the eve- ning peak hour. The v/c ratio now refers to the capacity of the westbound traffic exiting the site. The v/c ratio is within ODOT's standards during both the morning and evening peak hours. This site is Phase II of the Durham Business Park project with Phase I located adjacent to the site to the north. There will be travel between the existing Phase I development and the proposed Phase II development, so traffic from this site could conceivably use the driveway to the north of the site. However, the driveways are located near each other and it is expected that both driveways would have similar operating conditions and no site trips were reassigned to the northern driveway. It may have been noted that the delays at the site access are forecast to be high. Typi- cally, it is the minor-street left turns that control the operation of an unsignalized intersection because left-turning vehicles generally have a higher delay than right-turning vehicles. Since it was assumed that most of the drivers from the site would use Bridgeport Road for access to the highway, the majority of the vehicles exiting the site during the evening peak hour are left- turning vehicles. However, drivers can continue north on Upper Boones Ferry to I-5. If the left-turning delay at the site access becomes excessive, drivers will likely make a right turn in- stead and gain access to I-5 from Upper Boones Ferry. This would reduce the average west- bound delay at the site access. Since the left turns have a significant delay at the site access, any right-turning vehicles that are behind a left-turning vehicle would also experience significant delays. Separating the left and right-turning vehicles at the site access would reduce the average delay for the right turns, although it would not reduce the delay for the left turns. Therefore, the site access could have either a separate left-turn lane or right-turn lane to reduce the delay for the right-turning vehicles. Since the existing leg of Afton Lane is a single-lane approach, for better alignment, a westbound right-turn lane is preferable. The unsignalized intersection of Upper Boones Ferry Road and Findlay Road is pres- ently operating at a v/c ratio of 0.04 during the morning peak hour and 0.15 during the eve- ning peak hour. These v/c ratios describe the capacity of the westbound traffic exiting Findlay Road. The v/c ratio degrades slightly for background conditions, but does not degrade further with site development. Whether the Bridgeport Village project has access to Findlay Road does not change the results of this report. The intersections that are operating over capacity would continue to op- -23- erate over capacity and the intersections that are operating under capacity would continue to operate under capacity. The results of the capacity analysis, along with the Levels of Service (LOS), delay and v/c ratios are shown in the following table. Tables showing the relationships between delay and level of service are included in the appendix to this report. -24- LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Durham Business Park (Phase II) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C UBF& Durham Road* Existing Conditions D 43 0.82 E 59 0.94 Background Conditions D 46 0.85 E 70 1.0 Background + Site Trips D 46 0.85 E 71 1.0 Background Conditions' D 45 0.84 E 72 1.0 Background + Site Trips' D 45 0.84 E 73 1.0 UBF& Afton Lane Existing Conditions B/C 15 0.02 D 28 0.03 Background Conditions C 15 0.02 D 31 0.03 Background + Site Trips C 25 0.04 F 131 0.77 Background Conditions' C 16 0.02 E 35 0.03 Background + Site Trips' D 26 0.04 F 189 0.91 UBF & Findlay Road Existing Conditions C 18 0.04 C 20 0.15 Background Conditions C 19 0.05 C 21 0.16 Background + Site Trips C 20 0.05 C 22 0.16 Background Conditions' C 23 0.17 E 39 0.58 Background + Site Trips' C 24 0.18 E 42 0.61 LOS = Level of Service Delay = Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds V/C = Volume-to-Capacity ratio UBF = Upper Boones Ferry Road * signalized intersection 1 with Bridgeport Village connection to Findlay Road -25- Traffic Signal Warrants Because there is a high delay expected at the site access and there were no geometric mitigations identified that would improve the delay, the traffic signal warrants were examined to determine if the site access onto Boones Ferry Road would require signalization. The war- rants used were the Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant and the Peak Hour Warrant, from the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, published in 2003. It was as- sumed the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was ten times the evening peak hour volumes and the eighth highest hour was 5.65 percent of the ADT. The warrants were examined for back- ground plus site trips conditions. One hundred percent of the standard warrants were used since the posted speed on Upper Boones Ferry Road is less than 45 mph. The traffic signal warrants were not met for a traffic signal at the site access. Left-Turn Lane Warrants The left-turn lane warrants were examined for a southbound left-turn lane on Upper Boones Ferry Road at the proposed site access. The warrants used were those developed from VOLUME WARRANTS FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES AT UNSIGNALIZED GRADE INTERSECTIONS, from the Highway Research Record No. 211, as adapted by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The warrants for two-lane roads take into account the travel speeds and traffic volumes as well as the left-turning volumes. The warrants were examined during the morning and evening peak hours for background plus site trips conditions. For a speed of 35 mph, the left-turn lane warrants were not met during the morning peak hour and only marginally met during the evening peak hour. However, there are about five left-turning vehicles during the evening peak hour. Because the left-turning volumes into the site are very low, a left-turn lane is not recommended at this time. The ultimate width of Upper Boones Ferry Road would be a three-lane section with a center turn lane, but it is unknown when this road widening would occur. According to City staff, it would not be a near-term project. When the road is widened, a center turn lane should be installed to accommodate left turns into the site and Afton Lane. Sight Distance Sight distance Was examined at the proposed location for the site access. In accordance with guidelines in A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, published in 2001 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials -26- • (AASHTO), sight distance was examined at point 15 feet from the edge of the travel lane from a driver's eye height of 3.5 feet to an oncoming driver's eye height of 3.5 feet. The posted speed on Upper Boones Ferry Road is 35 mph, requiring at least 390 feet of sight distance in either direction. Sight distance was measured at 695 feet to the north and 785 feet to the south. Sight distance is adequate in both directions at the site access. Conclusions and Recommendations The intersection of Durham Road and Upper Boones Ferry Road is operating within ODOT standards presently. However, with the development of Bridgeport Village, the inter- section will slightly exceed the v/c ratio standards. Development of the site does not apprecia- bly degrade the v/c ratio. Adding right-turn overlap phases for the eastbound and southbound right-turn lanes would slightly improve the operation of the intersection, although not suffi- ciently to meet ODOT standards. There were no other mitigations identified that would im- prove the operation of the intersection without adding lanes to either Durham Road or Upper Boones Ferry Road. The intersections of Afton Lane at Upper Boones Ferry Road and Findlay Road at Up- per Boones Ferry Road are currently operating within ODOT v/c ratio standards and will con- tinue to operate acceptably through site development. -27- u APPENDIX -28- LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service A to C are considered good, and rural roads are usually designed for level of service C. Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E is generally considered acceptable. Here is a more complete description of levels of service: Level of service A: Very low delay at intersections, with all traffic signal cycles clearing and no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. On highways, low volume and high speeds, with speeds not restricted by other vehicles. Level of service B: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; short traffic delays at intersections. Higher average intersection delay than for level of service A resulting from more vehicles stopping. Level of service C: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; higher delays at intersections than for level of service B due to a significant number of vehicles stopping. Not all signal cycles clear the waiting vehicles. This is the recommended design standard for rural highways. Level of service D: Tolerable operating speeds; long traffic delays occur at in- tersections. The influence of congestion is noticeable. At traffic signals many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. The number of signal cycle failures, for which vehicles must wait through more than one signal cycle, are noticeable. This is typically the design level for urban signalized intersections. Level of service E: Restricted speeds, very long traffic delays at traffic signals, and traffic volumes near capacity. Flow is unstable so that any interruption, no matter how minor, will cause queues to form and service to deteriorate to level of service F. Traffic signal cycle failures are frequent occurrences. For unsignalized intersections, level of service E or better is generally considered acceptable. Level of service F: Extreme delays, resulting in long queues which may interfere with other traffic movements. There may be stoppages of long duration, and speeds may drop to zero. There may be frequent signal cycle failures. Level of service F will typically result when vehicle arrival rates are greater than capacity. It is considered unacceptable by most drivers. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL CONTROL DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-20 C 20-35 D 35-55 E 55-80 F >80 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL CONTROL DELAY OF PER VEHICLE SERVICE (Seconds) A <10 B 10-15 C 15-25 D 25-35 E 35-50 F >50 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT File: DLPQJG T=5.8% P=0.9 Peak Hour LOCATION: 07:20-08:20 468 Ug l- 865 '' UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD AT DURHAM ROAC Total Entry Volume TIGARD, OR 253 156 59 2503 X639 492 'L27 X49 Date: 04/06/04 Day:TUE Time: 07:00-09:00 T=3.7% T=6.7% 493 --> 4-215 Report Prepared for: P=0.89 P=0.82 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 274 �7 Surveyed By: 1259 T (-4 562 _ TRAFFIC SMITHY,INC 171 346 10 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=%Trucks By Approach Portland,OR 97229 1 437 527 , Phone: 503-641-6333 Fax: 503-643-8866 P=PHF By Approach T=5.4% P=0.81 Report Reviewed by:JG EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND TIME PERIOD -1- -' -T 4 - 1 t ,F I T- ALL 07:00-07:05 16 31 44 25 12 3 13 21 0 1 15 2 183 07:05-07:10 18 35 53 15 17 0 11 25 0 2 11 1 188 07:10-07:15 21 31 49 21 19 1 10 21 0 0 16 1 190 07:15-07:20 12 37 60 25 5 0 7 19 0 0 13 1 179 07:20-07:25 13 47 55 21 14 1 12 25 1 0 16 2 207 07:25-07:30 15 44 30 29 10 7 6 25 1 1 26 2 196 07:30-07:35 20 47 37 17 10 5 17 31 1 0 13 2 200 07:35-07:40 13 35 43 13 11 4 15 26 1 0 17 3 181 07:40-07:45 30 40 43 25 11 1 20 39 1 2 5 4 221 07:45-07:50 24 44 35 22 17 3 18 30 1 0 17 3 214 07:50-07:55 29 47 36 18 24 9 15 37 1 0 17 3 236 07:55-08:00 38 41 53 17 13 6 17 29 0 0 16 0 230 08:00-08:05 26 32 44 21 7 6 15 40 2 2 25 2 222 08:05-08:10 26 44 48 24 12 9 11 20 0 0 27 2 223 08:10-08:15 18 36 34 25 14 6 17 22 0 0 17 1 190 08:15-08:20 22 36 34 21 13 2 8 22 1 2 19 3 183 08:20-08:25 22 38 48 23 13 1 21 22 0 1 15 1 205 08:25-08:30 21 20 24 20 15 4 15 20 0 0 24 0 163 08:30-08:35 16 28 39 13 21 7 12 24 0 1 18 0 179 08:35-08:40 12 36 31 11 14 0 11 19 0 0 15 0 149 08:40-08:45 27 24 38 25 10 4 12 10 0 0 9 1 160 08:45-08:50 19 41 28 17 9 0 14 28 0 0 23 0 179 08:50-08:55 25 24 39 33 15 2 18 18 0 0 8 2 184 08:55-09:00 19 32 40 12 8 3 9 12 0 1 17 2 155 TOTALS 502 870 985 493 314 84 324 585 10 13 399 38 4617 PHF 0.74 0.89 0.85 0.9 0.72 0.7 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.88 0.78 0.68 0.91 %Trucks 5.2 3.1 3.5 5.9 6.7 2.4 4.9 5.8 0 15.4 6 10.5 4.7 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 1 0 1 4 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT He: DLPRJG T=1.5% P=0.9 Peak Hour LOCATION: 16:45-17:45 1 892 688 t UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD AT DURHAM ROAC Total Entry Volume TIGARD OR 539 329 24 2861 -1191 4 1 X424 343 _i' L24 Date: 04/06/04 Day:TUE T=2.9% T=2.3% Time: 16:00 - 18:00 255 --> < 383 Report Prepared for P=0.94 P=0.88 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 353 -17 Surveyed By: 951 El T E> TRAFFIC SMITHY,INC 269 321 4 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=%Trucks By Approach Portland,OR 97229 699 594 m Phone: 503-641-6333 Fax: 503-643-8866 y I P=PHF By Approach T=3.5% P=0.82 Report Reviewed by:JG EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND TIME PERIOD , " - 4 \I, I-) T I-4 ,F, ( t_ ALL 16:00-16:05 21 22 30 58 27 3 13 24 2 1 29 1 231 16:05-16:10 30 30 28 41 14 3 20 14 1 2 29 3 215 16:10-16:15 27 18 26 37 30 1 21 22 1 1 21 3 208 16:15-16:20 24 21 22 31 24 2 28 23 1 0 41 2 219 16:20-16:25 32 23 25 48 27 0 21 18 2 0 22 1 219 16:25-16:30 20 19 21 46 24 2 25 22 2 1 26 2 210 16:30-16:35 29 18 26 45 30 3 21 33 0 0 33 0 238 16:35-16:40 28 18 21 34 24 2 20 17 0 2 45 0 211 16:40-16:45 31 24 30 34 24 1 32 25 1 1 24 0 227 16:45-16:50 32 33 29 39 27 3 21 22 0 0 27 2 235 16:50-16:55 36 9 22 49 34 1 26 22 0 4 26 3 232 16:55-17:00 24 24 28 33 15 0 20 20 0 0 40 0 204 17:00-17:05 24 25 30 60 36 3 25 32 1 0 29 5 270 17:05-17:10 33 26 38 47 30 1 21 28 0 1 41 5 271 17:10-17:15 25 15 21 46 25 1 34 36 0 1 33 2 239 17:15-17:20 40 20 33 45 27 3 19 29 0 3 34 1 254 17:20-17:25 25 22 15 33 28 2 25 38 0 3 39 1 231 17:25-17:30 34 13 27 46 39 2 5 24 1 1 23 2 217 17:30-17:35 26 15 19 48 20 3 30 39 2 0 29 0 231 17:35-17:40 27 24 36 50 27 2 21 11 0 3 23 1 225 17:40-17:45 27 29 45 43 21 3 22 20 0 1 39 2 252 17:45-17:50 18 15 34 48 25 1 18 20 1 1 30 0 211 17:50-17:55 28 19 19 32 16 0 23 23 0 0 38 2 200 17:55-18:00 19 25 21 28 15 1 38 21 0 0 30 1 199 TOTALS 660 507 646 1021 609 43 549 583 15 26 751 39 5449 PHF 0.89 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.84 0.78 0.33 0.61 0.87 0.5 0.92 %Trucks 1.8 3.6 3.6 1.6 1.1 4.7 3.8 2.9 13.3 0 2.3 5.1 2.5 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 4 3 6 2 r INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT File: DLPUG T=7.3% P=0.83 Peak Hour LOCATION: 07:25-08:25 ,I, 406 573 t UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD AT AFTON LANE Total Entry Volume TIGARD, OR 2 404 0 988 E--5 (--I / 14 <-0 2 2 to Date: 03/31/04 Day:WED T=5.3% T=0% Time: 07:00 - 09:00 0 ---> <-0 Report Prepared for: P=0.5 P=0 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 6 -1, ..r° Surveyed By: 8 t--i 'f (� 0 _ TRAFFIC SMITHY,INC 3 571 0 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=%Trucks By Approach Portland,OR 97229 41.0 574 i Phone: 503-641-6333 Fax: 503-643-8866 y P=PHF By Approach T=6.4% P=0.91 Report Reviewed by:JG EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND TIME PERIOD -1. ----) -T 1 1 l it 1-4 ‹--- t ALL 07:00-07:05 1 1 0 28 0 0 35 0 0 0 65 07:05-07:10 0 1 0 30 0 0 46 0 0 0 77 07:10-07:15 0 1 0 22 0 0 30 0 0 0 53 07:15-07:20 0 1 0 28 0 0 49 0 0 0 78 07:20-07:25 0 1 0 27 0 0 35 0 0 0 63 07:25-07:30 1 0 1 31 0 0 41 0 0 0 74 07:30-07:35 0 0 23 0 0 51 0 0 0 74 07:35-07:40 3 0 31 0 0 53 0 0 0 87 07:40-07:45 0 0 42 0 0 54 0 0 0 96 07:45-07:50 1 0 42 0 0 49 0 0 0 92 07:50-07:55 0 1 38 0 0 45 0 0 0 84 07:55-08:00 0 0 39 0 0 56 0 0 0 95 08:00-08:05 0 0 28 0 1 48 0 0 0 77 08:05-08:10 0 0 29 0 0 46 0 0 0 75 08:10-08:15 1 0 30 0 1 45 0 0 0 78 08:15-08:20 0 0 31 0 0 35 0 0 0 66 08:20-08:25 0 1 40 0 1 48 0 0 0 90 08:25-08:30 0 0 26 0 0 44 0 0 0 72 08:30-08:35 0 2 27 0 0 29 0 0 0 58 08:35-08:40 2 0 37 0 0 36 0 0 0 75 08:40-08:45 0 1 27 0 1 38 0 0 0 67 08:45-08:50 0 0 34 0 0 30 0 0 0 64 08:50-08:55 0 0 36 0 0 24 0 0 0 60 08:55-09:00 0 0 41 0 0 31 0 0 0 72 TOTALS 9 0 10 4 767 0 4 998 0 0 0 0 1792 PI-IF 0.38 0 0.5 0.5 0.83 0 0.38 0.9 0 0 0 0 0.9 %Trucks 0 0 10 0 7.3 0 25 6.3 0 0 0 0 6.8 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 0 1 0 0 1 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT File: DLPMJG T=2.7% P=0.78 Peak Hour LOCATION; 16:35-17:35 ,I, 692 554 T UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD AT AFTON LANE Total Entry Volume TIGARD OR 10 682 0 1254 <-16 1 F-0 2 t0 Date: 03/31/04 Day:WED T=0% T=0% Time: 16:00 - 18:00 0 --> <--0 Report Prepared for: P=0.5 P=0 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 2 --1. .° Surveyed By: 4 El 1 r> TRAFFIC SMITHY,INC 6 552 0 - 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=%Trucks By Approach Portland,OR 97229 1 684 558 , Phone: 503-641-6333 Fax: 503-643-8866 P=PHF By Approach T=3.4% P=0.75 Report Reviewed by:JG EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND TIME PERIOD —1, (1 El T ,C t_ ALL 16:00-16:05 1 1 0 37 2 35 0 0 77 16:05-16:10 0 0 1 52 1 35 0 0 89 16:10-16:15 0 0 1 37 0 49 0 0 87 16:15-16:20 1 1 0 55 0 51 0 0 108 16:20-16:25 0 0 0 50 0 51 0 0 101 16:25-16:30 0 0 0 47 0 52 0 0 99 16:30-16:35 0 0 1 39 0 41 0 0 81 16:35-16:40 0 0 0 48 0 44 0 0 92 16:40-16:45 0 0 1 57 0 35 0 0 93 16:45-16:50 0 0 0 43 1 44 0 0 88 16:50-16:55 0 0 1 54 0 37 0 0 92 16:55-17:00 0 1 1 44 1 43 0 0 90 17:00-17:05 0 0 0 60 0 45 0 0 105 17:05-17:10 0 0 1 74 1 72 0 0 148 17:10-17:15 1 0 1 78 0 59 0 0 139 17:15-17:20 0 0 0 69 0 55 0 0 124 17:20-17:25 0 1 1 50 2 43 0 0 97 17:25-17:30 1 0 3 50 1 34 0 0 89 17:30-17:35 0 0 1 55 0 41 0 0 97 17:35-17:40 0 0 0 40 0 42 0 0 82 17:40-17:45 0 0 1 46 1 37 0 0 85 17:45-17:50 0 0 2 57 0 44 0 0 103 17:50-17:55 0 0 0 42 1 34 0 0 77 17:55-18:00 1 2 1 30 1 50 0 0 85 TOTALS 5 1 6 17 1214 0 12 1073 0 0 0 0 2328 PHF 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.77 0 0.5 0.74 0 0 0 0 0.76 Trucks 0 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 3 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 0 5 0 0 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT File: DLPNJG T=6.6% P=0.86 Peak Hour LOCATION: 07:30-08:30 1 425 558 1 UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD AT FINDLAY ROAD Total Entry Volume TIGARD OR 0 412 13 998 <--70 W X10 0 –T L6 Date: 04/01/04 Day:THU T=0% T=0% lime: 07:00 - 09:00 0 —> < -0 Report Prepared for: P=0 P=0.42 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 0 -1 I-4 Surveyed By: 0 > (-1 T r> 24 _ TRAFFIC SMITHY,INC 0 552 11 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=%Trucks By Approach Portland,OR 97229 1 416 563 T Phone: 503-641-6333 Fax: 503-643-8866 P= PHF By Approach T=5.1% P=0.82 Report Reviewed by:JG EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND TIME PERIOD -1, - -T 1 T r> I- - t_ ALL 07:00-07:05 0 0 0 30 0 0 23 0 0 1 54 07:05-07:10 0 0 0 33 0 0 26 0 0 0 59 07:10-07:15 0 0 0 32 1 0 39 1 0 0 73 07:15-07:20 0 0 0 18 2 0 33 0 0 1 54 07:20-07:25 0 0 0 31 1 0 35 0 0 0 67 07:25-07:30 0 0 0 35 0 0 33 0 0 0 68 07:30-07:35 0 0 0 38 0 0 45 1 0 0 84 07:35-07:40 0 0 0 33 2 0 44 0 0 0 79 07:40-07:45 0 0 0 30 1 0 55 1 1 0 88 07:45-07:50 0 0 0 44 2 0 52 1 0 1 100 07:50-07:55 0 0 0 39 1 0 62 0 1 0 103 07:55-08:00 0 0 0 35 3 0 55 2 2 2 99 08:00-08:05 0 0 0 30 1 0 38 1 0 0 70 08:05-08:10 0 0 0 28 1 0 45 0 0 0 74 08:10-08:15 0 0 0 33 0 0 44 1 0 0 78 08:15-08:20 0 0 0 34 1 0 35 2 0 2 74 08:20-08:25 0 0 0 33 1 0 44 1 0 0 79 08:25-08:30 0 0 0 35 0 0 33 1 0 1 70 08:30-08:35 0 0 0 30 0 0 36 1 0 0 67 08:35-08:40 0 0 0 30 0 0 32 2 0 0 64 08:40-08:45 0 0 0 26 1 0 50 0 0 1 78 08:45-08:50 0 0 0 36 2 0 24 0 0 1 63 08:50-08:55 0 0 0 27 1 0 31 0 0 0 59 08:55-09:00 0 0 0 23 2 0 28 2 0 0 55 – TOTALS 0 0 0 0 763 23 0 942 17 4 0 10 1759 PHF 0 0 0 0 0.87 0.54 0 0.82 0.69 0.33 0 0.5 0.83 Trucks 0 0 0 0 6.7 4.3 0 5.2 0 0 0 0 5.7 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians 0 0 1 0 1 INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT SUMMARY REPORT File: DLPO]G T=3% P=0.95 Peak Hour LOCATION: 16:50-17:50 1 757 580 ¶ UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD AT FINDLAY ROAD Total Entry Volume TIGARD, OR 0 754 3 1357 <-1) <--41 0 _I' L27 Date: 04/01/04 Day:THU T=0% T=3.3% Time: 16:00 - 18:00 0 E-0 Report Prepared for: P=0 P=0.54 LANCASTER ENGINEERING 0 -1, X14 Surveyed By: 0 El T r 9 TRAFFIC SMITHY,INC 0 553 6 1225 NW Murray Blvd Suite 111 T=%Trucks By Approach Portland,OR 97229 1 768 559 m Phone: 503-641-6333 Fax: 503-643-8866 I P=PHF By Approach T=4.1% P=0.96 Report Reviewed by:JG EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND WESTBOUND TIME PERIOD —A, —4 - 4 \l, �l T sr E-- t ALL 16:00-16:05 65 0 43 2 1 0 111 16:05-16:10 46 0 54 2 1 1 104 16:10-16:15 43 1 45 0 1 1 91 16:15-16:20 48 1 41 1 0 2 93 16:20-16:25 43 1 40 0 2 1 87 16:25-16:30 53 0 40 0 0 2 95 16:30-16:35 46 0 37 1 1 0 85 16:35-16:40 56 1 44 0 1 0 102 16:40-16:45 60 0 44 0 0 1 105 16:45-16:50 64 0 51 0 1 0 116 16:50-16:55 65 1 48 1 0 2 117 16:55-17:00 47 0 42 0 1 0 90 17:00-17:05 67 0 50 1 1 1 120 17:05-17:10 65 0 48 0 2 5 120 17:10-17:15 64 0 47 0 1 3 115 17:15-17:20 62 0 47 0 0 0 109 17:20-17:25 71 0 47 1 0 1 120 17:25-17:30 48 0 49 0 0 1 98 17:30-17:35 68 0 49 0 1 3 121 17:35-17:40 64 1 42 3 4 5 119 17:40-17:45 61 0 46 0 2 2 111 17:45-17:50 72 1 38 0 2 4 117 17:50-17:55 64 0 40 1 1 2 108 17:55-18:00 46 0 24 1 0 1 72 TOTALS 0 0 0 0 1388 7 0 1056 14 23 0 38 2526 PHF 0 0 0 0 0.96 0.38 0 0.95 0.5 0.44 0 0.61 0.96 %Trucks 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4.2 0 0 0 5.3 3.5 Stopped Buses 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use: General Office Building Land Use Code: 710 Variable: 1000 Sq Ft Gross Floor Area Variable Value: 40.0 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Trip Rate: 1.55 Trip Rate: 1.49 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 88% 12% Directional 17% 83% Distribution Distribution Trip Ends P .......�X............�i�.... Trip Ends WEEKDAY SUNDAY Trip Rate: 11.01 Trip Rate: 0.98 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Directional 50% 50% Directional 50% 50% Distribution Distribution Ti Ends s Trip ,...�Q..:,.,.:.��Q.,.,,.,.,.4�W..... Trip Ends Source:TRIP GENERATION,Seventh Edition /BRIDGEPORT VILLAGE MAY 2003 te___0. Bo i ‘\.. T (NO SCALE)II ° Nli I (CI ° /i I °92°5 0 it (r,i.., LAY (0,we iaN) 5 o (ra?e O,� r,�JcAy' << 0 N I03/30 SPLI;-t /) t r ° E 0 05i . I 19 a ` 0) SW FINDLAY RD 7L > Ir t..'mot�9 , 2 I 11 I X11( ''''>'''t'-', L .- I �O�o NES t 0)6 '°' s ,a: - _,q FERNY BD Go Lu 4--- --! -K, 7 * c's S W "n ) „, I BRIDGEPORT 92 RD I PO I �P ��P I �O �' //9 L § tr) u a te v,w j ¢ LI 40 li ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN FIGURE`: TUALATIN, OR a ui KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES,INC. L\ TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING A1-1 lLI Our L 0 D SkroPPii,4 465 295 .(o'C' ofe-‘ r 1S 2 02.-0 PASS-8,V ( � ) (2 ) fit. 0) /m7e7citi.A North City limits South City limits year volumes growth volumes growth 2002 13100 24200 2001 12600 4.0 23700 2.1 2000 12000 22900 3.5 1999 12500 20300 1998 12200 2.5 19400 4.6 1997 12000 1.7 19100 average growth 2.7 3.4 INPUT WORKSHEET General Information !Site"Info"rmation Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type Al!other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year EXISTING(2004) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II Intersec rontia'eti^ - �, r,- : - 1 1 Grade= 0 1 AI t a -r -,____t r_,.. .:____,__., Mr I 1 I 1 +-'- - -- Grade= 0 rni l y Shun North Arran' t . 1 4- . i--{-- 1 , -I--� _ l-14+-I = T i _ 1I rf 1 r-t -i- ��- - ! I t 0 R -;----t- -----i- r- .Grade= 0 ! 1 !4±.it I = LT f r- ! � 1 . r • = LR h_ --�-F -------1--I • Grade= 0 r A V' = LTR r r o Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume, V(vph) 490 495 275 5 215 25 170 345 10 60 155 255 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 2 3 0 5 12 4 6 0 2 8 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, It (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 125 Lane width, W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm (man/h) Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru&RT WB Only 04 Excl.Left NB Only Thru &RT 08 G = 45.0 G = 13.0 G = 4.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G = 20.0 G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C (s)= 120.0 //CS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information . s <:. Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II Capac it'' alt's s -. r i >rr ?-- ' ; .• EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 533 538 190 5 261 185 386 65 168 141 Satflow rate 1752 1863 1568 1805 1754 1736 1788 1770 1759 1538 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.38 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.26 0.05 0.17 0.17 Lane group cap. 657 963 810 60 307 260 469 89 293 256 v/c ratio 0.81 0.56 0.23 0.08 0.85 0.71 0.82 0.73 0.57 0.55 Flow ratio 0.30 0.29 0.12 0.00 0.15 0.11 0.22 0.04 0.10 0.09 Crit. lane group N N Y Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.71 Lost time/cycle 16.50 Critical v/c ratio 0.82 Lane 61=6'615'n-ii- C-iisi:Control.1Delay,:and L S.efeem ati nn .'_ f ;,r EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj.flow rate 533 538 190 5 261 185 386 65 168 141 Lane group cap. 657 963 810 60 307 260 469 89 293 256 v/c ratio 0.81 0.56 0.23 0.08 0.85 0.71 0.82 0.73 0.57 0.55 Green ratio 0.38 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.26 0.05 0.17 0.17 Unif. delay dl 33.7 19.7 15.9 56.2 48.0 48.5 41.6 56.2 46.1 45.9 Delay factor k 0.35 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.38 0.27 0.36 0.29 0.17 0.15 Increm.delay d2 7.6 0.7 0.1 0.6 19.7 8.8 11.3 26.1 2.7 2.5 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 41.3 20.4 16.1 56.8 67.7 57.3 52.9 82.3 48.8 48.4 Lane group LOS D C B E E E D F D D Apprch. delay 28.6 67.5 54.4 54.5 Approach LOS C E D D Intersec. delay 42.7 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d INPUT WORKSHEET General Information Site infof' tion .; , , - ;c,:' Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year EXISTING(2004) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II Intgsection4eomet .:. ,. _r. . .. . Grade= 0 1 1 1 illik -� 1 I Mir ---- 1- I Grade= 0 Shcw North Arrow 1 .. , _:H -±-{+4-1--1_-I- o _ -- _i_ -r-r--1-J- R-J,--1: t I �� 1 1 _ _t-a- i_-}fit - � = T R Grade= 0 = L T iiIII!uii � ' = LR 0.1 Grade= 0 ,r ' = L T R 1 1 0 Volume and Timing Input irk ` . 47i ';;•°„ C r -; a u ;> + i'-4S ,y. t " .. EB WB NB SB LT _ TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume,V(vph) 345 255 355 15 385 25 270 320 5 25 330 540 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 4 1 0 2 4 2 2 25 0 1 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A _ A A A A A A A A A _ A A Start-up lost time, 11 (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ 3 3 Unit extension, UE(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 300 Lane width, W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm (man/h) Bus stopping, Nb(buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru & RT WB Only 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 G = 27.0 G = 13.0 G= 14.0 G = G= 5.0 G= 12.0 G= 25.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y = 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C (s)= 120.0 HCS 600rvt Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET ..e. : 1I 4U4!4el}131 o11Y',_ 0E0i ,. ,`,trak t s7,a..•`�. _ „a......... ....... :. 9ai.. a::d ,l'.j _a z .a-.'` _f,i .c. a_ v Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II CapacityA ,.`" 41 ° x r YI , 1.. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 375 277 277 16 445 293 353 27 359 261 Satflow rate 1752 1827 1599 1805 1828 1770 1853 1805 1881 1599 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.26 0.17 0.34 0.04 0.21 0.21 Lane group cap. 394 670 586 211 472 310 625 75 392 333 v/c ratio 0.95 0.41 0.47 0.08 0.94 0.95 0.56 0.36 0.92 0.78 Flow ratio 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.01 0.24 0.17 0.19 0.01 0.19 0.16 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.81 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.94 EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 375 277 277 16 445 293 353 27 359 261 Lane group cap. 394 670 586 211 472 310 625 75 392 333 v/c ratio 0.95 0.41 0.47 0.08 0.94 0.95 0.56 0.36 0.92 0.78 Green ratio 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.26 0.17 0.34 0.04 0.21 0.21 Unif. delay dl 45.9 28.4 29.1 47.2 43.6 48.9 32.5 55.9 46.5 44.9 Delay factor k 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.11 0.43 0.33 Increm. delay d2 33.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 27.6 36.8 1.2 2.9 25.8 11.6 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 78.9 28.8 29.7 47.4 71.2 85.7 33.7 58.9 72.3 56.5 Lane group LOS E C C D E F C E E E Apprch. delay 49.3 70.4 57.3 65.4 Approach LOS D E E E Intersec.delay 58.7 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id INPUT WORKSHEET General`•i`nformation , ; -,.r :_ ;;'Site-Infor`mation ' - a ;,-. . ,_ 1 `:, Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) Intersection`Geometijr . • . Grade= 0 1 1 1 I-' ME Alik i j 1--+---1 - Y - gill'i -I , -i '' J. Grade= 0 -4--_ _ Shesr North Arrow 1 -T , 1 ! i 1 1i- o r 1 i s t i r . R 1 �_�_ .-r i _ 1 'I -r- ' i r- 1 =i 1 j _ r Grade= 0 i-_1 j__L_1_.1 t__r - _ - LT'Tyr l = L T! +- H-- _ Grade= 0 ,� Y' = LTR 1 1 0 Volume and Timing Input 4; ::: EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume, V(vph) 500 555 290 5 240 30 180 355 10 60 160 260 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 2 3 0 5 12 4 6 0 2 8 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed(P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 125 Lane width, W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm (man/h) Bus stopping, Nb(buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru& RT WB Only 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G = 44.0 G = 13.0 G = 6.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G= 19.0 G = Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y = Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C (s) = 120.0 /ICS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.I d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General lnforma i r.i°: }a i: ¢� , V - , r �, tux _ e�..ie . �_a:"I�.F*k9C..lr�`.'.� 4^ ?'...' Gr. � %'Y:i+.� 1 h}�. � -2=�, Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 603 207 5 294 196 397 65 174 147 Satflow rate 1752 1863 1568 1805 1751 1736 1788 1770 1759 1538 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 336 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.64 0.26 0.06 0.88 0.75 0.87 0.73 0.62 0.60 Flow ratio 0.31 0.32 0.13 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.22 0.04 0.10 0.10 Crit. lane group N N Y Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.74 Lost time/cycle 16.50 Critical v/c ratio 0.85 Lane'"Group Capacity, Ji Y A eterm o w rte ' EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 603 207 5 294 196 397 65 174 147 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 336 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.64 0.26 0.06 0.88 0.75 0.87 0.73 0.62 0.60 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Unif. delay dl 34.9 21.4 16.7 54.3 47.1 48.9 42.9 56.2 47.2 47.0 Delay factor k 0.38 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.31 0.40 0.29 0.21 0.19 Increm. delay d2 10.2 1.4 0.2 0.3 21.8 11.8 17.1 26.1 4.3 4.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 45.1 22.9 16.9 54.6 68.9 60.7 60.0 82.3 51.5 51.1 Lane group LOS D C B D E E E F D D Apprch. delay 30.9 68.6 60.2 56.5 Approach LOS C E E E Intersec.delay 45.5 Intersection LOS D NCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d INPUT WORKSHEET General Information ° Sife'Information Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) Intersection Geometry -T * _..)- Ali + : 4-f i---, ' IF -4---1--t- f � -` y-l--t 4 Grade= 0 -1---4--4---,----s-.-F_}._ Shan North Arrow -i. I L _ = T 1 -s.- f--- a, t , 0 t r = R Z r *-r j t . t ' - I t i ; i l_1_ n r , = T '1 rie Grade= 0 l .1,- f l i - T -. 4 �; 1 - .4.-t- `i i_ it = L R I- I l �._ j Grade= 0 A r r 0 Volume and Timing:Input r.. °: ,ra . . ,` % :"z r ' -`-,s`'-`°` r _ :,„ ES WB NB SB _ LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume, V(vph) 350 320 375 15 460 25 295 325 5 25 335 550 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 4 1 0 2 4 2 2 25 0 1 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated(A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, II (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green,e(s) 2.0 2.0 , 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 300 Lane width, W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm(man/h) Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru & RT WB Only 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru& RT 08 G = 26.0 G = 14.0 G = 15.0 G = G = 5.0 G = 12.0 G = 24.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)=0.25 Cycle Length, C (s)= 120.0 HCS2o00rm Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Geil, r?i'i a _ alit.-- s ' "'' a ,� r Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE 11(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) p a°''' C ,ate; .,.• EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 380 348 299 16 527 321 358 27 364 272 Satflow rate 1752 1827 1599 1805 1831 1770 1853 1805 1881 1599 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.04 0.20 0.20 Lane group cap. 380 670 586 226 504 310 610 75 376 320 v/c ratio 1.00 0.52 0.51 0.07 1.05 1.04 0.59 0.36 0.97 0.85 Flow ratio 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.29 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.19 0.17 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.88 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.01 Lane Group Capacity, Control;Delay,.and LOS`Delerminati• A u EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 380 348 299 16 527 321 358 27 364 272 Lane group cap. 380 670 586 226 504 310 610 75 376 320 v/c ratio 1.00 0.52 0.51 0.07 1.05 1.04 0.59 0.36 0.97 0.85 Green ratio 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.04 0.20 0.20 Unif. delay dl 47.0 29.7 29.6 46.3 43.5 49.5 33.5 55.9 47.6 46.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.11 0.48 0.38 Increm.delay d2 46.2 0.7 0.8 0.1 52.5 60.6 1.5 2.9 37.9 19.0 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 93.2 30.5 30.4 46.5 96.0 110.1 34.9 58.9 85.5 65.3 Lane group LOS F C C D F F C E F E Apprch. delay 53.6 94.6 70.5 76.1 Approach LOS D F E E Intersec.delay 70.3 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d INPUT WORKSHEET General Information -, :,.,,_. Site Information, Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) -gin w�cu•::_ ri�,x- �- .? �.n ! � , o ; s A y� � ? - _ lnterseaig. aiei try=� V: ,3- tityi 5I " -_,: ix ., y5 k Grade= 0 _ I ; ■ '. -' Grade= ° ��N���w _.�.-_t = T .4____. . f , ,fit ° = R i 1- `_t_4!-1_ I ' - r LrJI - - TR Grade= 0 .., �. '. = L T it A! _1 EMI. 211i _f _ = L R II I Grade= 0 Nf A Y' = L T R t 1 0 Volume and Timing Input. etk- s- 31 r4-7M'' ..442$ �::;''},- :.: 3 .._„ - EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume,V(vph) 500 555 295 5 240 30 180 , 355 10 60 170 260 heavy vehicles, % HV 3 2 3 0 5 12 4 6 0 2 8 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 _ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e (s) 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 125 Lane width,W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm(man/h) Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru & RT WB Only 04 Excl.Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 G = 44,0 G= 13.0 G= 6.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G = 19.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y = Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 ,Cycle Length, C(s)= 120.0 HCS200oTM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.I d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information 1''� k , Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) p h/y Y k Ca aci al sis h' � .���5r EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj.flow rate 543 603 212 5 294 196 397 65 185 147 Satflow rate 1752 1863 1568 1805 1751 1736 1788 1770 1759 1538 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 336 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.64 0.27 0.06 0.88 0.75 0.87 0.73 0.66 0.60 Flow ratio 0.31 0.32 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.22 0.04 0.11 0.10 Crit. lane group N N Y Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.74 Lost time/cycle 16.50 Critical v/c ratio 0.85 Lane Group Capac ty,rControlitsVI4, andypQS Deter iiii tin , _ ;s EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 603 212 5 294 196 397 65 185 147 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 336 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.64 0.27 0.06 0.88 0.75 0.87 0.73 0.66 0.60 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Unif. delay dl 34.9 21.4 16.8 54.3 47.1 48.9 42.9 56.2 47.5 47.0 Delay factor k 0.38 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.31 0.40 0.29 0.24 0.19 Increm. delay d2 10.2 1.4 0.2 0.3 21.8 11.8 17.1 26.1 5.8 4.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 45.1 22.9 17.0 54.6 68.9 60.7 60.0 82.3 53.3 51.1 Lane group LOS D C B D E E E F D D Apprch. delay 30.8 68.6 60.2 57.2 Approach LOS C E E E Intersec. delay 45.6 Intersection LOS D HCS2000Tm Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d INPUT WORKSHEET General Information - 4S10nIormation Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE If(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) Intersection'Geometry - -. \ . Grade= 0 1 1 1 Ali .4_ + i_' H--1---i-- . '-4- I Mir 4 i - t-i--Y. Grade= 0 5dx7f!North Arrow l I = 1- _ -!-4-.l 4- ; -I I- I 1- _±-i- li 1 --- -� ___=, I = L -t--; 0-i--±T __ T- Grade= 0 -Lj-- 1 - ' a_. I - L T ay,. tI ] "ri' -L = L R rr rt� i Grade= 0 .c = L T R 1 1 0 Volume'and Tirning"Input :- ' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT ' TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume,V (vph) 350 320 375 15 460 25 300 335 5 25 340 550 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 4 1 0 2 4 2 2 25 0 1 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A _ A A Start-up lost time, li (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 300 Lane width, W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm(man/h) Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru & RT WB Only 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 G = 26.0 G = 14.0 G = 15.0 0 = G = 5.0 G = 12.0 G= 24.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration,T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C(s)= 120.0 HCS2000TM Copyright 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information` F ' Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) Gal iS ar , 7 . S r_ f* K Ss k . q t . . ' c�. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj.flow rate 380 348 299 16 527 326 369 27 370 272 Satflow rate 1752 1827 1599 1805 1831 1770 1853 1805 1881 1599 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.04 0.20 0.20 Lane group cap. 380 670 586 226 504 310 610 75 376 320 v/c ratio 1.00 0.52 0.51 0.07 1.05 1.05 0.60 0.36 0.98 0.85 Flow ratio 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.29 0.18 0.20 0.01 0.20 0.17 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0,89 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 1,02 EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 380 348 299 16 527 326 369 27 370 272 Lane group cap. 380 670 586 226 504 310 610 75 376 320 v/c ratio 1.00 0.52 0.51 0.07 1.05 1.05 0.60 0.36 0.98 0.85 Green ratio 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.04 0.20 0.20 Unif. delay dl 47.0 29.7 29.6 46.3 43.5 49.5 33.7 55.9 47.8 46.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.11 0.49 0.38 Increm.delay d2 46.2 0.7 0.8 0.1 52.5 65.3 1.7 2.9 42.0 19.0 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 93.2 30.5 30.4 46.5 96.0 114.8 35.4 58.9 89.8 65.3 Lane group LOS F C C D F F D E F E Apprch. delay 53.6 94.6 72.7 78.6 Approach LOS D F E E Intersec.delay 71.4 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d INPUT WORKSHEET General Information ,t a Site Information Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) Intersection Geometry Grade= 0 1 1 1 - ' } +--t i_:I AI 1_.,t _ i _ `_' I Grade= 0 SIIOw l+Iortt1 MC�W -i-1.-14-I- 41-,`- ' -- 1- - - - T • I �_..L r 0 I f ; '- i . -F -1 _ 1 .1 ' � ilw� �� 1 1 . , , T R Grade= 0 - ni 1 = L T 1 vyr NM NV! I I = LR Grade= 0 ' = L T R 1 1 0 Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT _ LT TH RT Volume, V (vph) 500 520 325 5 225 30 190 355 10 60 160 260 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 _ 2 3 0 5 12 4 6 0 2 8 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A - A A Start-up lost time, Ii (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 i- Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 125 Lane width, W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm (man/h) Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru& RT WB Only 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru &RT 08 G = 44.0 G= 13.0 G = 6.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G= 19.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C(s)= 120.0 HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information;` ' { °;if , ; ; c tP�tt„ t,a ;;; .nL ���a5`$. t^' h..n t_.n�;.:.G .� a� 3 s:�a�` ,� s..._, w�i,.. b 5a, '.5f.., .Yf �Z' Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE I!(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) 4.140Y AnaiMiliN..In ..... J. .,:' `_tN.. 41 l* } Vik '�' LS !tY?i a;SSet, C 5; �. I.' EB WB NB SB Lane group L I T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 565 245 5 278 207 397 65 174 147 Satflow rate 1752 1863 1568 1805 1748 1736 1788 1770 1759 1538 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 335 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.60 0.31 0.06 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.73 0.62 0.60 Flow ratio 0.31 0.30 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.04 0.10 0.10 Crit. lane group N N Y Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.73 Lost time/cycle 16.50 Critical v/c ratio 0.84 EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 565 245 5 278 207 397 65 174 147 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 335 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.60 0.31 0.06 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.73 0.62 0.60 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Unif. delay dl 34.9 20.8 17.2 54.3 46.6 49.2 42.9 56.2 47.2 47.0 Delay factor k 0.38 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.29 0.21 0.19 Increm.delay d2 10.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 15.9 15.7 17.1 26.1 4.3 4.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 45.1 21.9 17.4 54.6 62.6 65.0 60.0 82.3 51.5 51.1 Lane group LOS D C B D E E E F D D Apprch. delay 30.4 62.4 61.7 56.5 Approach LOS C E E E Intersec.delay 44.9 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TTa Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d INPUT WORKSHEET General Information . ._ _ .s, Site Information .. - ,., - Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) Intersect ori.Geometry:`' '` ' Grade= 0 1 1 1 } I • '.i + - me i I Grade= 0 -- Stun North Arrow _. _fir_. _ I _ T 4- j , -L. ,t 7 0 rir , R Pa::1 = T R Grade= 0 vi = LT dillIiIJ t y. = L R NH Grade= 0 l = LTR t / o Volume and Tiiii g3 StaiM i*j ', 'W' .;;, y. .c : , 1:! a M ' i r EB WB NB SB LT TH RT_ LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume,V(vph) 350 280 415 15 415 25 340 325 5 25 335 550 heavy vehicles, % HV 3 4 1 0 2 4 2 2 25 0 1 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 , 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2.0 _ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 125 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 300 Lane width,W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 _12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm(man/h) Bus stopping, Nb(buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru &RT WB Only 04 Excl.Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 G = 25.0 G= 14.0 G = 13.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 15.0 G = 23.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C(s)= 120.0 HCS2000T I Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information ' ;`- ` Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) Capacity Anal lk �:: .ter b' . ; }y. t .. , .i °,_ ar; :,t,.- EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj.flow rate 380 304 315 16 478 370 358 27 364 272 Satflow rate 1752 1827 1599 1805 1829 1770 1853 1805 1881 1599 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.26 0.21 0.35 0.05 0.19 0.19 Lane group cap. 365 655 573 196 472 369 641 90 361 306 v/c ratio 1.04 0.46 0.55 0.08 1.01 1.00 0.56 0.30 1.01 0.89 Flow ratio 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.01 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.01 0.19 0.17 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.88 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 1.02 Y15! 6�r jt�a�-JG ��x�"9s`iP«-m +.+F ki}�E'uil 2$ '�'F'l&,(� � � �j a. §.'': 1.811@,0:4110 p�aC�YS4).;:ntr0 ayo M �.t r_ driat- II; E .Sir s;: :%.*: ,,.,', EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 380 304 315 16 478 370 358 27 364 272 Lane group cap. 365 655 573 196 472 369 641 90 361 306 v/c ratio 1.04 0.46 0.55 0.08 1.01 1.00 0.56 0.30 1.01 0.89 Green ratio 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.26 0.21 0.35 0.05 0.19 0.19 Unif. delay dl 47.5 29.6 30.8 48.1 44.5 47.5 31.8 55.0 48.5 47.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.11 0.50 0.41 Increm. delay d2 58.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 44.6 47.5 1.1 1.9 49.5 25.7 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 105.7 30.2 31.9 48.3 89.1 95.0 32.9 56.8 98.0 73.0 Lane group LOS F C C D F F C E F E Apprch. delay 59.4 87.8 64.5 86.0 Approach LOS E F E F Intersec. delay 71.7 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id INPUT WORKSHEET General Information 5ife Information • Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period AM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE 11(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) Intersectiorr:Georhetry _ {l Grade= 0 1 1 1 ' 4:2=1V; L\\ ■ 'F r-� I -4--+ _ t - Grade= 0 Shan North Amxv .L T ii = T I a__T..r I-,�' , tT ;4-- - 0■ �1_ , - ' = R �i 1._. ,. -4:17- / .mr) = L 1 1 _ ' 1 • r■ ..'' 1 Ti ::LIIE = T R Grade= 0 1111 ii!IIIm. u11_ 'F = LT �C� i i = LA so magi Grade= 0 vt,p. = LTR 1 1 0 Volume and Timing Input '.::.'''. ''.6;'.-., t '*T",*,,: -' EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume, V(vph) 500 520 330 5 225 30 190 355 10 60 170 260 heavy vehicles, % HV 3 2 3 0 5 12 4 6 0 2 8 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated(A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, li (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e(s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 125 Lane width,W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm(man/h) Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru& RT WB Only 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru&RT 08 Timing G = 44.0 G = 13.0 G = 6.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G= 19.0 G = Y = 4 Y= 4 Y = 4 Y= Y= 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C(s)= 120.0 HCSZOOOl M Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Geri "=ii tli °Axs iit•j: ��� gy � 1 , 4 G 7.4.',';',4 ''3P 1 wf�if�y'�YaM1'iuvj. �1F ryG hj` kryy l�y ! �� .!4 f A b �T{�'.S' :�:l 4: 2u :7u..� '.�+�, it ..�Y_?s.:TF, 9u'fI•,. .. Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE l!(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) Capac ty„ naly i ,i1 ` .,,:7 _ x ;h Z 7 x EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 565 250 5 278 207 397 65 185 147 Satflow rate 1752 1863 1568 1805 1748 1736 1788 1770 1759 1538 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 335 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.60 0.31 0.06 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.73 0.66 0.60 Flow ratio 0.31 0.30 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.04 0.11 0.10 Crit. lane group N N Y Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.73 Lost time/cycle 16.50 Critical v/c ratio 0.84 aiiii. 'e2 C�,.d 4v A=6 .6 ®,: W4: t' Fy ® -TA a1.0 41° d' "'"2:::7:7'."' . It , . 0. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 543 565 250 5 278 207 397 65 185 147 Lane group cap. 642 947 797 90 335 260 454 89 279 244 v/c ratio 0.85 0.60 0.31 0.06 0.83 0.80 0.87 0.73 0.66 0.60 Green ratio 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.19 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.16 0.16 Unif. delay dl 34.9 20.8 17.3 54.3 46.6 49.2 42.9 56.2 47.5 47.0 Delay factor k 0.38 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.29 0.24 0.19 Increm. delay d2 10.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 15.9 15.7 17.1 26.1 5.8 4.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 45.1 21.9 17.5 54.6 62.6 65.0 60.0 82.3 53.3 51.1 Lane group LOS D C B D E E E F D D Apprch. delay 30.3 62.4 61.7 57.2 Approach LOS C E E E Intersec.delay 45.0 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 I INPUT WORKSHEET General Information - ,. �. c,,. , �.. $lte 1' f nation . �._ �_•.,x Analyst CS Intersection UBF/DURHAM Agency or Co. LANCASTER Area Type All other areas Date Performed 05/17/2004 Jurisdiction ODOT Time Period PM PEAK Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE(2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) lei . f--.- IntersecIion:Geometry. Grade= 0 t 1 1_.' 1--.r_�,._, __i.- -1- Grade= 0 St1dwNOtUIhrrav •,-.�. ..__--F i..T--i--. T -1 ` a 1 -±- --I 1 I . t-H o ` ' Fl i _� 1 1 1 T R 1 + - fy(-!T , = TR Grade= 0 f .1- 1 i I t 1 `�f1 = L T ...� _..; `Y'' = LR . i u Grade= 0 ,� ,a ��-; �f' = LTR 1 , 0 Volume and,Timing'Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume, V(vph) 350 280 415 15 415 25 345 335 5 25 340 550 % heavy vehicles, % HV 3 4 1 0 2 4 2 2 25 0 1 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P)or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A _ A A A A Start-up lost time,i (sec) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type,AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedlBike/RTOR Volume per hour 0 0 125 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 300 Lane width,W 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking maneuvers, Nm(man/h) _ Bus stopping, Nb (buses/hr) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EB Only Thru&RT WB Only 04 Excl.Left NB Only Thru& RT 08 G = 25.0 G = 13.0 G = 13.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 16.0 G= 23.0 G = Timing Y = 4 Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y = 4 Y= 3.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Analysis duration, T(h)= 0.25 Cycle Length, C(s)= 120.0 HCS2000T i Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET ....ems ... .s6.�..� .r V tl 1 f. l ll[lit r> '� 14f. � d r ±22, G,.�_ _ �: �: _ 4 , � ,i Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) TION) Cpp l`7 Air t. :: 1 l Y ` o, ` r e ,g:'Z.i YiYiii* l:r : k'e i EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj. flow rate 380 304 315 16 478 375 369 27 370 272 Satflow rate 1752 1827 1599 1805 1829 1770 1853 1805 1881 1599 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.25 0.22 0.35 0.05 0.19 0.19 Lane group cap. 365 639 560 196 457 384 656 90 361 306 v/c ratio 1.04 0.48 0.56 0.08 1.05 0.98 0.56 0.30 1.02 0.89 Flow ratio 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.01 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.01 0.20 0.17 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.89 Lost time/cycle 16.00 Critical v/c ratio 1,02 i . Gro M b rat FeyliO La 1 On t it " P V fi 7 7; n EB WB NB SB Lane group L T R L TR L TR L T R Adj.flow rate 380 304 315 16 478 375 369 27 370 272 Lane group cap. 365 639 560 196 457 384 656 90 361 306 v/c ratio 1.04 0.48 0.56 0.08 1.05 0.98 0.56 0.30 1.02 0.89 Green ratio 0.21 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.25 0.22 0.35 0.05 0.19 0.19 Unif. delay dl 47.5 30.4 31.6 48.1 45.0 46.7 31.3 55.0 48.5 47.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.50 0.48 0.16 0.11 0.50 0.41 Increm. delay d2 58.2 0.6 1.3 0.2 54.6 39.6 1.1 1.9 53.9 25.7 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 105.7 31.0 32.9 48.3 99.6 86.3 32.4 56.8 102.4 73.0 Lane group LOS F C C D F F C E F E Apprch.delay 60.0 98.0 59.5 88.6 Approach LOS E F E F Intersec. delay 72.9 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information '"'Site:Information : Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year EXISTING (2004) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE Il East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle .plumes andxAdjustment . . Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 570 0 0 405 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 626 0 0 445 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 33 -- -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 50 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR DeliWbiledaingtti an ijIgiaaofrSe; .`-F -- ` 7 , - '-r Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 5 7 C (m)(vph) 967 381 v/c 0.01 0.02 95%queue length 0.02 0.06 Control Delay 8.7 14.6 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 14.6 Approach LOS -- -- B Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright O 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information- _ ' '' .' -$ ry s :,. a . 'Site.n orm toll:..._ c :r, > Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year EXISTING(2004) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE Il East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehlclt VOVefes}a d:A. j'egen. sue, >_-: , .,._ h , x Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 550 0 0 680 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 696 0 0 860 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Dela -Queue.Len th antl;LveLofService f e ^�� .4Y z},W 4m2 yr' g r 'r. t-w, .j°.i d- b, c!IF;: ai`4�t'�.;"' 3zK� W y Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 6 4 C (m)(vph) 735 158 v/c 0.01 0.03 95%queue length 0.02 0.08 Control Delay 9.9 28.4 LOS A D Approach Delay -- — 28.4 Approach LOS — -- D Rights Reserved HCS7000TM Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ' Stktn;famation Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE/I(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 a �,�_ ti. -ate u.. T e ff exlroli messy iTka ustmen s .,s ::'°u `: • MA ,:14 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 585 0 0 420 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 642 0 0 461 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 33 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound _ Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 50 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay;:Que' t 0tie jrh* an .�.eV.er-:o #S .tV`i°c'MOM '� Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 5 7 C (m)(vph) 952 366 v/c 0.01 0.02 95%queue length 0.02 0.06 Control Delay 8.8 15.0 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 15.0 Approach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information SiteJnforni tior , . Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND (2005) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volume"szand;_drtis"tments ; Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 585 0 0 710 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 740 0 0 898 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR DeisQUeUe'tILren .th sssa.rr cF .r'S'.A'�1 r a?, 5 `:i5�`,s ' , -'T.. c -' `` r Y;' g ,,�a��1_ Vef u $er,V.iceM.��%rt�ir a...4�h �, �Y' �e'� ,.,;�`, �. . . z,,.,w� .. Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 6 4 C(m) (vph) 710 142 v/c 0.01 0.03 95%queue length 0.03 0.09 Control Delay 10.1 31.1 LOS B D Approach Delay -- -- 31.1 Approach LOS — -- D Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformatiori ` Slte;-lnformation u Intersection UBF/AFTON Analyst CS Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT BACKGROUND+ SITE Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period AM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes.•and Adjustmenas ` `Z.a.',. , Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 585 35 20 420 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 642 38 21 461 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 33 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR , Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 2 2 0 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 2 2 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 50 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay QueueEengtt;and:LevreSere cep., _ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR - v(vph) 5 21 7 7 - C (m)(vph) 951 898 192 293 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 95% queue length 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.07 Control Delay 8.8 9.1 24.5 17.6 LOS A A C C Approach Delay — — 24.5 _ 17.6 Approach LOS -- — C C Rights Reserved HCS2000T"t Copyright @ 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information q` a q#1" ' r :X1,'l�� .. .. ��.Y,+ �-: �, i,e�nformation _ . Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND +SITE Analysis Time Period PM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) _ East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD _ Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 VeliicleVolumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 585 5 5 710 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 740 6 6 898 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 2 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 0 15 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 0 18 2 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR _.Y �. ,.._ .. z.„�, f� ,�,.%ry .`€f:' . sue. -tgt t-- :,'. T :A7- - �.�',:•� Delay,°QueuelengtH;"and"Levehof Service ���, - = _ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 6 6 62 4 C (m)(vph) 710 862 81 100 vlc 0.01 0.01 0.77 0.04 95%queue length 0.03 0.02 3.78 0.12 Control Delay 10.1 9.2 131.2 42.5 LOS B A F E Approach Delay -- -- 131.2 42.5 Approach LOS -- -- F E Rights Reserved HCS2000rm Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.I d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information s :81-e'Informat one ' , =A x F _ Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 VehicleV,.olumes'and A'djisments - "`",+, Ux , ,, n tst14 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 595 0 0 455 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 653 0 0 499 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 33 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 50 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue e"ngth`ail a i-ifrServlce;y_= ; ;<,'_t' `4 `K,M-. ,_ -, Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 5 7 C(m)(vph) 919 342 v/c 0.01 0.02 95% queue length 0.02 0.06 Control Delay 8.9 15.7 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 15.7 Approach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000T i Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General'IhfoFinatloli _ _ fr `.. ::)"'-x .ate' n anion ,.,' ' .,T Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE 11 WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 1 -;.a,.!' �'.' '. any m�-s a .Kt,� _ _ Vehicie'Noiumes,'and� djustrfe"n'�` 's + �, ;,, . _ :l, Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 630 0 0 750 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 797 0 0 949 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 6 4 C(m) (vph) 678 123 v/c 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.03 0.10 Control Delay 10.4 35.2 LOS B E Approach Delay — -- 35.2 Approach LOS -- — E Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Generallnformation = . ..ter N I E°,. ""'F-i'. , . �`� ?.�Ski e�lnformatlon Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE!I WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 r �ra as ace. , rma Ve fra Volume a d eri a ii Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 595 35 20 455 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 653 38 21 499 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 33 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 2 2 0 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 2 2 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 50 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR D eiiPait ue Len tg—an'iVifaf e' ce :: a3 ' K+ w r `M.. . . -4 . Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 5 21 7 7 C (m) (vph) 919 890 179 273 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 95% queue length 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.08 Control Delay 8.9 9.1 25.9 18.5 LOS A A D C Approach Delay -- — 25.9 18.5 Approach LOS — -- D C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GeneralInformation �` `° ,,.` �tte,lnformation: -,,. .. Analyst CS Intersection UBF/AFTON Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND +SITE Analysis Time Period PM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE 1I WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: AFTON LANE North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD _ Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 630 5 5 750 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 797 6 6 949 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 1 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 0 15 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 0 18 2 0 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR D elayglif ue°L`engtfi n teve"1 of'?Se vlce v'a° ' k ` K: . OA*K Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 6 6 62 4 C (m)(vph) 678 821 68 85 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.91 0.05 95%queue length 0.03 0.02 4.46 0.15 Control Delay 10.4 9.4 186.8 49.4 LOS B A F E Approach Delay — — 186.8 49.4 Approach LOS — -- F E Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information 'hell ma{tq'n� ;,_ . Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year EXISTING (2004) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II EastNVest Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 0.25 ..t ex'y m 4'mS'L� ,:L +k:'3 t F"< { :- 7 l` "4: 'k _ r t;.ir47 Vehicle° 1dmegUtiWlj' "s rlin s_ .i, .; 'n.._ ,r� . , �< �' .' ,. Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 550 10 15 410 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 662 12 18 493 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 8 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR tie MItirta fh dkL :B aofaS.t 4 ' „,r ` t+`"+ e r't m ,t , .MTN WAJ 9' 7 3 i Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 18 12 C (m) (vph) 889 282 v/c 0.02 0.04 95%queue length 0.06 0.13 Control Delay 9.1 18.3 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 18.3 Approach LOS -- -- C • Rights Reserved , HCS2000TM Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General'Information ;: t! a r>4Qrmafikon:, :w . ...:_`. .._. Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year EXISTING(2004) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD 'North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehict`e ,(olumes and.Adtustments` _ - _ Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 555 5 5 755 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 584 5 5 794 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 25 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay; tiMe g t n Writ f 5`ervr.Cii r ,'+ liW ?4 , 4 4.7 x. '.... . Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 5 41 C (m)(vph) 996 281 v/c 0.01 0.15 95%queue length 0.02 0.50 Control Delay 8.6 20.0 LOS A C Approach Delay — -- 20.0 Approach LOS — -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY r.._ ...�-,., +�' ;=Yl t� - ,._, Genet Information rr:; .r :<a ., Site anform`ation Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/1812004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD 'North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 . w is k.; 1.:1 3 Vehrytcter:V,ol�'r"t1e� c�'�A`�°�i�t'�men�` - ;., r :tie Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 570 10 15 430 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 686 12 18 518 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 8 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 . L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized _ 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR tii' '�c...'-'�s�.'w.x�.'i7' cP-'"w rca' ,,,,� 'k'..__ 4: •,i�?ytfr 'g i r,i g.;—VA7� �2 y;-Queue,,Length;,�`hdlLe�l:of Service.. u.ur;, �':, *';:4+°;: �. - . ��� 4 k , Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 18 12 _ C (m)(vph) 871 266 v/c 0.02 0.05 95%queue length 0.06 0.14 Control Delay 9.2 19.2 LOS A C Approach Delay – -- 19.2 Approach LOS – -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000Tm Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information • `:Sitelnformatiorr°; Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ��`r aiC si,'•L4, �:,R.3�t• _ 'L�.�,.�, -T .a.'`. ri`7s � '^w- M1: § Ve iclet ;ol a ;land, 1 s men s _� Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 585 5 5 785 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 615 5 5 826 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 25 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue er'gfh a cl vei,of 5rri(1 a. W ' , itWR4-•ti p.s ' `:".';. Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 5 41 C(m)(vph) 970 261 v/c 0.01 0.16 95%queue length 0.02 0.55 Control Delay 8.7 21.3 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 21.3 Approach LOS -- — C Rights Reserved rICS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site formation Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Analyst CS Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND +SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments . Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 605 10 15 435 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 728 12 18 524 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 8 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Deiayrtfaiigeength Ma evelhof*S a v 6127'=-'_ = .` - ?t " ' 1Y' Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 18 12 C(m)(vph) 840 250 v/c 0.02 0.05 95% queue length 0.07 0.15 Control Delay 9.4 20.1 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 20.1 Approach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000T"t Copyright m 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral:Information.; =.�.5.e. �. .�SI#ermafion , Analyst CS Intersection UBF/F/NDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND+SITE Analysis Time Period PM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II NO FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes aVAtljum its' irP+' Mme` P7M Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 590 5 5 815 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 621 5 5 857 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -_ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 25 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR d!'.p•°`:1a. ^{� 9��4�vi�+� 'i3,..�_'^1�+1'ID"='FID` r'+�.R '3 Delay,-.Queue.;L-ength,,and`Le el i Service A MI _1M Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 5 41 C (m) (vph) 965 251 v/c 0.01 0.16 95% queue length 0.02 0.57 Control Delay 8.7 22.1 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 22.1 Approach LOS -- -- C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Siteainformation - Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period AM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle\ 01afilli& nc ,iaethl" s.--' :, Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 565 25 60 420 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 680 30 72 506 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 8 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound _ Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 20 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 0 24 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay _"° ' _ z rte,.. c -x.ten Queue Length,iria,C CVC$ervlce., .,._ ;fi g �� -� '>.Y4'�'w .i .az.-,�rar:.s�a ��,F^,.:�.�.,sti"°`�c ,,. .'" g`Ck Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 72 42 C (m)(vph) 862 247 vlc 0.08 0.17 95%queue length 0.27 0.60 Control Delay 9.6 22.5 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 22.5 Approach LOS -- — C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright G 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND(2005) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South _Study Period (hrs): 0.25 VehtclerVolumes_andAdrustments ,n. t,: , Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 565 30 60 770 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 594 31 63 810 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 45 0 90 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 0 94 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,,QuieueaLe dih diffgY.CIFO IC@ Z igi iiAa:qERk0'xz '"L 1 ,i a# Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 63 141 C (m) (vph) 966 242 v/c 0.07 0.58 95%queue length 0.21 3.32 Control Delay 9.0 38.7 LOS A E Approach Delay -- -- 38.7 Approach LOS — — E Rights Reserved , HCS2000TM Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information _, Site`Information _ - Analyst CS Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Agency/Co. LANCASTER Jurisdiction ODOT Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year BACKGROUND +SITE Analysis Time Period AM PEAK (2005) Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE II WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD _ Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 0.25 Ve icle` .olurneslndd m _ v °-` - Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 600 25 60 425 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 722 30 72 512 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 8 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 20 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 0 24 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Derajr Quet a ength r dti a a: Mte ,,,.M*7. . '" c14: , °- 1: ... .,: . " : . ._' Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 72 42 C (m)(vph) 831 231 v/c 0.09 0.18 95% queue length 0.28 0.65 Control Delay 9.7 24.0 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 24.0 Approach LOS -- — C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ger era`I'Informkion `,F 4,P . . S i t e l Naha 16 n Intersection UBF/FINDLAY Analyst CS Jurisdiction ODOT Agency/Co. LANCASTER BACKGROUND+SITE Date Performed 05/18/2004 Analysis Year (2005) Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project Description DURHAM BUSINESS PARK PHASE 1I(WITH FINDLAY CONNECTION) East/West Street: FINDLAY ROAD North/South Street: UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs): 0.25 Vehic'TntikIMs anAtijustm�en'S _ .,, ,;: :� ��74 Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 570 30 60 800 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 600 31 63 842 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- _ -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 45 0 90 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 0 94 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 63 141 C (m) (vph) 961 231 v/c 0.07 0.61 95%queue length 0.21 3.57 Control Delay 9.0 42.3 LOS A E Approach Delay -- — 42.3 Approach LOS — -- E Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld Version 4.1 d TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS Major Street: Upper Boones Ferry Road Minor Street: Afton Lane Background plus Site Trips(2005) Number of Lanes for Moving ADT on Major St. ADT on Minor St. Traffic on Each Approach: (total of both approaches) (higher-volume approach) WARRANT 1 CONDITION A Major St. Minor St. 100% 70% 100% 70% Walla is Warrants Warrants Warrants 1 1 :.:s'�' ' 6,200 W ,'`,; 1,850 2 or more 1 10,600 7,400 2,650 1,850 2 or more 2 or more 10,600 7,400 3,550 2,500 1 2 or more 8,850 6,200 3,550 2,500 CONDITION B 1 1 9,300 ; 5O . 950 2 or more 1 15,900 11,100 1,350 950 2 or more 2 or more 15,900 11,100 1,750 1,250 1 2 or more 13,300 9,300 1,750 1,250 Note:ADT volumes assume 8th highest hour is 5.6%of the daily volume Warrant Used X 100 percent of standard warrants used 70 percent of standard warrants used due to 85th percentile speed in excess of 40 mph or isolated community with population less than 10,000. Number of Approach Minimum Is Signal Lanes Volumes Volumes Warrant Met? Warrant 1 Condition A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Major Street 1 13,200 8,850 Minor Street* 1 425 2,650 No Condition B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Major Street 1 13,200 13,300 Minor Street* 1 425 1,350 No Warrant 3:Peak Hour Warrant-AM Peak Hour Major Street 1 1,065 Minor Street* 1 5 190 No Warrant 3:Peak Hour Warrant-PM Peak Hour Major Street 1 1,320 Minor Street* 1 43 130 No *Minor street right-turning traffic volumes reduced by 25% LEFT—TURN LANE WARRANTS VOLUME WARRON ANTS TWO—L A FOR NE LEFSTRT—TEETS URN REFUGES 700 AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SPEED = 30 MPH 111111 Highway adapted e 000T N from Highway Research Record No. 211 =11111111 •, 0 SITE ACCESS AFTON LANE 600 11 IIIM1 , Scenario: BAOKGROUND + SITE IRAM PEAK HOUR PM 455 VPH THROUGH 750 20 1A°H TURNING LEFT 5 500 0-..,,0 V'H TURNING RIGHT 10 C. 475 VA (VPH) 765 o 4 X LEFT TURNS 1 595 VO (VPH) 630 400 NO ?EFUGE REQUIRED? NO .0 - FA O - - 4 O 300 200 No Left—Turn , Lane Required 100 N Advancing Volume (VA) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 LEFT—TURN LANE WARRANTS VOLUME WARRANTS FOR LEFT—TURN REFUGES ON TWO—LANE STREETS 700 AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SPEED = 40 MPH Warrants adapted by ODOT from Highway Research Record No. 211 Intprst.rtinn• fly.469 SITE ACCESS/AFTON LANE Scenario: BAOKGROUND + SITE 600 • AM PEAK HOUR PM 455 VPH THROUGH 750 20 WH TURNING LEFT 5 k , V''11 TURNING RIGHT 10 500 ' 475 VA (VPH) 765 m 4 X LEFT TURNS 1 E 595 VO (VPH) 6.30 O NO ?EFUGE REQUIRED? NO 400 O► cli 0 4 0 300 - - 1 200 - No Left—Turn _ Lane Required �,•. . 2 i� 100 -UN-' _ Advancing Volume (VA) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900